What are we objectivists missing?

This question takes me back to the days of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Trying to define quality as either subjective or objective. But the answer doesn't completely reside in either, but really both.

Albert Einstein said: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

nice!  ya einstein was one smart mofo  😂

Great book.

This question takes me back to the days of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Trying to define quality as either subjective or objective. But the answer doesn't completely reside in either, but really both.

If the object is to be subjective, the only way to ad objectivity is to put numbers to your opinion.  "on a scale of 1 to 5..."

The current measurements were designed to measure instrument operational stability in an artificial normalized environment with artificial normalized signals.

So, the operation of the amplifier is measured in a Platonic setting (ideal dead resistor VS reactive live loudspeaker), and a single sine or square wave (eg THD) or a combination of two waves (eg, IMD), with the same signal cycling precisely over and over, at the same amplitude. This is also Platonic, as real music has very little prefecty repetitive elements, and most of the signal contains simultaneous extremes at both frequency and amplitude.

So, we are measuring a irrelevant signal (perfectly cyclic) with irrelevant load (inert resistor), so no wonder the results do not correlate with sound quality. They cannot - just as measuring a heart beat and bicep circumference will not indicate what a gymnast is capable on the floor!! They will not even indicate whether the subject is a gymnast or just a non-gymnast in good shape who can;t even do a flip....

They correlate extremely well though with whether the amplifier is operating as intended, or it’s time for repairs....

Interesting!

Thanks...

Food for thought....