The Audio Science Review (ASR) approach to reviewing wines.

ASR Review:
Over the years, I've read a small handful of ASR speaker reviews.  I've noted the following characteristics:

1. The primary focus of all the reviews were the measurement results
2. In spite of that, the essential imperfection of speakers means that the interpretation of these results is subjective.
3. Any listening impressions were brief and at the end of the review.  
4. All were based on hooking up 1 speaker only. I believe he only listens on-axis.
5. He may (perhaps always) apply EQ to the input signal and A/B the results.
6. The room (and likely, the equipment) used in testing is at his convenience.  For example, large speakers are tested in a sub-optimal room, rather than his listening room.
7. In the few reviews I've read, the listening tests were used to confirm the measurement results.
8.  I've not made an effort to see how non "domes & cones" speakers fare in his testing.

Conclusions:
It does appear that Amir is aware of and somewhat sensitive to the concerns regarding his review methodology.  If you value stereo imaging, his listening tests will probably be singularly unpersuasive.  I haven't (and probably won't) read enough of his speaker reviews to know if his measurement & listening results ever differ.

The testing methodology ASR utilizes is efficient, which enables them to review equipment much more quickly.  However, the knowledge gained is also limited by the process.  The results are thus most useful for the least discriminating.

I cannot understand subjectivist audiophiles or objectivists either...

 Acoustics measures by ears and tools matter first and last even over the pieces of gear design because any piece of well done designed gear is replaceable, The room and ears are not.

@rodman99999 Amen brother!

The folks on this site seems to give too much importance to ASR. Time to move on.

@prof 

Sorry, not calling you out on this, but you said "ASR evaluates equipment based on objective criteria that has been found to predict certain aspects of sound quality".

I was hoping that you could point to a link/post/discussion on ASR covering how the reader would correlate measurement anomalies directly with SQ issues?  This is 1 of the 2 big holes I find in reading ASR reviews, so hopefully it's covered somewhere on the site, in depth.

For example, in a Stereophile-style review, the listener might say something like "trumpet was a little spitty in its high register".  In the measurements section, that might be correlated with a slight rise in the on- or off-axis response.  In ASR, the measurements go first, so you get the same data.  In the listening section, though, you might see that Amir tried EQ'ing out the slight rise and liked or didn't care for the result.  No indication of how the listener would perceive the original issue.

The other big hole is imaging, which is ignored in the monaural listening test.  This has 2 parts - the first, alluded to above - due to the loss of the stereo image with only 1 speaker in play.  

There's also the speaker design - box vs planars vs horns vs OB, etc.  Each of these have significantly different radiating patterns.  Their optimum measurement results should also be radically different.

How is any of this information being conveyed to the reader?