Can you point out some ABX test results where the listeners failed to notice differences which otherwise they had claimed that they can hear ? I see this statement very often here but without any pointers to any reliable tests where the audiophile group fails.
But look at designers like Andrew jones and designers of KEF, they don’t do it. They rely more on measurments not just handpick parts. So it’s a matter of placebo probably.
Here is a list where there are some of such listed, mind you many are in German language
Not updated in a long time but here are also some results http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx.htm
I don't think you'll find any hobby who someone admits that fails in public talks except for some courageous or the ones who clearly have fun with it.
As I explained, yes. The frequency sweeps have inherent resolution which needs to be high enough. If that is low, no amount of post processing will fix it. Assuming that resolution is high enough, then the Octave value can be changed at will for creating graphs. Otherwise you have to remeasure.
The directivity isn’t bad, but not stellar either IMO
At least nice and parallel. So, equalisation is more easy and „harmonic“. Equalisation lets spinorama go up from 6.5 to 7.4 E.g. The Neumann KH 150, perhaps to perfect at the beginning, rises only from 6.8 to 7.1
So, your resolution was 1.46 Hz -
tbh the earlier link of thrid party measurement this ES14 N have way less neutral on axis, and the directivity mismatch isn't near neumann/genelec level.. it's a good passive, but nothing too spectacular, as others mentioned, that was vendor measurement with more smoothing vs ASR. Erin's data, personally I won't compare the score based on different source, or at least different equipment done measurements, it's good but if I am to select one passive, likely something like march audio sointuva, KEF R3 meta will likely be my take
That’s interesting as I have also not seen anything by him. I am familiar with most brands he had before.
Can you elaborate why the measurements aren’t good here? Also, what passive apeakers are better than them and why?
Three that I would look at right off the bat are the Kef R3 Meta, the March Audio Sointuva, and the Ascend Sierra LX. Inasmuch as the LX goes for $1400/pr, is made in the US, and has been out there for at least 18 months, it's a mystery to me why a single pair hasn't found its way to either Amir or Erin for review.
KHF has already answered this question, I think. See post #105
Because, he doesn’t want to get bashed by either of them. Neutral - best at ASR and Erin’s. His speaker will loose marks at both places as they are not neutral. Also, this is a small company, so if ASR or Erin says they are bad, it’s obvious that the company will run out of business soon as the influence both has on new Age audio consumers is massive.
'just handpick parts' was not stated nor implied.
This could be taken to mean that a smaller manufacturer should fear the verdict of Erin or Amir. But perhaps that is what the "new age audio consumer" really relies on. They no longer trust their own judgement, or are too lazy to form their own judgement in the first place. (I don't know if this is true, it's just a thought that comes to mind).
At least the Ascent Audio Sierra LX is also on my short list. But it‘s cabinet is not as massive as the cabinet of the Epos ES 14 N. And the importance of a massive Speaker cabinet was a kind of awakening experience for me last Saturday at Wilson audio!
I suspect that was more effective marketing than effective engineering.
Come on! This „third party measurements“ were from a Czech HiFi magazine. I read a little bit via deepL.
