[JohnBooty]

    Please cite actual research defining "objective audiophiles"

Sure, absolutely. Hope you've got time to read.

First, I want you to consider for a moment how remarkable it would be if we had no idea how to objectively measure "good" sound considering that this is a multibillion dollar industry that has existed for over a century. A world where we can calibrate televisions and movie screens objectively by automated means but not, for some reason, their audio counterparts. As rational minds might expect we don't live in such a world.

You'd want to look into research by Sean Olive, Floyd Toole. Here's probably your best starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Lo...

The TL;DR is that it turns out that most people prefer sound reproduction that (like video reproduction) is accurate to the source material, with a bit of a "house curve" that accentuates the bass frequencies that roughly corresponds to the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curve. In the end, it's signal reproduction.

    Do you realize that all gear is tuned by ear - someone 
    listens to it to adjust how it sounds?

I don't realize it because it's not true. A person's hearing can change rather markedly from day to day due to factors like congestion, humidity, etc. This would be a remarkably laughable and irreproducible way to calibrate audio reproduction devices.

Audio technology companies that are serious about high quality sound reproduction make use of anechoic chambers: https://nrc.canada.ca/en/certifications-evaluations-standard...

...and/or measurement devices like the Klippel NFS to simulate anechoic measurements: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/u...

...and/or measurement devices like Audio Precision gear: https://www.ap.com/

Of course, audio companies do tinker with their sound to some extent for subjective purposes. A lot of brands try to achieve a bit of a house sound. Ultimately though, audio reproduction is not wine tasting. We can objectively measure what is good and isn't good.

There is also room for subjective personal preference. Everybody's hearing is a little different. And even Floyd and Toole's research reveals average listener preferences. But ultimately...

    What is "objective" about sound?

Well, everything. As you know, "sound" is pressure waves in the air. Those pressure waves can be objectively measured in terms of frequency and amplitude. And those 1's and 0's in a digital audio stream for example have objective meaning. They are not a series of opinions. They represent frequency and amplitude. Anybody telling you otherwise is simply uninformed, or trying to pull the wool over your eyes and sell you something.

[JALTU]

I asked in good faith and I think we share similar perspectives, however it seems an implicit assumption in your statements is that we know all there is to know about hearing, and we can measure it precisely, thus any claims of audio qualities, for lack of a better word, are by definition psychological biases. Maybe that's not exactly what you mean, but it'll do for here.

Fair enough to consider although I suspect we'll wind up agreeing to disagree. Not interested in flame wars, and thanks for obliging me.

[JohnBooty]

    however it seems an implicit assumption in your statements 
    is that we know all there is to know about hearing

Hearing involves the human brain and I'm absolutely sure we don't know everything there is to know about it. So at least we agree on that!

However, it seems to me that the question is, "can System A reproduce sound with a 'sound quality' relative to System B that cannot currently be measured, but can be recognized by listeners?"

I don't believe we need to know all there is about hearing to answer that question.

    thus any claims of audio qualities, for lack of a 
    better word, are by definition psychological biases

Psychological biases are huge but for the purposes of this good-faith discussion I'm assuming they're controlled for.

I'd put it this way...

A suite of measurements such as those produced by e.g. the Klippel NFS measurement system such as those seen here represent a rather large quantity of data.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/t...

Do you claim that two audio playback systems could produce identical measurements on the Klippel, and yet have audibly different "sound quality" that could be discerned in a repeatable double-blind fashion by human listeners?

[JALTU]

No, you said that, not me! ha ha ha

And as you note below, if it's fun for you to trot out all this "science" then please, don't let me spoil your broth. I'll just contend that science is about testing hypotheses and leave it at that.

Lastly, yes, lots still to learn about hearing and audio. Someday maybe we'll have measurements that allow for certain comparisons to be valid across human aural experience and electrical transducers.

[iquerno]

when I no longer have self professed audiophiles to deal with I will always possess the ability to start audiophile flame wars :)

[JohnBooty]

It's always fun!

[JALTU]

Therein lies the rub, wouldn't you say? ;-)