Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

Look at Prof's post above then read the book mentioned. Nobody's hearing is reliable enough.

My audio system is there solely to please me; more exact, to please my hearing. If it pleases me, it is performing as it should. There is no higher judge than my ear as to what pleases my ear. 

You need test tones and a scope to know if your system pleases you? If that is the case, you are missing the point. 

Pedro, science has not failed at all.

Science never really fails, although sometimes is takes can take indirect path. The question is why isn't it being utilized to test equipment? My point is this; if research into space can continuously reveal the most amazing facts, why is it impossible to analyze audio equipment and show how it performs at listening levels; excluding the sub-audible noise path?

You know that there is no such thing as gravity right?

Pauly, take a 10 pound weight and raise it to your eye level.  Position the object directly above your right big toe.  Release the object.  Now tell me there's no such thing as gravity?  The explanation of gravity has changed and probably will continue to be refined, but the phenomena exist independent of human understanding.

Science cannot replace hearing...But hearing cannot replace science and technical tools....

This is the reason the measures controls of "psycho-acoustic science" which science is not physical acoustic, are not about the measuring results apparatus "per se" but about the CORRELATION between measures of all kind in acoustic physics, neurological and measures and reaction time and psychological human hearing...

I used for examble the reflective acoustic measures and numbers and their relation and their timing with the reverberation time in MY room with MY ears to create a no cost diffusive surfaces and reflecting one to modify and completely recreate the sound imaging in my room not only between speakers....

Without the experiments made in psycho acoustic laboratory in Japan, i would have never been able to think that it was possible...

Science ? YES but which one?

Heraring ? YES but with listening experiments yes, guessing only NO....


Then those who when they speak science speak about electriucal measures ONLY are ignorant...

Those who negate the measures used in psycho-acoustic laboratory are also guilty of ignorance...

Like in politics and like in school-yards, warring is acting like binary minded  apes, sorry....

I refuse to be labeled by idiotic names.... Either political one or audio one like "subjectivist" or "objectivist"....

Where have you gotten this notion audio equipment can’t be analyzed at levels audible to humans and actually even bats but I doubt it does them much good. We can test equipment to tell us how much noise and distortion is present in certain frequency ranges. From this we can determine what types of systems most people like. Do they like neutral systems that produce flat frequency response and low distortion or exaggerated highs in the listening window, rolled off high frequency and bumped low bass, etc.. Assemble a system you enjoy and science can analyze it to conclude you prefer accurate uncolored sound reproduction or distortion generators. There’s no right or wrong but this idiotic idea science is useless in analyzing electronics and transducers  in the human audible range is nonsense.