I’ve not asked anyone to believe anything. I never proclaimed to be an expert in audio science. It’s being inferred by those who chose to do so. I don’t need or seek validation as to whether I’m special (or not). I cannot be personally measured by you or anyone here nor do I seek to measure your personal character. It appears to be the other way around. I didn’t realize this wasn’t a place for a balanced discussion...but rather a closed door that’s anchored in audio science (like minded members only). That is...if you indicate measurements (though informative) aren’t the sole factor around the (albeit) subjective perception of sound quality...a balance between the two ideals (being given equal measure)...all hell breaks loose...in the form of verbal assault, mischaracterizations, & conclusions being inferred around what was stated. I simply stated...for those who may have a remote interest in the BP DAC...to give consideration...not only to the measurements...but also to how the unit may actually perform & sound in their own living space in the chain of their own equipment (given the measurements). I don’t know why that’s counterproductive to what I would think would be a fair pause & open discussion around measurements & sound quality (on any device). I happen to think there’s a bridge/link between the (2)...for those willing to give equal consideration to both measurements & how a device actually sounds in their own living space in their chain of equipment...through listening...even if it’s thought to be anecdotal.
As you wish...I bid you farewell...
As you wish...I bid you farewell...
When you say "something "good or bad" is subjective". This is totally uninformative. You first need to spell out precisely what good and bad mean here contextually in some fashion (I and perhaps others would be more than willing to hash it out with you so we can come to an understanding on how you hold such words definitionally). If you refuse such first step, you only are perceived as either lazy, or bad-faith actor.
After we define those terms, we then move on to subjective/objective. And then come to an agreement on whether good or bad things mutually are exclusive in one realm or another (of subjectivity, or objectivity). Again this can get hairy, but as long as it's contextually based, it need not be pedantic as it sounds currently. After that is established, we'd like to know the thresholds for where something like measurements fall into your calculus in terms of their value in determining good/bad "things" in relation to objective and subjective spheres.
Unlike some others (you have to understand you can catch people in a bad mood, or somewhat of the sort), I take it the effort you made to even come here is good enough for me to hold to the assumption you're not trolling or anything of the sort. Me being relatively new to the hobby, I have been less jaded as some of the folks have here. You have to understand when someone says "this is a place that values scientific inquiry and doesn't like to waste too much time about people speaking about science as if they've got a firmer grasp of the system and it's usefulness". That is a far cry from people wanting to see you leave if indeed there was something you were curious about, or wanted to contend. But what folks won't stand for, is if the terms of the discussion are known (meaning if someone says, "our discussion will be based upon evidence of what you can prove" you going out and positing empty assertions is seen as an affront to sensibilities and dignity, thus grounds for discontinuation of discourse as it's simply a violation of agreed upon terms).
There is one instance your approach makes sense, and that is in the exploratory phases of experiencing, before science has revealed. For example, if we're talking about power metrics. There's no need to lick your finger and electrocute yourself to have an idea of how much power your headphones would be receiving. In the real world we can use what we understand about SPL, voltages, current, resistance etc... and extrapolate a numerical representation. And then the person goes out, and listens to what 50dB sounds like, what 70dB sounds like or what 100dB sounds like. And then you have an abstract understanding of the precise mathematical/measurement understanding of what has been discovered without once again needing to listen to the device yourself after electrocuting yourself like some madman prior.
With enough experience, and enough experimentation, exceptions begin to accrue as well and become a part of the calculus, until the frequency of exceptions usually manifest themselves sparsely enough, they become mostly due to preparation errors or human faults of that sort. The phase in experimentation between when new phenomena, or exceptions are discovered and need accounting for, is the only time your sort of mentality holds sway (the mentality of "just try it, you never know, you might find it to be the best sound ever", I exaggerate). But slowly those exceptions become rare as I said, and the only reason of "having to try it" at all become ritualistic preference and inquisitive nature of perhaps discovery of tangential aspects (like the build quality of the device or something not covered in the scientific review or presentation of performance).
So it's twofold on why people don't want to stick to this methodology that you advise for.
1. Primarily, because they're already at a phase where surprises are as rare as mythical creatures.
2. Because it's simply inefficient. And with the pace of how people live today, going out and trying every single device under the Sun is borderline lunacy, and assuredly an annoyance (unless of course you're into that whole ritualistic practice and the choreography of setting up a new test device, in the same way people enjoy vinyl for example.. sure as shit ain't convenience anymore that much I'd wager anything).
In closing, I hope you see there are folks here willing to talk. But like any other person you meet, some (and at times many) don't want to talk nebulously with no pre-defined borders. If you're willing to define a border or definitional meanings of a few things just so I have clarity and I understand you better. I am more than willing to present the best foot forward I can.
EDIT: Minor proof reading (I don't do this enough)