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.
@amir_asr I am not AJ. You’re so rude and people come to your defense. Nice of you to be so condescending and sarcastic. That is your science at work? I post on ASR regularly. Explain to me how a review for a loudspeaker does not entail listening to it. Joke. Doesnt bother you but you continue to unravel and let this whole conversation frustrate you more and more. |
It has been explained. Repeatedly. I have even post a video I have done on it. Someone’s subjective testing of a single speaker has little to no value. That you seek is useless. The purpose of my listening tests is to determine audibility of flaws seen in measurements, not something onto themselves. Here, the flaws of the speaker are quite apparent. With the speaker being quite large and heavy, I made an exception to my general stance of listening and EQing it and letting the membership build a consensus. That you ignore some 300 speaker reviews with listening tests and pick this one to complain about shows anything but good intentions. Move on. |
Now being unable to answer my point about the IMPOSSIBILITY and UNSCIENTIFIC attitude which consist as you did and trying to convince others that a small linear set of electrical measures from Fourier Maps are the only OBJECTIVE way to qualify audio audible impressions QUALITIES, because if not , they are anyway "illusions" or artefacts we must eliminated by blind test, this techno babble ideology has nothing to do with psycho-acoustic as demonstrated CLEARLY not only by the results of Oppenheim and Magnasco but by the way they constructed their experimental protocol to demonstrate the way the ears/brain do not compute mere Fourier maps but perceived REAL QUALITATVE INFORMATION FROM THE REAL NATURAL ENVIRONMENT in his time dependant domain and extract this information essential for his survival in a non linear way... What is your answer and argument AGAINST this fact ? Instead treating me like a deluded idiot you set me a childish trap with a paradox in quantum theory... If i explain to you the solution , you will not be able to UNDERSTAND it... I will also treat you as you treat me, i know how to liquidated your paradox , and i will suggest to you first TWO solutions at this paradox, one in non commutative geometry by Alain Connes about TIME in this video : "the shape of music."...and i will briefly resume it :"The thermal time hypothesis has been put forward as a possible solution to this problem by Carlo Rovelli and Alain Connes, both in classical and quantum theory. It postulates that physical time flow is not an a priori given fundamental property of the theory, but is a macroscopic feature of thermodynamical origin." For clarity i will add this "The thermal time hypothesis predicts that the ratio of the observer's proper time to his statistical time – the time flow that emerges from Connes and Rovelli's ideas – is the temperature he measures around him. It so happens that every event horizon has an associated temperature."
there exist another solution which do not contradict this one but complement it but you are not able to understand it sorry ... it is in the Book by the physicist Anirban Bandyopadhyay; Nanobrain or how to make an artificial brain with time crystals...
Now instead of playing with me as an idiot ANSWER WHY MY OBJECTION TO YOUR REDUCTION OF AUDIBLE QUALITIES TO ELECTRICAL FOURIER MAPS OF ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS IS WRONG ?
|
