Re: Best Sounding Speakers According to Scientific Tests
Bad tests, not remotely awesome!
I know this is an old thread, and I didn't even read more than the first 4 pages. After that, I just skimmed a bit.
But, wow..what a mess. It really doesn't sound like good tests to me.
To begin with, each speaker needs to be placed properly to interact with the room in it's ideal fashion. To do this, it takes a trained set of human ears, with good knowledge of what they are doing and why they are doing it, and a hour or so. I simply don't believe that this was done with every speaker.
Next, arguments about very important lines of speakers being omitted are very valid. Some of the better speakers in the world weren't mentioned. Bowers and Wilkins, Paradigm, Sonus Faber, MacIntosh, JM Labs, etc...etc...? Without these, why bother?
Let's talk about the panel. They had their hearing tested, and performed well. Tested for what? Frequency response?
Was any testing done for the ability to recognize imaging, soundstage size and depth, phase issues, decay and all of the other things that audiophiles understand but the general public generally doesn't? Many people with "good" hearing couldn't tell a world-class speaker from a Bose-wave radio if it bit them on the butt. Many people with poor hearing, but knowledgeable about high-end audio do great at evaluating these things. It takes a lot more to create a quality speaker than just a pleasing tonal response. Most people have no clue what to listen for.
During testing 8 people were placed in a room at the same time? Seriously? Eight human bodies alone affect the perceived acoustics of a listener. Was there a front row and a back row? If there was, both the front and back rows heard different things, based on the interference from the other listeners. No? They were in a line? So the guy on the far right was expected to evaluate sound stage depth and imaging? There is no way this would work.
The speakers were hidden from the panel? How were they hidden? How did this affect acoustics and imaging?
The cable findings were interesting. I've done many repeated controlled blind listening tests when I worked with a large high-end cable manufacturer for many years. I've repeatedly had results where the panels could clearly distinguish differences in audio through different cables. This occurred predictably and repeatedly from panels testing cables from inexpensive $50 cables to $10,000+ cables.
Anyway..I'm with the guy who said he didn't believe these tests occurred. It sounds like BS to me. More-so, if they did occur, it sounds like they were so sloppily conducted as to be useless.
A lot of money is going towards testing that will produce no valid use. OR...a lot of words are being spent on a useless gag on a forum. The whole premise of this thread sounds like troll-bait.
Last edited by largedoor; 08-15-2010 at 10:30 PM..