Hey they might not think that but that's my perception as to why you don't see many here.Worse fools are the many - rejecting this solid scientific research.
But that is exactly the problem - who ever said that it was "suddenly realising all that we thought we knew was wrong." It's the constant habit of approaching things in such black & white terms that bears witness to the underlying non-scientific approach displayed on this forum. I do often wonder if there is a genuine interest in scientific truth here or just an interest in a particular aspect?
What ASA should do is give some pause to those who are so sure of & argue that if it isn't shown in current measurements then it isn't audible. This has always been my position & it has been interpreted as being anti-measurement. I'm not anti-measurement, in fact I want real measurements that aren't a myopic use/interpretation of the same set of typical audio measurements. What I am anti is the mindset that insists these measurements define what we hear & what can be heard.
The issue as I see it with ASA is that it is still an emerging area of research - it isn't yet advanced enough in understanding to translate the learnings from it into new, more relevant measurements. But, to my mind that is no reason to think of it as bollocks. In that case all emerging scientific research is consigned to this same bollocks bin. On the other hand it is advanced enough for most people to realise that there is far more to auditory perception than the signal analysis that currently is the norm.
It's not my thinking else I would not waste my time reading through all this. It's my job to read your posts but it because of my intrest I click on the links.
How this subject relates to the practically of achieving high fidelity playback in the home might be another stumbling block for some.
Ultimately that's what we are about rather than science per say.