Ok, fair enough. I should have said:
"I contend that some technical measurements can be used to distort the truth, because they don't necessarily provide all the information required about the phenomenon being measured, and therefore can't act as definitive proof, in circumstances where they are being used to disprove the existence of that phenomenon".
Extrapolating that further, I would add... And therefore, any argument put forward using measurements in that way, is potentially fatally flawed.
How's that?
No offense taken.I accept that I was being presumptive about the your inclination on ICEpower, and meant no offence.
Indeed, and I've identified where I consider compromises have been made in active speakers.I didn't mean "sabotage" in a literal sense, perhaps "compromise" would have been abetter choice of word.
There are also obvious compromises in passive ones, so at the end of the day, we simply have to choose which ones we can most easily live with, as there is no universally, 'definitively best' solution to anything in audio, no matter how measurements are used by some to portray that assertion as fact.
Indeed, and given that's the case, it seems fatally flawed (there's that term again) to adopt a purely objective outlook to assessing audio, when it's alien to our 'natural DNA'...The last point is that we are not 'objective beings' in any absolute sense. We always have an internal psychological context which is our backdrop to the I/C information we receive, and optical illusions show us how our perceptions are also influenced by other I/C information.
Yes I agree, but they're only valid, in terms of how they've been applied, within the specific context of what's being measured. Therefore out with of that, should only be considered as providing a guideline as to what *may* be happening, or in terms of indicating the existence or otherwise of a specific phenomenon, not definitive proof of such.All technical measurements are valid, though their significance may be major, minor, and even questionable.
This is quite separate from our lack of a comprehensive knowledge, ie. limitation in understanding, of audio.
So yes, significance is a big part of it all, and the refusal of some people to accept that fact, and worse, use measurements simply to support the values of their scientific belief system, and preach to others how they are unquestionably correct, is where so much dangerous misinformation is born!
Marco.