The debate rages on. What are we to do? Designing a spealer that measures well in all areas shoulkd be the goal manufacturer.
Uh, no. The goal should be to invoke in the listener as much of the thrill and emotional response to live music as possible. Measurements are just one means to the end, as are many others including subjective listening by people who are very familiar with what live music sounds like.
The few standard measurements that show up in test reports are nowhere near sufficient to build a speaker to. The one exception may be YG, which uses over 150 different tests and measurements. If you get that granular you *may* be able to go mostly by measurements to reach your goal. But you have to have previously established that satisfying all those measurements does in fact reach the real goal of evoking the proper listener response.
And speaking of measurements, are you talking in-room or anechoic? If anechoic, you can definitely come up with a speaker that measures well but has peaks and suckouts in-room. And if in-room, which room? Or do you do an average of several different room sizes and shapes with different amounts of furniture, carpet, and wall hangings?
Personally, I find that high resolution is vital for emotional musical involvement, but high resolution is also a two-edged sword. It can give you the little details of venue acoustics, inner detail, the complete formation and decay of notes, the artists' movements and breathing, individual characteristics of instruments and voices that bring the performance alive and connect you with the performers. It can also reveal flaws in the recording chain which--rather than enhancing the musical experience--harshly remind you that you're listening to a reproduction.
Getting the one kind of resolution without the other is the tricky part. That's why ultimately there has to be a subjective listening and voicing to balance musical resolution against anti-musical artifacts.