Indentical measurments = Identical performance?

 

• Is there agreement and proof of each measurement’s value and the range of human sensitivity?

Is there any proof otherwise? The answer is no.

It doesn’t work that way in science. We do not make someone prove that pixies do not exist, in the same way that we do not make people prove that they’re innocent.

The proof is upon the claim maker, or prosecution, to prove guilt.

• What are the relative merits off each measurement in terms of a broad range of listeners as well as you , specifically?

Is there any proof otherwise? The answer is no.

It doesn’t work that way in science. We do not make someone prove that pixies do not exist, in the same way that we do not make people prove that they’re innocent.

The proof is upon the claim maker, or prosecution, to prove guilt.

But the merits of the measurements are documented in many places.
For instance the high distortion of tube equipment being more pleasing to the ear than much lower distortion of some SS gear.
So yes the relative measurements are not all created equal… and some measurement are harder to do than others.

• We lack measurements which can take into account the ear/brain mechanism as well as self-training of the neural pathways.

Irrelevant as it pertains to preference, not to audibility, which was covered by your first two points, and I will point out again, none proven.

In some sense, if we know the sound field, like a measurement of it, then we could assume that a reproduction of the field should look the same in the time and frequency domain. And the more “sameness” would be higher fidelity than less “sameness.”
 

 

Take a set of published tests from 1972. Now compare them to published tests from say ASR in 2022. It would be dishonest to claim that the 1972 tests are nearly as comprehensive as what is and can be done in 2022. I think the thing mainly stuck in 1972 is audiophiles, not the measurements

Ok lets take 1982, then.
We had many more measurements happening in the 80s.

And so, if put to practice, any 2 digital audio components that have similar enough measurements should sound identical. For example, a DAC with a SINAD or SNR or 120 dB vs one with a SINAD or SNR of 123. Tiny differences in linarity and frequency response above 20 KHz are not audible to us humans anyway.

I am not sure SINAD is all the most useful measurement.
If we are playing tones, then it might be, but we are playing impulsive thinks like drums and other percussion instruments as well.

Secondly if the SINAD is all 2nd harmonic, or all 5th a harmonic, will we hear a difference?

But at some point do the speakers matter? And their contribution to SINAD, or SNR, or distortion products?

@erik_squires +1. It’s called Occam’s Razor. Been around for a while. Was the basis of the scientific reasoning that created the tools that take the measurements. Now that we have the tools, we forget about the principals. It would be funny in any other age. 
 

I think the complexity of active listening is such that the technology used to measure just can’t catch up. How many million tests would be needed to capture this? Add to that, the relationships between tests (i.e. poor results at a rate against good results from a different test at a rate) and I think if any two devises test exactly the same, they weren’t tested enough. Combine this with the fact that, as others have said, the tests are being performed on the wrong side of the eardrum, I consider measurements to be nothing more than a baseline start to inform an evaluation. Will the technology catch up in a few hundred years - maybe — but It is the curse of every age to consider themselves sufficiently advanced and ‘done’. 50 years from now someone will be laughing on this forum about the crudeness of our testing processes. 
 

i have tested high voltage current at hospital facilities. 13.3k volts.  Everything tested fine. Dozens of tests using specialized equipment costing more than the most expensive audio equipment. Then, through an analog waveform capture on the feeders, and the B phase is flat coming in from the utility. My point being that every test is a snapshot of a piece of a photo. The relationships between the tests are what get you, and an analog experience (like listening) is the easiest way to get that. 

The conventional performance measurements of hi fi are summative and the wood does not necessarily describe the trees. Walking through the wood is a different experience to looking at if from an helicopter. Neither experience invalidates the other but the two are valid in different ways.

I diligently tried to read all of this but got lost and just went and listened to a James Taylor album...!🙄