Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
...



And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured.


Then you can't be sure it can't be either. Everything I've seen on the
subject says that we have the ability to measure everything hearable.
Unless youhave some proof that the right things or everything isn't being
measured, you're just making a blank assertion.


Yes, but it's an assertion taken for granted by scientists in every
field. It is very uncommon for any scientist to claim "we know
everything about subject X now, finally," or something unprovable like
"we can ascribe a measurable property to every difference we can hear."
There are numerous effects of audio on the person that may not be
captured by current theories about signals and their nature. Obviously
any two signals that sound different will actually be different to some
degree, but simply showing that two signals are different is not the
same as "measurement" of the difference.

In science it is common to err on the side of caution, to always presume
there may be more to any subject or field of inquiry, stuff that remains
undiscovered.

I agree with you that ABX can be useful, but since it is known that the
results can be affected by methodology, once again one can never be
certain that the "perfect" ABX-style methodology has been developed.
These tests were improved steadily over many decades, which yielded
increasing sensitivity to audible differences that could be detected by
the tests. We cannot be sure we now have the perfect audibility tests
for all domains of sonic difference.

-Sean