Did the initial assertion contain the "potentially" qualifier? Not checked, but I thought the snag was that it didn't.
Well, snags do make this world go around.
Before answering, let me ask, is it the contention of numbers of measurists that cables are categorically inudible?
Then in the interest of their
science, which appears to get it wrong when it,
expects evidence before identifying phenomena;
expects data where it claims there can be no phenomena;
thus effectively prohibits phenomena;
fails to establish physical thresholds for its claims of audibility but issues categorical rulings anyway;
denies phenomena outright, even if tacitly;
rejects quite reasonable reports of audibility;
per those reports, asserts the overly-complicated charge of, in effect, mental disorder or delusion;
does not establish either evidence or threshold there too, illustrating a principle of verification variability;
thus makes categorical demands of reality;
et al
-the counter-argument doesn't need a qualifier, it just has to be seen in context. I hear change in many, many things, including represented by after-the-fact corroboration and against my own biases, and thus, the opinion is as acceptable as the original measurist claim(s). As I've also said, I don't hear things where they certainly might or probably exist and there's a universe of stuff I'll never hear. Same result regarding the argument.
Similarly, some may want a hifi that *alters* the source material to be more pleasing than a plain approach. And then fiddle to change this from item to item.
[etc, etc]
A separate issue but true, however it raises the notion of correct sound. We know there is no such thing. All systems present flawed sound and therefore all alterations to them will err on the tuning side of their final output, whether measured or heard. You include a noteworthy point here because it can and has become another part of the measurist fallacy when it goes on to, according to the list above, apply only against things
deemed up to snuff or not. Transistors, tubes, digital, analog etc. It's the final effect that matters and that effect is not perfect live sound nor can it be.
Listening to kit *or* measuring it in other situations then becomes problematic as you need more non-kit info to decide what might be judged 'perfect' by the user. This is one reason I regard most 'subjective' reviews as a waste of space. But having my own experience I find some measured info - e.g. noise level or FR - can be useful as a way to help me decide oif an item might suit me.
Somehow "perfect" cropped up following the first comment, but perfection is not part of so-called subjectivist sound, which is, sound not predicated on variable interpretations of strict data. This view is a given.
The original question is simply: Given sufficient musical resolution in a system, can we observe that a commensurate resolving power exists whereby we can hear all sorts of relative effects as things in it come and go. The answer is obviously yes, and the argument then, adhering to a reasonable reading of the definition of science, is just that we should allow such effects rather than making one or more traditional measurist mistakes denying them.
