Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Your point is good...

I never contested the usefulness of measures or of others opinions with or without measures...

Measures set are useful information and we all welcome them ( if we have a brain able to read them for what they are) ...

The point on which i disgree with Amir is not his measures set usefulness,  is exclusively  about extending a set of measures as synonymous with sound perceived qualities because this set of measures is ANYWAY limited and based on an uncomplete hearing theory : the Fourier frequencies based theory... ...

This time i go by myself...

My best to you mapman

I have a little Fosi integrated Amp in one of my setups that I have posted about here in that it cost a pittance and turned out to be a huge overperformer driving my older kef ls50s very well which is not a trivial task. I have had some highly touted much costlier amps fail miserably at that in the past. I saw a review of a Fosi amp on asr site. Amir measured it and gave it a thumbs up. So we both agreed at least about Fosi amps in general. No minds changed

@mahgister I get it.  It's OK to disagree.  Peace!

BTW I read the posts on asr forum regarding Ohm Walsh speakers.  Interesting comments from users there but frankly one will learn a lot more about those RIGHT HERE than there.  At least so far.  Maybe Amir will put those to the test someday. Not that it matters.   Many Ohm users out there from over many years that are happy and they know it.   Not sure what else they need to know really. 

Petty BS, JA makes clear its a nearfield response and that's exactly what is shown. Your measurements show the anechoic response with baffle diffraction loss aka step. BOTH methods show only approximate output depth extension, NEITHER can predict the actual in room LF response, which will dominate.

Sorry, no.  JA's measurements assume you flush mount the speaker in an infinite wall.  No stand alone speaker is used that way. As such, his measurements overexaggerate the bass energy.  JA states the same: 

"The usual excess of upper-bass energy due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes that the radiators are mounted on a true infinite baffle, ie, one that extends indefinitely in both horizontal and vertical planes, is absent."

There is no way for you to predict where a speaker is located in a room as to provide any diffraction loss compensation.  This is why CEA/CTA-2034 standard calls for full anechoic response of bass, not a near field one with above stipulation.  And that is what I, Genelec, Neumann, PSB, Revel, etc. all do.

Once you put a speaker in a room, the response will radically change in bass.  For that reason, the job is not done when you get a well measuring speaker.  You need to measure and correct for response errors.  But you don't want to start with faulty measurements thinking a speaker designer didn't know how to design flat response and put that hump in there as seen in Stereophile measurements.

I hear you wanting the crude near-field measurement to be right as to then enable you to post them and say, "see, I have them."  But you don't since your speakers are not flush mounted on infinite walls.

BTW, Klippel NFS has capability to measure in-wall speakers with that assumption.  It will get rid of baffle diffraction and back wall reflections.  Here is an example with the speaker mounted in small baffle:

And here are the computational analysis of error components:

You can see how Klippel NFS I use has properly computed the radiation from back of the speaker ("acoustic shortcut") and subtracted it out because in real use you would not hear it.  Diffraction losses from the edges of my baffle are also found and subtracted.  The system is also self-checking allowing you observe its accuracy.

Bottom line, Klippel NFS is a $100,000 system designed to solve these problems and give you a true picture of the radiation pattern of a speaker independent of where or how it is measured.  

@mahgister 

The point on which i disgree with Amir is not his measures set usefulness,  is exclusively  about extending a set of measures as synonymous with sound perceived qualities because...

And you don't care, no matter how many times I have stated it, that the above is NOT my position.  :(

Measurements tell you if a system is deviating from perfection in the form of noise and distortion and neutral tonality.  This, we want to know because they are opposite of what high fidelity is about.  We want transparency to what is delivered on the recording.

When measurements show excess noise and distortion, that is that.  The system has those things and if they rise to point of audibility, you hear them.  Best to get a system that minimizes that so you don't have to become an expert in psychoacoustics to predict audibility.

Your argument needs to be that given two perfectly measuring system, one will sound better the other.  To which I say fine, show it in an ears only, controlled listening test.  Don't tell me what a designer thinks will happen.  Just show it with a listening test. 

You say the ears are the only thing that can judge musicality but when I ask you for such testing, you don't have one and instead you quote words for me or what is wrong with measurement.  We want evidence of the hypothesis you have.  Not repeated statement of the hypothesis.

BTW, if such a controlled test did materialize, it would be trivial to create a measurement to show the difference.  We will then know what it is that is observed.  When you don't have anything to show from what was tested, what music was used, what listeners observed reliably, etc. there is nothing there to analyze.