Man. Very tempting after his slaughtering of my poor little 520C. It's still a bit too much cash when I can go up into my attic and pull out my JBL s38ii for center channel duties.
Q350 was a questionable performer (by Amir) but had decent spinorama, so will the Q150 be better?Given that several Kef speakers have measured relatively well on ASR. Is it possible the Kef Q150 contends the top 3 spots for the sub 500$ range?
I appreciate this list and the other lists you've made Sweetchaos, so thank you. But I'd just like to point out that if you limit the search to passive speakers (only stand mount or tower) and you add a subwoofer then there are only 5 speakers that measure better than the Focal 906. One, the Philharmonic, is discontinued. One, the Revel F208, is a $2,500 each tower speaker. The SVS was not recommended by Amir, despite good measurement scores. If you remove those you're left with just the Revel M106 and Kef R3. The Revel, by Armin's own admission, could be have reviewer bias, since his company sells Revel. If you compare only bookshelf speakers, you add a sub, and you remove discontinued products the Focal 906 is at worst the third best and (removing potential bias) the 2nd best bookshelf reviewed. And they all cost $1,000 per speaker.Since there are 18 passive speakers ahead of Focal 906's preference score of 5.6 and below their price.
It’s important to note that nobody should make a buying decision based on Harman score alone. The score is not intended by anybody to be used that way. It can help to summarize some of the important speaker’s characteristics for purposes of performance evaluation, but completely excludes, for example, power handling capacity. Speakers can be designed for particular purpose, such as near-field desktop versus six-driver behemoth intended to fill a large, opulent living space. The score does not distinguish between these two. The Neumann KH 80 measures nearly perfectly and scores with sub are good, but I wouldn’t use it except for the desktop use intended by the designers. It would tend to be under powered for a large room.
I like easy, but there’s more to it than just looking at the score. Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler (Einstein).
Objective scores are useful. But what would also be useful would be like a metacritic for speakers. Simple probabilistic reasoning dictates that if a large percentage of people in a sample like something, then you are likely to like it too. Whereas it's not clear what exactly the Harmon score is predicting or why.I totally agree. The Harmon score is absolutely worthless for making a purchase without listening to the speakers. If the reader doesn't understand that fact, they can easily be misled into buying a high scoring speaker that they would never purchase if they were auditioning speakers with music at home.
There is nothing in the presentation of Harmon spreadsheet data indicating this is true, which leads to poor purchasing decisions by many. A disclaimer would be helpful for readers. Some think if the Harmon score can't be used as the main factor for purchase decisions, then what use is it. That's an entirely different more complicated topic.