HI Jerry,
>>This discussion shows the same measured data however, I think if you were a consumer you might think that the speaker on the lower right, was better than that of the one on the upper right at a different scale.
Your punctuation can lead to different interpretations of the above. To be clear, the point of the graphs was to show how one set of data could be processed to display the four "different" results.
>> This is where I think ease, catt and even more so the new clf speaker measurement file format can give consumers a more fair method of looking at data.
Actually not. These programs only display data provided to them by the manufacturers. What is lacking is a common method for such data collection and its processing. Without these, one is left to making educated guesses, at best, about comparability.
Polars are a prime example of this. As one example, if the entire loudspeaker system is measured as a single source then that data is accurate ONLY at the measurement distance. Complex data from each source (i.e. driver) is needed to do accurate predictions at other distances. The larger the loudspeaker(s) and/or the shorter the measurement distance, the more this is relevant. For predicting array performance, all bets are off without such data. The programs you mention have no bearing on these things.
Cheers,