Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Amir said this :

Our mission at ASR Forum is to see if a product is well engineered or not.

It will be perfectly weel if it was the case...

But ASR impose through a fanatics kernel of techno babble groupies of him what are the NORM of engineering that will produce REAL sound qualities, the so called "transparency" with no distortions... To do so they negate the ears/brain real working ways , non linear and time dependant, and they bashed and attacked a well known competent  designer using basic psycho-acoustic facts about the way we perceived harmonics signals and accused him bluntly to create BAD DESIGN to please deluded audiophiles...Incredible arrogance coupled to complete ignorance...

Amir called this dogmatic ignorance about psycho-acoustic , science...

And me, who tuned my room using my ears learning concretely acoustic, i am supposed to be the deluded one...😊

No one deny there is information on ASR and useful one...No one deny there is balanced mind people on ASR not only Amir groupies ...

No one can deny there is also  a basic dogmatic ignorance of elementary psycho-acoustic pushed as SCIENCE, because they use some set of  measuring tools..

By the way, i did not used only material treatment with the right ratio for reflective/absorbing/diffusive surface and volume, i created my own large band MECHANICHAL equaliser with one hundred distributed tuned Helmholtz resonators all around critical spots in the room... I used equalization in my own way with SUCCESS...No cost...

Am i deluded ? Yes for Amir...

He read Toole book but never apply it... He trust only tools not his ears...

He think the brain /ears work like a Fourier computer...

He really claim all the phisicists i used to explain all my points were deluded, incompetent or they are as Van Maanen gear seller...

Bad faith at his top expression...

Not a SINGLE argument to counter the fact that we need a non linear and time dependant theory of hearing for interpreting sound qualities real meanings in an ecological theory of hearing and to MEASURE the limits of our Fourier tools themselves  ... it is WHY any acoustician know that the Fourier hearing theory need to be complemented by an ecological hearing Theory... Amir does not know how to spell e-c-o-l-o-g-i-ca-l ... 😊 He never wrote this word to counter it with an argument...

read all his posts...

He sell his tools and site ideology...nothing else...

@prof 

I have over 5,000 posts on ASR.  How many do you have in terms of actual familiarity with day to day content?

And there it is, one of the ASR faithful has joined the effort to hijack Audiogon.  The day to day content on ASR is exactly why the hypocrisy is being called out. 

Stop spreading misinformation, and  then maybe Amir won't have to spend his time showing up to correct it.

Once again, the cult like mantra appears - Amir is right, everyone else is wrong.  Is that pile of backlogged equipment to measure getting any smaller? 

If Amir really thinks correction is needed then allow discussion on ASR as on display here.  Oh no, sorry, that would not work.  Only group think allowed on ASR, so Audiogon is now the soapbox for Amir.  

I will add this :

As Einstein famously said :

@mapman easy to slay when many just act in bad faith.

@prof , your arguments are mainly sound, but one of Feynman’s points you keep referencing, The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, also applied to Amir.

Amir keeps quoting that there is extensive research showing reflection and no treatment other than regular furniture is not only good enough, but that it is superior for home listening. This is not true. There is very little research specific to home listening and room treatment across a range of other variables including what treatments, what speakers, etc. There is some modestly direct research with limited variable adjustment and limited listening panel. There is some anechoic work on specific properties. There is adjacent but not direct research that cannot be directly applied unless the conditions are similar.

As I noted above, that research indicates that specific application can result in specific improvements that can be interpreted as technically superior, even if not as preferred. A bit of cognitive dissonance to insist on electrical purity (absent evidence to prove preference across use cases and type of deviation) while accepting subjectively superior based on what is limited direct research and use cases.

That is furthered with the straw-man argument about mattresses all over the walls and other hyperboles about acoustic treatment as if the only binary options are no treatments and bad treatment. That is further illustration of bias.

I made the point of the Lyngdorf graph and system photos together indicating boundary issues which was casually dismissed though clearly there to someone who has experience with room measurements and the causes. This is something that can be addressed with specific implementations. Not stapling mattresses to the wall.

As concluded by Toole and others (not so much specifically researched), controlled lateral reflections can be better or worse, depending on the person, music, use case, etc. While anecdotal experience is not research, there is strong indications from professionals not prone to hyperbole that dynamic monopole speakers close to the side walls will produce a result that many audiophiles, including those who prefer critical listening, will likely not prefer and that this can be addressed with acoustics.

Even hyperbole about massive amounts of velocity absorbers will not fix deep bass in a small room while correct, is not helpful, as no acoustic professional would even attempt that (nor would most audiophiles) as they are well aware it will not. They will use other products and means to reduce the peaks and valleys of room modes and may or may not include room correction, though professionals would almost as a rule recommend it as it not only corrects level issues but can assist in time (reverb) issues depending on implementation.

There are enough misconceptions in audio based on either no science or limited science. I don’t think we need any new ones.

It was what led to Room EQ eventually becoming standard in every AV processor or Receiver you buy today. 

This is probably hyperbole. It was a great product for its time, but pioneering work at B&W is probably what kick started room correction.