"Your persistent strawman argument about how "flat" speakers sound like crap'

Never said this

"You mean that +12 db peak that I measured with my subwoofer has no bearing on what I heard? Are you now saying that ear doctors and hearing aid vendors are peddling snake oil and that their tools and measures are no better than flipping a coin to determine hearing loss? Amazing"

never said this

There is MORE to it than frequency response not frequency response means nothing -- READ for a change. And ther eis more than off axis response and the third thing harman touts of which is not vcoming to mind at the moment -- I notice they make no mention of time or dynamics resolution.

"Are you saying that a speaker with no measured output above 2,000 Hz can still sound "bright"? Or that a speaker with no measured output below 500 Hz can still sound "boomy" or bass heavy"

Another idiotic strawman -- no you are the one saying this not I. I find it laughable that you attack me about using a strawman and then immediately go into produce several of your own. Hello Pot.

"I can tell that you've never done a blind listening before."

Really -- not only have I been in them I've conducted them and done research papers on them at the university level in psychology. And I did them correctly scoring A's in those papers and courses. I have discussed this test with multitudes of professors Phd students and the way the AES is doing it is not sound (pun alert).

"when you start putting the choices in terms of "music" versus "graphs",

No this is what one has to do because the graphs are indicating what should sound good and what should sound bad -- that is not the case -- indeed, speakers measure well and may sound good or lousy -- speakers(or amps) may measure poorly and sound good or bad. And at Stereophile it doesn;t matter how the hell anything measures because the reviewer always likes it. Yes they may notice a sonic deviation that may corelate with the graph but it never seems to impede on the musical value - the Reference 3a MM De Capo comes to mind immediately as a less than stellar graph that sounds better than a lot of "deemed good" measurements. I have nothing against the measuring of frequency response -- I do have a problem with the notion that if A is flatter than B A is better than B. That has never been established -- it may be talked about and written about and parrotted over and over and over by several different sources -- that doesn;t mean it was right at the outset however. Scientist kept telling people Blacks and Jews were inferior species and deserved to be killed or enslaved and it was repeatred and repeated and repeated but it didn;t make it right. The Canadian and American Food guide can set a food group guide and drill it into kids and adults heads for 30 years but it was never right or PROVEN at the outset that this was the best way to eat. And now this guide is taking heat.

Every speaker has AT LEAST a slightly different measured frequency response - So the theory should prove the slightly flatter one is better --- where is the irrifutable 100% proof then that say the CBM 170 (a very flat measuring speaker) is better than say a magnepan which typically measure all over the place.