- Joined
- Sep 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1,191
- Likes
- 2,623
I've been pondering over this question for a while now
Being quite familiar (for a person without a background in audio from a technical pov) with the known research, obviously we want to tick all the boxes. Neutral direct sound, excellent directivity properties, lack of resonances, lack of distortion, etc.. The whole package.
What makes good and what makes great I wonder? "It depends" is very likely the answer, as with most things.
Without quoting specific posts. I've read (sometimes heated) discussions over budget loudspeakers with good measurements sounding less good than more expensive models with similar numbers, to which distortion is often brought up. On the other hand, we've also had (sometimes heated) arguments about that aspect when a loudspeakers with non-exemplary distortion numbers is perceived as audibly good, or great even. While sighted bias is often a factor, this is not always the case.
Another recent example, to which we're still awaiting Amir's review, is the JBL 4349. Harman's spinorama was posted in the thread, and while good, on paper it's not spectacular. Yet it would seem odd to me, that they would release a loudspeaker in this price range that didn't go through the blind test protocol. We weren't dazzled with the numbers however.
The Revel Salon2, while producing excellent measurements, technically speaking has been surpassed by several models from Revel themselves, as well as other manufacturers. I've yet to hear to read about anyone not favoring the Salon2 compared to those other Revel models though, apart Harman marketing.
Have any of you ever had experiences where the, technically speaking, better loudspeaker left you less satisfied in a direct comparison, and that beyond suspicion, there are no hard facts as to why this is? Or have the listening experiences always followed suit.
Where exactly are we with regards to the research? What have those +100 measurements and reviews told us so far?
Being quite familiar (for a person without a background in audio from a technical pov) with the known research, obviously we want to tick all the boxes. Neutral direct sound, excellent directivity properties, lack of resonances, lack of distortion, etc.. The whole package.
What makes good and what makes great I wonder? "It depends" is very likely the answer, as with most things.
Without quoting specific posts. I've read (sometimes heated) discussions over budget loudspeakers with good measurements sounding less good than more expensive models with similar numbers, to which distortion is often brought up. On the other hand, we've also had (sometimes heated) arguments about that aspect when a loudspeakers with non-exemplary distortion numbers is perceived as audibly good, or great even. While sighted bias is often a factor, this is not always the case.
Another recent example, to which we're still awaiting Amir's review, is the JBL 4349. Harman's spinorama was posted in the thread, and while good, on paper it's not spectacular. Yet it would seem odd to me, that they would release a loudspeaker in this price range that didn't go through the blind test protocol. We weren't dazzled with the numbers however.
The Revel Salon2, while producing excellent measurements, technically speaking has been surpassed by several models from Revel themselves, as well as other manufacturers. I've yet to hear to read about anyone not favoring the Salon2 compared to those other Revel models though, apart Harman marketing.
Have any of you ever had experiences where the, technically speaking, better loudspeaker left you less satisfied in a direct comparison, and that beyond suspicion, there are no hard facts as to why this is? Or have the listening experiences always followed suit.
Where exactly are we with regards to the research? What have those +100 measurements and reviews told us so far?
