in re:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-will-be-measuring-speakers.10725/post-303864
So... with some trepidation, I am gonna tip my hand a wee bit re: quantitative analysis --
with the disclaimer that I have made my livin' as a quantitative scientist (analytical biochemist in biotech/biopharma) for nigh-on four decades. I also have four-plus decades of training and experience that lead me to be
very skeptical (although, I hope, in a constructive way!).
I thoroughly believe that everything important about hifi components, including loudspeakers, can be measured.
I just as thoroughly believe that we
don't necessarily know how to do it.
Bear with me for a second, 'K?
I say this because, from my perspective, the quantitative analyses of (in the present case) loudspeakers uses a set of what I would call
surrogate markers in an attempt to unambiguously and objectively quantify loudspeaker performance.
One can certainly envision a designer or manufacturer
gaming the system (so to speak!) and come up with a loudspeaker that measures perfectly in the test(s), but is
perfectly lousy in any real-world assessment outside the parameters of the test(s).
Recall, e.g., the emissions test mode of the VW Diesels not so long ago
Besides my long-time day job, I have a rather passionate interest in education, and served on the School Committee (school board) in our erstwhile home town in Massachusetts for seven years. During our time in MA, the state implemented standardized testing as a metric of performance/accomplishment that would be (was, and AFAIK, is) required for graduation from MA public secondary schools. Our little town had (and still has) very good schools, but the "best" schools in MA were pretty surprised when "we" came out on top,
statewide, the first two years of the standardized testing. Our facilities were modest, our per-pupil expenditures were middle of the pack, but "we" took our mission to educate very seriously. We came out on top because the schools did a good job -- but, as time passed, other schools invested in very deliberately (and explictly) altering their curricula to
teach to the test, with the predictable result that their scores climbed. That said, I would opine, that
teaching to the test turns out students that are very good at scoring well on standardized tests, but
not necessarily capable of performing at a vaunted level in the real world.
I think (!) that this is still a pervasive problem in hifi as well (so to speak).
Now, I don't mean to suggest that the
standardized testing should be abandoned. Far from it! The best thing to do, I'd say, is to gather ever more test data and correlate it, as best possible, with the squishier aspects of sound reproduction. This can (and should!) result in better understanding of the predictability of the
surrogate markers, and indeed can result in improvements of those objective tests.
This site/forum offers just that opportunity -- and I am looking forward to watching as the "learnings" develop!
whew! sorry for the diatribe!
Now, back to the regularly-scheduled topic.