I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

Use of questionable science is not of critical importance here, these are outliers, vast majority of equipment is designed using legitimate science.

By the way, innovations in all human endeavors come from both STEM and non-STEM educated individuals. Innovation comes from those with curiosity and imagination. One must ask the right questions, or even what at time posed,  considered silly questions by some. To believe there are no more known unknowns is sheer lunacy.

While o vs s arguments may be interesting or infuriating, depending on disposition, it is far too early to settle this with absolutism. The only thing we're really arguing about is whether we have settled science or not in regard to s claims. I'd bet the house on fewer known unknowns in future, this all premature.

This is not magic nor am I trying to insist my reference for sound quality is an objective reference. I am very mindful of my own unique sensory perception, biases, preferences, and I allow others those same considerations. I simply don't understand why some have need to assign some reference sound quality based on present rather primitive measurement regime. Again, this is symptom of inherent authoritarian mindset.

I always hear this color issue from the measurement objectivists, they use the term accuracy as if it has no color. What proof do they have that accuracy has no color? Yes, measurements have correlations to qualities of sound reproduction, but our brains interpret these qualities in both common and unique ways. I've interpreted color from every single audio system I've ever heard, and that would range all the way from sterile to extremely romantic. Perhaps some believe accuracy lies somewhere outside this all encompassing bell curve. Please suggest to all us deluded audiophiles a single outlier system that is accurate and devoid of color, I really want to hear music reproduced with absolute accuracy. And then to prove that accuracy, it must conform to the original recording, we must be present at the time of that recording and/or the production/engineering of said recording. I'd say the objectivists have a tall task in front of them.

Some individuals need to understand or want to believe everything in existence can be understood purely in objective terms. I understand the desire, need and validity of objective inquiry, I don't understand entirely discounting the value of our human senses.

The greatest issue I have with pure measurement crowd is their failure to acknowledge we haven't yet developed a measurement protocol or equipment to replicate the human experience of listening to the reproduction of music through an audio system. ASR posters actually admit to as much when they do post their listening impressions.

Still, I'd say the thing that most bugs me is how often I observe people trying to OBJECTIFY sensory perception. The one thing I observe audiophiles arguing about more than any other on audio forums is the dismissal or discounting of other's perceptions of what they hear when listening to a particular piece of equipment. One person enjoys this certain piece of equipment, other's find the sound quality of that piece less enjoyable or dismiss it entirely. Perhaps they did hear that piece in some other system and didn't enjoy what they heard, but that doesn't take negate the other person's enjoyable experience. First of all, it is nearly inevitable the two systems were entirely different, second, it fails to acknowledge differences in sensory perception. Sensory perception is just that, it is our perception or interpretation of our senses, this is entirely unique and/or subjective.

While I don't take issue with others posting differing perceptions of a particular component, I do have a problem when others dismiss or degrade the other's sensory experience. You often hear this dismissal is the form of calling another a tin ear. The other attack takes the form of stating objective faults with human senses, things like confirmation bias or failing to do double blind tests. Some can't accept others perceive and/or interpret things differently than they do. I see far more tyranny from objectivists posing as subjectivists, they've elected themselves king golden ears.

Perhaps some day they'll innovate a robot that replicates my sensory perceptions and attaches a measurement regime conforming to those preferences. The robot can make the rounds. listening and measuring  every component existent in the world and report back. I could then objectively put together components best conforming to that measurement regime and build the best possible system for my listening preferences.

@realworldaudio Thank you for stating what should be obvious. Of course some believe we've already discovered all there is to be discovered. Why not just shut down any research into audio reproduction and human sensory perception, we already have all the measurement protocols and tools needed to prove absolutes, and differences in individual human sensory perceptivity is of no concern.

Watch out for the audio authoritarians, they'll be sure no Toto can open the curtain.

And so, I'm told to rely on measurements, both my SET amps total failures based on high even order distortion. And then we have my SMSL amp I use for burn in purposes. I have no doubt the SMSL measures better than both SET amps, so is the vastly inferior sound quality of the SMSL a total figment of my imagination? Hilarious! Even more hilarious, take this couple hundred dollar amp, class D design and compare it to multi thousand dollar class D amp, both measure pretty near exact. Does measurement acolyte believe SMSL sounds as good, lets say Atmasphere class D?

And so we have a post in regard to the truth of colored recordings, no doubt this true. So let's say we have a  recording to the sterile side of spectrum, played back on cooler sounding system would maintain it's position on spectrum. The same recording played back  on more romanticized or warm system would sound closer to neutral on spectrum. And then we have recordings all over the color spectrum, various colors of systems will provide greater or lesser synergy. And then we could take what many would presume to be optimum color, neutral. Well, even this color may result in optimal or less than optimal synergy with various recordings.

I notice no takers on the accurate contention some objectivists maintain is optimal. How would this so called accurate system play with these recording colors? And that's a simple question to answer. Accuracy contentions in audio reproduction is a meaningless term. Prove accuracy is colorless, and further prove an accurate component or system is absolutely accurate. With some measure of critical thinking you'll find it impossible using objective analysis and/or reason.

