Discussion in 'Speakers' started by Mark Davis, Jun 16, 2018.
Nope, not saying that at all.
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.
1975 is fine by me.
I really wanted to like these HK speakers too. We carried the line in 1993 and they were dogs to move due to their lackluster sound. Ultimately all of them left in stock were put into the bi-annual burn sale.
Yes, there are superb new speakers in the $100K & up range. Absolutely astonishing. But one doesn't have to spend that much to get very high quality new speakers with today's technological advancements. Indeed, new driver materials and the use of computer modeling has resulted in big improvements to mid-priced speakers. Many speaker designers have spoken about how they have been able to achieve breakthroughs in their mid-line speakers. Such as Andrew Jones with his AF- and AS- line of speakers. B&W with their 700-series, the 705 S2 at $2500 is first rate. Golden Ear Triton-series, The Absolute Sound raved about their $8500 Triton Reference floorstanders. I listened to a lovely pair of Sonus Faber Olympica III last year, with a list price of $14,000 but I had a chance to buy the floor model at $7,000. Alas, I didn't need it that badly. The Paradigm Persona series with beryllium tweeters and midrange drivers. Many more.
There are a host of new speakers in the $2,000 to 10,000 price range which sound wonderful. I consider us to be in the midst of a Golden Age of loudspeakers.
And perhaps you could say, "The Gilded Age"
I'm curious: Which ones do sound better?
I would have guessed the older, heavier ones.
I have a friend here on AK and LH who turned me onto this driver (from the JBL 4367), and since he did all the research for this mod I am saving any detailed impressions for his thread he will be starting at some point. Only been installed for 2 days and have things to sort out but will just say this.. WOW! .. The detail, mids and bass I was missing has been astounding!
Thanks. I'll keep my eyes open for the thread.
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.
I want to see a double-blind test between some of those speakers and a Bozak B-302 with a rebuilt crossover using house-brand PP film capacitors and an orange flower pot cover for the midrange. I bet the reviewers better rate the Bozak thinking it is the boutique speaker.
Put a hood over those reviewers heads with two ear holes. See how the speakers compare. (No, no, not to shoot them after they fail the review. Although, as I think about this an idea occurs to me...)
Well...maybe, maybe not.
All is subjective - especially where speakers are concerned.
One thing about our species is that instead of having ONE sense, we have FIVE. We are also emotional beings.
We are not a bunch of music listening robots with no ability to see and feel the things we experience.
Things that we see and feel while listening to music through a set of speakers can affect how much we like the speakers.
Fact of life.
Sorry you think so lowly of all these clueless reviewers.
I'm taking my hyperbole and going home.
So the results of auditory tests should be adjusted based upon how well the cabinetry and styling match the room decor?
Wow. That's a, uh, errr, ummm, well, interesting theory about how to rate speaker sound. (eyes wide, looks around to see if others have heard this, too)
Me, I'll take the speakers the blind person likes, instead of the ones preferred by the decorator who buys books based upon colors matching the carpets, who now wants to color-coordinate the speakers to nicely accentuate the purple in the drapes, and whose personal listening device is a pair of iPhone earbuds.
Don't be sorry, you're not the reviewer.
When the reviewer reports that demagnetizing LPs (using an $1,800 demagnetizer) changes the sonic signature, or that laser light leaks out of the CD edges and somehow degrades the sound, or that a digital clock plugged in to the same socket strip as an amplifier can digitally re-align the power-line frequency, I simply cannot trust anything that reviewer says.
It's like listening to someone espouse the luminiferous aether or phlogiston. I just say, whatever dude, gotta get a drink, seeya later, and make a retrograde action to haul ass back to the land of science and engineering and quality sound.
Like I said, Bozak B-302 with a rebuilt crossover and a flower pot.
My KEF 105.2's with a simple re-cap via Falcon acoustics, sound better than anything I've heard auditioned in any audio store .
Blind tests don't necessarily give a good idea of what is better, only what is different between what's being compared. Something that sounds better initially, blind test or not, might not sound so good over time. I've found that to be true on many occasions.
That sounds like a fair statement. That was a really high end speaker for it's day. No reason it shouldn't still be.
I've listened to some really amazing stuff locally the past year with selections of my choosing. But when I go home and turn on my system, I don't feel I'm missing anything. To be honest, it was quite a letdown. Cause I really wanted to spend some money.
I meant to say more....
But lets take something like the Boston Acoustics A150s, II or IIIs, or the revered Large Advents. Do those stand up to something like the aforementioned Focal Aria 906? Not a chance in my book. And I'd be will to bet that alot of people in a blind test would be shocked at how much they are missing. But then, the Bostons/Advents can be had for a 1/4 of the price. Maybe even less. But I also think you're selling yourself short of what you could experience all for the sake of "Nostalgia"
Separate names with a comma.