omnidirectional loudspeakers = best design available

[bmc0]

Yes, but knowing you are makes a big difference IMO. You can attempt to mentally correct for it.

Knowledge of cognitive/perceptual biases doesn't really make one less susceptible in uncontrolled conditions—just perhaps more cautious in drawing conclusions. Trying to "correct" based on assumptions about one's own biases is by no means guaranteed to make sighted impressions more reliable. How do you figure out what needs correction? How do you determine the proper amount of correction?

 

[MattHooper]

C'mon Matt, you know better. Fremer never looks at the measurements which he does not do himself. Amir listens after measurements and Erin listens both before and after, and both try to correlate what they hear with what they measure.

Yes. Fremer also sees the measurements after he’s done his reviews. He has said that when he has a speaker in for review, he generally tries to predict the speakers measured response (and that’s why you’ll see him noting if he thinks for instance mid bass is down in level, upper mid range, maybe forward, etc.). And he at least claims that he’s often enough pretty close. Having read many of his reviews over the years and looked at the measurements, I’ve found that he gets pretty close fairly often.

In the end, it matters whether somebody’s descriptions are accurate or not, doesn’t it?

Personally, I would put Erin above Fremer in terms of how accurate and fairly reliable, he seems to be in guessing the measurements.
But then again, I would put Fremer above Erin in the ability to convey the sound in descriptive language.

Really? Can give a link to such a review? I don't recall ever seeing such a statement by Amir.

As I said, Amir has pointed out both on this forum and elsewhere his brain is just as susceptible to bias effects as anybody else.
For instance, look at the listening test discussion:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nordost-tyr-2-review-usb-cable.31730/

I don't care whether Fremer can, when the wind is blowing from the East and the stars are properly aligned, hear something that is actually there.

I don’t find dismissal via exaggeration to be a very convincing argument. I think it’s fair to guess that somebody who doesn’t give Fremer any credence isn’t going to have followed a lot of his reviews. Are you in a position of being able to assessment how often his descriptions of loudspeakers are accurate or not? Not saying that I’ve done a full tally, but I really liked his writing for a long time, and have read his reviews since the 90s, and as I’ve said not only do I find his descriptions of loudspeakers I’m familiar with accurate, I’ve been surprised about how often his review descriptions point out elements that show up in the measurements. (for instance I’ve been going back and looking at audio physic speaker reviews and recently read Fremer’s review of the AP Caldera. Fremer complaint of a sizzley high end that was too bright and exaggerated tape hiss, record noise, and other elements, and he posited a frequency bump around 6k. And there it was in the measurements - a significant rise around 6K exacerbated by a 5dB dip near the 2.7kHz crossover to the tweeter. He also pointed out some unevenness in the bass in his room, also plausible via the in room measurements. And there are plenty of similar examples. I think positing these type of things as luck of the draw is a bit too easy).

He hears plenty of things that we know for an abso!ute fact are not there.

Which again… everybody is susceptible to.
That’s why everybody in the world would have to use blind testing to arrive at truly reliable listening test results. And that’s why singling Fremer out for this doesn’t seem as salient as you imply IMO.

I don't need to know anything more about him than that to discount everything he says.

Of course I agree it’s perfectly fine for you to not want to read anything Fremer writes because he also “hears” and endorses some woo woo.

But I’m not going to discount everything somebody says if I have found plenty of their reviews to be accurate and useful.

And again, do you really think that Fremer’s perception of the sound of a full MBL Omni set up, and the way that can be somewhat different from standard loudspeakers, is just pure imagination? Is there anything in the measurements of that system that suggests Fremer’s descriptions aren’t accurate?

This is what I mean by things getting a bit too handwavy - dismissing everything Fremer writes because “ I know of some times he imagined things” doesn’t cut it for me.

Apropos of this thread, there is practically no reports out there of what it’s like to listen to a full omni/MBL surround set up. So I’m happy to read somebody like Fremer, who is good at putting sonic impressions into language, as to what the experience was like. I don’t have to take it as holy writ. But as I say, my own experience with those speakers suggests his descriptions are very plausible.

Anyway, that’s enough of that one. Cheers.

 

[MattHooper]

Basically, the omnis create the wrong reflections from the wrong directions with the wrong delays. Multichannel can fix that.

cheers

But it’s not going to create the same effect as the Omni.

I’ve had both.

