Measurements are a tough call. I like them. But a comparative analysis between measurements and listener comments shows there is some level of disconnect. Some moderately measuring items get good reviews.
Not being an electronics wizard, I still sometimes have to sit and think "does this mean this is good or it is bad?" For measurements to get better in a magazine format, they have to get better at relaying compartive info for the non-tech. Keyword is comparative. Then the question becomes: how far do we lower the bar?
I am not sure where this would go on the eletronics side, but on the speaker side, there are similarly measuring speakers that sound very different. One of my first projects was a kit that offered "ruler flat MLS". I measured the result and that is what it had. Amazing! It also had perfectly normal imp curve. Yet the speakers never engaged me and I found myself prefering a number of other speakers I had laying around the house. Now that I am almost a decade behind these, I think the issue was lack of dynamics or too much compression. Yet in measurement blocks like the ones in many magazines, these would have looked great.
As technology improves, a lot of speakers are measuring better. How do we improve the compartive analysis between the Alpha B1 and the Magico small speaker and the Usher small speaker? On paper these may not measure very differently but in a room, they would be very different. This is why we need the balance between the objective and subjective.
Maybe what we are missing the the comparative subjective chart, which I happen to have been playing with: above. More Blue is better.
P
