What do you believe regarding the sound of passive components?

[Reeltarded]

Tone bots loaded the result.

[cdemike]

It'd be interesting to get into the science explaining why we think there may or may not be differences. It seems like it'll be an exercise in futility debating whether or not the difference is audible on an empirical level without some pretty rigorous scientific testing. FWIW, I do think there are some pretty solid efforts at doing some form of blinded testing, though I have yet to come across anything double-blinded. This is a pretty good test, in my opinion: clear variable testing, single-blinded, and using a looper to isolate individual takes from confounding the results:
https://youtu.be/CeydcxIvLw0?si=JuaFVwCyjxzMADjK&t=449
They posted the results here: https://www.dansmusiconline.com/caps
The test does involve couplers at different positions, too, which was interesting.

While the differences to the listener are likely minimally detectable assuming a comparison of capacitors of reasonable quality, I do think there are differences that are noticeable to a critical mass of players. To be sure, a lot of cases are most likely driven more by placebo effect than actually-discernable differences in sound. Nevertheless, passive components' deviation from ideal "textbook" behavior does mean that there likely will be electrical differences that may sum to be audible and/or tangible to players. The most common argument I've seen against passive components impacting the sound is that components are are rated to a specific value and that when comparing parts of different construction but equivalent values then the circuit will behave identically (e.g. a 22nF capacitor will sound like a 22nF capacitor irrespective of its component makeup, method of construction, etc.). While true in a strictly analytical framework, real components do not behave ideally and with effects stemming beyond than their "intended" role; capacitors are not strictly capacitive, but have equivalent series resistance, resistors may exhibit some level of inductance, etc. The question to me is consequently not whether a passive component's material makeup and method of construction impacts its behavior in a circuit, since it should be obvious that there will be differences when comparing across those two variables. Rather, I think the key question is whether those variables which contribute to passive components' non-ideal behavior contribute meaningfully to a circuit's behavior. It is uncontroversial, for example, that lead dress makes very important in reducing noise floor, avoiding oscillation, and (perhaps more controversially) how an amp sounds overall. That is an extreme case, and I'm not insinuating the effect of passive components' material makeup or construction will have anywhere near the same level of impact as lead dress, but it is very clear that deviations in real circuits from ideal schematic behavior make very clear differences both in sound and overall function of an amp.

Given that the differences come down to what functionally can be compared to addition of "shadow components" (e.g. series resistors adding impedance to capacitors, inductors in series with wirewound type resistors, etc.), the magnitude of difference between passive components will be context-dependent. I doubt any manufacturer is doing frequency sweeps of capacitors to determine their capacitors' frequency-dependent impedance vis-a-vis ESR, or other serious testing that would be able to definitively answer whether a given capacitor will sound different than another type in a given circuit, though. The context-dependent effect may explain some degree of whether or not players can hear or feel a difference in passive components, though -- it seems like many of us who have tested passive components also tend to gravitate toward specific amp styles, have certain preferences in terms of how boards get laid out (ruling in or out radial caps like orange drops vs axials), or any number of things which may have prevented a holistic test of whether or not X or Y capacitor sounds better in amp A, even if it did or did not make a difference if amp B.

As an aside, I got excited and marked "I participated" in addition to marking my responses above it, which may have skewed results (sorry, Martin!). I would change my answer to try to protect the integrity of the poll, but I'm not seeing a way to do it -- if there is a way, I'll happily change answer.

[martin manning]

Thanks for the response and thoughts.

I doubt any manufacturer is doing frequency sweeps of capacitors to determine their capacitors' frequency-dependent impedance vis-a-vis ESR, or other serious testing that would be able to definitively answer whether a given capacitor will sound different than another type in a given circuit, though.

Manufacturers do this, and you can find discussion on it in their application notes. They are generally not interested in audio, though. Switch mode power supplies and RF applications are where non-ideal behavior of capacitors really maters.

