Cool, thanks a lot for your clearification. In that case, what do you think about the following comment?
"if something sounds different it will be evident in the measurements."
Answer A: Yes, it is correct
Answer B: No, it is not correct
Answer C: Both A and B are incorrect
Answer D: It depends on the accuracy of the instrument used to measure and the tolerances required to formulate an answer.
Answer E: something else
Mind to share your answer here?
My (qualified) answer would be "A". (see below *)
Your question is "
if (sounds)
then (measurements)."
This presupposes that an audible difference exists. As in all investigations, scientific or criminal, evidence is duly verified before continuing on to the next step. Hearsay is rejected. In a criminal investigation, if a suspect says that they were at "
x" location at the time of the crime, all efforts are made to cross-check and verify before the next step of the investigation. In the same way, if someone says that an
electronic circuit has a certain audible characteristic, then at a minimum, a double-blind test is administered to verify the assertion. The simple assertion (hearsay) is not taken as evidence ... that would be faulty protocol, either in the case of investigation into electronics or in the case of a criminal investigation.
If someone says that a
loudspeaker has a certain audible characteristic, it is also advisable to administer a double-blind test. However, because loudspeakers are at a more primitive stage of development, the test is usually administered to verify the
character of difference rather than the
existence of difference.
The question is more easily answered because you have framed the premise: "
if (sounds)
then (measurements)." If your had asked a question such as, "If two devices measure differently, will the difference be audible?", then the answer would be more difficult to ascertain.
* I qualified my answer (as I had before, when I added choice "D") for a very simple reason. The total suite of tests available for use on DUT is formidable, and very few testers will take advantage of the full gamut of available tests. For
electronics, the reason is that basic, cursory analysis will indicate whether the device is working to an acceptable standard. That's all that most people want to know.
Not only that, but such in-depth testing takes a great deal of time and effort, and some people are loath to go to that length. In-depth testing takes skill, and it takes an understanding that is of equal depth. Just as an example, the suite of
driver tests that Vance Dickason does for Audio Express is quite detailed. A great deal of information can be gleaned from them, but a person has to be able to understand the tests and the results as presented, or the information is lost on them. (I am sadly lacking in that department.)
By the same token, the re-test of the Troubadour by Erin revealed the differences in plugging the holes in the bottom, plus the nature of the resonance that was seen to originate on the top of the cabinet (which he discovered by simply turning the speaker upside-down). Again, more testing equaled more information.
So for
electronics, an exhaustive suite of tests, rigorously applied, will yield answer "A". Incompetence, laziness and oversight nullify that, but not because testing and measurements are at fault;
the fault lies with the human individual.
For
loudspeakers, it is easier to answer "A", but then the problem of characterization comes into play. That's a big mess.
Hope this helps.
Jim