Here is the first example of something that is not measurable, but audible. The following is an excerpt from the user manual of the Marantz SA11-S2 SACD player:
The text highlighted in blue demonstrates that something is audible but not measurable. In logic that is said to be Not Q implies P, and is written as such:
¬Q → P
When it cannot be shown that ¬Q → ¬P for all cases, then P → Q is not always true. Case closed and another audiophile myth busted!
We can pick the statement apart even further. What is the definition of audible and measurable anyway? There are no specifics, or context given. The two criteria are so open ended and poorly defined the statements are effectively meaningless.
A very common follow up retort is - “If something is audible and not measurable, then you are measuring the wrong thing". First of all, that is moving the goal post - they have re-defined what measurements are without actually knowing what it is.
Then it gets worse. Again if we apply the principle of transposition logic, we let:
P’ be “If something is audible and not measurable"; and
Q’ be “then you are measuring the wrong thing".
When we apply that to the RHS, ¬Q’ → ¬P’ in English becomes:
If “you are measuring the right thing" → “Something is not audible and measurable”
Honestly I cannot make this shit up no matter how hard I try. Personally I do not mind them moving the goal posts, but seriously? The retort to an illogical claim is to a more illogical claim? Are they trolling?
The above quote is actually important and is the key to how I listen, and how Snakeoil is developed. Stay tuned to the final chapter of this article!
About The Author
