This is pretty amazing news, Amir. Publishing this kind of data represents an enormous service to the (probably undeserving) audio buying public, but I feel a few issues need to be addressed if you want to start publishing this data. I recommend starting a new thread where we can discuss this sort of thing in turn:
1. There is a popular consensus, more or less, on what a DAC or Amp should do, but no such popular consensus exists with speakers. Among contemporary speaker designers and in industry there is a broad consensus on the value of civilized directivity, which is what this system evaluates really well, but this is hard for consumers to understand. If we want to prevent ASR from becoming a complete shit show, we will need to provide really good guides to explain this kind of data. Showing the obselescence of every two way speaker with a baffle mounted tweeter is not going to be a popular revelation.
1a. Perhaps to help educate consumers some initial tests can be done showing how driver topologies have intrinsic directivity characteristics. A series of measurements of a coaxial, a 5" two way with no waveguide, a 5" woofer with waveguide, an 8" with no waveguide, an MTM, a 3 way with a small midrange - these are all common speakers and would help show how driver size and bandwidth almost completely sets the ceiling for off axis performance.
2. SINAD is a good enough way of organizing DAC performance, but I don't believe a good comparative, single number metric can rank speaker performance. However, some kind of ranking or scoring system would be a good way to categorize speakers.
3. There are some some important technical qualities which the Klippel system does not measure (correct me if I'm mistaken) harmonic distortion being the main one. Many traditional audiophile designers sought after low distortion above all else, which was not a terrible way to design certain speakers in certain eras. The importance of HD in speaker design is of course controversial, and I think it's safe to say it is not a useful predictor of preference, but in the most basic sense it can tell us how much clean bass power a speaker can put out. This is really important to consumers. For people putting speakers in less than ideal acoustic contexts (almost all contexts really) output power is probably the most important characteristic provided a reasonably smooth axial FR (and as we can see from existing measurements, people tolerate ridiculous FR anomalies.)
4. If you're measuring subs, output is pretty much the only important metric, besides extension. At LF I think the Klippel is overkill although I'm sure others know more about measuring subs than I do.
5. The spinorama may be a prefered graph to many people, but to many people directivity sonograms and graphs showing DI/frequency and so on are prefered. Publishing these images would be a great service to the many DIYers who share data with these formats. Making available the raw data and/or CLF would be a good resource as well.
6. In addition to testing the directivity, bass extension and distortion characteristics of a speakers LF, a common issue with many popular powered speakers is hiss. In my experience with these products, the intrinsic noise of the active speaker is pretty audible in the near field, and no reliable data on this exists - we assume the Neumans are better than the JBLs but who really knows.
Anyway, I'd be more than happy to help you develop and organize a standard panel of comparitive measurements to be of use to consumers and dilletantes like me.
As far as D's I'd like to see UT, it's a long list! We basically have 0 data right now, although Geddes has collected some; a smattering of JBL or Danley and DIY products, but as far as reasonable speakers which consumers buy?