And having tried my omnis as part of my surround system, and even examined the effect with my own sound design tracks, I have some confidence Fremer’s description of how a full MBL Omni set up can “disappear as sound sources”and provide the sense of acoustic objects in soundtracks/music as appearing in real space, with a seamless sense of acoustic ambiance and immersion that is harder (maybe impossible?) to achieve with standard loudspeakers. (And without sacrificing a believable level of image specificity).

If I bought into the amount of negativity about omnis propounded by certain folks here, I would’ve deprived myself of some of my most amazing and satisfying, listening experiences.

 

[MarkS]

Are you in a position of being able to assess how often his descriptions of loudspeakers are accurate or not?

I am in a position of being able to assess his multiple sworn statements over the decades that digital totally sucked and that only 100% pure analog, like those sweet sweet MoFi pressings, sounded any good at all, and that the contamination of digital was completely obvious to anyone with ears, only to be met with radio silence from him when it was revealed that many of those MoFi pressings whose praises he had sung to high heaven were, in fact, sourced from digital copies of the original master tapes.

Broken clock. Right twice a day. I don't care.

 

[Newman]

[re Fremer] I am in a position of being able to assess his multiple sworn statements over the decades that digital totally sucked and that only 100% pure analog, like those sweet sweet MoFi pressings, sounded any good at all, and that the contamination of digital was completely obvious to anyone with ears, only to be met with radio silence from him when it was revealed that many of those MoFi pressings whose praises he had sung to high heaven were, in fact, sourced from digital copies of the original master tapes.

Broken clock. Right twice a day. I don't care.

He also made the opposite mistake: the Beatles Singles Collection Box Set on 45 rpm in 2019 fiasco, where he suspected (from a phrase in the release notes) it had been transferred to digital in the mastering process and promptly described it as "flat perspective, dried reverb that doesn't translate into space and worst of all: a lack of textures to vocals and especially drums: all attack, little sustain, weak decay. Single after single comparisons produced disappointment...that's what it sounds like (a transfer to digital)...If this was cut directly from tape, I'll eat the box with a knife and fork!", only to publish the review and then hear from the mastering crew that it was actually all-analog. He then re-wrote the review while half-eating humble pie, half-backtracking, half-standing by his initial sonic impressions, insisting the sh**-storm in the comments was an over-reaction...true fiasco.

Broken clock indeed. Also FYI Matt's persistent defences of him over numerous years on ASR is entirely self-serving, ie because Matt often agrees with MF's opinions on sound quality of certain things. That's all it takes.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Broken clock indeed.

Of course, none of what you wrote is an argument against my position on Fremer.
I defend only what is defensible - the plausibility that Fremer has captured aspects of sound quality in his descriptions where such audible differences are plausible, eg loudspeakers, and in the current example that you are studiously avoiding: his MBL surround system review.

And I’ve already pointed out numerous times that the fact somebody can fall for bias effects does not equate to their being unable to hear real sonic differences.

So long as you keep adducing examples like the above, rather than addressing the actual examples of what I defend, you will be as usual missing my point.

Also FYI Matt's persistent defences of him over numerous years on ASR is entirely self-serving, ie because Matt often agrees with MF's opinions on sound quality of certain things. That's all it takes.

This is the typical “diss” without substance.

I could say that your defence of Toole is entirely self-serving because you believe it allows you to dismiss any sighted listening report or argument that you disagree with or find inconvenient. You savour the veto power of telling somebody else who has experience with equipment you’ve never heard “you are imagining things.”

But that wouldn’t be any argument whatsoever as to whether you are correct or not. For that I’d actually have to address your arguments. Just like you are not addressing mine.

I’ve pointed out that Fremer’s speaker reviews, while of course not infallible, often are plausible with respect to the measurements supplied by stereophile, and that my own impressions of the same gear ALSO were fairly consistent with the measurements. This is not the same as implausible claims about things like cables.

I’ve pointed out the same about speakers I’m familiar with respect to John Atkinson and Kal Rubinson’s speaker reviews. Often we have coincided on characteristics of the loudspeaker that show up in the measurements. (or the very least, are not made implausible by the measurements).

Of course, you never really address any of this. And “ broken clock” responses are lazy and don’t address any specifics.

I’ll put it to you again:

Here is Fremer’s MBL surround system review.

It’s accompanied by measurements .

Show us how you know Fremer got it wrong - that Fremer’s review did not capture anything plausible about the experience of listening to that system.