As an aside, I got excited and marked "I participated" in addition to marking my responses above it, which may have skewed results (sorry, Martin!). I would change my answer to try to protect the integrity of the poll, but I'm not seeing a way to do it -- if there is a way, I'll happily change answer.

No need, that is exactly the way I hope everyone did it, i.e. check the participation box, regardless of any other boxes being checked. That captures the number of participants.

[R.G.]

The big disconnect here is that people claim that they hear changes for which there is no good technical explanation.

The technical aspects of components - their basic nature (e.g. resistance, capacitance, inductance), their parasitics (stray inductance, capacitance, leakage, ESR, dielectric absorption) have been literally studied to death by smart people who have millions of dollars worth of sophisticated equipment available to them to detect tiny, tiny differences. The tiny, tiny differences do matter very much in RF, high speed logic, and switching power systems, so its not like no one cares about the differences and just isn't looking for them. The linearity/distortion aspect of components has been studied in great detail as well; and no resistor or capacitor is anywhere as non-linear as the best tube or transistor.

So smart, capable, well-equipped and well-funded people with lots of technical chops can't find technical aspects to measure that would reasonably cause the claimed effects.
And yet some smart, capable, experienced amp builders (and users) will swear they hear blatant audio differences based on things like component brand, component age (these here vintage resistors are tone-gold!) and so on. Some people will insist that an amp sounds different based on which direction a single resistor is installed. I've watched a tech uninstall and reinstall single resistors in an amp for a user, who would listen, then choose which direction the resistor sounded better in. I bit my tongue during this session.

So there is a disconnect. Is the difference claimed real, or only in the minds of the people doing the perceiving?

I'm always willing to concede that a person's perception >>> is -<<< reality to them. Magic, in all its reputed forms is very real - but its effects only exist inside the perceiver's head, and the heads of anyone who takes the magician's words for the truth. This does happen sometimes, I think.

So I fall back on measurement. If a cold, dead instrument, designed for the purpose, can sense differences, I feel pretty sure that the differences are not ONLY in my head. I'm sure that there are things that can't (yet) be measured, but at least there is some possibility that if we can identify that something is not just random bias or people making a pattern out of random stuff that we could design instruments to measure it reliably. We don't forever have to wait on the local shaman to interpret the entrails of the poor chicken.

[bepone]

why not only using soldering iron? it is very difficult?

[WhopperPlate]

The big disconnect here is that people claim that they hear changes for which there is no good technical explanation.

The technical aspects of components - their basic nature (e.g. resistance, capacitance, inductance), their parasitics (stray inductance, capacitance, leakage, ESR, dielectric absorption) have been literally studied to death by smart people who have millions of dollars worth of sophisticated equipment available to them to detect tiny, tiny differences. The tiny, tiny differences do matter very much in RF, high speed logic, and switching power systems, so its not like no one cares about the differences and just isn't looking for them. The linearity/distortion aspect of components has been studied in great detail as well; and no resistor or capacitor is anywhere as non-linear as the best tube or transistor.

So smart, capable, well-equipped and well-funded people with lots of technical chops can't find technical aspects to measure that would reasonably cause the claimed effects.
And yet some smart, capable, experienced amp builders (and users) will swear they hear blatant audio differences based on things like component brand, component age (these here vintage resistors are tone-gold!) and so on. Some people will insist that an amp sounds different based on which direction a single resistor is installed. I've watched a tech uninstall and reinstall single resistors in an amp for a user, who would listen, then choose which direction the resistor sounded better in. I bit my tongue during this session.

So there is a disconnect. Is the difference claimed real, or only in the minds of the people doing the perceiving?

I'm always willing to concede that a person's perception >>> is -<<< reality to them. Magic, in all its reputed forms is very real - but its effects only exist inside the perceiver's head, and the heads of anyone who takes the magician's words for the truth. This does happen sometimes, I think.

