Agreed, I kind of see the CTA-2034 as the foundation of the Harman score introduced by Dr. Olive. Now it is my turn to play the 'best pratice" card, though.I think you're getting a few things mixed up. The CTA-2034-A is a standard method for measuring (in-home) speakers and reporting data (using standardized methods) - nothing more. This standard does not specify at all how a loudspeaker should be tuned or designed and has nothing to do with listening tests.
Exactly, the CTA-204 implicitely states that the measurements it takes are the ones to be relevant. Insofar it implicates their usage in an evaluation.At most, one could say that listening tests have imposed the need for such a standard, since a correlation between subjective evaluation of loudspeakers and their "complete" (hor and ver) measurements has been established.
That's related to the Harman score, right? The data is injected to the calculations that yield a single valued (ordinal?) position on a scale.CTA-2034-A is a powerful "tool" for loudspeaker design and analysis. It extends the before used non standardized evaluation methods (on-axis, angular frequency response measurements, sound power, SP DI, sonograms, ...) with standardized evaluation methods like LW, ER (hor + ver), PIR, ERDI (hor + ver),...
To measure but not to evaluate the outcome, not to relate the values to a 'model' of an understanding, not to tell what they mean is worthless.A completely different aspect is the connection between measurements and subjective evaluations of loudspeakers.
Despite the weaknesses of a circular conclusion when using arbitrary but 'most revealing' recordings done elsewhere, I actually appreciate the CTA-2034-A light-heartedly Because I think the data is relevant, because studios were the first to adapt to speakers that comply to the CTA-2034-A in particular with the notion of 'linear' as the natural target. In other words, not the evaluation method with some 'natural' outcome cuts the vicious circle of confusion, but the standard as a mere standard did. While of course the standardized measuring topics ask the right questions within a correct 'model' of what a speaker does in-room with human hearing. Reiterated, appreciated!Toole has already established this in 1986 with Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2 ...
Regarding this I cannot share your perspective. My key-words with this are 'subjective, unquestioned preference', 'most revealing recordings' and 'statistics with averaging'. One might say that the Totem's engineer sitting in his room listening to his records didn't represent the norm, and so his evaluations don't count. But the methodology of searching out for the most pleasing sound is shared. Why would anyone forbid, that said engineer wants to evaluate his speaker in his room with his recordings subjectively, without questioning his preference for what he delivers to the customer? It is literally the same what the test-panel did during so many investigations you mentioned above.This only means that already at the time of the totem-acoustics-rainmaker release, the connection between measurements and subjective hearing sensation was known.
What you say is actually, that the individual that the engineer is, isn't qualified, but an arbitrary, still not representative person is.