 

[MattHooper]

Btw, there’s a long running Thiel Owner’s thread on Audiogon in which Jim Thiel’s brother, Tom, sometimes participates.
Tom was an integral part of Thiel for many years,

Tom said recently that before Jim died (early of cancer), Jim Thiel was working on an
Omni directional speaker as their next flagship project!

Damn!

As a big fan of Thiel’s work, and holding him in high regard as a very clever engineer, I would love to see what he came up with if only he had been allowed to continue.

 

[board]

Since this is in the context of the problem of sighted bias, I’m still not sure why you think that Amir or Erin would necessarily have an advantage. They’re just susceptible to sighted bias us as anybody aren’t they?
As Amir has pointed out a number of times in his cable takedowns, even when he knows a cable is technically not making any difference he still “ perceives” a difference in sighted listening.

And this is my point: bias effects don’t go away because you know about the problem of bias effects. That’s why even Dr Floyd Toole would use blind testing for speakers when he’s looking for the most reliable results.

So again the point I’m making is that the appeal to “ but Fremer has been susceptible to bias effects” is to me neither here nor there, because that’s true of everybody.

Sorry if this has been said before, but at least IME the difference is that Amir and Erin, or anyone else believing in blind tests, are willing to say "Yes, we were fooled by this being a sighted test. So let's do the same test again but blind. If we get a different result, the results of the blind test is the one that counts, and the results of the sighted test should be dismissed."
Fremer is not willing to say that. Rather he says the opposite.
He thinks he and his hearing is infalliable. If he believes he has heard something he will never admit that he could possibly have been wrong about it. If a blind test proves him wrong, he blames the test, gets upset and start hurling insults and talks about how much authority to he has because he has worked as a reviewer for 40 years, and he knows this person, who also says the same, and he's met this musician, and he knows this engineer, and therefore he's right and ...
Therein lies the difference.

To be fair, I do agree with you that we shouldn't necessarily dismiss everything Fremer says, but the way I see it is that we can listen to someone who's right about the facts perhaps 90-95 % of the time, or we can listen to someone who's right about the facts perhaps 20 % of the time (Fremer). So why would we listen to someone who's only right 20 % of the time?
And also, why would we want to listen to someone who's never willing to admit that he could be wrong - especially when he's wrong so often?

However, with speakers specifically, I think it's a type of product that we go listen to and see if we like them and then afterwards make a purchase, perhaps with the aid of seeing measurements. Of course, reading subjective reviews might whet our appetite.
I will admit that I would be much more likely to trust one of Fremer's subjective reviews of speakers than of amplifiers, cables, CD players, etc. We already know that the audible difference between speakers is much greater than that of CD players, amplifiers, cables, etc., hence it is also more likely that he will describe an actual difference rather than an imagined one.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for your comment.

It does repeat points others have brought up that I have addressed. Again, I’m never arguing that anybody here SHOULD care about what Michael Fremer or any such reviewer says about anything. If you’re an “ I only care about the measurements” audiophile then that works for many people.

Therein lies the difference.

For the point I’ve been making, for me it’s
“ difference without a difference.”

When it comes to whether a reviewers comments are of any use to me, their attitude towards blind testing is neither here nor there.
As I pointed out, Amir has we would agree a very reasonable attitude towards blind testing. And yet this does not stop Amir, or anybody at all, from being susceptible to perceptual bias effects. Even Amir, in sighted listening, reported hearing a “ difference” between a Nordost cable and a cheap cable, even though he’s measured both and knows there is no audible difference.

Does this mean that Amir is therefore incapable of hearing and reporting real sonic qualities when they actually exist? Such as for loudspeaker frequency response deviations, or whatever? No. And as I’ve said if it’s just hopeless for anyone to accurately perceive real speaker characteristics in sighted conditions then all the time spent on this forum is pretty much wasted in terms of recommending products.

What matters then - when it comes to getting any information from informal listening conditions - is whether you can see whether Amir has any track record of accurately perceiving and describing the characteristics of loudspeakers.

If he does, then it’s reasonable to provisionally take some of his descriptions as possibly informative. It doesn’t require taking the descriptions as some sort of holy writ. But it can be reasonably suggestive.

I take the same attitude towards what I get out of any audio reviewer, including Fremer.
I don’t care that he’s imagined some differences between cables. So have I !
And if the fact that I can imagine differences between cables means that I can’t ever perceive real sonic differences and gear like loudspeakers I may as well abandon this hobby.