So I fall back on measurement. If a cold, dead instrument, designed for the purpose, can sense differences, I feel pretty sure that the differences are not ONLY in my head. I'm sure that there are things that can't (yet) be measured, but at least there is some possibility that if we can identify that something is not just random bias or people making a pattern out of random stuff that we could design instruments to measure it reliably. We don't forever have to wait on the local shaman to interpret the entrails of the poor chicken.

If there is one thing I do believe is that the horse is dead by now friend . We get it , anecdotal evidence is equivalent to a toddler playing pretend.

What I don’t really understand is : why the emphasis that everyone’s different experiences can’t possibly be measured or quantified? Who is making that claim ?

correct me if I am wrong but I haven’t read anyone define anything as magical or unexplainable , except yourself humorlessly of course .

I all I can say is I trust everyone’s claims and what they hear , especially the more experienced builders , and I trust those who claim they can’t hear . I believe them both , because not everyone is going to hear the same, and those who can’t hear or won’t bother to try will inevitably cast their doubt , reasonable or not.

I will leave it at that, anymore and I will also be kicking a dead horse .

[R.G.]

why not only using soldering iron? it is very difficult?

I've been using a soldering iron since about 1966. I've been building my own audio equipment since then. My first self-built guitar amp was 1967. Never really stopped. That's not the issue. It's not as simple as "solder in some different components and you'll hear it too." I've tried many, many supposedly magic components, and unless they measured different (for example, tolerances on caps are a big differentiator) they don't sound different to me. Nor to anyone who I've asked who didn't know what magic part I was asking them to evaluate. After they found out what was in there, they suddenly heard differences. They still heard differences after I secretly put the original non-magic parts back in.

You seem to think I just won't try part swapping. I have done so until I wore out soldering irons. What I said stands - there is a disconnect between what people say they hear and what can be measured.

And from Whopperplate:

What I don’t really understand is : why the emphasis that everyone’s different experiences can’t possibly be measured or quantified? Who is making that claim ?

By the way, I do appreciate your talent for misattribution. Have you ever held elected office?

Let me say it again: listening experience can be tested, and there is a long history of such tests. I posted a link to some of them. No one, least of all me, is saying it can't be measured or quantified; quite the opposite, I was wanting to see if tone changes with part types could stand up to some rigorous and repeatable testing. I did in fact note some of the history of listening testing and how it's done, and some of the historical results, as well as a link to just a few of them. So yeah - I think they can be measured and the measurements might turn out to be zero. Or not. But the idea of sitting down, soldering a few different parts and then interviewing your own work has been proven by the folks that study human perception to be an unreliable way to evaluate listening differences. That is - the testing methods to measure experiences have been evaluated too. Some are more reliable than others.

correct me if I am wrong but I haven’t read anyone define anything as magical or unexplainable , except yourself humorlessly of course .

OK. Let's try a test case. In a recent thread, you posted:
"Koa are really percussive ime , top end pings nicely and easy to play , but they don’t have anywhere near the midrange of a piher or an iskra"
What exactly did you mean when you said that Koa are really percussive?
How exactly would you define "percussive" in that context?
What exactly did you mean when you said that they don't have anywhere near the midrange of a piher or iskra?
I don't recall you replying when I asked whether you have to use all resistors of one brand to make the amp sound that way, whether one of a given brand was enough, or whether there were certain resistors that are more critical of resistor brand/material/age/provenance/etc.
If I were to take a set of Koa, piher, iskra, YAGEO, Vishay and so on of matched materials and resistance and measure their frequency response and time domain response, how would the brands differ? Would the piher and iskra have a midrange hump in response? or a lower resistance in the human audio midrange? Or what?
Or would they differ in the range of frequencies humans can hear in any way that an instrument can measure? That is - are the differences in how they sound explainable independent of subjective listening?

I all I can say is I trust everyone’s claims and what they hear , especially the more experienced builders , and I trust those who claim they can’t hear . I believe them both , because not everyone is going to hear the same,

As I've said before: I completely believe that you hear what you say you hear, and I believe that everyone hears what they say they hear. And I have seen that what someone hears may or may not be useful as the basis for saying that the phenomena they heard can be repeated.

and those who can’t hear or won’t bother to try will inevitably cast their doubt , reasonable or not.

