In my view, subjective evaluations are as good as the reviewer abilities to explain subtle things based on his (hopefully) larger experience with equipment compared to normal users. He needs to have a background on recent developments in technology, be aware of how different speakers work, know about subtle changues that make music sound colored, and, of course, have a lot of experience hearing diverse type of live music. I prefer numbers, objective data. Perhaps this is due to my formation, but I tend to feel that objective data should remain constant, if the measures are taken in the same conditions (contrary to subjective evaluations, when some reviewer will say that the highs were clear and acurate and another that they are harsh). I know that in practice serveral factors are more important than the ability of the speakers to "sound good", like the room or our particular hearing. Still, I prefer to see "-3dB point is at this frequency using a calibrated mic at this distance" than any "tight" or "boomy" bass description. Of course, none of these will be better than our own ears (at least from the point of view about if we will enjoy the sound or not), specially if we have experience with lots of speakers, have trained ourselfs in the subtleties of sound listening to live music and have read a significant amout of literature on the subject. Anyway, I would like to see the your answer to the topic question.