The invention of measurements and perception

Hello folks. I am an E-engineer and audio tech who ran a well respected audio shop (Audio Clinic) in upper NYS for several years back in the 80s. I had several 'golden ears' friends back then who taught me a lot about the 'other side'. It became a challenge to understand how our 'instruments'/ears could detect the subtle issues that I could not measure with many several thousand dollar instruments. What I found was that most of the really well respected (great sounding) equipment measured very well, but much of the gear that measured great didn't pass the listening tests. I learned how to repair the equipment to maintain the measurements and return and improve the sound quality too.
The recent round of measurement equipment has narrowed that gap but haven't eliminated it. I actually learned to discern much of that sound difference myself. Now that I am much older and my hearing sensitivity has diminished I can still hear the clarity advantage of certain gear. I have found and now own a system that is quite satisfactory and am sticking with it. I have always preferred the sound of 'E-stats and love my Martin Logan's and have found electronics that are worthy of them. My retirement does not support the constant 'upgrade' march I observe.
One thing I also learned about is the limitation imposed on us humans driven by variations in perception because of our emotions and preconceived notions. Various listening test methods have attempted to get around this with some success. Kudos to the engineering folks who have learned some of the real causes and advanced the technology of electronics to minimize the aforementioned gap.
To those who can afford that march to better sound, enjoy the voyage.

Hey, jitter, no offense but maybe you should consider not being a goofball for 2019. Good luck.

Hi Geoff, no offense taken at all, its all in good fun. In fact, seriously, I would like to make an offer on the NASA junior astronaut watch they gave you when you left/retired.

I must agree that the supposed aim of this whole site is what drives a person to like something, sometimes more than another option.
I taught statistics and experimental psychology... and nothing irks me more than someone who quotes chapter and verse about something which has to be experienced to be appreciated. As an EE, I designed test equipment, which was usually limited to 50 KHz in the specs. Much of the time, it was not the sound which was being measured, but noise patterns (atomic submarine prop noise, for example). The equipment was "state of the art" and cost more than most high end systems... yet, as an audio source for listening to music, would fail most miserably. Yup. Because it wasn't designed to PLEASE the user, just generate data for decision making. I must say your post was a breath of fresh air, Erik!

I taught statistics and experimental psychology...

This is a field in which measures are constantly evolving and being added to. I'm afraid that in audio our measures are decades old and have not been updated, just cheaper to collect.

What I mean is, we can do better, but the will and effort isn't universally taken very far.

I'll give you an example. I once replaced tweeter caps in a Focal speaker. The sound was really good, but for the first 48 hours I was having weird surround sound effects. I thought I could hear things happening behind me and to the right.

Eventually the problem went away. Could I express this as a measure of standard measures like uF, ESR or something else? Probably not. But with some effort and time and money I might have been able to come up with a time / phase based explanation for the effects I was hearing.

I didn't have any of it.

My point is, we perceive something, then we find a way to measure it, then we use that measurement to tell us something. That doesn't mean all perception has been measured.

Best,
E