I read through to the end. My take on his study is that he is more comfortable with measurements than with music, and that his hypothesis reflects that. His data mostly confirm his hypothesis. Surprise? Not really.
I am his contemporary… I’ve watched the industry and the hobby for as long. I’ve met many who would agree with him. His observation about euphonious distortion reminds me of the position that McIntosh Laboratories has taken, ie their excellent measured performance should trump the other brands in the marketplace, and the fact that they don’t must be due to flawed listeners.
I certainly agree with his observation that surgical marketing communication probably pays off at the bottom line.
Does the paper reveal anything useful? Or does it just draw attention to the fact that a hobby is not a contest with uniformly agreed on rules and goals.
FWIW, I do not regularly participate in social media, and I was not a respondent to any of his surveys. I’d rather listen to or perform live music, or relax with my own “audiophile” music reproduction system.
Following his listing of credentials, I have bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees in engineering. I was at one time a Member of the Acoustical Society of America, and an Associate Member of the National Academy of the Recording Arts and Sciences. I worked for Kodak (a pioneer in both film based and digital technology) back in the day.
I’ve consulted in acoustics for industry, and at one time (nearly 40 years ago) ran a retail hobby oriented audiophile business.
Everyone approaches this hobby from their own unique perspective, and buying choices reflect this. In my opinion, this will always be true. The undertone of this white paper strikes me as an argument that listeners who trust their own ears are irrational. I disagree.
