[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio_Empire wrote:
That's the puzzlement isn't it? Like I said, if the accepted suite of audio measurements
don't answer the questions, then obviously there is something that we don't measure.
It's the only plausible answer (and don't posture that these differences are imaginary;
the product of listening biases, because they aren't.

But you have, in effect, stated elsewhere in this thread that
as far as you are concerned, the only "accepted suite of audio
measurements" for, say, power amplifiers is power, frequency
response, and distortion, yet, for decades, far more has not
only been available, it has been routinnely used.

Some of the measurements, for example, TIM, have been shown to
be irrelevant because they force conditions that are so utterly
unrealistic that the tell us nothing at all about the performance
of systems under conditions of listening to signal, oh, like music.
Other, like "damping factor" have been shown to not only be
irrelevant, but useless, except in the most pathological of
cases.

Some other measurements, like multi-tone intermodulation, may have
more relevance.

However, what we see hashed over and over again are manufacturers
specification masquerading as "measurements." Fine, we all agree they
are not the same. So why do we see them trotted out time and again,
erected as a strawman do be knocked down, and for what purpose?

If you want to talk about measurements, fine. do so.

But the "accepted quite" of audio measurements in the high-end
audio world, is QUITE different than the "accepted suite" of
audio measurements in a much bigger, richer and certainly much
more informed world than the tiny clique of high-end audio
affords.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+