Interesting conclusion that negates what most of us hear ..
Well at least you're not advocating for not listening at all .. blind or double blind .. eyes aren't ears and you've gotta listen to evaluate.
Apparently the Harman employees referred to have tin ears, or the tests ween't conducted properly since the differences between Harman speakers are certainly hearable.
To an extent you're defeating your argument.
Whoah, wait just a minute.
You have tied together a strawman, dressed it in rags, put it on my porch, and set it on fire. Except that isn't my argument, those aren't my rags, and that certainly isn't my porch, so I suggest you put it out while you still can and beat it before the cops arrive. Nice flames, though. I'm watching them from down the block. Whoops, fire department just showed up, so you're a bite too late. Officer, officer, it's that guy over there (points at Akustic) who did that!
I
never wrote that all speakers sound the same as I do
not believe that. Neither did I say that all that mattered was the frequency response. That's not what I wrote. How could you conclude that?
What I included was Harmon's
internal study showing that Harmon's speakers were differently rated by trained staff depending upon whether or not the brand name was visible. Subjective vs. objective turned up different responses. I'm not going to comment on the quality of Harmon's speakers tested, or the similarities or difference between them, as I lack direct experience.
Roger Russell, Ethan Winer, and a host of others have debunked cable claims. Audiophiles can't tell the difference in a DBT! Yet we still have "reviewers" making the same baseless claims using the same subjective testing. You wouldn't compare whiskey using a sighted test, would you?
Many fancy speakers in non BT or DBT testing are better rated
because the brand name is visible. I've heard some of the fancy-ass new speakers and didn't want to tell the owner, who paid enough that one could buy a decent car for that amount, that those speakers sound dreadful, and can't hold a candle to a pair of fifty-year old Bozaks with house-brand film crossovers.
JJ Johnston—who introduced me to electrostatic headphones thirty-five years ago—did a great trick with a fake tube amp. He had a switch which purportedly switched between a transistor amplifier and a tube amplifier. Except it wasn't a test between a tube amplifier and a transistor amplifier: it was the same transistor amplifier for both switch positions. Audiophiles preferred the tube amp. Nothing like a blind test.
My critique about the corruption at high-end audio magazines and the massive ignorance, however, remains valid. As long as reviewers keep equipment or are permitted to purchase it at a steep, steep discount, reviews will be suspect. As long as idiots uncritically crow about the wonderful improvement realized from using snake oil every single review in that publication will be suspect. As long as these endlessly subjective reviews are made—when I doubt those reviewers could hear or explain the difference between a Bose and a Bozak, a Cziek and a Cerwin-Vega, a Goodmans and a Goldstar, or a Tannoy and a Technics—the reviews will be inherently untrustworthy.
Particularly when the speakers being ooh'd and aah'd over are ported/passive bass-reflex combos built from ordinary stamped drivers, high-order crossovers, and riddled with obvious baffle and cabinet issues. Yet these are cooed over and talked about in terms one would use for wine or chocolate. The review usually facing a full-page ad from the vendor listing distributors. No surprise, that.