Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

@rodman99999 

No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition.   There are simply too many variables.

     LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc)  will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.   

     Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.     

     Anyone that knows anything about the sciences, realizes that something like 96% of what makes up this universe, remains a mystery.       

     For centuries; humanity’s seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it.     

     The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!"). 

     Theories have never proven or disproven anything.  It’s INVARIABLY testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories/hypotheses.   

    IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF.         

                      The Naysayer Church HATES it, when THAT happens!  

^^^ This is as perfect a product of scientific ignorance as one would like to find.

It's the life-blood of companies that sell products with dubious technical claims.

You can see exactly that attitude repeated over and over from every fringe belief system showing up at your local New Age and Psychic Fair.

"Only YOU can tell FOR YOURSELF if these Healing Crystals work! Trust Yourself and your perception Above All"

It's basically the epistemology that ran rampant before science arose.  It misses out precisely on why science had to arise:  Yes, test.  But, *control for known variables* (which include your ability to fool yourself).   If you aren't doing that, your tests are no more rigorous than those used for bloodletting or the Power Of The Local Witchdoctor to Heal.

i discussed with Amir...I thank him 15 times for his measures information by the way... Nobody can accuse me to be anti-Amir...

i provided many arguments with dozen of articles about the relation between measures and hearing theory as a context to interpret measures..*I will not repeat this because others will kill me...😊

Amir never answered to my point, use many times ad hominem arguments, dismiss anything in false pretense or go beside central point..VERIFY BY READING MY DISCUSSION...

Read my posts... I never insulted but gave a consistent argument..

I lost my respect for his "scientific" status at the end ... he play with measuring toys and give us useful measures Thats all...It is a marketer not a scientist... A scientist use method , theory and context for interpretation..not only measuring instruments.. Hearing theory is the center here... the center of design, the center of research, the context where all measures are evaluated.. Sounds are not physical abstracted Fourier waves, these waves must be interpreted by the ears brain... And sound qualities in nature are not reducible to Fourier reconstruction tool... because the ears/brain ask for more... I will stop here: we need an ecological theory of hearing to encompass the Fourier theory of hearing..

By the way the separation between subjectivist and objectivist was created by market designer or techno babbling people about the gear electronics measures ... The central subject of audio is not design, it is psycho-acoustic , because all design is based on this science not only on electronics circuits ... There is no subjectivist or objectivist in acoustic science... iT is MEANINGLESS completely stupid distinction...In acoustic any measures is interpreted in hearing context and any subject submiited to strict experiment controls.. Blind test are used yes but not to sell a limited set of measures as replacement for  hearing truth...

I’m curious if you give equal time to your "anti-bullying" crusade. It’s been my experience both in participating in, and watching many discussions, that in threads in which someone is voicing reasons for skepticism about an audio claim, that in forums that trend towards "subjectivism" all sorts of catty vitriol is thrown at the skeptic and virtually NONE of it is called out because the subjective stance is simply assumed as the default. Therefore "anyone voicing skepticism about what people might be hearing or not" is just a trolling muckraker. In fact, it’s often the "objectivist" who actually says "I’m open to believing what you believe, and here is the type of evidence that would convince me." It’s often the highly subjective-based audiophiles who have an essentially unfalsifiable belief "I can hear it, even if you can’t measure it" and they take any questioning of this as a personal affront, and then often hurl ad hominem back at the objectivist. Because in the subjective world, there is no actual other way to settle things. If the subjectivist claims to hear something, and someone else says "no, I don’t hear any such thing" then the subjectivist comes back with the usual "well then either your gear isn’t resolving enough or your ears aren’t resolving enough." That’s already played out in this thread, as it *always* does. The objectivist says "like any human I’m capable of error in my perception, so here are the ways I want to account for that fallibility in my method of evaluating audio gear and claims." Whereas the subjectivist tends to just take his own perception as The Gold Standard, all other methods of inference are subservient to the truth of their own perceptual abilities. And so, again, any statement by a skeptic that implies "I didn’t hear what I KNOW I heard" isn’t taken in the proper scientific mindset, but as a personal affront and hence name calling or derision is thrown back. And there is a complete blind spot - only the "objectivist/skeptic" is called out for making ’arrogant claims,’ where in the subjective context people make strong claims all the time and no-one blinks. Say "These new X cables I bought made a great difference to the sound of my system" and it’s "amen!" Someone like Amir says "X cables will not change the sound compared to low priced cables" and then it’s a pile on for making arrogant claims. But the claim that the cables DO make a difference (in such conditions as Amir would deny) is just as strong an opposite claim! But that slips through unnoticed, due to the operating bias of a forum. This thread started off with plenty of derision thrown at Amir and ASR before Amir ever showed up. So I’m wondering: How often do you direct your attention to the derision, ad hominem etc that come from the subjective-oriented side, those who constantly snipe at Amir or other people who propound the relevance of measurements and science to objective and subjective claims in audio?

 

@amir_asr Thank you for posting your system photo. For someone so into the science of audio, I am very surprised that you have seemingly given no consideration to room acoustics! There are a number of great room acoustic products/treatments that i am certain would do marvels for your SQ in your room. You may want to try some of them, although I admit, they are all passive, and as such, pretty hard to measure! Your ears would be in for a treat though....if you would allow yourself to believe in them.

@prof (snort of derision)-

       Don't forget the rest of that post, which (obviously) applies to you, as well.

       That you assume so much, regarding the possible listening experience, aural acuity, professionalism, education, cognition and a host of other variables, regarding the members of this forum, the vast amount of your bloviating and condescension; I can only infer that the Dunning-Kruger Effect has deep roots in your skull.

         Red and blue socks?    Science and Engineering?    Dark Matter and my car?

                                            SPARE ME!

         What I believe regarding the behavior of electromagnetic fields, how dielectrics, conductors and Poynting Vectors (which are affected by the frequencies in our  music/signals) might affect our presentation is based on the Physics (QED and Particle-Wave Theory), studied in college.    

          Unlike you and the rest of the planet's Naysayer Church members (Denyin'tologists), some: so proudly touting their extensive knowledge of antiquated (1800's) Electrical Theory, that feel it necessary, to SAVE US from our broken, worthless and deceitful mental faculties.

          That you have a website makes you somewhat of a Pope of Deyin'tology, I suppose, able to feverishly spread your Gospel, to more lost sheeple.

                   One word to describe my view of you and your ilk:

                                    floccinaucinihilipilification 

The room where is system is does not have the right balance at all between reflective/absorbing/diffusive materials...the soundfield cannot be optimal...