My pet peeve: "revealing" speakers

'reveal' is a transitive verb.
This speaker is revealing......what?

Unless what is revealed is specified, the use of the term 'revealing' is meaningless.  So please stop.

In the main there are only three groups of phenomena that might be revealed:
1.   The signal on the recording.
2.   The artifacts of the system.
3.   (very minor and just to be complete) the external artifacts that millercarbon tells you to spend so much money eliminating.

So let's always be specific.

1.  Your ROOM is the most important element of any sound system.
2.  If you want to HEAR your components, have your dealer install (CORRECTLY) the most expensive Magnepans you can afford.
3.  If they did it properly, you will now hear your components and the recording as it was made.

If you like what you hear, so be it.  If not, time to start replacing your components or fixing your room.

Cheers!

In no way do I intend this to be an exercise in semantic gymnastics, but- I’ve often used the terms, "resolving" and, "revealing" interchangeably.      ie: A really, "resolving" speaker will be found, "revealing" of whatever is correct or incorrect, in the system before it (sources/media, components, cables, etc).      This article (notwithstanding opinions on Robert Harley, Martin-Logan, Constellation, TAS, the term, "Hi-Fi, etc) exactly describes how I’ve viewed the subject, since 1964: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/tas/261/editorial.htm

Anything with moving mass tends to be the hardest, or most difficult, to remove waveform tracing distortions (in said motional mass) from.

Systems that move about or translate and/or modify this thing called ’electricity’, can be easier to deal with, but that depends upon the given designers of of said systems -whether they understand the actual nature of electricity or not. Very few understand it. Most can cite the textbooks and manipulate formulae, but understanding the nature of electricity or electron flow or atomic function as related to this 'electricity' thing? Almost zero.

Or, that surface views won't give one an in-depth view, so as to be able to go after in-depth problems.

The whole thing becomes circular and redundant. Where inches of minor change are touted as miles and heights.

There seem to be two extremes w.r.t room interactions.
One extreme would be the Bose "direct/reflecting" strategy, which deliberately exploits room interactions.  Another is the magneplanar/electrostatic strategy, which typically aims for a more focused sound that minimizes room interactions. 

Yet, a very nearly flat frequency response curve (with relative absence of room colorations) doesn't necessarily tell us much about how well the speakers reveal subtle details, nor about how well they respond in the time domain.  My Totem speakers, as measured using REW, show a fairly impressive frequency response.  Yet when I apply various filters using HQ Player, I hear little if any difference.  Could be my ears, of course ... or perhaps my gear isn't sufficiently "revealing".  

At any rate, I'd expect a "revealing" system to make subtle details audible at normal listening levels, in addition to having a nearly flat frequency response, with little blurring/smearing due to phase and timing issues.

So, instruments and vocals sound natural and realistic;
the soundstage/image is believable;
subtle details are neither masked nor exaggerated.
Still, a system can sound quite good even if isn't very "revealing" in all these respects.