Forward or laid back


To quote a recent comment by a member: "The most salient characteristic (to me) is that the acoustic presentation of some of these speakers seemed quite forward (row D), whereas that of others was really quite laid back (row M). There was also, quite often, a second correlation between that forward presentation and a (relative) brightness in the treble. As far as I can tell, these features are often preferred and indeed seem to be aimed for in the voicing of many models during their development. To my ears, speakers in this category were the Treos, O/93s, and Veneres. Somewhere in the middle were the CM10s and the Liutos. A bit more laid back were the Dynaudios and the Vienna Acoustics"

You may be in the minority but then so am i! However, little do these audiophile misanthropes know that they do not or can not hear or appreciate the sound of an orchestra or a vocalist in a natural concert hall setting!

I agree again on another point. I can not STAND most of these so called " reviewers" who have lynched the press with their stupid ass observations about live acoustic sound and what it is to appreciate its truthfulness. Every word they utter is punch, Liveliness, BOOGIE (lmao) , exciting, drive etc, etc. Is that how a frickin orchestra or a female ( operatic) voice should sound??? I read their source material used and I want to throw up!! ( not because of the music per say , but that this is the material they use to evaluate loudspeakers??? ( Maybe they've picked the wrong hobby..?) They can spend their money on these components and fool themselves into believing this hobby they enjoy (high end audio) is fulfilling their supposedly objective needs; which is all well and good. It's not , however, the" real " sound of unamplified music. 
I guess, in the final evaluation, their " employers" no little either, or why would they adhere to or accept the rantings  of kids who are engulfed in this music for evaluating music reproduction in the home??????
So admittedly, not having heard everything of the newest designs around today, I can still proudly look back and thank a few people ( some gone now) who have truly..... contributed to the development of natural sound reproduction: Nelson Pass, Spencer Hughes, Peter Walker, to name a few!
PS. I used to publish a small subscription newsletter review myself in the early 1980's.

128x128imaging1
I think we need an intervention for hm1....I'm worried about him.  He's starting to babble and blurt out statements directed toward no one in particular:()
I would hope the designer would measure the response anechoically and within a somewhat average sized, every day room without to many reflections or distortions 
obviously.....lol... You must start with a speaker or sound producing device that can accurately reproduce sound energy and do it so all frequencies are represented and presumably smoothly balanced; hard to understand I guess

Not that hard hm1, but all this stuff isn't new or particularly insightful.  Just sounds like whining and generalized grievances aimed at anyone who isn't you!  At least Your last post was fairly coherent.  So what are your favorite components and transducers?

You said "most accurate and useful frequency response measurements of a final and hopefully well designed transducer should have its "in room" response curve as its final destination (as opposed to an and anachoic chambers readings)."   You are, I think, attempting to communicate that a speaker may meet an anechoic standard but, like an amplifier with good specs, may not pass the ear test.  It's not a difficult concept to understand but, in your case, apparently a difficult one to clearly express.
Mark Twain: it ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for certain which turns out not to be true.