I contend all audio reproduction components have colorations, with neutral being our closest conception to what would be accurate. But then one person's perception of what is neutral may not correlate with another's. See how problematic it is to conjure up some objective hierarchy of audio components and systems. The likelihood that each of us has an entirely unique system is symptomatic of the inherent subjectiveness of audio reproduction. Julian Hirsch long ago attempted to dictate some hierarchy, which he had to lie about with claims if they all measured the same they had to sound the same. The peeps found out this not true, and he fizzled away.

@atmasphere When I'm speaking of accuracy and it's association with color, I'm thinking about two components that measure exactly the same in every measurement undertaken. Now lets say those measurements are such that one was deemed to be an accurate component. Will these  two components, or any number of components tested, meeting the above criteria necessarily sound exactly the same. If not, at least one of those components cannot be accurate, we could say it has colorations. Doesn't stating any particular component as accurate, mean any component not replicating absolutely exact same sound qualities is inaccurate or colored? Anointing any component as accurate assumes an absolute hierarchy of components, the accurate one being the objective reference.

The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?

So, my issue with the term accuracy is when its used in the context of this hierarchical order, or contention there are absolute accurate components, those not meeting criteria mentioned above inaccurate. Now, accuracy in the context of conforming to timbre of live non-amplified instruments, vocals MAY be valid use of the term. A component that reproduces natural timbre can be said to be accurate.  This doesn't apply to amplified instruments as they are subject to many inaccuracies of amplifying equipment, we cannot know their exact timbre unless we were in recording venue at time of recording.  Still, both amplified and non-amplified recordings  subject to recording vagaries, perhaps these recordings don't present accurate timbre. Bottom line, very little or no opportunity to directly compare live instrumental, vocal timbre, what we'd call natural timbre, to recorded timbre which may or may not exactly replicate natural timbre.

Accuracy, in either of these contexts seems to be rather useless term for audio reproduction. And if we accept accuracy is invalid term here, what are the objective criteria we can use to judge audio components? With so many variables constantly in play, seems we are left to pleasing ourselves. Where's the problem!

Well, deludedaudiophiles stated the divide quite clearly and repeatedly, the measurement crowd doesn't believe we can trust in our individual sensory perceptions to make best decisions.

Ok, certainly our sensory perceptions can fool us, but do present measurement regimes and total reliance on them lead us to a better individual decisions?

And then, we as humans have  great ability to learn, evolve, we have the ability to train ourselves to be better listeners. Listening to a wide variety of systems, components, even parts for the diy modder over a long period of time, exposes us to many variables, which if we're ever mindful of, can improve listening skills and aural memory. I'm not claiming this infallible method, but are measurements done in lab situ on individual components really a superior method for determining best sound quality for our systems in our rooms and for our unique ear/brain sensory perceptions! A really preposterous posit to my mind.

This is also not to say measurements don't have their place, certainly important to the engineer/designer, assembler of audio components. Also important for assembling a more synergistic audio system. But as a replacement for experienced listeners choosing for themselves this is symptom of machine belief. Perhaps some day, but AI hasn't yet surpassed human ability in choosing individual audio systems.

I also continue to sense the measurement/subjective divide is symptom of psychological reactive forces. One side doesn't trust humans in general sense, this obviously valid conclusion. And on our side, we have the self proclaimed 'Golden Ears', objectivists posing as subjectivists, irritating and extremely deluded with all their hubris. On the measurement side we have belief in machines, understandable response to human failability. measurements not subject to nearly endless vagaries of human variability. Perhaps some day AI will be preferred method for assembling an audio system, but not yet. I'll go back to robot model I brought up much earlier in thread. This portable measuring robot will be placed in each listening room, do full analysis of individual components, and full system analysis, will also know each individual listener preferences and/or sensory perception system. At this point I MAY trust measurment/machine over my own analysis/senses.

I do understand that a set of components, each with preferred set of measurements in allignment to accuracy would result in a whole that deviates less from this objective than those that deviate/color the whole. Following this, the system conforming with the objective requires less interpretation by the end user, being subject to human sensory failability. I get it.

So, prescribe to everyone components, or a set of components making up an entire system. I'm sure you guys could come up with a number of systems meeting your objective criteria to prescribe to us subjectivists. We then could have face offs between the objective systems and any number of subjectively chosen systems. What do you think the results would be? I presume great variability to the point  there would be no valid conclusions drawn other than humans are subjective. Individual/subjective human sensory perceptions would upset any conjecture humans would choose the objective system by any statistically compelling margin.

And so, imposing some objective measurement/accuracy criteria in evaluating hierarchy of audio components/systems is futile effort. People will continue to choose for themselves the sound qualities they prefer, you or I may not concur with their choices, but this is of no matter.

In speaking about First Watt amps just now in another thread, it comes to mind how Nelson Pass, a designer/engineer of some renown, has any number of these amps, with different colors we use to synergize with entire systems. I"m quite sure Nelson understands accuracy, linearity in regard to audio design, yet he allows and understands the human psyche and all their unique desires and preferences. He also understands that even at the level of individual parts, each has unique sound qualities, what some would dismissively define as color.

