Thanks DJBonoBobo.
When I wrote my experience and my feelings after checking out the speakers, a lot of assumptions has been made on the reason why the speakers didn't perform well (if you believe on my judgement, of course). Thinking back to the experience, for sure I could have been more careful in creating the best listening scenario, but what I heard, for experience, is something beyond just being out of the sweet-spot. And I don't think speakers should be so dependent on all these factors. I remember the first time I listened to Genelecs, and some spatial music was played. I was sitting in a school pretty small room, with other people around, in a random spot, and I still remember how those Genelec showed me how a a pair of monitors can really create the acoustic illusion that a stereo field is. I don't think that if that day I was sitting 40 cm closer or further, or 50 cm left of right, it would have been any different.
Measurements. I believe in measurements. I like measurements. And I know that if you design something with measurements in mind, you can make choices to pass those measurements in the best way. But measurements are "discrete" representations of performances. It's a bit like passing a test with 100/100 because you studies the exact questions the test was about. And it's one of the easiest thing to achieve nowadays.
In my experience, the most commercial is a product/brand, the most it relies in showing measurements, linearity, wide frequency response, etc. They measure better then products considered to be the standard.
Then some of them (like Neumann) are actually good, but some of them are actual crap.