Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

The fake science crowd pushing Toneloser gear is one of the reasons I stopped frequenting A’gon.  

There are plenty of engineers and designers, actual smart people, whose measurements make sense.  Galen Gareis, formerly head of design for Belden offers many technical specs and reasons why he designed his Iconoclast cables, and offers specs on each cable that ships.  

The late great Bascom King, aside from being an esteemed engineer and designer (whose amps I am enjoying right now) used to do measurements for magazines and once measured an amp with much lower distortion than any other.  It sounded poor.  

The fake science crowd is all about feeling good thinking you’ve drinking champagne as good (or better than) a premium brand.  Actually maybe that’s a new business model for them, they can measure premium beverages and debunk Dom Pérignon!  Or maybe do stress tests on The stitches of Gucci jackets to prove that Kirkland brand clothes “measure” better.  
 

I better rush and register Menswearsciencereview.com before someone else does.

I’ll buy a new usb microscope so I can verify thread count of the sheets I just bought, so I know if they feel soft or not.  

I think it’s pretty pointless to argue against use of measurements to establish what is good sound reproduction. Note that good sound reproduction is different than good sound. One is objective the other subjective.

It’s also true that metrics alone do not tell the whole story. They are capable of getting things right but are often applied incorrectly or incompletely. It’s worth arguing that case by case but not that metrics are always the whole story or that they are of no value. It’s really not so complicated to understand. I find much of the content of this thread pretty useless.  Maybe Amir’s site has more to offer.  I’ll have to check it out more often. 

What interest me philosophically , and very much so, is the ecological theory of hearing...

This is very deep...

i know being technologically inclined, that it will not interest you... You will perceive it as "mere philosophy"...

But the reason why Magnasco and Oppenheim claim that this is one interesting road to go, is simple: we cannot asssign the reality of sound phenonmenon only to the computerized model of the brain... The history of evolution put real vibrating sound sources at the center of our survival , socially by the importance of speech/music  perception , and individually by the importance of natural sound perception...

This nature training of our species was a hearing training , and it is the reason why our ears/brain dont work as a computer algorythm reconstructing sound qualities of real physical sound sources by calculus of the elementary abstrast factors from The Fourier theory : frequencies, amplitude, phase, duration... our ears works not in a time independant dimension as our mathematic but in a time dependant DIRECTIOn where we were trained to hear natural and speech/musical sound qualities and natural sounds... Our survival depend for example of the way the tapping on a fruit indicate that the fruit is ripe or not...The sound quality here is OBJECTIVE information... And it is a subjective pleasurable impression.. and it is directly perceived as a WHOLE... 

Btw extended bass is mostly felt not heard. 

Note that good sound reproduction is different than good sound. One is objective the other subjective.

Good point and simply put...

I find much of the content of this thread pretty useless.

My posts may be useless but not the articles i recommended sorry... it is a counterpoint to some Amir claims about hearing theory and listenings illusions and/or power...