Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts

re: "signaling" - a big rack of shiny new mcintosh with $10k+ speakers poorly placed might be an example on the 'i'm really rich' side of audio. but if there's anything i've learned online, one can 'signal' their smartness, their coolness, their pride, or whatever it is they're interested in conveying in any number of different ways. for example, one can signal their audio 'wisdom' by buying all of the best measuring gear, regardless of how it sounds. 

as for 'lording it over' people, there are certainly some snobs out there. but those guys are mostly irrelevant. i'm sure their systems sound great or whatever, but literally no one with a life of their own cares how much you spent on your hi fi - we're too busy listening to music (and maybe plotting out upgrades) on our own. same goes for 'i know everything about audio because i'm an engineer' types. like, ok man, good for you. sure, yeah, whatever, i'm very impressed with your credentials. but i'm on my own path. you don't need to worry about what i'm doing. we don't even like the same music, why should i care what you think? etc etc

@td_dayton 

i'm very impressed with your credentials. but i'm on my own path. you don't need to worry about what i'm doing. we don't even like the same music, why should i care what you think? etc etc

No one is suggesting for one minute that you (or anyone else) has to.

The important thing is that the data is out there and available.

The rest is entirely up to the individual whether they want to make any use of it.

The same goes for published online and magazine reviews.

When someone is seated at the piano, we are generally not debating whether person A is hearing a piano and person B is hearing an organ or a flute. There is little debate and imagination as to a piano being a real thing, and its sound being a real thing.

They do imagine it. Our senses are imaginary at a very basic level. That’s why a machine doesn’t replicate what we “hear.

And hence the measurements tell us how closely a playback of say a piano sounds like, say… a real piano.

We do not care whether person B hears a piano sounding like flute, we only care that it is replicated correctly.

To talk about brains and personal experiences is delving into psychology and neuroscience, whereas the playback system is electromechanical. We have to draw the line somewhere.

To talk about subjective differences in hearing, is burying one’s head in the sand as to the reality of what is happening.
That thinking belongs in a course on philosophy and not in engineering or physics, and hence it belongs in a coffee house and not in an audio shop or engineering laboratory.

And hence the measurements tell us how closely a playback of say a piano sounds like, say… a real piano. We do not care whether person B hears a piano sounding like flute, we only care that it is replicated correctly.

if you need measurements to tell a piano from a flute, then I don’t know what to tell you… Maybe take on another hobby?

@cd318 exactly - & that's why i have no quarrel on principle with more objective minded approaches to evaluating gear. people are doing their own thing. some prefer to approach it from a purely "show me the evidence" engineering sort of perspective, while others would rather primarily rely on their senses first. i lean towards the latter but there is obviously real value in the former - after all, this hobby wouldn't exist if it weren't for the efforts of a century-plus worth of electronics nerds. ultimately which "camp" people fall into makes no difference to me because at the end of the day, if i'm drawn closer in to the music, i'm happy. we should all stop playing stereo cop and just accept that different people value different things in their gear. just my .02c