And historically, those who could get away with it would consciously or unconsciously lead others into their own personal perceptions. Well, probably no one here would do that.

[WhopperPlate]

I don't recall you replying when I asked whether you have to use all resistors of one brand to make the amp sound that way, whether one of a given brand was enough, or whether there were certain resistors that are more critical of resistor brand/material/age/provenance/etc.

That’s truly shocking , because if I answered you again that would be three times where I gave you the same testimony …I literally quoted myself on page 2 from the first time you asked me that question…I kinda feel like I am talking to a wall ….

If I were to take a set of Koa, piher, iskra, YAGEO, Vishay and so on of matched materials and resistance and measure their frequency response and time domain response, how would the brands differ? Would the piher and iskra have a midrange hump in response? or a lower resistance in the human audio midrange? Or what?
Or would they differ in the range of frequencies humans can hear in any way that an instrument can measure? That is - are the differences in how they sound explainable independent of subjective listening?

Allow me to quote myself again (from page 2 quoting myself ):

One way or another I am sure , I don’t have those resources to quantify every dynamic , but tell you what when you set up the double blind listening tests ( better to be blind playing , hearing the guitar under fingers is important ) you can use me as the Guinea pig and try to make a fool of me and my claims .

And historically, those who could get away with it would consciously or unconsciously lead others into their own personal perceptions. Well, probably no one here would do that.

Allow me to quote myself yet again (page 2) :

It’s ironic with all of this talk about belief , because I wouldn’t want anyone to simply believe my observations , I would want them to try it themselves if they were truly passionate and obsessive about building guitar amps . Why wouldn’t you if you love to do something? I digress , I am just offering my testimony over my lifetime of professional and amatuer experiences. Cross examine against your own , don’t take them as gospel , not that anyone would

[bepone]

I've been using a soldering iron since about 1966. I've been building my own audio equipment since then. My first self-built guitar amp was 1967. Never really stopped. That's not the issue. It's not as simple as "solder in some different components and you'll hear it too." I've tried many, many supposedly magic components, and unless they measured different (for example, tolerances on caps are a big differentiator) they don't sound different to me. Nor to anyone who I've asked who didn't know what magic part I was asking them to evaluate. After they found out what was in there, they suddenly heard differences. They still heard differences after I secretly put the original non-magic parts back in.

You seem to think I just won't try part swapping. I have done so until I wore out soldering irons. What I said stands - there is a disconnect between what people say they hear and what can be measured.

interesting that you dont hear metal film vs carbon film differences in the sound, also polyester vs various polypropilene caps.. with so much experience. difference is huge. not on all positions the same..

[WhopperPlate]

Percussive- articulate , strong pick attack , upper midrange characteristic. As bepone said , strong chicken picking

Iskras have a very unique and thuddy midrange , and round bass. I would still call them percussive. An amp with 100% iskras will have a clear articulate midrange with rich harmonics .a 100% koa 1/2watt carbon film in comparison will feel thin and scooped and a bit ice pick on the high end . You could always find a personal balance with experimentation , but you gotta be able to hear it to care . If it all sounds the same that makes life easier at least .

[R.G.]

interesting that you dont hear metal film vs carbon film differences in the sound, also polyester vs various polypropilene caps.. with so much experience. difference is huge. not on all positions the same..

And as I have said, interesting that you > do < hear them, especially for film resistors. This is a nearly perfect illustration of my point.

I have no question that you do hear blatant differences, yet the electronics industry has worked furiously to make resistors NOT have frequency dependency for over a century.

Both metal film and carbon film resistor types have been characterized to a very, very high degree by the electronics industry. Any resistor maker that made resistors that made resistors that (1) reliably and (2) to a degree that is measurable had impedance variations in the audio range would soon be out of business. Electronic resistor buyers in industry would just go elsewhere for their resistors. The guitar amp, or indeed whole audio markets is not big enough to support a resistor manufacturer.

