Thanks for the replies so far.
If I'm reading things right, it does seem that a majority are skewing towards the idea speakers should sound the same (or very similar - neutral).
But of course the replies have come at this from different angles - some answering in terms of what they personally seek (neutral speakers - which is fairly predictable I'd think, among a majority in ASR) others suggesting it ought to be the goal of any speaker to be accurate/neutral (which if followed through implies a best case scenario where speakers sound essentially the same).
I'd say it is the normative question I'm a bit more interested in following up: the idea that speakers OUGHT to be designed to meet certain narrow goals in terms of a sonic profile (neutral). As I said, having criteria is always helpful. The question is how far does one push one's own criteria.
So for instance, the ASR reviews for speakers could simply measure different speakers and, putting together what is known about the audible consequences of different measurements, perhaps along with Amir's own listening tests, the result could be presented "This is how this speaker sounds." A non-judgemental attempt to just accurately depict the character of a speaker - the results may suggest the speaker might be of interest to the reader, or not.
But instead the speakers are rated on a relatively strict normative criteria and presented with value judgements: this is a GOOD design this is a BAD design (recommended, not recommended etc). And many ASR members seem to agree with this general criteria (the justifications for the criteria being pretty well known here).
Which, again, is completely reasonable. But everything has consequences and implications, which is one reason for this thread. Is one saying "this is the type of speaker I am seeking (or that a group of us here are seeking)," or does it go beyond that to a more normative claim that All Speaker Designers Ought To Design For This Criteria?
If the latter, it does suggest a flattening of the speaker design landscape as a laudable goal. So an important part of my question had to do with whether "we want all speakers to sound the same" in that sense - not just "what I want" but "what speaker designers OUGHT to do."
So for instance, there are audiophiles who have been exceedingly happy with all manner of speaker designs, including many that would fail the ASR criteria, and would fail any goal of getting all speakers to sound (as much as possible) the same. There are for instance devoted fans of Zu speakers, Devore, Maggies, Klipsch and on and on. Far more neutral speakers have been available, and yet many such brands find devoted, happy followings. If we choose to "flatten" the design landscape for speakers based on the more strict criteria, that implies the goal that speakers that sound like those speakers go away. The proposal that all speaker designers ought to seek essentially the same measured goals would in essence remove all sorts of much loved speaker designs from the available landscape. Would we really want to remove the choice for those speakers even though many seem to love them?
Reflecting on what I mentioned in listening to the Klipsch speakers: if all speaker designers adopted the criteria used by ASR to vet speakers, the La Scalas would never exist in that landscape. But, personally, along with many other audiophiles, I'm very glad the DO exist and that I had a chance to hear them, because to me they had some compelling qualities that I don't necessarily get from the more ASR-approved designs. I personally really like the variety of options explored by speaker designers, including ones that don't fall in to the ASR approved box.
Again, this is NOT to say a different view isn't valid. My goals don't mean your goals are "wrong" or unreasonable, and I find the ASR approach to vetting speakers perfectly reasonable and justified. I'm just investigating the implications of the different views held by ASR members (and it's founder).