Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

@mapman No one is putting down his hard work. What isn’t okay to is to point the finger and say hey you’re wrong I’m right. He does it in a condescending, rude, and yes sometimes uninformed way. We’re all human here, I think. Amir cherry picks people to attack and remove from his website if they don’t agree or bow down to him. How is that objectivity in the name of science?!

Fortunately Amir doesn’t run this forum and can’t play the almighty. There is no way this discussion could take place on his ASR. Isn’t that interesting? I would’ve been banned already.

@amir_asr Well, measurements show why it is not perfect. For measurements to fail, would have been if it didn’t show that!

I was following a scope readout by a tube amp designer recently who was acknowledging a "non-perfect" sign wave existed in the last design iteration. The top left corner of the sign wave was lively, less than perfect in terms of uniformity, yet reportedly sounded really good, alive and well, when the amp circuit was left as-is. Letting it be or hammering it into submission was the next case study to tune and listen more. This is where things get to be a LOT more interesting to me.

This designer mentioned when taming those little sign wave spikes (aka flare), now making it a more uninformed and perfect sign wave, all of the sudden the amp sounded "dead", no longer alive or enjoyable any more, bleh. After several tests, the designer then made a conscious decision to let it be, since it sounded much better in its original untamed state after extensive listening tests. This is what many of us mean by "listen first and then measure". Putting more emphasis on listening and what sounds best as a means to an end, rather than making graph lines flat.

Some of the popular mid woofer speaker drivers I’ve used from Scanspeak are this way, measuring less than perfect, yet they are alive and musical as-is when left alone - "less tamed" if that’s a description that resonates with a few members here. With tests showing a bit of less-than-perfect jagged flare on the graphs in the upper midrange frequency range on the last drivers I used - most electrical engineers would beat it back into submission with an overly controlling crossover. Some look at this flare as noise, distortion, needing correction. That’s one point of view, not all.

Once again, in my own self made speakers later discovered leaving the drivers as it was designed resulted in a captivating and engaging sound - left in less than perfect form. Sometimes what is perfect to an electrical measurement engineer is not always perfect music to others ears. Most of the audio systems I enjoy listening to do not measure perfectly at all - fwiw. The absolute best measuring dac I’ve ever owned was one of the worst to listen to. Sounding "dead", or boring being a great description.

Unfortunately a debate that won’t be solved on this tread it seems.

@somethingsomethingaudio no doubt style does matter when dealing with others. A little humbleness can go a long way. Same for having a sense of humor.

I am a senior level engineer myself and work with obsessed technical people like Amir all the time. Everyone is different though. Respect for others is a must in the corporate world because it’s typically a team effort that results in success. But the really good technical people often develop oversized egos to go along with it that can be a hindrance. But the smart ones learn over time and get it. In the end it’s the results that matter most. If one works for oneself it’s less of an issue as long as the results are there. You can do as you please as long as the results are there.

Here you use against me an argument that miss the point i made in my posts and reveal that you did not have understood them..

The point i made with the ecological theory of hearing, which is a real theory of hearing, not something i invented for this debate, the point this theory make is precisely what you just said and this theory is based on what you just said without explaing it in the precise hearing/measures scientific context ... But you dont explain why your point is right,, the ecological hearing theory, begiinning with Magnasco and Oppenheim experiment precisely do it, and i explain why this is so here in my long posts..

Then i NEVER oppose to your Analogy, an anology is not an argument... All my posts if you had read them EXPLAIN why your analogy is CORRECT... Then why not reading my posts ?

Yes they are too long, but these posts were not HERE for all to read, i WAS DISCUSSING AND CORRECTING AMIR faulty theory about his measures and the relation with hearing theory...I discussed with Amir disagreeing with him... Nobody here is in the obligation to read my posts TO AMIR... And no idiot can order me to stop and go...

Those who did not understand the discussion goal ask me to stop and go ...

@mahgister your points are valid to state. I’m not as savvy on audio science. I admit that. I also admit that science is really important with audio gear. Just as it is with medicine and improving peoples vision for example.

My analogy isn’t scientific but is based in fact. You cannot strip out the subjectivity of audio. Just like you can’t do it with food or anything to do with taste. You can’t measure taste. You can’t quantify it but it is there. And in some cases it doesn’t translate from culture to culture. One dish might be revered in some culture and detested in another. The environment the experience and the way the food is prepared all matters. Same goes for audio. It doesn’t occur in a vacuum.