Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

I appreciate your time here, we won't ever agree but you have explained your process in detail and that is more than most would do. But I have a question about the quote above. You added you listen to loudspeakers "and equalization", can you explain that please. I'm assuming you equalize the loudspeaker for your listening session?  Is that right? 

Thank you. Answering your question, I use equalization as an investigation to see if the frequency response errors correspond to what I hear.  Say there is a resonance at 1200 Hz.  I pull that down with a filter.  One of two things happen: it improves fidelity or it does not.  If it is the former, then we know the objective measurements match subjective experience.  And that the impairment is indeed audible.  If on the other hand, the difference is not audible, or varies from track to track, then I declare it such.  

One positive side-effect is that others with the same speaker can apply that EQ and see if it improves their listening experience.  Majority of the time this is the case.  Other times, it is not as clear cut which is fine.

@ghasley if he was a cordial guest he could host this discussion on his own site and reciprocate. He had to come here where we actually are cordial because if you go to his site....

You know what blind taste tests gave us, wait for it the new coke, which bombed big time.

I'll try to summarize- let's say an aviation enthusiast follows airplanes and can identify various aircraft by their sound.  According to Amir, that is not possible.  The person is deluding themselves because 1) A person cannot hear the minute differences in sound that the various types of aircraft make and 2) A person cannot remember the sounds various types of aircraft make.

He shows dubious charts taken out of context to further his argument but if you go back and read through his responses he contradicts himself several times.  For example, he says listening to the equipment he tests is not necessary but later he states that he does listening tests- on certain items.  Now he says listening tests are ineffective.  This is all bad science.  No wonder it gets us all in aflutter.  

This comment by Amir regarding speaker upgrades:  As to his upgrades making sense, they do most of the time from technical point of view.  But not remotely on cost basis.  He also detests EQ which can do the same thing for free.

This statement reveals a lot- him saying that EQ can replace putting better components in a speaker  (btw- in an earlier post he criticized a manufacturer for using cheap parts in their DAC but cheap parts in a speaker makes no difference apperently) shows that Amir does not understand Audio nor can he hear music the way we do.  

He cannot hear what we hear and that infuriates him.  So he starts measuring gear to prove we cannot hear it either.  He is in over his head.  Owning a pile of test equipment is not a credential.  To clarify- credentials are records of higher level education, certified training in a specific skill, published technical documents such as peer reviewed papers or text books, product designer/developer or maybe even just a good friend who can vouch for you.  People here have asked that question repeatedly but he has not yet answered- other than to say he has lots of test equipment.

I apologize in advance if I sound too harsh.  I'm tired of being told that I am deluding myself by being in this hobby.  It has given me much pleasure over these past 45 years.

@invalid  "You know what blind ... tests gave us..."  

Yes, Bose. Dr. Bose's graduate thesis was blind testing and removing frequencies his subjects didn't hear were missing.