bo1972, there is nothing wrong with making experimental observations as you do, but in my opinion one critical element seems to be lacking: A strong background in acoustics and psychoacoustics.
The human mind loves to have explanations for what it observes in the world around it. If we do not have enough correct information in our mental database, we will manufacture explanations using what limited information we do have. So we may conclude that this subwoofer sounds faster than that one because of cone material or woofer diameter, and once this has become one of our core beliefs, our mind selectively interprets our experiences to preserve and reinforce that belief. We confuse correlation with causation and come up with erroneous "laws". And we humans do not like to have our beliefs challenged because we identify with them. We love to "be right" and we hate to "be wrong" (see, even the wording equates our self with our belief, which is a mistake). Our highest allegiance should always be to the truth, not to a favorite theory.
In my opinion it is the responsibility of those of us who claim to be professionals in this field to acquire a professional level of expertise. That doesn’t necessarily mean we need a college degree in the subject, but it does mean that we should at least read and study for our niche as much as a serious college student would.
I suggest starting out with Dr. Floyd Toole’s "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms", which has chapters devoted to the stuff this thread is about. Don’t stop there, but at least start there, and then look in the bibliography for further reading in areas of interest. I also recommend Geddes, Everest, and Blauert.
The advantage of going to so much effort is this: Now when we make an observation, our minds will be able to draw from valid scientific theories and explanations stored in our mental database, instead of having to manufacture its own explanation from very limited information.
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
Duke