Join Date: May 2007
Re: Best Sounding Speakers According to Scientific Tests
I have top raise issue with this post, Lotus, if you truly are doing this study, as you say you are then God bless you, but I think itís all a bunch of BS, and hereís why.
You say 2000 test subjects all had their hearing tested and were found to be above average? WOW! That in it self is a statement I find impossible to fathom, I assume this was a typo, so letís move on.
Four demo tracks, at say 3 minutes each makes EACH demo 12 minutes (likely more). Time to change speakers and move every one in and out of room? Iíd venture a guess of 5 minutes, likely a more even when maximally optimized. So we are up to 17+ minutes per speaker MINIMUM. That would mean for the group to test 40 speakers per day it would take 11 1/3 hours per day of nearly tireless listening to each hear 40 different speakers.
Now if you Ďliterally tested hundreds of speakerí, even if we make that number 200, that means EACH listener is now up to 56 2/3 hours in this study. That doesnít count the redundancy designed into this test of replacing the top speaker from the lower price category into the higher price point, which will add more speakers, so AT MINIMUM that makes it go to say 225 speakers now each listener is up to 63.6 hours involved in this study. Now, if the study was truly done with the 2,000 people listed above, then we can make this test take a minimum of 3,178 hours or 79 full 40 hour work weeks, or 1.5 years with no vacation and perfect execution.
Holy poop! I have run medical studies and know the cost, I canít fathom how much you had to pay test subjects you get them to take the required weeks off work to do nothing but listen and rate speakers full time! Oh, and for all the above calculations I didnít include the survey time, which will add several minutes or more to EACH listening session, and no accounting for data crunching as I assume the staff, of which I have not even begun to attempt to calculate required to perform and organize this, especially with such criteria as never having two groups listen to the same set of speakers per session at the same time? WOW! The logistics of this study are staggering!
Lotus, letís face it, I think this is total BS, if you truly are doing this, then good for you, but I would like to know where the $$ came from to do it as the required funds would be HUGE!!!! Lets say even if you got every speaker lent to you, if they were new, and I am sure every manufacturer DIDNíT lend you all these speakers, (especially as I know how Magnepan is on loaners!) theyíd need to be broken in, adding hundreds of hours per speaker to the study, each speaker needs to be maximized for the rooms, something I only know of one lab in the country set up to swap speakers blindly, quickly and to consistently place them in the correct spot, and this lab in Revelís test center and cost millions to construct.
To all the readers of this forum, please see this and tell me if you can see my logic and why I am sure Lotus is just blowing smoke up our butts to pump Magnepanís and electrostats in general. Lotus, I am calling you a fraud as by any stretch of logic your test is physically impossible and even if it were, there would never be funding for such a test. Print magazines are dying, so they certainly wouldnít fund this endeavor. High end manufacturers are also suffering in the current economy, so they wouldnít pony up the Millions needed to do this, and if you expect me to believe you did this on your own dime, them it is nice to meet you Sergey Brin, or are you Larry Page because no one else has the capital to throw at a study like this that will never generate income.
Feel free to attack me and my logic all you want, but you and all the readers should easily be able to see that the time and effort required to do such a study is monumental, so I am sure itís not happening. Thanks for the comical reading though, I enjoyed reading the setup of the study!!! It cracked me up when I read it, but I must point out the obvious, your FOS!
Ken Taraszka, MD