I for one am in love with color, I love all the colors we can perceive. I love we have choices of tubes, push pull, SET, all varieties of power and signal tubes, I love SS, class A, AB, D, I love all the various choices of parts, boutique parts included, I love all varieties of speakers, dacs, turntables, cartridges. I could go on and on, but I love the CHOICES we all have, color is a wonderful thing!  Black and white, zero sum games, prescribed heirarchies no fun, and more importantly, not the whole truth. Reductionist conclusions replaces critical thinking far too often these days.

Yes, individual human perceptions can be confounding, wrongheaded, infuriating, etc. In the end it is what it is, always seems pithy philosophical comment to my mind, but it is concise and true.

@atmasphere  If you read that post again, that was not a posit, rather a question? I can't make that posit without having heard the components I speak of. You posit they'll all sound the same,  apparently, you trust the measurements over human sensory perception. This in a nutshell, speaks to difference between O and S, I need to listen, O's don't.

As Charles previously stated, and I stated in previous post, we don't deny science and find it useful. We also don't deny the validity of our individual sensory perceptions for our OWN choices.

It has never been my intention to present my observations, listening experiences as some objectively verifiable truth. They are presented as an obvious subjectivist, my system and preferences there for all to see. And based on my observations the vast majority of posts here follow this pattern. I don't see much if any misrepresentation in posts that listener's experiences are shaped by their preferences.

I presume vast majority of visitors and contributors to this forum understand it's greatly dominated by subjectivists. ASR and some of diy forums, objectivists. I haven't dismissed ASR in any of my posts, and have in fact used them to some extent in purchasing decisions. And they do present their listening impressions on that forum, at least some there attach some validity to their sensory perceptions. I am in fact a hybrid of O and S for initial purchase decsions,  however, I do attach validity to my sense perceptions for long term ownership.

The difference is O knows what's best for me, S suggests.

At least some s also know why I and others like what they like. We're very aware of every issue o brings up, the difference between s and o is what we value. In the end whatever gets you off is fine with me.

Based on my observations of this controversy over many years I will attempt to elucidate the divide.

I cannot speak for all s, but at least a portion of us believe we can best achieve our goals for sound reproduction with audio systems by listening. We believe with experience and mindfulness, listening skills can be valid means to accurately convey to our minds and senses such that we can accurately choose components and systems that conform as close as possible to our aural memories of live non-amplified music. This being possible while at the same time understanding and acknowledging our sensory limitations and/or subjective qualities of them. We don't deny the validity of measurements, we simply believe current measurement protocol isn't capable of measuring what our ears and senses convey to us.

Again, I can't speak to all o, buy my understanding of their position is that as imperfect as present measurement protocol is, if that is even an admitted liability, it is still superior to the most skilled listener in ascertaining component and system sound quality. The senses are not and cannot be relied upon vs measurement.

If I have this right, I don't see the divide ending anytime soon. both sides are going to hang onto their beliefs. Some 0 may disagree with my use of the word belief attached to their argument, my retort to that is current measurement protocol doesn't explain everything, thus, some measure of belief applied to o argument.

I'll only make this one last argument to defend the s side. Again, I don't want to speak for all s, but I believe many, if not all of us live life to pleasure our senses. We enjoy good food to pleasure our palate, we love to gaze at esthetically  pleasing form to pleasure our sight, we love to hear music reproduced on audio systems that pleasure our hearing. In order to attain pleasure of the senses one needs to simply enjoy, not always second guessing or analyzing and/or doubting our senses. Yes, part of this is monkey brain, we have inherent needs for pleasure. While we are aware of the limitations of our sensory perceptions, we can trust in them enough to derive pleasure from them.

I derive great pleasure from my present audio system, I'm well aware of it's limitations, but it conforms close enough to live non-amplified instrument and vocal timbre, and also conforms in other parameters of sound quality enough to believe live performance is taking place in my audio room. And this doesn't take a lot of mind twisting and/or suspension of reality to achieve. I'm well acquainted with this aspect of stereo reproduction and perception, and I know the less work one has to do here pays off handsomely in pleasuring one's senses. Whether the pleasure  I currently experience from my unique audio system conforms to some other persons idea of what a system ought to be, frankly, doesn't bother me in the least.

I've promised myself this is the last time I enter o vs s. I can only hope it holds. I only know I've said everything I've have to say.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously in these forums, but the difference between S and O could be explained by means other than philosophical and psychological.

We've all heard of color blindness, medical term is monochromacy. Well there is also ageusia, or loss of taste, and there is hyposmia which is a reduced ability to smell. And so, perhaps the O really has reduced ability hear what we S's call color, perhaps there is real organic cause for their perspective. I haven't researched this, but I wonder if there is means to test for this.

@deludedaudiophile Your moniker fits you exactly, inability to accept this as possible reason certainly exhibits a certain disconnect from reality. Your STEM argument has so many flaws, also fits the moniker.