You are right for sure...
It is way more deeper if we speak about sounds and music though ...
No measurements win the race because of its validity ALONE...
The measurements must be evaluated in their CONTEXT of application and in their LIMITED bounds of application.. Thats my point discussing hearing theories and what means linear measures for a non linear Ears/brain , and what means out of the design process , measured numbers of material designs which are interpreted in a time independant way for a time dependant unrelated qualitative phenomenon ..
Amir said: no need for that, trust the tools and forget your ears save for a blind test...
Acuity in hearings for him is not recognizing nuances in soprano voice expression here, for him it is only hertz and decibels... Then the Amir ears are untrained by non amplified classical or persian or Indian or African or Chinese or japan music... he trained his ears with studio and computers... He call that training ears in resolution and acuity ... He dont know that even in perception the ears/brain to perceive something as meaningful and not only as audible noise in background must have the different experience of different musical contexts because without concepts we dont perceive things in a qualitative way ...
We reduce them to hertz and decibels... We are then NOT EVEN WRONG... Amir is not even wrong because he miss the question to begin with... He gives an answer to a question he never ask,...
What is technology in relation to science ?
it is answers for question we never asked... or it is a possible new question for an answer we never imagined.. 😊
An example : Mankind discovered fire by accident... It was an answer for a question about cooking we never asked for...
No one can dispute a well made measurement. The issue it’s validity.