Perhaps you should compare "real" floorstanding or bookshelf speakers before making assumptions about Focal or other brands.
My comment about the Focal ceiling speakers was in response to another poster's statement that Focal technology is superior to B&W's. I provided example where this simply was not the case. I completely agree that you simply cannot generalize the performance of an individual speaker based on name of the company, considering that each product has different engineering and marketing goals. That applies to B&W, Focal, Revel, etc.
You also need to listen for some time, because (according to B&W) there is evidence to suggest that we get used to the sound of our speakers, and we may even dislike better (more accurate or "revealing") ones at first.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
It would also be constructive not to call people "haters" or "mafia" just because they don't agree with you.
I agree, which is why I only use the term "haters" and "mafia" when they are truly applicable. For instance, when there is perpetuation of group think on a forum that has heavily self-selected for Harman-supported and anti-B&W sentiments, the terms are appropriate to provide visibility to what's actually happening. The internet and social media has made possible the rapid growth of extremism in ideas and behaviors, and it's not good for society.
I don't agree with the notion that a preference score says everything about how a speaker sounds,
I think you might have that backwards. The measured preference score (which is based in blinded listening tests under controlled conditions) IS the best objective "measurement" we have of how listeners would rate that speaker's sound quality, on average. Or are you talking about predicted preference scores. It's hard to know what to do with imprecise statements made about published research.
but there is merit to a flat frequence response, and even dispersion. It's a starting point for good sound. If there are dips and/or peaks in the frequence response, and uneven dispersion, it will colour the sound.
Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the Q and the frequency where the peaks or dips occur and what measurement you're talking about. For instance, a gently rising sound power response in the lowest 2 octaves is preferable to flat down to 20khz (and that would be from Harman research)
Here's an example, 804 Diamond. The frequency response is very uneven compared to it's predecessor. These measurements were not available when I listened to it, but the sound was bright and hollow, so much that I had to find out why. The reason made me question B&W, and the direction they were heading. They had simply removed a resistor from the crossover (listed as optional in the service manual), most likely to make it stand out in a direct comparison, but perhaps also because of their focus on "fewer components = better".
As you can see, there's a 10dB difference from 2 kHz to 10 kHz. The horizontal dispersion is quite even, so toeing them out will not solve the problem.
I have not heard the 804 Diamond myself, but I would comment that the 804 historically is kind of the odd model, since it's not a bookshelf, but it's not a flagship model like the 800-802. I wouldn't be surprised if B&W tuned it to be "different." That being said, I disagree with you that toeing them out would not attenuate the treble peak around 10khz. If you look at the off-axis response provided by Stereophile, you can see easily see that there is a treble rolloff that becomes steeper as you move further off axis, that will result in an actual in-room response that doesn't have an exaggerated 10khz peak. You can't just eyeball the stereophile 30-deg on-axis listening windows and determine how the speaker will sound - it's a common mistake by the "mafia" here (term used appropriately).
.
