The Harman research seems to correlate well with what audiophiles like, though. The main exceptions I can think of are planars, as John Atkinson pointed out in his article. Floyd Toole sheds some light on this in his book -- the Quads (57's?) tested much better in stereo than in mono. And Harman tests in mono. Their speaker positioner also doesn't substitute for the careful setup of an audiophile system, which is particularly crucial with dipoles.
One point that Olive and Toole make, and it's one with which I agree strongly, is that speaker preferences are not solely a matter of taste. In blind tests, subjects with normal hearing routinely pick the speaker that is most accurate. I don't find that very surprising. Of course, we also "choose our poison" to some extent, depending on our listening material and levels and what we value most in reproduced sound. But the notion that people prefer inaccuracy doesn't seem to be true.
I'd draw a distinction, though, between picture-perfect response and accuracy with real-world material. If, say, pop recordings are hyped in the highs, as many are, you're likely to want a speaker that compensates for that.
One point that Olive and Toole make, and it's one with which I agree strongly, is that speaker preferences are not solely a matter of taste. In blind tests, subjects with normal hearing routinely pick the speaker that is most accurate. I don't find that very surprising. Of course, we also "choose our poison" to some extent, depending on our listening material and levels and what we value most in reproduced sound. But the notion that people prefer inaccuracy doesn't seem to be true.
I'd draw a distinction, though, between picture-perfect response and accuracy with real-world material. If, say, pop recordings are hyped in the highs, as many are, you're likely to want a speaker that compensates for that.