Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

@fredrik222 

Thanks for your message - in truth, I did not make a statement that Amir says he knows everything, only that as an imperfect human being like the rest of us, that it is not possible for him to know everything about electromagnetism - something that he will never acknowledge in staking claim to his measurements. He says electrical testing yields every result we need to know whether a sound difference can be heard in equipment comparisons. That is the equivalent of saying that he knows everything about how electromagnetism affects the quality of sound waves arrive at our ears, just based on the electrical tests he conducts. It would be actually funny, if not for the increasing numbers of people who believe it to be true. 

Then again, it is also true that narcissists, by virtue of their addictive, if misleading confidence, inspire the most followers.

You are absolutely correct that manufacturers should not be allowed to falsify specifications or get away with ambiguous claims. But in all fairness, neither can acoustic performance be claimed based on tests only on the electrical half of everything electromagnetism is. It would be hypocritical otherwise. 

And I am not referring to basic magnetic flux here, but the profound complexity that a constantly changing electromagnetic field is, since the signal is carried as much in the magnetic field, as it is in the electrical current. We have not yet learned how to measure this, let alone understand its impact on sound quality.

There is so much we do not know about the relationship between electromagnetism and the nuance of sound reproduction. To ignore, let alone belittle this fact belies deep ignorance that runs counter to everything science truly is. Science concerns the investigation of experiences and questions we have yet to find answers for. Not the bureaucratic repetition of tests on things we already have proof of answers for.

Yes indeed, listening skill can be very subjective - those blind tests ever so referred to are as subjective as the best, because two variables exists in such tests - something that has not yet been acknowledged by those who champion it.

It was the reason why I suggested a listening test with just one variable, the listener. The sound files had two precisely determined resolutions, which the listener had to identify and tell apart. Direct and simple. Amir did not think much of the test because he could not hear the differences, and he accused those who might have done well as having benefitted from guesswork, despite the accuracy of a six for six correct answers falling well within his own threshold of acceptability. No answer from him when challenged. 

I am a mere hobbyist and the technical knowledge Amir has in electrical matters far exceeds anything I could ever aspire to. But I can say that the observation of electromagnetic nature I am not yet able to explain, and the passionate questions and hypotheses that follow engage science to a far more profound degree than a performance testers  tedious refrain that if it measures the same, it sounds the same.

Yes fredrik, there are indeed two sides to this amazing coin of electromagnetism - how divisive that Amir only fixates on the electrical half, the half his machines only read. Performance testing is not science. It is repetition of the known.

@kevn if you know a better approach maybe there is big bucks and satisfaction similarly in it for you if you were to take it to market and offer it as a competing or complementary service, if you have not already done so. I personally am  all ears when someone can help me make better informed buying decisions.

I dont like attacking personality... Amir acted as a gentleman at least...

The way he answered with specific USELESS measures for the debate , about some products instead of adressing my questions and articles,

The way he NEVER gave even the beginning of an answer to the relation between measures and hearing theory,

The way he asked for proofs confusing measures with proof, whereas the problem precisely is to RELATE our set of measures to what we CAN hear from them and with them and to what we CANNOT hear with them and from them ...

The way he answered never as a scientist because ignoring ALL psycho-acoustic facts i presented CLEARLY with 4 physicists , two he attacked ad hominen, never on the ground of their perspective in psycho-acoustic,

The way he drowned the fish of the psycho-acoustic fundamental question about the relation between electrical linear measures and audible hearing qualities, by teleguiding others questions and debate toward measuring this product or this product so and so and then coaching others in the dead end alley of THIS product debate or THIS one, and inviting others to quarrel about these products value measures INSTEAD of his claims about hearing...

The way he ignored even basic physical small room acoustic and feel confort ONLY around equalizer and measuring toys...

All that spoke volume...

I lost my trust even in his measures not because they are not well done, i cannot know that nor verify, but because i noticed clearly what he knows ( limited measures) and what he dont knows ( psycho-acoustic) , and when someone dont want to learn or even knowing anything about what he does not know because it does not suit an agenda, it is a bad omen for what may come after...

it is clear that he is a crafty seller...not a narcissist sorry, nobody here is a psychologist and anyway no diagnostic done in this way reflect any reality, just a seller with experience with a limited set of measures, useful to falsify market gear specs NOTHING ELSE ...

But Amir want to sell his measuring toys as the first and last truth in audio experience, he want consumers listening to his reviews and only to his reviews... Gullible people will...His measures cannot predict audible  musical qualities..

