Nor did I say it was outlawed. I did misspeak though. It is not a certification but rather emissions level compliance that the EPA is requiring. Perhaps there are mills that could still produce a non-NAUF panel, but sale of it would be difficult, particularly in California.
I built the XLS maybe 15 years ago and paid maybe $125. I was never very happy with them even prefering the Overnight Sensations. The Swan-Hivi 2 way kits (Amazon) for @$239 including flatpaks are a much better speaker. I have since built two more Swan-Hiv kits really enjoying the results. Beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder I guess. About the only thing Danny and I agree; is our love for soccer (football). Cheers!
The distortion at higher listening levels is real and easily heard. The objective distortion measurements are spot on. At moderate listening levels these are good to very good speakers and I enjoyed them. But at higher volume levels, which I prefer, the distortion makes itself very much known. A single horn passage becomes lean and strident. A whole horn section together becomes a cacophony. This is a non-starter for me. The finished speaker prices ($1050.00 - $1,400.00) do not seem to be a good value. No one should pay $50 for that tweeter when there are world class tweeters from SB Acoustics, Seas, Scan-Speak and others in that price range or only $60. I agree with GR Research that most xovers in production speakers are cheap and should be upgraded. However their recommendation on spending more on capacitors and connectors for for the XLS Encore than the actual drivers cost is beyond me. My XLS Encores are from AV123 and I only paid $150.00 used. Was going to do the cap and resistor upgrade, but decided against after listening. Get a Madisound, Jeff Bagby or Zaph kit. I'd steer clear of GR Research. YMMV. Just my opinion and worth every penny you paid for it.
My criteria, is more based on how accurate the speaker is.
I think that with all the variables surrounding room condition and placement of speakers, along with variability of how the ear works over time, it's pretty doubtful that any highly accurate measurements are going to be a better reflection of how good a speaker is than my personal enjoyment of the music.
I'm even lazier than you. If I enjoy listening and listening a lot, it's good for me. When you take the transfer function of the speaker input to the acoustic waves the speaker generates, take the transfer function of the wave thru the acoustic environment of the room, the transfer function of the acoustic wave from the entrance to the ear to the electrical signal generated by the ear and then the incredibly complex interpretation of the electrical signal by the brain, it's all too much work. I enjoy it and like to listen, that's my only criteria of a good sound system. That's not to say it is or isn't "accurate", it does say it's enjoyable.You are conflating two entirely different things.
'How good" (well) a speaker happens to be depends on how well it works as a transducer, converting electrical signals into sound waves. In this sense, the loudspeaker is a machine, and it has a job to do. Tests and measurements can give us a clear, objective picture of how well it does its job, just as tests and measurements tell us how well a car engine performs, an electrical generator performs or a heart monitor performs.
I think that one of the overlooked aspects of tests and measurements is that they weed out the under-performing examples, the stuff with inappropriate characteristics or the stuff that's just pure junk. This is my personal first-step use for tests and measurements. Some people use tests and measurements to identify good, better and best, as in a "race to the top", so to speak, but I think that's a second-step aspect ... it comes into play after you've separated the field into the thumbs-up and thumbs-down lists.
However ... this is impersonal, unemotional work using calibrated instruments to define electrical and mechanical characteristics. It has nothing to do with human emotion, and nothing to do with personal preference. The phrase you used ("personal enjoyment") is emotional and subjective, and not at all scientific.
Some people enjoy booming bass, or a smiley-face response curve, or high distortion. There is no gainsaying personal preference. You like what you like. But that doesn't mean that you are hearing the closest replication of the recording. Personal preferences that include a highly affected playback can mask information on the recording and then you lose information.
Not only that, but manufacturers cannot predict what your particular personal preferences are. Accuracy is one clear goal. Tests and measurements will give a clear view into the degree that any audio gear - electronic or transducer - hits or misses the mark.
Designing and manufacturing for affected characteristics is a swamp, a morass of almost infinite deviations from the standard. It increases costs enormously, and it also makes identification of individual characteristics (and the degree of their deviation) a time-consuming and difficult process. IMO that's not good ... not good at all.
This is not to include the fact that personal preference is subjective, and subjective sensory judgement is not only biased, but changes with time and surroundings. Tests and measurements do not; they are reproducible. Reproducibility is one of the primary aspects of the Scientific Method.
There are two ways to use tests and measurements. One is to accept accurate playback of the recording as your goal. The other is to learn, by dint of hard work and long-time experience, the exact nature of your desired deviations from standard. This is called correlation. It means that you have to become familiar with the concept of accuracy and the particular nature of your preferences. It's doable, but takes a lot of work.
Personally, I take accuracy as my goal because I'm lazy. I don't want to work any more than I have to.
I guess an entirely new topic and not saying you are right or wrong, but I agree in some ways.
