In Reply to: Agreed. It does show that many listeners prefer technically "accurate" speakers. posted by Brian H P on March 30, 2022 at 16:52:28:
I'm mostly in favor of the Harman & related engineering developments. They invest substantial effort and treat it like a real scientific subject with appropriate controls and models but without too much oversimplification.
I've liked Revel speakers for their tonal correctness (very important for classical music) and others which score well on their metrics.
The big gap in my opinion is the use of mono-only measurements & criteria, as that misses a substantial psychoacoustic effect which could strongly influence preference scores.
For instance, I've been a long-time Magnepan fan. In single speaker mono, they're nothing special. But in stereo, they're magnificent.
I have direct experimental evidence. My maggies need repair and I'm currently using KEF Reference One as mains (+ subwoofer). They have Harman-ideal frequency response and dispersion, on par with Revel.
Individually, they're better than the maggies, but in stereo the maggies are a leap ahead. I.e. stereo KEFs are X% better than mono. Stereo maggies are 5X% better than mono.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- accuracy and tonality - DrChaos 04/1/2211:48:09 04/1/22 (8)
- RE: accuracy and tonality - Analog Scott 16:29:02 04/1/22 (7)
- elaborate more? - DrChaos 17:50:41 04/3/22 (6)
- RE: elaborate more? - Analog Scott 20:02:01 04/3/22 (5)
- Interesting graph from your link - Feanor 06:23:22 04/4/22 (3)
- RE: Interesting graph from your link - Analog Scott 06:21:11 04/5/22 (1)
- "There is no imaging in mono," he said authoritatively - geoffkait 06:37:21 04/5/22 (0)
- Mono can sound more spacious than stereo. Hel-loo! - geoffkait 08:42:56 04/4/22 (0)
- "That's how we listen" - geoffkait 02:14:11 04/4/22 (0)