So in the case of Fremer, as I’ve said, I’ve followed his reviews since the 90s and been able to check a number of his descriptions with my own experience of the same gear and found his descriptions to be accurate to what I hear as well. And as I also pointed out, his loudspeaker descriptions have often enough (for me) coincide with the measurements (or at the very least, our often not contradicted).

So I’ve built up a certain amount of personal confidence in his reviews of loudspeakers, where I would wager that very often he’s describing some aspects of the sound that I too would experience with that loudspeaker.

This started in this thread with the eye rolling that greeted the link to Fremer’s review of the MBL omni surround system. The type of experience an Omni surround system would produce I would think is quite pertinent to this thread. Maybe some people aren’t intrigued at all by the idea of how a full Omni surround system would sound, but certainly some people are reading this thread would be interested and I certainly am. And virtually nobody else has (IIRC) given an in-depth report on what such a system is like to experience. And Fremer got to actually live with the system in his own home for a while! Because there’s nothing in review measurements suggesting Fremer’s description is implausible (and he identified the general tonal balance as well ).
I’ve also mentioned that as somebody who owned MBL omnis and tried them in my home theatre system, that…once again…Fremer’s descriptions seem on point with what I heard. There’s measurements and then there’s what something actually sounds like, and some people seem to feel like Omnis in a Home theatre set up would lead to hopelessly diffuse imaging…. But it ain’t so. That’s what Fremer reports, and that’s also what I heard when I tried them in my system.

If anybody is interested in what that surround MBL experience might be like, and they would appreciate a description of the experience, but they simply refuse to read the only report about it
“ because it is Michael Fremer” to each his own, but to me that’s their loss.

Cheers.

 

[board]

As I pointed out, Amir has we would agree a very reasonable attitude towards blind testing. And yet this does not stop Amir, or anybody at all, from being susceptible to perceptual bias effects. Even Amir, in sighted listening, reported hearing a “ difference” between a Nordost cable and a cheap cable, even though he’s measured both and knows there is no audible difference.

Does this mean that Amir is therefore incapable of hearing and reporting real sonic qualities when they actually exist? Such as for loudspeaker frequency response deviations, or whatever? No.

Yes, biased people can also perceive real, audible differences, and yes, no one is immune to bias, but Fremer seems to think he is, and that's the point I was making - that people who believe in blind testing do so because they acknowledge that the visual aspect may influence them; Fremer refuses to acknowledge that he could possibly be influenced by anything else than the sound (not even volume level), and he will do mental gymnastics to his death to avoid acknowledging that he was possible mistaken.

I am aware that this is essentially an ad hominem argument, but that's the issue I have with Fremer, and I think it's the issue that most others here have with him as well - that he's so incredibly conceited and arrogant and adamant that he's right about absolutely everything he claims, when he's in fact wrong very frequently (but not always).
If he's wrong frequently, how do we know when to trust his statements and when not to?
Wouldn't it be much easier to trust someone who's right 90-95 % of the time?

I have, unfortunately, learned that there's a certain type of person who's the most adamant that they're right about the things that they're completely wrong about, and Fremer seems to be one of them.
Why in the world would we listen to someone like that?

I do acknowledge that his speaker reviews have been useful for you and for many others, but, while this is not exactly the best comparison, imagine that it was a biologist or a construction engineer who were wrong 80 % of the time. Would we listen to them? Or ask that engineer to build a house for us? Or have the biologist diagnose an illness for us?
Although I try to avoid ad hominems, some people make such wacky statements that you lose all faith in them, and when they then have the attitude of "I'm never wrong!" I don't see the point in listening to them.
If they had had the attitude of "All my beliefs are essentially open to be changed" then maybe I would listen to them if they were wrong about certain things (and I've seen examples of people like that).

As for the specific speakers in question that you bring up, I can't comment as I haven't heard them.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks again. I won’t say more on this except to say: I generally have no qualms with your characterization of Fremer. I myself have been on the end of his wrath and insults when I dared to point out some of his dubious inferences. But as I say, for me, that’s beside the point.

If he's wrong frequently, how do we know when to trust his statements and when not to?

As I said for me: I look to where he is not wrong frequently (loudspeaker reviews IMO).
If there’s evidence for that, then I can sift it from the type of reviews in which he is more prone to error.

