The first 15 minutes he uses to explain that the language the definitions we use as a listener is something completely different than spec.
I totally agree.
I agree fully with that too. He explains/remarks that different words and descriptions are used to describe sounds. He never said that these were not measurable. Just that the same words are not used by people that measure things. He also says these 'sound descriptors' also can not be related to one single spec or measurement.
He then goes on to explain how manufacturers abuse and simplify specs.
I again completely agree.
yes, I completely agree as well. That's why ASR provides a valuable service by checking those specs. The 'problem' here is (what Novick states) is that more different measurements should be done besides the usual ones.
He then proceeds to show about momentary power and the 120Hz modulation in a specific amp (not all amps do this) and says there is no
standard test that shows this. He is right. However, you must realize that it is clearly measured to exist (you saw the plot) so it is measurable and has lead to different measurement methods as he showed later. So no surprises there and is fully measurable but there is no single number manufacturers an publish to show this. It was fine for guitar amps but hifi is not a guitar amp he also mentions. So again your point is not made by Novack.
Then he shows how THD sounds and how much THD should be added before we react, that's not how we assess Hifi, if we hear something similar to what Jonathan demonstrates, we will immediately say that there is something wrong with The product.
You need to understand the differences between THD and all different types of distortion. He explains it clearly in the video and how different audibility thresholds exist for various types of distortion. It's a pure technical and highly proven fact of life. There are also no mysteries there and Novack knows this. That's why they continue to develop tests to 'show' certain aspects in a single number.
He does not mean it cannot be measured at all. Just that there is no
standard test that captures a specific something in a specific number.
But we are far from the goal in my opinion.
When the goal is to measure every (combined) effect in measurements and create a single number for it for in a spec sheet ... yes. Novack is 100% right.
He clearly states (and is true) that when you cannot find something you haven't measured the correct things. He NEVER states some things aren't measurable. What he means by that is that you just cannot tell how an amp really performs by looking at FR and 'THD' (or SINAD) measurements only or by looking at 'glossed over' specs from manufacturers.
You need to perform a suite of tests under various conditions. With those tests you can say something about actual fidelity.
But only if you fully understand all these tests, know about audibility thresholds (which you can put in plots) and what effect it has on the sound.
How many folks do you know that actually posses that knowledge ?
That's one of the functions of ASR... to explain this.
The problem is you need someone that knows about all of this and is a good communicator/teacher. That person must be able to 'simplify' something very complex and explain this. Written it will take several books. Amir's YT explanations just scratch the surface of what there is to know about those subjects.
Your claims thus hold no water in Novack's talk. They are an attempt to 'simplify' one single aspect (distortion in power amps) to a public that ranges from total noobs to more enlightened folks. It was a complaint against manufacturer specs and subjective descriptions that sometimes hold truth but are NOT immeasurable. They can be shown to exist there just is not a single number for it. AP tries to help here.
Your sighted observations do not add anything to this conclusion. When you want Novack to work for you I am quite certain he will ask you to prove your findings so he can determine which measurements can show this and how to capture that in a single spec. The problem is that for you to show this to an engineer he will demand this should be tested blind. As you already confessed you cannot show it that way you are looking at a stalemate.
