|
|
|
|
|
by JALTU
1314 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.
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?