There is a > repeatably measurable < set of imperfections in both film resistors; parasitic distributed capacitance and inductance from the spiral path of the conductor on the body and from any lead length left on the resistor. RF industry guys measured these to a very high degree long ago. They're predictable, and measurable.

Again, I have no question that you do, in fact, perceive huge differences. My question is > why < do you perceive this difference in spite of the great amount of technical work that's been expended to make it not be there in the resistors themselves?

Capacitors are another issue. Caps are easy to mislead yourself with. Capacitors are getting better in the last two decades, with affordable 10% and even 5% film caps on the market. But it's very, very easy to listen to two "100nF" caps where a polyester cap is 10% high and a polypro is 10% low and conclude that the film dielectric makes for different tone. They both say 100nF right there on the cap, after all. Have you tried your listening test with different dielectrics but with matched capacitance values and someone else swapping capacitors so you can't see which you're listening to?

[WhopperPlate]

Have you tried your listening test with different dielectrics but with matched capacitance values and someone else swapping capacitors so you can't see which you're listening to?

Oh dang , all my years of hard work down the drain because we all forgot and never measured capacitance …. Jk lol

Skepticism , like everything, is best used in healthy reasonable moderation . I think it’s safe to say bepone has considered more than a few aspects….

[WhopperPlate]

interesting that you dont hear metal film vs carbon film differences in the sound, also polyester vs various polypropilene caps.. with so much experience. difference is huge. not on all positions the same..

And as I have said, interesting that you > do < hear them, especially for film resistors. This is a nearly perfect illustration of my point.

I have no question that you do hear blatant differences, yet the electronics industry has worked furiously to make resistors NOT have frequency dependency for over a century.

However , it seems that you doubt that our perceptions are rooted in anything but placebo and self deception . Correct me if I am wrong .

[R.G.]

Percussive- articulate , strong pick attack , upper midrange characteristic. As bepone said , strong chicken picking

OK. So:
"Percussive" = "articulate" + "strong pick attack" + "upper midrange characteristic"
Can you assign anything (1) repeatably (2) measurable to "articulate", "strong pick attack", and "upper midrange characteristic"? Are those possible to measure?
Remember that you posted
"What I don’t really understand is : why the emphasis that everyone’s different experiences can’t possibly be measured or quantified? Who is making that claim ? "
I wasn't saying that things can't be measured or quantified. I'm trying really, really hard to get to a basis for measuring what you're describing.

I'm all over upper midrange characteristic, at least as a techie interprets that. I can run frequency response curves and see if there is a hump in the response in, say, the 2kHz region for grins, to see if there is an upper midrange response difference. My experience tells me that for resistors especially, it's not there. Circuits have frequency responses. Resistors are designed and manufactured to NOT have them to the extent possible, and to be predictable when their parasitics force them to depart from linearity and flat frequency response.

As a circuit designer with training and experience, my best guess is that "articulate" and "strong pick attack" mean something like "extended high frequency response" or its time domain transpose, fast time domain response and lack of ringing. But I'm all ears ( ) here. What do you say "articulate" and "strong pick attack" mean in a way that produces numbers that can be measured and compared? Got numbers?

Iskras have a very unique and thuddy midrange , and round bass. I would still call them percussive.

OK. So "percussive" can mean "unique and thuddy midrange and round bass" too. How would we measure those? Will "unique and thuddy midrange and round bass" show up on a frequency response test? Can it be measured as an impulse time response? That's what I would start with in trying to measure them, but then I'm just guessing what to try to measure based on a perceptual description.
How would you measure this, in the interest of being able to tell other people what to measure if they want to get the sound, but can't source Iskras or KOA? How/what could a beginner builder measure to get as close to these resistor brands as possible? Are Vishay resistors close to but not quite a KOA? 0.5 KOAs? Are Vishays 0.7 KOA articulate, but only 0.3 Iskras in midrange?

