Thanks Amir and that’s why you should respond. I don’t recall which AI he used but if you feel the need to check Chat GPT or Grok. I mentioned the spectral decay plot as it pertains to audible resonance in the speaker. And you didn’t use that info even though you have the capability.He did no such thing. He *claims* AI said it pulled such quotes out of ASR. But he neither shows the prompt he used, or the response.
I repeated his experiment, with exact question he said he asked: "audible effects of electrical shift of phase in speaker's impedance"
This is the answer Gemini gave:
View attachment 531654
Notice how the reference is NOT to ASR but Parts Express. If you click on that link, it will take you to a short, random thread about this topic with hardly any of the above discussed.
If you highlight the link then it will give you one reference to ASR among three others. That link is to a post by Don:
Variable impedance - what's the audible impact
Stupid question time: Is it true or not that load dependence of amplifiers impacts frequency response only at higher frequencies? I ask because the subject of this thread is "what's the audible impact" of "variable speaker impedance." And as we know from other threads, a major bone of...
He was answering this question: "Stupid question time: Is it true or not that load dependence of amplifiers impacts frequency response only at higher frequencies?"
Don's answer starts with:
This is precisely what I said in my video. Which is, this is only an issue if your amplifier has high output impedance, i.e. a tube amp. Solid state amplifiers have very low output impedance with essentially no change with frequency. Exception is class D amps that don't have post filter feedback.
So nothing in what AI generated is backed up by what is posted on ASR in the way Danny reading it. Indeed, I asked AI about this:
View attachment 531656
I have more on this but I finished my AI inquiry by giving Google Danny's video and asking this question in context:
View attachment 531657
Pretty damning I would say.
Finally, and this is really stupid but I see you are falling for it as well, ASR is not me. Ton of topics are discussed and naysayers come here argue points like what Danny says. Summarizing ASR as a forum does not at mean that what I state is wrong.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
GR Research Speaker Upgrade Review (Sierra-2EX V2) [Video]
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
See how this works so basically we all need to take everyone’s spectral decay with a grain of salt since anyone can manipulate the results. Thanks Amir. So I would suggest we all watch multiple reviews especially if the show their testing results like Audioholics and Erin’s Audio Corner to see how the measurements stack up. It’s hard to know you’re being manipulated if you don’t know you’re being manipulated. Knowledge is power.Spectral decay can easily be manipulated to show what you want. Let me show you a precise example. I reviewed Danny's LGK speaker.
In there, I showed my usual waterfall, showing many resonances:
In sharp contrast, Danny shows this:
Where did all the resonance go? He hardly shows any. Well, I too can generate that with my data:
All I had to do is change the parameters.
Frequency response already tells us there are resonances. It is all those little peaks. My first graph shows them lingering. But if you raise the noise floor, or reduce resolution, they go away.
You can also go the simpler route and look at the scale and numbers. They're right there.
Understanding and actually reading graphs is essential.
He did no such thing. He *claims* AI said it pulled such quotes out of ASR. But he neither shows the prompt he used, or the response.
I repeated his experiment, with exact question he said he asked: "audible effects of electrical shift of phase in speaker's impedance"
This is the answer Gemini gave:
View attachment 531654
Notice how the reference is NOT to ASR but Parts Express. If you click on that link, it will take you to a short, random thread about this topic with hardly any of the above discussed.
If you highlight the link then it will give you one reference to ASR among three others. That link is to a post by Don:
Variable impedance - what's the audible impact
Stupid question time: Is it true or not that load dependence of amplifiers impacts frequency response only at higher frequencies? I ask because the subject of this thread is "what's the audible impact" of "variable speaker impedance." And as we know from other threads, a major bone of...
He was answering this question: "Stupid question time: Is it true or not that load dependence of amplifiers impacts frequency response only at higher frequencies?"
Don's answer starts with:
This is precisely what I said in my video. Which is, this is only an issue if your amplifier has high output impedance, i.e. a tube amp. Solid state amplifiers have very low output impedance with essentially no change with frequency. Exception is class D amps that don't have post filter feedback.
So nothing in what AI generated is backed up by what is posted on ASR in the way Danny reading it. Indeed, I asked AI about this:
View attachment 531656
I have more on this but I finished my AI inquiry by giving Google Danny's video and asking this question in context:
View attachment 531657
Pretty damning I would say.
Finally, and this is really stupid but I see you are falling for it as well, ASR is not me. Ton of topics are discussed and naysayers come here argue points like what Danny says. Summarizing ASR as a forum does not at mean that what I state is wrong.
