What are we objectivists missing?

 

djones51 We can measure the audible spectrum for humans. We can even measure the spectrum for dogs and dolphins so I have no idea what your asking for.

Thyname +1 You are confusing "listening" skills with "hearing" abilities. Not sure if on purpose or by mistake

@jjtucker Well, this did not go in the direction I had intended,

Which intention?

1. My take is that if you can hear a difference, there must be some difference.

...be some difference in what? "Sentence fragment".

2.If a device or cable or whatever measures exactly the same it should sound exactly the same.

No device or cable ever "measure" exactly the same as another. Should they, then they are effectively the same device.

Anyway, cables and {electrical} devices don’t make the sounds that you perhaps are referring to. I digress.

3. So what are your opinions on what those differences might be

See point 1. I dunno, you are telling the story.

4. what are we NOT measuring that would define those differences?

The differences between what and what? Once there is an audible difference, there does exist a test that suggests what is causing that difference. Your assertion that there is something not being measured is one of your own making.

Perhaps if you seek a specific direction, the question must be framed in such a manner that is specific to your enquiry without mistakes of logic. Perhaps refer to a circular reference issue Excel users may occasionally bump up against - it sometimes takes some thought to figure out.

Perhaps everything we hear CAN be measured, but - clearly - not everything measured can be heard.

Our individual ears, and brains, and personal listening spaces (including gear) are all............individual.  Simply put, we don't hear things the same, regardless of measurements.  Our systems could "measure" the exact same.  We won't respectively hear them that way because my left ear has some high frequency loss, likely due to a lifetime of shooting sports. You may have some loss in certain frequencies that makes YOUR hearing entirely unique.  Like a fingerprint.  No measurement will change that.  It is what YOU hear with YOUR ears/brain that makes some things sound good, others not so much.  Throw in individual "listening skills" and it would seem to sharpen further, recognizing that being a good "listener" still won't fill in those lost (audible) frequencies (though a decent EQ might help you out a bit....).  But it certainly adds to even more individualized hearing.

"If you can hear a difference, there must be some difference."  The difference could be that I moved an armchair from one corner of my listening room to another, and it completely changed the room acoustics, all else being equal.  Does that count?

I don't understand why this subject is such a sticky wicket.

Because thinking dont cost money but our free time highest energy...

Correlative dynamic between subjective perception and objective dispositions escape them....

All that debate seems like a question with no answer to superficial mind ignoring that sometimes the answer is in the question itself in science, unlike politic....Here they divide the question in two parts and take a side... 😁😊

But who want to give times to a deep subject like the relation between acoustic and psycho-acoustic?

Arguing is more fun for some....

I don’t understand why this subject is such a sticky wicket.

@hartf36 The difference could be that I moved an armchair from one corner of my listening room to another, and it completely changed the room acoustics, all else being equal. Does that count?

Yes. The all else being equal being the the objective measurements of the equipment. It is data. It can be banged with a hammer and it will not change.

Then game-on for individual preferences, circumstances (however defined), room arrangements, and exaggeration.

I understand. Indignation.  I use that word with some trepidation as I tip-toe away into a safe zone. .