It does not surprise me. I went pro audio for this reason.
When I bought my first expensive speaker (with a loan) I realized a few things.
Firstly I was paying mostly for the furniture value.
Secondly all components are off the shelf.
Even though the designer is well qualified and worked for multiple companies even respected mass market ones the design is perfect in only one place. His listening room and to his tastes.
The math is probably accurate and the crossover design and all the mathematical aspects may be be correct for the drive units in that size box.
The final tweaks are done through listening. What does that mean?
If you place the speakers in his room and sit in the position he was sitting at to tune them they will sound like he wants them to sound. This may or may not be accurate even in his space - it’s simply a matter of taste.
Now this was a clever designer who considered what kind of room the owner would use these in and whether they should be close to the wall or away.
So perhaps his listening space was meant to emulate the average customer’s listening room.
At the end of the day there are just so many subjective factors at play.
I don’t think (correct me if i’m wrong) most designers have access to an anechoic chamber or now a Klippel to check their designs.
Most of them are focused on little tweaks like capacitor/inductor value and type. Something little like putting a felt pad in front of the tweeter mount. Or they may time align the drivers by slanting the front baffle.
Mostly they are a mathematical exercise is getting those chosen drivers to perform as designed in that box. With special consideration to one or 2 normally overlooked factors for example time alignment.
The game has certainly changed in last decade but most of those old audiophile companies are still making products which consider perhaps one or two factors and pushing to optimize just those 2 and marketing the product based on those strengths.
Today the technology is so far advanced that almost everything can be considered directivity, diffraction, power handling, distortion, radiation pattern, frequency response and then made into a circumspectly optimized design.
I sort of laugh when I see designs in this day and age which are results of the old school loudspeaker cookbooks.
That’s why they had so many designs in them. You first chose which constraint you wanted to optimize for and then went with the design that best addressed that constraint.
Each customer also has one or 2 constraints in their listening spaces that most benefit from being addressed. But ideally all would be considered and addressed.
I wish manufacturers would be more clear about which aspect their product is optimized for rather than trying to target the entire market. However I can understand that the designer wants the entire marketplace to be the potential market for their design to sell as many as possible.
These are all compromised it just matters which compromises you will accept.
That is a long post.
Is the implicit message that you would rather have Genelecs than these speakers?
Or how does this relate to the thread?