I think what he means in this case is that if he hears it, but is unable to determine the cause (i.e. measure it) then he can't address the problem which must drive him as an engineer crazy. He may not actually solve it, but at least he'll be able to try.
Another poster uses the quote from Daniel Recklinghausen, Chief Engineer at Scott "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it Measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing."
By this he didn't mean that everything is subjective, but rather it cannot be solved unless it is measurable and repeatable.
I understand, and agree somewhat – but not completely. IME, many problems are solved without measurements – and without fully understanding why the remedy works. Some problems are solved via an “instinct” that someone has based on many years of experience. “Gut level.” “Seat of the pants”. Sometimes a systematic approach to “trial and error”. And sometimes just plain “throwing darts at the wall”.
In some cases, a theory is eventually developed as to why a “seat of the pants” solution is effective, and sometimes relevant measurements are eventually devised.
As I said earlier, hi-fi equipment is designed based on electrical engineering, and test equipment is essential in its development and testing. However, I reject any assertion that science understands everything about human perception of sound, and human enjoyment of music. Hypothetical question: Do you think that 100 years from now scientists will look back and say the following about reproduction of recorded music in the home: “In 2018 they had it all figured out”?
Let’s take amplifiers as an example. My opinion is that science is essential in developing a product that meets design goals for power output, meets target cost, has reasonably flat frequency response, reasonably low distortion levels, acceptable reliability, doesn’t pose a safety risk, etc. But at some point – if the designers want a best-in-class musically-engaging product – they have to sit down and listen to the amp – and quite possibly start making adjustments based on subjective listening. I.e., “If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing.” I think the fact that different amps sound different is
prima facie evidence that there are qualitative facets of audio quality that no one has figured out how to measure - yet.
As time goes by, science understands more and more. And my guess is that as time goes by - measurements will be used to get a product further through the development cycle - before a human must decide if it sounds good or not.
Bottom line, I think a lot of us are saying pretty much the same thing …
P.S. Last night I attended the symphony, where I heard Berlioz’s “Symphony Fantastique”. How many AK members claim that they have a recording and hi-fi system that can fully recreate the experience of a large-scale orchestra performing this work in a symphony hall? If you’re not familiar with this composition, at one point 4 people were simultaneously playing timpani, 6 people were playing double basses, and a percussionist was whacking the hell out of the bass drum – along with a large orchestra playing. (And there are works that have greater dynamic range – e.g., Mahler Symphony 2.) IME –bookshelf speakers wouldn’t get the job done. Because it’s almost impossible to recreate the concert hall experience of a large-scale work like “Symphony Fantastique” via a recording and home hi-fi equipment, subjectivity must be used by the consumer to choose the trade-offs that suit him or her.
P.P.S. I piqued my own curiosity, so last night after the concert I went down to my basement and played the last movement of “Symphony Fantastique” from this Blu-ray recording, using the 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio option:
In my basement system, the front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. Source: Oppo UDP-205. (The Oppo UDP-205 provides "bass management" - i.e., a built-in crossover, and a connection for a powered subwoofer. With Oppo's bass management, the low frequencies are off-loaded from the main amp and speakers, thereby facilitating greater overall dynamics.) These four tower speakers plus two subwoofers provide significant acoustical power in this average size listening room. (I sit approximately 10 feet from the speakers.) Collectively, they total four 1 ¾” titanium compression drivers mated to Tractrix horns, eight 10” woofers, one 15” powered subwoofer, and one 16” powered subwoofer. For this listening session, I drove the two front main speakers via my McIntosh MX110Z tuner/preamp and Scott LK150 (KT88), and the center and single rear speaker via my Scott 272 (EL34). (Unfortunately, one of my favorite amps in this system - my beloved Scott 296 (6L6GC) - is currently in the shop.)
Is this the best hi-fi system on the planet? I’m 100% certain it is NOT.
Is this hi-fi system capable of more dynamic range than any hi-fi system on the planet? I’m certain the answer is “no”. (I recognize the RF-7II are small compared with Klipschorn and Jubilee, but the RF-7II (plus subwoofers) are the largest speakers I can accommodate.)
Does this system reproduce the natural timbre of orchestral instruments better than any hi-fi system on the planet? I’m certain it doesn’t.
With that said, IMO
the right vacuum tubes mated with Klipsch RF-7II speakers deliver pretty convincing natural sound, and the system can deliver as much dynamics as I care for in my home. This hi-fi system delivers an enjoyable simulacrum of the experience I had earlier in the evening when listening to a live performance in the symphony hall (where the sound is 100% natural – i.e., no sound reinforcement system is used for the music).
This hi-fi system was tuned by ear, including amp selection, tube rolling (i.e., selecting the tubes that IMO produce the most natural sound with the RF-7II in this room), and tone controls. There is no AVR, no automatic room correction, and no plotting of graphs using PC software.
This hi-fi configuration involves significant doses of science (by engineers who designed the products), and a significant amount of tuning-by-ear on my part. In other words, a blend of objectivity and subjectivity.
Bottom line: one foot (or brain) in each camp.