But why hammer on it time after time?
Because my opinion on good sides of that approach somehow leaded to my disagreement with the concept of measurements (makes me wonder how). That's why I'm marking how that all started.
Is it because you think ASR should behave like Audioholics? Do you think your constant comparisons are going to force us to behave like Audioholics?
Is there an option not to choose sides and get the best from all instead?
Unless it's a religion, why to even set the question in a way like ARE YOU WITH OR AGAINST US?
If you really, truly think ASR should change and be more like Audioholics
I never asked for that. However, with all honesty I think - and I wrote that in some reviews threads - that oftenly ASR approach is focused on proving that "things (don't) work as they should" while for me personally the funniest part is to find that exagerrated case, like in a Mythbusters, where you can blow up a house with hudreds of roach spray tubes - yet you will never do that with any normal amount of it. That's an illustration of how I'd test cables to possibly find that flawed and barely realistic case where they work.
Yet I found Alpha Audio test on youtube where was a very slight, less than 0.5 dB peak FR change.
BTW talking about "not sounding" amplifiers, here's fresh Musical Fidelity A1 tested at Stereophile:
0.5 dB is that border amount I can actually detect when playing with EQ fine tuning. 1 dB is a pretty common step in attenuation (my active Dynaudio had +-1 dB HF adjustment and that was very noticeable).
send a private message to Amir and tell him that. I'm sure that after he's done paying all the bills out of his own pocket (Audioholics has ads ... ASR doesn't) he will give your suggestion the attention it deserves
I overall have no questions to Amir and his approach.
He actually is listening to the community and a lot of measurement stuff have nicely improved, complex speaker load emulator appeared, as example.
At the same time I don't hesitate to ask him some questions and I do if I think it's correct.
It's much more constructive to offer viable alternatives
My viable alternative,
101th time (as you say) , is not to evaluate every speaker (and other devices) by one measure and to keep in mind that strong sides of some exotic designs may outweigh tonality caveats etc.
And your thoughts about advertising, hedging bets etc, well, at first I'd love to say that here on ASR there's absolutely no difference in subjective evaluation, of, well...
not the best products from a "good companies" and "nice guys" and those what are considered "unfriendly" or "not nice" in whatever way.
But sometimes I note a bias. Not commercial, rather emotional.
The advertising tho, theoretically speaking, can exist not only in a form of banners and obvious press-release-like tests.
And can be not a bad thing at all if something good is advertised, not every ad is selling snake oil.
However, I'd reather will keep away from discussing that.
I know how it works and how much costs at a few well-known forums (not ASR!!!) for a manufacturer to simply have his "official" thread there.
I'm familiar with that, but again the whole testing was focused on different things and finding the best working model of evaluation, not finding the best speakers (!)
Listener will not get the idea of how exactly two omni speakers work in terms of spatial image, so will miss the very idea of that tech. I bet it will sound strange/worse that usual speaker - alone, in that case.