I just don't get the whole and sole devotion to how a speaker measures as the determining factor in whether it's good or not or worth a demo.
With something so subjective as sound I can't grasp the singular focus on objective measurements.
I've never listened to test tones. Ever. I don't find them very interesting.
You make valid points especially since most magazines (including us) simply cannot measure every aspect of how a speakers performance equates to how it plays in the room and how we perceive and prefer sound. I read all of the Harman research done about DBT's and family of curve measurements and find much of it to be lacking. Many of the speakers I've heard that allegedly measure flat anechoic, tend to sound a bit too bright on the top end in real rooms or they sound sterile and two-dimensional. The way distortion is typically measured IMO is very lacking, especially since they never do it at meaningful power levels.
I look at some of the speakers many of these companies make that cherish the "science" and simply have a good chuckle when I see mediocre drivers, bottom of the barrel crossover components, inadequate bracing, incorrect port tuning, incorrect xover frequency making the tweeter play lower than it should, etc.
I think there is often a big disconnect between "the science" and the final product which in most cases is dictated by marketing to cheapen the speaker and make have more bass and sizzle to do well in a casual listen at a noisy showfloor.
Damn, this topic is just itching to be explored in an article format.
