The ‘we can’t measure what we hear’ myth stems from inadequate measurements

Evidence

The problem is inadequate measurements, not the supremacy of the human hearing system. … So, why then do we continue with the traditional, uninformative specifications? Familiarity is one argument, often accompanied by statements to the effect that consumers cannot be expected to understand the meaning of graphs. In fact, if they were simply told that flattish and smooth are good indicators of sound quality and that similarity among a family of curves is advantageous, they would be well on their way to being expert diagnosticians. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 1380 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Early speaker tests were so flawed any measurement correlated with perception; The hearing system is not outmeasurable; inadequate measurements explain apparent gaps — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 1380; Headphone test-fixture measurements often fail to predict what individual listeners hear (+9 more)

Related

• The hearing system is not outmeasurable; inadequate measurements explain apparent gaps (similarity 0.95)
• Early speaker tests were so flawed any measurement correlated with perception (similarity 0.94)
• Earphone frequency response must be measured on real ears, not couplers (similarity 0.86)
• Impulse response measurements can misrepresent what listeners actually hear (similarity 0.86)
• Ear-level microphone measurements capture artifacts inaudible to human listeners (similarity 0.85)
• Audibility gaps in loudspeakers stem from inadequate measurements, not limitations of measurement itself. (similarity 0.85)
• Headphone test-fixture measurements often fail to predict what individual listeners hear (similarity 0.85)
• Measured interference at ear level often needs no correction (similarity 0.85)
• Sighted loudspeaker evaluations are demonstrably unreliable (similarity 0.84)
• Conventional distortion metrics cannot predict human response to music or movies (similarity 0.84)
• Subjective experience dictates which measurements matter in audio research (similarity 0.84)
• Roughly 75 percent of people have sufficiently normal hearing to make reliable loudspeaker judgments (similarity 0.83)
• Sound reproduction’s endpoint is the human listener, not fidelity per se (similarity 0.82)
• Hearing-impaired listeners give inconsistent sound-quality ratings unlike normal-hearing subjects (similarity 0.82)
• Sound reproduction quality depends on both physical acoustics and human perception (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• The hearing system is not outmeasurable; inadequate measurements explain apparent gaps #corroborates (0.95) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 1380
• Headphone test-fixture measurements often fail to predict what individual listeners hear #expands (0.85)
• Sighted loudspeaker evaluations are demonstrably unreliable #complicates (0.80)
• Impulse response measurements can misrepresent what listeners actually hear #expands (0.78)
• Ear-level microphone measurements capture artifacts inaudible to human listeners #expands (0.75) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 1355
• Measured interference at ear level often needs no correction #expands (0.73) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 1345
• Sound measurement has shifted from flat physical scales toward human-perception-weighted scales #expands (0.72) — Schafer, Murray R, The Soundscape- Our Sonic Environment…, 440
• Hearing-impaired professionals give confident but unreliable sound quality judgments. #complicates (0.72)
• Ear-drum reference point measurements are clinically risky and unreliable at high frequencies #expands (0.70)