Wouldn't it be much easier to trust someone who's right 90-95 % of the time?

In the real world, which reviewer would fit that description?

Let’s, for sake of argument, say that Amir’s subjective descriptions were 90 to 95% accurate. In fact, if we were just going by measurements, his reviews would be 100% accurate..

The problem remains, for me and many other audiophiles, that Amir reviews an extremely limited selection of loudspeakers relative to what’s out there and relative to the variety of loudspeakers I’m actually interested in.

I don’t think he’s reviewed yet a loudspeaker I would have been interested in buying (with the exception of the Grimm audio speakers if I could afford them).

For instance, per this thread, I’m extremely interested in MBL Omnis but I doubt anybody’s going to be sending one to Amir anytime soon. But it’s the gig of someone like Fremer to get ahold of all sorts of interesting speakers like that and report on them. Fremer’s descriptions of MBLs (as well as Jonathan Valin in TAS) are absolutely bang on from my experience.

Or for instance when the Aslyvox full range ribbon speakers started showing up to raves at audio shows I was very intrigued: full range, ribbon speakers but with some twists, such as high sensitivity (94 - 97 dB) and can be run by even lower powered tube amps.

Is anybody gonna be sending one of those to Amir or Erin? No. So my only recourse is whatever subjective reviewers get those speakers, inevitably places like The Absolute Sound. I really enjoyed Robert Harley’s description of what it was like for him to listen to those speakers (and try them out with high power SS amps and low power tube amps).

Do I take his descriptions as infallibly accurate? Of course not. But I find it entertaining when somebody gets to live with a loudspeaker that is really fascinating, and does their very best to describe the experience. There are just so many interesting loud speakers out there that are never gonna show up on ASR (or sent to Erin). So I still find value in such reviews.
(And plenty of times I’ve read a review that pointed to some interesting characteristics in loudspeaker, and I thought “ that’s something I’d like to hear” and it ended up leading me to some very pleasant listening experiences).

 

[Newman]

[to Matt] ...To be fair, I do agree with you that we shouldn't necessarily dismiss everything Fremer says, but the way I see it is that we can listen to someone who's right about the facts perhaps 90-95 % of the time, or we can listen to someone who's right about the facts perhaps 20 % of the time (Fremer). So why would we listen to someone who's only right 20 % of the time?
And also, why would we want to listen to someone who's never willing to admit that he could be wrong - especially when he's wrong so often?

Agreed. If someone conducts reviews of gear exclusively using a proven-broken method, it is no service to the reader even if some of their conclusions would have been the same using a valid method. Question: Which ones? Answer: Unknown. Conclusion: Thanks a lot.

The way the stereophool press goes about their business of reviewing audio gear, by intertwining it with music reviews of the music they played on the gear, is misdirection. First we find ourselves reading about the attributes of the music itself in terms of how the reviewer responded to it, using language appropriate to an art review, as a kind of a segue into what the gear 'does' with music of such attributes. The reader is led by the nose to think that, since it seems fine to review music that way, it is fine for gear too.

Remember, a gear audition is intended to be a test, aka an experiment, to determine the sonic attributes of the sound waves themselves when a piece of gear (device under test) is used in the audio gear chain in place of either a reference device or a competitive device in the marketplace.

Since it is an experiment of sorts, it should be experimentally valid. And yet, the experimental method used in audiophool reviews is demonstrably inappropriate if we want data that has a usable level of statistical confidence. The fact that some pieces of that data would correspond to data gained via a valid experiment is irrelevant, because the only way to find out which pieces correspond with reality is to conduct a valid experiment and compare, and since that is never ever happening in any one review of any one piece of gear, we simply don't know which data from the sighted listening test are really in the sound waves, so it is worthless.

I find it hard to believe that some people here are so biased in favour of a demonstrably invalid test, despite having it clearly explained to them multiple times over a period of years that the data does not support their ideas at all. And yet they persist in not learning, in dismissing quality evidence, and reiterating specious evidence-free argumentation using multiple debating tricks. These people can be debating champions, but remember, a debating champion is a person who is truly skilled at persuading people to accept their arguments, irrespective of whether the position they have been given to debate is true or untrue, right or wrong. All that matters is winning.

