If your concern is measurements and only measurements, it should be easy to ignore the subjective commentary of the likes of Erin and Amir and simply review the data that each provides. In that case, unless you are actually questioning the validity of their data, where's the need for debate?
In speaking only for myself, I find the subjective impressions to be of at least some interest and value in the case of Erin and Amir specifically, because they've both taken steps to earn a fair amount of trust through their (seemingly honest) attempts at correlating their own opinions with their objective data, and they have both amassed a large catalog of speaker reviews from which one can tease out trends as well as potential inconsistencies. Erin in particular stresses often and clearly (sometimes even to the point of self-deprecation) that his subjective commentary is provided based on sited listening in his room and follows his preferences, and that his viewers may very well arrive at quite different conclusions. I see very little evidence of ego or manipulation in service of revenue or other compensation on display. While I haven't watched nearly all of his reviews (including the PS Audio video under discussion), I do recall Erin sharing in-room measurements in the past on occasion, and they largely corresponded to thewas' chart above, in that the room makes a mess of the bass, but above the transition frequency, his in-room measurements largely follow the NFS plots.
That said, when I do have some degree of interest in subjective impressions from trusted sources, I would prefer that they initially be provided prior to the reviewer's knowledge of the measurements (where possible) so that they would not be unduly biased by them. Ideally: listen and take notes > complete measurements > correlate > listen again > re-correlate and note any subjective changes (add another round post-EQ, if necessary). Will this ever be a perfect process? Nope. But in giving due weight to the limitations and perils involved, I find that flow to be the most agreeable.
In speaking only for myself, I find the subjective impressions to be of at least some interest and value in the case of Erin and Amir specifically, because they've both taken steps to earn a fair amount of trust through their (seemingly honest) attempts at correlating their own opinions with their objective data, and they have both amassed a large catalog of speaker reviews from which one can tease out trends as well as potential inconsistencies. Erin in particular stresses often and clearly (sometimes even to the point of self-deprecation) that his subjective commentary is provided based on sited listening in his room and follows his preferences, and that his viewers may very well arrive at quite different conclusions. I see very little evidence of ego or manipulation in service of revenue or other compensation on display. While I haven't watched nearly all of his reviews (including the PS Audio video under discussion), I do recall Erin sharing in-room measurements in the past on occasion, and they largely corresponded to thewas' chart above, in that the room makes a mess of the bass, but above the transition frequency, his in-room measurements largely follow the NFS plots.
That said, when I do have some degree of interest in subjective impressions from trusted sources, I would prefer that they initially be provided prior to the reviewer's knowledge of the measurements (where possible) so that they would not be unduly biased by them. Ideally: listen and take notes > complete measurements > correlate > listen again > re-correlate and note any subjective changes (add another round post-EQ, if necessary). Will this ever be a perfect process? Nope. But in giving due weight to the limitations and perils involved, I find that flow to be the most agreeable.