Firstly, I am a scientist (in professional quality), so to me there is zero question about the objectivity and importance of measurements.
That being said, here we go:1. Industry does not measure all the parameters relevant to sound quality. We do not know what all those parameters are, and of those we know, some are just too hard to measure, or inconvenient. (Analogy: we are measuring blood pressure, weight, height, while we should be doing whole genome sequencing, transcriptome mapping and a metabolome report.)2. We fret greatly about hundredth of a percent of less distortion from an amplifier, and linearity range over a 20+ kilohertz, while the loudspeakers distortion is reaches the tens of percents and instead of a linear range we have a roller-coaster ride. So, if your amp is perfectly flat, you will hear every bump that your speakers add. You should have an amp that cancels out your loudspeakers distortion.
3. Equipment are considered without the effect of the room. The distortion of room + speakers + amp + source should be considered when talking about perceived sound quality, not that of a singled out component.4. Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability.
So, there is nothing wrong with measurements, but the applied methodology is lacking, or is just in its infancy to say the least. At the current state of measurement practices measured parameters are perfect predictors of whether the gear performs up to spec or requires maintenance. Also, we can infer many attributes when we know the equipment's topology plus measurements. (Eg the same set of measurements from a SET amp and a solid state amp will result in markedly different sound and loudspeaker compatibility.)As John Atkinson said, with measurement we can tell apart good speakers from bad speakers.
But the only way to tell a great speaker from a good speaker is by listening. (And that applies to other audio gear as well.)
That being said, here we go:1. Industry does not measure all the parameters relevant to sound quality. We do not know what all those parameters are, and of those we know, some are just too hard to measure, or inconvenient. (Analogy: we are measuring blood pressure, weight, height, while we should be doing whole genome sequencing, transcriptome mapping and a metabolome report.)2. We fret greatly about hundredth of a percent of less distortion from an amplifier, and linearity range over a 20+ kilohertz, while the loudspeakers distortion is reaches the tens of percents and instead of a linear range we have a roller-coaster ride. So, if your amp is perfectly flat, you will hear every bump that your speakers add. You should have an amp that cancels out your loudspeakers distortion.
3. Equipment are considered without the effect of the room. The distortion of room + speakers + amp + source should be considered when talking about perceived sound quality, not that of a singled out component.4. Measurements all aim at laboratory standards, royally ignoring the requirements of psychoacoustics. That is, we do not measure sound quality as perceived by the human brain. We measure reliability.
So, there is nothing wrong with measurements, but the applied methodology is lacking, or is just in its infancy to say the least. At the current state of measurement practices measured parameters are perfect predictors of whether the gear performs up to spec or requires maintenance. Also, we can infer many attributes when we know the equipment's topology plus measurements. (Eg the same set of measurements from a SET amp and a solid state amp will result in markedly different sound and loudspeaker compatibility.)As John Atkinson said, with measurement we can tell apart good speakers from bad speakers.
But the only way to tell a great speaker from a good speaker is by listening. (And that applies to other audio gear as well.)