I'm a little surprised by the extreme divergence of views thinking, perhaps naively, that circa 2012 we had achieved a level of enlightenment that went beyond 'measurements are the final arbiter of sound' or that all 'tweaks' or component matching on a system-wide basis are simply imaginary.
So, a few questions and observations.
1. If measurements are the final arbiter, for say, an amplifier, what measurements are we talking about?
2. Pick 3 or 5 amplifiers that all have comparable measurements- do they sound the same? If not, why not? And why is the difference not revealed by the relevant measurements? Or, is it the 'objective' view that these amplfiers really do sound the same, and that any perceived differences can be eliminated in double blind testing?
3. What does synergy with related components, including wire, have to do with any difference in sound between the amplfiers in point 2, above?
4. I have heard differences in my system as a result of changes in power cords on the amplifiers, or changes in the interconnect or speaker cable, or how a power supply is coupled or decoupled from its mounting platform. Are these simply imaginary on my part? If not, are these differences measurable?
5.How can the overall result, using measurements, be predicted on a system-wide basis? Is it simply a matter of testing for frequency response and the like, of the system as a whole?
I guess I'm advocating the intelligent use of measurements and gathering as much useful information as possible but I still see a role for subjective judgment in sound quality, at least at the level of component matching to assemble a system, which is something, I gather, that meaurement of individual components cannot determine.
Admittedly, such component matching may be reduced to trying to find compatable colorations that, overall, produce a desirable result. But if we accept that every component has some sonic character, they are all colored or inaccurate to a greater or lesser degree. (Or those differences are simpy imaginary and are not revealed by appropriate measurements).
Finally, 'accurate' to what? The original performance or recording, which is impossible as a benchmark? To the chosen set of measurements? Isn't that circular, i.e, a particular measurement is given credence, and then the component is judged based on how closely it hews to that select measurement?
I am not suggesting that we just operate on a 'feel goods- sounds good' basis. I want data, to the extent science or engineering can explain it, on why one component sounds better than another. (Yes, i know 'better' is entirely subjective but I'd like to hear a cymbal that sounds like a cymbal does in real life, or a cello, or a human voice- it is something that can fool me into believing that the sound being re-created in my room is 'alive,' rather than reproduced- not something, admittedly, that happens consistently or very often). But, my sense, reading the hard line objectivist position* is that the ultimate sound quality produced by a component may be subordinate to measured performance, i.e., if it measures well, that's the end of the inquiry. And that's where I have difficulty- the fact that we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can't be heard. I would think that the true value of measurements is to serve a predictive function, and not simply to serve as ends to themselves.
*Disclaimer: I am not attributing the 'hardline' objectivist view to any one person or posting here, nor am I trying to set up straw arguments or distort the position any one person may have taken. Instead, I have tried to summarize what I gathered were the basic positions being taken here for the purpose of better understanding those views. And if I have it wrong, my apologies in advance.
IMO it is like asking which drink tastes sweeter.