Or can a techie with a signal generator and a scope tell by measuring the responses at 100Hz, 500Hz, 1kHZ and 2kHz tell anything about the resistors? Better yet, can an amp hacker with a $200 electronic scope (I have a picoScope that does this) run a frequency analysis and tell anything about "articulate" and midrange"? How can someone who isn't you and doesn't have your help in listening ever build an amp with any predictable response?

Yeah, I get it - everybody should try them all and have their own unique experiences and interpretation, and they're all valid experiences. What do we do if the unique experiences are all different? What does that do to ever being able to pick out parts and get a predictable result? If every experience is as different and valid as every unique snowflake, how can part differences even matter? All the experiences would be different anyway, and equally valid, so how would KOA or Iskra matter?

An amp with 100% iskras will have a clear articulate midrange with rich harmonics .a 100% koa 1/2watt carbon film in comparison will feel thin and scooped and a bit ice pick on the high end .

I'm sure that it would, as you say, in your experience. Would other experiences be different and equally valid as you say they are?

You could always find a personal balance with experimentation , but you gotta be able to hear it to care . If it all sounds the same that makes life easier at least .

Believe it or not, this is the common refrain that the hifi golden ears fell back on when they got embarrassed at doing no better than guessing on ABX blind tests - that there was something wrong and missing with the test and/or the testers, some kind of disability of perception.

But back at the numbers/measurement thing. You imply that you support measurement: Remember that you posted
"What I don’t really understand is : why the emphasis that everyone’s different experiences can’t possibly be measured or quantified?
If they can be measured, let's figure out how to do that. Can instruments (i.e., thing without unconscious biases) measure the differences that you say are obvious? Or is the only way to measure them to measure a statistical sample of people doing listening tests?

[WhopperPlate]

OK. So:
"Percussive" = "articulate" + "strong pick attack" + "upper midrange characteristic"
Can you assign anything (1) repeatably (2) measurable to "articulate", "strong pick attack", and "upper midrange characteristic"? Are those possible to measure?
Remember that you posted
"What I don’t really understand is : why the emphasis that everyone’s different experiences can’t possibly be measured or quantified? Who is making that claim ? "
I wasn't saying that things can't be measured or quantified. I'm trying really, really hard to get to a basis for measuring what you're describing.

I'm all over upper midrange characteristic, at least as a techie interprets that. I can run frequency response curves and see if there is a hump in the response in, say, the 2kHz region for grins, to see if there is an upper midrange response difference. My experience tells me that for resistors especially, it's not there. Circuits have frequency responses. Resistors are designed and manufactured to NOT have them to the extent possible, and to be predictable when their parasitics force them to depart from linearity and flat frequency response.

As a circuit designer with training and experience, my best guess is that "articulate" and "strong pick attack" mean something like "extended high frequency response" or its time domain transpose, fast time domain response and lack of ringing. But I'm all ears ( ) here. What do you say "articulate" and "strong pick attack" mean in a way that produces numbers that can be measured and compared? Got numbers?

Numbers , nope , got ears though . Whatever reasons they sound different , they do . I don’t pretend to define the specifics of what’s going on with frequency response , but I note the correlations and deduct at least the causation of which resistor does what . Regardless of why , the results exist .as I have said, I can only help you so far with limited resources . All of your questions are reasonable and I am interested in the answers.

OK. So "percussive" can mean "unique and thuddy midrange and round bass" too.

Looks like I am not the only one skilled at misattribution lol

No, I am saying iskras result in a percussive quality independent of a thuddy mid and round bass .

How would we measure those? Will "unique and thuddy midrange and round bass" show up on a frequency response test? Can it be measured as an impulse time response? That's what I would start with in trying to measure them, but then I'm just guessing what to try to measure based on a perceptual description.

