Audio measurement: false validry or Strawman arguement.

We absolutely need measurements. to confirm the design, specs, correct performance to the design, etc. we need to confirm the design meets design intent and we need a base line.

The real question is are we measuring all the right things? Can we even measure the things our brain/ears hear? how do we deal with bias? how do we deal with each persons different hearing/brain interface?

Its not a simple yes or no question like so many would like to think. We need measurements but we need to listen as well. We are not measuring or not able to measure everything we perceive in sound. Yet!

@glenewdick,

Thanks for the reply. I absolutely believe theres a synergy between ears, mind, listening equipment and environment. It’s not exact because I’m using a dac, but technology have definetly advanced. Unforfunatley as it advances some features sometimes get taken away and we pay a higher price for that same feature down the road. For example, treble and bass control taken away from bottom line boom boxes. My other example is listening to oldies vs newer versions. A comparison between a single tweeter and full range. This may seem off subject, but shows lineage in advancments that could be comparable, at least as it pertains to an ever changing world.

The copper advancements seem worthwhile. Geomtry might have some comparison like a tesla magento in an ideal world. We hopefully see a difference between silver and gold in conductivty. Eddy and grain structure are intersting with noise floor too. And I have heared stories where engineers tweak equipment and songs, which seems like it could make or break.

Thanks again.

@hilde45 

You kind of did. Lol I don't necessarily see it as random because its a well versed topic, nor a quiz because that might say I am testing about the certain variables in which there is a right or wrong in which personal experience and reality is judged. I consider it more of a scatter plot for someone if they have those degrees and talent, or an interst of considerably more research if I find myself invested, but it is a different world for me.  I guess I am biased that my semantics are optomistic. But with your experience, I kind of see why you seeminly snub yout nose. Lol

I dont want to rant in a long post... 😁

I did it too often...😊

I advice to listen dr. Choueiri teachings about acoustics...

There is many measurements in many fields implied in audio and types and many different parameters defining all these measurements...

The most important one are psychoacoustics measurements...

Even if it is important to verify measurements specs design of the gear and even if it is important as much to take into account room/system measurements  ...

OP, it’s not that the topic is random. It was just hard to understand a lot of what you were asking.

Is this what you were asking?

Are measurements taken under controlled conditions?
(This phrasing replaces "absolute conditions" to indicate a more achievable measurement scenario)

Do certain variables introduce entropy that could explain discrepancies in results?
(This phrasing focuses on the concept of entropy as a source of change and potential measurement difference)

What specific variables might contribute to this effect?
(This phrasing asks for concrete examples)

If certain variables are insignificant, what justifies this conclusion?
(This phrasing seeks the reasoning behind dismissing specific variables)

What experiences with various equipment have informed your perspective?
(This phrasing requests insight based on hands-on experience)

How do the equipment’s design and the environment’s properties influence the measurements?
(This phrasing focuses on the interaction of equipment and its surroundings)