RexrothPigeon
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2025
- Messages
- 1,273
- Likes
- 2,688
Flat earther responds to physicist. And does a pretty good job explaining what he does and poking some holes in their arguments. Flat earther also pulled receipts of their academic papers supporting his perspective of distance, the horizon, and the surface of the earth. I watched both videos because I wanted to see the arguments of each and make my own opinions on how they frame their perspectives. They both make great points that are educational. I don't care about either guy. I don't have a dog in this fight. I like opposing viewpoints because I will never blindly follow any person.
Along with what Amir has mentioned on resonances, Dr Toole's presentation based on his book, has some guidance on when resonances matter and what they mean. See here...
Dr. Toole's 4th Edition Book is Coming! (Discount)
Your wife's suggestion would cause you to miss a bunch of useful stuff:(. Sorry about the problem. Only the publisher can help. Go to Routledge.com, scroll down to the very bottom - the dark blue area - and click on customer service. Good luck. Good news, I followed the same steps on my PC...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Danny is not wrong that speaker resonances can be quite important but knowing when they are audible and what and whether to remediate them is way more than he offers. For that matter, from what I recall from Danny's own admittance, the Ascend measured relatively well in respect to CSD. So, seems like another attempt to deflect attention away from his own failings rather than a real problem that needs solving.
Last edited:
Oh man I really hurt your feelings. Danny calls you flat earther you call Danny flat earther. But the only one open minded enough to believe the earth is round is me. I don’t trust any of you. That’s why you have to prove your point. It’s funny but the only one not insulted is Amir. He posted his proof without emotion. The rest of you. Not so much.
RexrothPigeon
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2025
- Messages
- 1,273
- Likes
- 2,688
I'm not insulted and my feelings aren't hurt at all, continuing your streak of being wrong
I think the point is that there is no need to trust any of us. Audio transducers (and audio equipment generally) are governed by well established science, and you can look to independent sources as to those principles. Try to find scientific support for Danny’s tube connectors or power cables or fancy capacitors.
Danny uses overly smoothed, gated quasi-anechoic frequency response measurements with an insufficiently short time window....
and then derives his spectral decay plot from that overly smoothed, low-resolution frequency response measurement.
Anybody see the problem here?
and then derives his spectral decay plot from that overly smoothed, low-resolution frequency response measurement.
Anybody see the problem here?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,739
- Likes
- 2,749
"GIGO" anyone?
Says the guy with the emotional response. If u gotta say you’re not emotional you’re emotional.I'm not insulted and my feelings aren't hurt at all, continuing your streak of being wrong
a4eaudio
Addicted to Fun and Learning
The limitations to presenting spectral decay due to scaling is well known and Amirm has mentioned it numerous times over many years. He should spend no time on this, at least with respect to the Danny/Ascend issue. Next thing you know he'll have to explain what a decibel is, what a log-scale is, etc.
Last edited:
I have pointed this out many times. A 4ms window isn't even going to show the most audible problems (i.e. where most fundamentals and spectral centroids live) because there just isn't the resolution.
Note, Erin uses a slightly different setup called "burst decay" - it measures in periods instead of absolute time. This is more perceptually relevant given that lower frequencies just by virtue of, yknow, math, have longer periods. A lot of the "port bad sealed good" things you see are just horribly misreading CSD pots. Of course a speaker with lower frequency extension has a longer decay time, lower frequencies are longer.
So basically what you’re saying is don’t explain how things work to someone new to the hobby? Interesting take.
No, the two “sides” are not equal. Danny has no formal education or training in any field that would allow him to design speakers/crossovers, and almost seems ignorant of science. Amir is the opposite. Don’t confuse random opinions with scientifically valid conclusions.
Last edited:
a4eaudio
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Correct. Try using Google, any search engine, or any Artificial Intelligence engine for basic information, there no need for Amirm to spend time making videos for basic stuff. In fact, there probably are videos, so you can try YouTube also.
He says he is using a 4mS gated window, which is equivalent to a 250Hz frequency resolution, and which is why he can't display any information below 200Hz !! What his software is probably doing is zero-stuffing the time response to 100 mS to get 10 Hz plot resolution, but there is still no more detail than with the original 4 mS window. It just smooths out the frequency response plot rather than leaving jagged lines connecting the points at each 250Hz interval, which is akin to oversampling in the frequency domain. Anyone who has studied FFT's will know this. This is why striving for high tap-count convolution filters in the reproduction chain is pointless if the sampling interval is limited and does not match. Hate to rain on his parade but Amir was not lying !!
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