How would you measure this, in the interest of being able to tell other people what to measure if they want to get the sound, but can't source Iskras or KOA? How/what could a beginner builder measure to get as close to these resistor brands as possible? Are Vishay resistors close to but not quite a KOA? 0.5 KOAs? Are Vishays 0.7 KOA articulate, but only 0.3 Iskras in midrange?

Or can a techie with a signal generator and a scope tell by measuring the responses at 100Hz, 500Hz, 1kHZ and 2kHz tell anything about the resistors? Better yet, can an amp hacker with a $200 electronic scope (I have a picoScope that does this) run a frequency analysis and tell anything about "articulate" and midrange"?

I would love to be part an intentional and refined experimental process and answer all of your questions if I was given the opportunity. Gotta test em all ! Sorry for the Pokémon reference

How can someone who isn't you and doesn't have your help in listening ever build an amp with any predictable response?

I don’t think I am the only person who has ears that work , but for those that don’t , maybe don’t quit your day job …it’s hard to become a world class musician if you are tone deaf ( analogy)…

In all seriousness though , practice makes perfect : let me quote myself yet again from another reply :

If you are patient and have alligator clips you can prove it to yourself … it’s like ear training … a beginning musician might not be able to discern the difference between a perfect fourth and a perfect fifth , but with time and effort they learn to know it instantaneously…

Similarly, if someone with a more developed sense of pitch tells me whether it’s a perfect fourth or a perfect fifth , I could distrust them and get out a tuner and begin measuring things exactly to prove the math , but if I practiced enough I could learn to listen closer like them .

Same analogy with learning a foreign language ; at first it’s all gibberish, but spend enough time around ain’t and you will pick up the meaning. what makes us think it’s any different with anything else?

I digress, pull out those alligator clips and swap in parts long enough and you can prove it to yourself .

Yeah, I get it - everybody should try them all and have their own unique experiences and interpretation, and they're all valid experiences. What do we do if the unique experiences are all different? What does that do to ever being able to pick out parts and get a predictable result? If every experience is as different and valid as every unique snowflake, how can part differences even matter? All the experiences would be different anyway, and equally valid, so how would KOA or Iskra matter?

I'm sure that it would, as you say, in your experience. Would other experiences be different and equally valid as you say they are?

Again , is the listening experience of a tone deaf person wrong/invalid/incorrect because they can’t perceive the same as someone with perfect pitch ? One could argue yes ,and based on my experiences discussing these matters, without the ability to measure frequency I assume a high degree of doubt from those who can’t tell a difference between A and B generally speaking

You could always find a personal balance with experimentation , but you gotta be able to hear it to care . If it all sounds the same that makes life easier at least .

Believe it or not, this is the common refrain that the hifi golden ears fell back on when they got embarrassed at doing no better than guessing on ABX blind tests - that there was something wrong and missing with the test and/or the testers, some kind of disability of perception.

Again , quoting myself from a previous reply :

There is a thing though I gotta say about guitar vs hifi snobs, and that’s the simple fact that a guitarist is actually interacting with the sound source , and they are the largest variable , not the component themselves . How I feel when I play is the largest determining factor for the end recipe , and I have heard great sounding amps that played like you were running through sand . This is a dynamic that can actually fool me into thinking one thing is preferred over another, when in actuality it’s just easier to play and sounds not as good as my fingers have convinced my ears. Still , with this aspect at hand it is much harder to fool a blind player than a blind listener when discerning ABX .

But back at the numbers/measurement thing. You imply that you support measurement: Remember that you posted
"What I don’t really understand is : why the emphasis that everyone’s different experiences can’t possibly be measured or quantified?
If they can be measured, let's figure out how to do that. Can instruments (i.e., thing without unconscious biases) measure the differences that you say are obvious? Or is the only way to measure them to measure a statistical sample of people doing listening tests?

Ideally I think you and I should meet up and collaborate to design an appropriate experimental model . Between my experiences ears and your adherence to the scientific method we could be unstoppable!!!