Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?
It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
Ah, what are examples of that scientific research? Hopefully it is about audio since you brought it up here but do tell. |
@amir_asr No it’s not about audio. I will tell, if you do tell why you closed Erin’s thread and allow others to remain up, and why you spam this forum with your ASR forum posts which lead to your "donation" requests. Do tell. It's truly astonishing you are still here. Since you want to sell ASR and not deal with this, why are you wasting your time on this, unless you want to cross promote. This thread will keep getting longer an longer and people will see more and more of who you truly are. A dbag. |
@prof Go on gearspace.com and ask if they use room treatment and to what effect. There are loads of examples of bass traps and treatments flattening out room modes introduced by the room. Same as any eq software. one is physical one is digital. Why is this so hard to prove? Ive see room correction work with my own two eyes with a D&D system and with room treatments |
I hope you will take this to heart what I am going to write here, and why your approach is too dogmatic and hence stuck with no potential to move forward. Last night you argued vehemently that reflections in a room MUST be better, that it MUST essentially be more pleasant, but, using the research that allowed you to reach that conclusion, you must also accept there is reduced clarity of the image (as the research indicates) and that at least for first lateral reflections there is no right answer for all rooms and all people. Stated another way, you vehemently argued that a less accurate approach would absolutely result in a better listening experience, to the point of claiming that anyone who suggested doing otherwise was incompetent. Your words, not mine. Paraphrased but still your words. Today, you posted this:
Effectively you are stating that the only correct way to design a DAC (or any piece of electronics really) is for it to perfectly reproduce / amplify a signal. Do you not see the issue? On one issue you are advocating, literally insisting on a provably inferior technical solution, while on another issue, you are insisting the only correct way is a perfect technical solution, and you leave absolutely no room, except at best cursory, that a non-perfect solution could be more pleasant. It is a irreconcilable position. I understand what has likely lead to this point in time. Both scurrilous marketing coupled with a group of audiophiles insisting that equipment has properties beyond the understanding of science. You know that is not the case. I know that is not the case. Many know that is not the case. So what is the possible benefit of measuring yet another DAC, or now yet another amplifier that performs well beyond any ability of humans to detect the faults? There is not. It does nothing to advance the science or art beyond identifying new price points. That is at best consumer protection, not science. Ditto for exercises in debunking product claims. While valid it is not science, it is consumer protection.
So I will challenge you. Turn the ship. Stop proving 1+1 = 2. Use your reach and platform to do something useful for the industry, both for your followers and detractors, and put effort into understanding or debunking as the case may be, the audibility, and audible impact, negative or positive of less than perfect signal construction and amplification. Just like that those less than technically perfect reflections can create a superior experience, it is possible that less than perfect on the electrical side can do the same. It is already done on the music creation side for improved preference so the evidence is there to support it conceptually (even if not on all music). Are you up to the challenge? |
