objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

@prof ,

Corollary to your post, just because we don't know everything about electricity, does not mean we don't know enough for audio :-)  I see that as a frequent justification in these forums for all kinds of what I consider ridiculousness.

Corollary to your post, just because we don’t know everything about electricity, does not mean we don’t know enough for audio :-) I see that as a frequent justification in these forums for all kinds of what I consider ridiculousness.

A better corollary will be that just because we know everything that we can know about electricity, this does not means we know all there is to know about audio matter and experience :)

I see that as a frequent justification by some for all kind of what i consider arrogant ignorance in some audiophile forums by some, ignorance in psycho-acoustic and hearing science where subjective experience is studied seriously and taken seriously not only in his limitations but for his possibilities and performances like with trained musicians...

Is it not extraordinary that we must remember to some that audio is not mere electronical design but also acoustic experience and control in psycho-acoustic  science  personal and collective history ?

deludedaudiophile

Exactly! Very important point.

Analogy: Just because we’ve yet to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity, nor deduced the exact character of Dark Matter, doesn’t give me an excuse to drop a bowling ball on your bare toes as if we don’t have enough understanding of physics to understand those consequences.

A better corollary will be that just because we know everything that we can know about electricity, this does not means we know all there is to know about audio matter and experience :)

No, that is not a better corollary nor is it even accurate. The statement wrt electricity speaks to the ability to be able to model and measure all aspects of an electrical signal with enough detail to quantify the potential for change when converted to sound.

From my limited knowledge, those measurements are possible to much much greater accuracy and resolution than any identified or tested aspects of human hearing. Not just better, but much much better. I understand most of those tested limits are under controlled circumstances with ideal stimulus. With real music, the ability to detect is much much less. If we can test electrically to much much better than tested human limits and humans limits are much much worse with real music, then we can conclude with high confidence that our ability to test electrical signals is sufficient to indicate whether a difference will cause an audibly detected change.

I dont contest

" that our ability to test electrical signals is sufficient to indicate whether a difference will cause an audibly detected change."

This is trivial... I contest the belief that electrical signals technology is all there is to know about human hearing and ordinary human experience...

You dont seem to catch this subtle difference, so eager to accuse everyone to be deluded by his perception... Perception so deceiving it is for each of us ask to be trained, and anyway hearing cannot be even understood till this day....Why then disregarding any subjective impressions ?

Do you think that the fact that two electrically identical amplifier measured the same must sound the same is the ultime audio fact? It is trivial...

But what is not trivial is the way each one of us will interpret these same electrical signals in different psycho-acoustic conditions, acoustic circonstances and environment....

Objective and subjective attitude is a two way road...And this circulating correlation is the basis of psycho acoustic, not electrical theory by itself...

Zealot are not better than fetichist....

My two ears dont live in a blueprint electronical design but in my room... There is Two kind of CORRELATED science here....We cannot erase  one science for the other... We must learn how to hear, not subordinate our hearing to specs sheets...