Most of the times, I am finding that such discussions are in a limbic loop.
And we tend to mix some fundamentals interchangeably.
Personally for me (at the risk of sounding ad homineum/ad nauseum)
- Well measured means the designer and manufacturers have taken care to make the product. That’s an indication to me that they care for the science. And how their product sound fundamentally be made banking on the firm foundation of audio science (which obviously is and has been the technological evolution)
- Well measured means I have a reference (say an anechoic chamber) against which I can compare how the product will respond in my room. And if we are more educated towards measurements like spinorama, I can even estimate the room response/speaker resonance/distortions/spl without even auditioning the product (for eg for speakers)
- Well measured system chain means, I can reliably lower distortions starting from source to transducers. (Atleast in context of audio science of audio reproduction).
- Well measured may not mean audible difference.But it may make electronical difference in the electronics involved. Obviously audio research is an WIP, much like any science subject. However advances and updates are the forte from the ongoing researches. There are significant audio research which have laid the foundation of fundamentals of measurements in audio science. There are significant amount of researches which have highlighted the weakness of ‘subjective’ assessment’ and how psychoacoustics can be significant bias as a parameter. Our cochlea is a fine engineered organ, but our brain can be a messy audio processor. And like any living things, our cochlea has a time related functional performance. Whereas machine measurements has the potential of being exemplary unbiased.And much like any science, the methodology of measurements are still being researched. So in future newer and better measurements will come about.
- The audio industry has an accepted and consensus on standards of objective measurements. And this has come about without merits.
We can
never know in absolute what we hear at each individual ears and percieve the sound. We can only compare with objective measurements of functional MRI scans, brain stem evoked potentials/electrical signals/auditory signals study of auditory complex of brain. However these measurement will still elude how we feel/perceive these sounds. Hence comes the study and researches of statistical studies of cohorts of listener. And much like any science, ‘ control trials ‘ (not exactly like clinical trials) has been done ……and things like harman curve has come about, and flat FR as the targetable response.
The variety of perspectives comes along because of our individual
taste, preference, and perception.The problem with subjective assessment is that it is not reproducible - what a ‘expert golden ear’ hears and described subjective terms cannot be
reliably assessed as being heard by other audiophile ears/consumer ears. When he says warmth - what degree of it is heard by untrained ears? How will that untrained ear know it? How will the untrained ear authenticate what the expert hears?
Taken this way the expert assessment is nothing more than a heresay.
That’s how the rabbit hole…..it can be as deep as can be. Mix to this the manufacturers/dealers/consumers interest.
For us consumers, ti will be always
healthy for us to ask and bank our decisions on measurements. It makes an onus on manufacturers to justify their claims. It will expose them if they lie. It will make them reputable as it can mean a transparency of their products.
.
