You say it cannot be measured or demonstrated to exist. From that, the clear inference to be drawn is that you are arguing it doesn’t exist. That inference is consistent with your line more recently on this thread that proper evidence is required before things can be taken seriously.
No, you are reading my position deliberately wrong.
One would have to do a survey of DBTs done on speakers by the known researchers over the years, extract a subset of those highly rated for low frequency performance and examine their objective performance. I would expect that a set of performance metrics would be evident that then can be hypothesized to be associated with a phenomena coloquially known as PRaT.
Someone smart may have already done that...decades ago
That’s an interesting perspective. If a team of audio engineers were state funded not-for-profit multi-political-party endorsed with for example an agenda of identifying the best sound in all aspects of the audio chain (instruments, mastering, storage and playback medium, audio components, topology, efficiency, value, acoustics, connections etc) to give us a menu of smart recommendations for different budgets and listening environments I would like to trust them. However, a commercial company picking the science to suit the products it is trying to sell for profit, hmm, I think we then become selective as to who we might trust.
The speaker is the usual suspect here.
Many universities have audio departments, you know. Besides, most of the relevant engineering principles are not specific to audio. You're right, of course, that someone who wants to sell you something should be met with some scepticism. However, most of the spokesmen for audio voodoo companies have no engineering credentials. They are the equivalent of (used) car salesmen. If a mechanical engineer working on engine design at, say, BMW tells me that some voodoo fuel additive doesn't increase the torque, or whatever, I'd be inclined to believe them. After all, they probably know a lot more about engines than I do, and they'd have nothing to gain by lying. Am I making sense? Why should audio matters be treated differently, any claim made by anyone assumed to be true, no matter how ridiculous?
Surely you have heard "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? If I stated that prat "cannot exist" I would have to prove a negative claim of existence. This is entirely different from stating that we do not have reason to believe prat exists. This in no way contradicts post #7 and #117.
This certainly is a classic, deservedly so:
We’ll, if you’re going to resort to sophistry to defend your argument, I’ll leave you to it.
I don't know.
