Michael Lavorgna and I might be experts in communicating what we hear from hi-fi gear but we are definitely not experts in communicating the engineering prowess of a loudspeaker, headphone, amplifier or DAC with measurement data. How does that measured engineering prowess relate to what we hear? It’s a question that’s puzzled me for years and, judging by the content linked below, the answer is anything but clean-cut.
Helping us dig under the hood on this issue is Cameron from Golden Sound: he of ‘that’ MQA video, Audio Precision user and general all-around nice guy. What can measurements tell us about a hi-fi product’s sound quality? What can they not tell us? Cameron explains.
We open the discussion with another burning question of mine: how can one reliably self-identify as ‘100% objectivist’ when a) the measurement process can only be conducted once subjective calls on experiment design have been made and b) the measurement process can only be completed once data interpretation is in the bag?
👉🏻 As mentioned in this podcast…
Golden Sound on ‘Why you can’t trust audio measurements’:
An editorial on the ‘objectivist’ and subjectivist militants who see only black and white (and no grey) and the damage their comments section clashes cause to the audiophile community:
Danny Richie from GR Research on “Goals, Trolls and The Distorted Truth”:
Why John Atkinson Believes Measurements Matter:
Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences by Floyd Toole:
Podcast: Jonathan Novick (Audio Precision, AES, CTA) on measuring audio gear:
Amir from Audio Science Review on what measurements can and cannot tell us about sound quality:
Audio Science Review on the JBL 4349 (which I am reviewing this week):