In a forum like this, where all we want to do is expose truths, a debating champion is an absolute menace. An obfuscator. A fog machine. And one of their basic tricks is to appear in the minds of the audience as always fair, always balanced, always reasonable.... so they can win. So my advice to readers is to watch out for the endlessly argumentative member who tries to twist actual experimental evidence by independent researchers, and instead promotes personal anecdotes, quotes others making personal anecdotes, bed-time stories, and personal 'experiments' that seem to contradict independent experiments by third parties, and logical-sounding 'hypotheticals'. I suggest you push once or twice for real data, and if all you get is more of the same, walk away. Don't be seduced by intelligence being used to persuade instead of tabling evidence.

However, with speakers specifically, I think it's a type of product that we go listen to and see if we like them and then afterwards make a purchase, perhaps with the aid of seeing measurements. Of course, reading subjective reviews might whet our appetite.
I will admit that I would be much more likely to trust one of Fremer's subjective reviews of speakers than of amplifiers, cables, CD players, etc. We already know that the audible difference between speakers is much greater than that of CD players, amplifiers, cables, etc., hence it is also more likely that he will describe an actual difference rather than an imagined one.

Agreed, it does indeed look that way at first glance, but the available evidence is that the audibility of the sonic differences between speakers does not generally help us to suddenly be judging the sound waves themselves sighted. It just means that it is easier to be deceived. A bit like an AI's answer to a question: there are almost certainly going to be some truths in the answer, and we know that, but the only way to find out which parts of the answer are true vs untrue is to go and fact-check them all. Which is not exactly helpful to the notion of relying on the AI to answer our questions.

[to Matt] Yes, biased people can also perceive real, audible differences, and yes, no one is immune to bias, but Fremer seems to think he is, and that's the point I was making - that people who believe in blind testing do so because they acknowledge that the visual aspect may influence them; Fremer refuses to acknowledge that he could possibly be influenced by anything else than the sound (not even volume level), and he will do mental gymnastics to his death to avoid acknowledging that he was possible mistaken.

I am aware that this is essentially an ad hominem argument, but that's the issue I have with Fremer, and I think it's the issue that most others here have with him as well - that he's so incredibly conceited and arrogant and adamant that he's right about absolutely everything he claims, when he's in fact wrong very frequently (but not always).
If he's wrong frequently, how do we know when to trust his statements and when not to?
Wouldn't it be much easier to trust someone who's right 90-95 % of the time?

I don't really mind that he is arrogant and conceited and has anger issues. The main thing is that I can see he is biased to such a degree that he frequently states untruths as fact. That is enough in itself.

... imagine that it was a biologist or a construction engineer who were wrong 80 % of the time. Would we listen to them? Or ask that engineer to build a house for us? Or have the biologist diagnose an illness for us?

Society has a very low tolerance of pharmacists dispensing wrong prescriptions, too.

Fortunately our hobby doesn't have the same level of consequences. But in a forum dedicated to finding audio truths, obfuscators can be dismissed out of hand.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

Agreed. If someone conducts reviews of gear exclusively using a proven-broken method, it is no service to the reader even if some of their conclusions would have been the same using a valid method. Question: Which ones? Answer:

Answer: if you find the piece of gear under review to be intriguing enough to pursue, then you can try and listen for yourself.
That’s how most audiophiles use such reviews. Most do not take reviews as holy writ, but they will take some reviews as impetus to check out certain speakers for themselves.

Ideally, you could get them for a home trial (I’ve done that) but it’s also possible to gain some information about the sound of a loudspeaker in a decent set up in an audio store.

This is not as hopeless as you continually protest it is.

And yet, the experimental method used in audiophool reviews is demonstrably inappropriate if we want data that has a usable level of statistical confidence.

Correct. If you want scientific confidence levels you use science.

The reviews you are referring to are not pretending to do science and to produce the type of data you are speaking about. They are informal impressions of audio gear.

Is it possible to be misled by such reviews? Yes. Does this mean that it’s hopeless, and not possible to get anything out of subjective reviews without also accepting woo-woo? Nope. I’m an example of this. Sorry if that’s inconvenient for you.

we simply don't know which data from the sighted listening test are really in the sound waves, so it is worthless.

Somebody who enjoys the subjective reviews and isn’t fond of drowning babies in bathwater can stick to magazines like Stereophile where you can cross check the reviewers impressions with the measurements if you want.

