I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

I posted all reference to experiments that proved that Fourier transform cannot explain the hearing process which is non linear...

Many dac technology are based on this flawed assumptions ...

But deludedaudiophile never answered...

This is not magic nor am I trying to insist my reference for sound quality is an objective reference. I am very mindful of my own unique sensory perception, biases, preferences, and I allow others those same considerations. I simply don’t understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime. Again, this is symptom of inherent authoritarian mindset.

I simply don't understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime.

When I look at the measurement regimen for electrical products, for audio, it is not something I would call primitive. THD and SINAD tests from mW to 100's of watts at multiple frequencies in the audible range. IMD tests with 32 tones across multiple frequencies from low to high. Instruments that have noise and distortion 120db below signal levels. What is primitive about this?  In my response to @realworldaudio , his impression, and possibly yours is based on perhaps not understanding the measurements.  What is missing is how a particular speaker responds to a particular amplifier, but that is a system issue, and would appear to to be more relevant to certain amplifiers such as tube amplifiers, with high output resistance.

I personally am quite impressed with the technology of the Klippel speaker measurement system. There is nothing primitive about that. I see tests also include distortion at several volume levels, and impulse responses. I expect someone skilled can understand a lot about how that speaker will sound and how it would interact with a room and how it would respond to being turned up.

I think what irks some audiophiles is that sites like ASR declare that some equipment will sound the same, or that some equipment, will make no audible difference. I see that statement made with amplifiers, but it always has qualifications. I my mind there has not been anything convincing that proves them wrong.

Noise addition in some case can help, not impede the audio experience why?

Then measuring noise/signals ratio to the n’th order is not enough if we dont understand human hearing .....

Answer: because ears/brain being non linear they USED some noise to ENHANCE the perception instead of impeding the perception...

Hearing dont obey Helmholtz old paradigm nor Fourier transform tech...

@mahgister 

I did not not answer. I simply did not read your post.  Your posts for me, are excessive in number, take too long to make a point, and are filled with information that is extraneous.

Fourier transform cannot explain the hearing process which is non linear...

As our discussion is about audio equipment, not the human ear, it is relevant to keep the discussion at this point to equipment.

Many dac technology are based on this flawed assumptions ...

This statement is not correct. There in an inherent lack of understanding in that statement that I don't even know where to start unpacking. However, I will say two things. The goal of signal recreation is linearity. Testing for non-linearity is the purpose of THD measurement. It is an inherent feature of performing Fourier analysis. Our hearing having non-linear processing elements has nothing to do with analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and Shannon-Nyquist theorems. The two are totally unrelated.

Are you trying to imply that there are some timing limitations in DACs that are not sufficient for audio reproduction? In the articles it talks about 10x the Fourier uncertainty limit. That will still be a very very large number compared to the timing precision that digital audio must have to support the THD numbers I see quoted. I am sure you can research this and prove that to yourself.

The goal of signal recreation is linearity. Testing for non-linearity is the purpose of THD measurement. It is an inherent feature of performing Fourier analysis. Our hearing having non-linear processing elements has nothing to do with analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and Shannon-Nyquist theorems. The two are totally unrelated.

You miss my point....I dont contest the value of this Shannon theorem... 😁😊 

The goal in circuit design is linearity for sure... It is electronical design goal...Noise has a meaning here which is not the same than for the hearing process itself...

You dont seems conscious that all electrical measures has an interpretative meaning ONLY in a theoretical framework refering to our actual understanding about hearing...

Some use the concept "accurate" and "noise" in a confused way...They conflated the two possible meanings of the word "accurate" for a non linear detection system like the ears or for a linear tool detection system and they confused the two ways the ratio signals/noise can work for a linear detection system and for a non linear detection system...

The method by which scientist can study the way introduction of noise can help non linear detection system is called: stochastic resonance method...

The way the cochlea is non linearly structured make it able to use an Hopf bifurcation tool analysis inherent in the small fibers cells of the internal ears...

The ears are not a PASSIVE detector system but an ACTIVE non linear one able to amplify ...Then his ability to resolve information exceed many hundredth of times any passive system...

It is the reason why electrical partial set of measures ALONE cannot determine out of listening experiments what will be the sound quality of gear...Like some few deluded ASR disciples falsely claim...

The two groups are deluded not only audiophiles... Sorry....But one at least know that learning how to listen and hearing are FUNDAMENTAL....