You think looking at FR10 speaker doesn't do this for you? And in totally improper way?
Well, it certainly does, though the reviewer can't hide the speaker behind a curtain and forget it now can he? Looking at measurements before subjective evaluation is a choice. I'm sure if someone handed any one of us measurements that were poor, but not for the speaker we are listening to, we would come up with ways problems with the sound, even if the actual measurements were different. Of course this is a fantastical scenario, though.
If measurements tell me a speaker is totally flat, you want me to go and pontificate without that knowledge that what I heard was too bright? And then show the measurements indicating otherwise? To what end?
If this happens, this tells the reviewer that they:
1. Might not have perfectly flat preferences. In the Harman studies, trained listeners preferred slightly less HF than a well measuring, flat speaker in a room (just to clarify, the in-room response was not flat but the speaker is).
2. Might have a bright test track. I dislike subjective reviews without measurements, specifically because some people listen to some very bright songs.
3. I know this is out side of your premise, but sometimes people hear a midrange scoop as an increase in treble.
4. Might have a speaker with wide directivity, which raises in-room treble.
As I see it, revising your subjective experiences because of external information, whether it's price, looks, company reputation, online reviews, or measurements hurts the integrity and value of the subjective portion. Less-info=more blind.
Note that when I do listening tests, I initially don't have the measurements in front of me. I use my laptop for listening and the files are elsewhere. I listen for a bit and give you the "stock impression." But then I look and re-evaluate what i thought. If test hypothesis with EQ development. I perform that testing blind if needed. I am fully connecting listening tests to measurements this way. This is the only sane way to give proper subjective data.
The blind EQ portion of your method is great and I wish more reviewers did that. It is a great way of determining preferences too, if test tracks are accounted for of course. And I agree that Erin should do some testing in Mono. As for positioning, an in-room sweep would achieve essentially the same end, or perhaps better.
Also, sorry if any of my language has been confrontational; I have had to argue with young earth creationist pseudoscience for over a week now and I've been missing sleep too lol (unrelated to the young earth creationism)