I find it hard to believe that some people here are so biased in favour of a demonstrably invalid test, despite having it clearly explained to them multiple times over a period of years that the data does not support their ideas at all. And yet they persist in not learning, in dismissing quality evidence, and reiterating specious evidence-free argumentation using multiple debating tricks. These people can be debating champions, but remember, a debating champion is a person who is truly skilled at persuading people to accept their arguments, irrespective of whether the position they have been given to debate is true or untrue, right or wrong. All that matters is winning.

Translation: I don’t seem to be able to accurately characterize or rebut any of his arguments, and since it’s not possible I’m wrong, it must mean he can’t actually be of good faith and raising any reasonable points! He must be very tricky and acting in bad faith. Watch out!

In a forum like this, where all we want to do is expose truths, a debating champion is an absolute menace. An obfuscator. A fog machine. And one of their basic tricks is to appear in the minds of the audience as always fair, always balanced, always reasonable.... so they can win. So my advice to readers is to watch out for the endlessly argumentative member who tries to twist actual experimental evidence by independent researchers, and instead promotes personal anecdotes, quotes others making personal anecdotes, bed-time stories, and personal 'experiments' that seem to contradict independent experiments by third parties, and logical-sounding 'hypotheticals'. I suggest you push once or twice for real data, and if all you get is more of the same, walk away. Don't be seduced by intelligence being used to persuade instead of tabling evidence.

There you go folks! You’ve been handed your torch, your mallet and your wooden stake!
You know where he sleeps… time to go get him!

I don't really mind that he is arrogant and conceited and has anger issues. The main thing is that I can see he is biased to such a degree that he frequently states untruths as fact. That is enough in itself.

And yet you haven’t shown any obvious fault in Fremer’s MBL surround review.

You keep talking about the demand for data.
Included in the review is data - the measurements.

Here, yet again, is your chance to show how Fremer’s report on the experience of listening to a full surround MBL set up is implausible or substantially undermined by the measurements. One more time in case you missed it the first several times it was put to you:

mbl Radialstrahler 116/121/111RC 5 Channel Surround Sound System Page 2

www.soundandvision.com

I hope you’re not going to suddenly shy away from data that seems inconvenient for your case?

But in a forum dedicated to finding audio truths, obfuscators can be dismissed out of hand.

Much easier than addressing arguments, isn’t it?

 

[board]

As I said for me: I look to where he is not wrong frequently (loudspeaker reviews IMO).
If there’s evidence for that, then I can sift it from the type of reviews in which he is more prone to error.



In the real world, which reviewer would fit that description?

Let’s, for sake of argument, say that Amir’s subjective descriptions were 90 to 95% accurate. In fact, if we were just going by measurements, his reviews would be 100% accurate..

The problem remains, for me and many other audiophiles, that Amir reviews an extremely limited selection of loudspeakers relative to what’s out there and relative to the variety of loudspeakers I’m actually interested in.

Yes, I agree with your point, and I think this is one of the problems with being interested in audio but not believing in snake oil - most companies send their products to the subjectivist rags for review, as that's where the readers, and thereby potential buyers, are.
Most people into audio don't want to hear "it had a 1.75 dB dip at 680 Hz and a 2,5 dB Q7 spike around 3.8 kHz", as that means nothing to them. They just want to hear "This sounded great! I enjoyed listening to music so much more! Incredibly value for money", as that will make them go listen to the product in a shop, and then they will potentially buy something new, and buying your way into perceived happiness is often what this hobby is about.
But then when "This sounded great! I enjoyed listening to music so much more!" is also used not only about speakers but about products that could not possibly work we run into problems.
So what to do? Read about 2,5 dB Q7 spikes in speakers that we're not intestered in, or read the same rave, rave, rave reviews about speakers and tuning screws put into a wall?

Anyway, I understand that you've said that you won't say more on the subject, and that's completely okay, but I'll just sum up the point I was trying to make:
The reason I, and probably many others here, don't trust Fremer and don't want to get sucked into reading anything he says is that he's very often wrong, and he won't admit when he's wrong. And more than that - he's proud of the things he's wrong about (hence his aggressive defense of everything he ever says or does).
I, and probably many others, would rather listen to someone who's right most of the time and who's willing to admit when they're wrong and then change their position.
Although this might just sound like a silly ad hominem attack, I am seriously wondering if he has borderline personality disorder, or then he at least seems to be towards that end of the spectrum (and his charming side is also a good match for the disorder).

 

[Axo1989]

I don't really mind that he is arrogant and conceited and has anger issues.

I don't know why, but this doesn't surprise me.