I continue to disagree, but will not press it further. Readers can evaluate the arguments for themselves.
What happened to the measurements?
(I'm honestly happy for the makers that they sell so well!)
Those are all poorly measuring speakers.
Those measure well (og version only).
They measure well, and that midrange scoop is euphonic on many recordings (which is why it's there!)
Beside Erin, who else has measured them objectively? He didn't like the "house sound" they have with the mid range dip. It does seem a common approach from many manufacturers. I'd prefer flatter measuring and EQ to taste.
But would you? If you listened to them without the aid of measuring equipment or third party testing, would you dislike the sound? How can you say without having ever heard them? Would you notice the dip? I never have. I'm glad others say they measure well, that the dip is euphonic or not even there, but what difference does that make to me except to my ego? Perhaps you have the sensitivity of Erin who can hear dips and peaks of a db or three and discriminate exactly where along the frequency range those discrepancies lie. Who can tell that a speaker radiates at 50° or 60°.
I'm glad my taste lines up so well with measurements. Good for my ego. But what of the people who adore those poorly measuring speakers? I did watch a number of YouTube reviews about the Tribe towers and Dirty Weekend 6s. Very glowing. Which did lead to my purchase of the Zus but that only happened because they offer the trial period. Oh I did everything I could to get the sound where I needed it to be. Communicated with Zu extensively. Purchased footers. What I didn't do was buy a tube amplifier which is what many said are needed to enjoy zu speakers.
Lot of circular logic in there. I may like them on hearing them, I may not. I do know traditionally, I don't like speakers with that "house sound." If anything, I tend to like speakers with a mild mid range bump, a more "forward" sound as they say. I do know a speaker with a smoother flatter in room response allows more flexibility to EQ to personal preferences, room effects, etc. Finally, my audio OCD will bother me if I know it's there, and likely some confirmation bias will have me sure I can hear it and reduce my enjoyment. I'm not good with a "well they sound good to me so I don't care of they don't measure great" approach. I'm just too analytical minded for that. I will find gear that measures well, sounds good to me, and is (subjectively) good value for $.
Circular logic? I'm not sure there was any logic to my reply. But my listening approach is definitely straightforward. I listen. If something bothers me, nags at me, leaves me less than satisfied, I return it. If I can listen and enjoy with my full self w/o any analytic concerns, I can keep it. So it's the lack of analysis that wins the day. You have a much more circuitous approach to listening with an ever present back and forth between your listening and your analysis with subjectivity only allowed when determining the price! Just goes to show that stereo fans don't lie along a simple spectrum from hard of hearing to golden eared. Much more three dimensional.
They are a mystery ...
Ha! What mystifies me more are people who can listen to very distorted sound and not care. In fact, sit rapt, wrapped in pleasure. A friend loves opera and insisted I give it a try. So we went to the Cinemark theater where an opera was being streamed. The sound system was awful. I wouldn't have enjoyed a Pink Floyd concert given that sound system. But, she was delighted. Didn't notice any distortion. Thought it sounded great. I won't go to the BOK theater here in Tulsa for concerts after seeing the Chicks a number of years ago. Every time Natalie Maines hit a certain part of her register, there was clearly audible distortion. Obviously, hundreds of thousands of people go to concerts there and return for more. On the plus side, now that I went to see an opera with my friend and didn't enjoy it, I don't have to go to another!