As i said reviews means something only in a statistical numbers and are indicating of value for past or vintage products,... few reviews means little.. Measures only cannot indicate in a direct way the values of audible qualities; these qualities only exist when a component is coupled with others, in a specfic room, for specfic ears... it is why only statistics about each acoustic factors separately from few dozen of reviews can guide us... lIstening in person is the best way but not possible in most case for most of us...

He used blind test to eliminate any contestation about his limited set of measures and any contestation coming from human hearing.. he analysed human hearing only about his acuity and resolution in HERTZ and DECIBELS nothing related to the Fourier context and the measures of human hyperacuity in the time domain and in a non linear way, why ? Because it will shatter his false science relating his electrical linear set of measures as a predictor of REAL AUDIBLE QUALITIES in music , in speech or even in pure acoustic...

Any other critic of him will miss the target and being stated on his CHOSEN ground you will loose or there will be no conclusion ... In the psycho-acoustic debate with me he lost because he was UNABLE to contest any of the facts i surmiss..NONE...

The point i indicated are so fundamental that the way he refuse to adress their validity and never even reference nor any concepts i proposed or any names with the exception of Van Maanen , because being not only a physicist, van Maanen is an audio designer, he could then dismiss all his facts as seller marketing leaflet... it is here i lost my respect for Amir audio knowledge... i read van Maanen and nothing Amir said about him is valid and touch the heart of the matter... He could not anyway, because Van maanen as a designer and physicist work in audio around the fundamentals facts of psycho-acoustic for his design : the time dependant domain and the non linear working of the human hearings... Van Maanen searched for improved design and is able as other designer everybody know did explaining for us psycho-acoustic elementary facts used in their own design in the past...Van Maanen is not ALONE...I pick him because being a top physicist in fluid dynamics he know acoustic physics and was a hobbyist designer all his working life and at full time after his retirement as physicist..

@mapman

i hear you, believe me. I mean, who wouldn’t want to save the expense it takes to get things right? Trouble is, and I’ve mentioned in another thread, that there are almost no shortcuts in this crazy hobby of ours. Very little substitutes for the effort of trying as many things as possible, just one change at a time, in the system we know best, in the familiarity of our specific listening spaces.

The wonderful byproduct of the effort, however, are the listening skills we pick up along the way by default - the repetition of a certain track, perhaps, that enables us to make comparisons to a completely different track with the same instrument and parsing out the unique qualities of the space each recording was made in. It is a journey many have made, and all of us have dreaded, at one point or another, only to have discovered it was not so bad after all, when we could actually hear a certain cable let us down, or another pick us back up. With critical listening, it is not possible to fool oneself - the experienced listeners will know what exactly this means. Critical listening breeds no bias, just the need to know what brings more realism. There can be no bargaining with self-honesty, and may I say, the narcissist can never be truly self honest - the trick is not to have vested interest in anything other than discovering a better way forward, mistakes and reputation be damned.

The critical listener is not afraid to discover, regardless of bias, because learning is the goal, not the byproduct. What works better is the only truth they care about.

It takes time and money, unfortunately, because no one can replace what we hear for ourselves. And admittedly, very few can afford to demo with the range and variety it takes to know.

And I’ve found that’s what discussions and forums found on audiogon, among so many others, are for. It takes a whole other amount of effort to weed out the ones whom we believe listen the way we do, based on similar equipment being talked about we might also have had familiarity with, collating the comments, and making as good a critical guess as we can.

And there are those out there who have heard a lot whom one can read and ask, regarding their experiences.

jjss49, as example, is a member who has heard tons, whose sense of sound I trust.

My concern are those with vast amounts of experience, who choose not to share what they know, for fear of being smirked at by the likes of the electrical half-measurers, the ones who think they know more because the measurements say so, and cause discomfort to those who can really advise on what different equipment sounds what way in the specific contexts of the system chains they are in, and the specific listening spaces the sound is heard.

Connecting with and learning from these individuals with experience are the few shortcuts I know to attaining realistic sound without spending huge amounts of money.

Some reviewers are good listeners too, but I’ve also found them to be somewhat less reliable than ordinary peeps, who are not under any pressure to get a review done, or tell any audience what narratives want to be heard.

And then there are some reviewers who cannot be trusted at all : )

Our wonderful journey of resonant air brought to us by the world of electromagnetism is such an amazing combination of the art and science of understanding listening, as fredrik said, it’s silly to fixate on just one or the other, when we can have both.

In the absence of greater knowledge regarding the electromagnetic world, our thinking ears and electrical measurements are the best tools we have to bring us closer to reality. Let’s just hone each one to its highest level of development, rather than cripple the journey with just one tool.

In friendship - kevin.

I think this power cord might be just the thing.