This is not an argument of measuring versus not. It actually is not even about measuring. It is about what we have discovered over three decades of research what design decisions correlate with preference of listeners, analog and digital lovers, in bias-controlled listening tests. The incredible message is an intuitive one: that having a smooth frequency response on and off-axis is what is prefered in test after test. Not one or two. But every test run. Not one research paper has been written to dispute that in those 30+ years. As I keep saying, the designer of your loudspeaker may very well be using it.
The problem is that loudspeaker business is all about well, business. Manufacturers spend far more energy and resources on the box often than how the thing sounds. Equal extensive efforts are made in marketing and selling the loudspeakers. Many get into the business because that is what they are good at, not designing of the loudspeakers. Unfortunately as consumers we are very much swayed by this. I have a black car and I had not had it washed for weeks. Took it to the dealer, and they washed and wouldn't you know it, the proverbial, "it runs better" emotion set it. The car felt better even though nothing had changed in it other that being washed. You can be as logical as you want to be but certain things are hard to control.
Take the B&W 802. You all not that much into but it is probably the highest volume high-end loudspeaker out there. They sell more of them than probably every high-brand you all own combined. Yet when we test it without letting people look at its iconic design, it doesn't perform as well as a loudspeaker half its cost. Fortunately the reason it does not perform shows up in simple frequency response measurements. Something that is easy for us all to understand as opposed to say, jitter or IMD. The purpose of asking reviewers to measure is to find these non-performant designs.
Now the reason I say ultimately we don't need such measurements is that it is the job of the manufacturer to perform these measurements and follow the research. If they do, then we don't need to measure them. Indeed, if you reviewed a Harman loudspeaker, I am assured that this is the path they follow and hence, no need for measurements other than say, knowing the bass extension or characterization of your listening room. On the other hand, I have asked countless manufacturers for this data and the rep says he is confident they have it, only to come back and say, "our design engineer says they don't make these measurements."
BTW, I am OK if someone has a different loudspeaker design philosophy. I just don't want to hear it unless it a) comes with some bias controlled preference test and b) has peer-reviewed published research that says it has merit. So far I have not found a consistent theme like I have with Dr. Toole's work. They may exist but no one has performed such comprehensive research to demonstrate the path we need to take through the jungle.
So as you see, it is not about give me measurements. It is about "give me good design." A design that has been verified in listening tests to have efficacy. Need to cut through so much marketing, so many manufacturers setting up shop to build loudspeakers that easily lose in proper comparisons to other designs at same or lower cost. I look to reviewers to help us do. Not be victim of marketing and bias piled on by the need to say something nice about an expensive loudspeaker loaned to them.
Well, they certainly play a strong role there too.
