Pleasurably better, not measurably better

Measurements are definitely helpful. But what everyone experiences as pleasant varies. And what we call pleasant we tend to define as good as well. There the trouble starts.

I´d never expect anyone to like my prefered sonic signature.

When I bought my first stereo the shop owner told me he had sold an amp/speaker combination that was horrible to his ears, but the buyer was a professional cellist and the setup reproduced his experience as a player sitting in the orchestra very well.

„Pleasurably better“ – that´s a good term, because it´s asking to define what exactly is pleasurable. I also like the „euphony“, literally translated as „good sound“. We know euphoria and that it´s experienced in individual ways, so here´s an audio specific sister word.

I think culture, background and training are at play here. Those deeply engrained in the scientific and engineering communities are disciplined to defend their positions with hard data. It’s part of the culture and for valid reasons, when the goal is to prevent airplanes from falling out of the sky, for example. Those among us who have developed highly sensitive "antennas" to various audio phenomena and emassed a farily extensive vocabulary to relate those observations to others are quite comfortable sans data. Attempts to minimize the attachment of data to subjective audio experiences often frustrates data-driven individuals. It’s understandable. You can’t blame a compass for pointing north.

There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" here. A little intellectual humility is a great way to begin (and, end) a conversation.

Good post, Erik. It’s been a pleasure reading the comments.

Those deeply engrained in the scientific and engineering communities are disciplined to defend their positions with hard data.

I think there are a lot of people who want to play at being scientists or engineers when they defend their technocratic positions on audio.  The giveaway is when they attempt to make claims about metrics that are simply not in evidence.

Lower THD for instance.  Not proven to sound better and under some circumstances higher may be preferred.  Like measuring the hardness of a metal.  Yes, we can measure hardness, but is harder better?  That's a different issue and judged by application.  Measuring hardness is an engineering discipline, but claiming it is universally better is outside the scope of the discipline.

Also want to point out that Harman, and JBL and I think Floyd Toole have done actual research on audio and human preference.  It is not impossible to research this, and come to an idea about consumer preferences.  It doesn't always align with pure technocracy.

Bose for instance is an organization that, like it or not, knows a lot about consumer listening preferences.  You and I may not fit their demographic, but if you don't believe they know the sound that sells at a store you are sadly mistaken.  Please don't argue Bose good or bose Bad. I only want to talk about Pleasurable research.  it exists, and it's not the same as technocratic quests for minimal this maximal that.  It's quite complicated.

I am always impressed with the level of precision music listeners will use to modify their spaces to get that perfect sound. I also admit that I am just too lazy to follow similar methods.