1. If something is audible, then it is measurable
2. If something is measurable, then it is audible

Of the two statements, the first is the most common. The second is rarely used but it does come up once in a while. Taking both in context, we note that item 1 has reached Internet consensus acceptance and item 2 is debatable. In general terms, the established train of of the Internet collective are roughly split into two camps.

The first camp is what most (if not all) hobbyists begin with. This group quite rightly understand that measurements capture a portion of what is audible, but it’s not the complete picture. Pictorially this belief system can be represented by the following Venn diagram, showing a overlap of what is measurable versus what is audible:

Unfortunately over time with more experience in this hobby, a small percentage will diverge and start to merge the two circles closer and closer until eventually their belief system will end up like so:

This second group is now convinced measurements is all encompassing and what a human can hear can be captured by measurement systems. After all, the widely accepted human hearing threshold starts at around 20 Hz to around 20 kHz while measurements can measure in terms of MHz. Stands to reason machines are superior. 

With this second group their belief is so strong they have turned militant. If you claim there is a difference in some of the more fringe tweaks in Hifi, this is the group that will always jump in first to insist you back your claim with measurements. 

This claim is catchy and has a slogan vibe to it. Reasons why it can stick long enough in some people’s minds. At the end of the day though the claim is groundless - the notion that something is audible implies it’s measurable (and/or vice versa) is flawed and illogical! We can use transposition logic to demonstrate why.

Pages: 1· 2· 3· 4· 5· 6· 7· 8· 9