That's why I have a stable of test tracks, including many that are spectrally dense. Typically the tonal nuances/biases I hear on a speaker are heard on nearly all tracks so prolonged A/B testing isn't needed unless two speakers are really close in sound which I don't think would occur that often.
Good approach which I in general also apply. But then you don't have this kind of measurements of all the speakers. So maybe you miss out on your ideal speaker. It eliminates the bad ones...but doesn't select the good ones.
To be blunt: Random blind tests from some random pundit on the Internet are worthless.I can follow you. I agree about the measurements in some degree. It is good to have a baseline and methology. This give some good indications. But in the end...which give me more correct information? The blind test or the measurements? Tricky...I dont know yet....'blind test can still be influenced by one preferences, measurements not. ..I still don't have the answer that's for sure
Why you think that? same can be said about measurements then. You dont know the conditions those measurements are taken. Both have their value.
how do you know if the correct distance used? is the correct level used? good alignment? calibrated microphone? etc... Everyone can make measurements....but good correct measurements asks some attention to details. (I'm talking about random measurements you find on internet...because MediumRare insinuate that random measurements are more reliable then random blind tests.)
Let's be clear. We're not talking about "random measurements", but regular, procedural measurements done at either the NRC of Canada's anechoic chamber, or some other anechoic chamber (Dynaudio has a very impressive one), or by using the Klippel machine. Done correctly and procedurally, all variables, bias, and human error are removed from the results so speakers are put on a level playing field.
Ok, lets assume we only consider the good correct measurements out there...then you are limited even more in the speakers tested...and limted in your choices and we are back were we started. We don't have measurements on all speakers and we don't have blind or other reviews off all speakers. If we are lucky we have only one. So back to the base of the question, how do they balance out ...measuments vs blind reviews. If Amirm would only do a listing test and say the speaker is good...I'm pretty confident it will sound good and would be one I consider taken home to test it.
Thank goodness. Spend some time here. Please. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/SpeakerTestData/
The reason the measurements were undertaken here.
That's not the spirit of the site. It's Audio Science Review, not Audio Subjectivist Review.
The list is very limited...Many speakers are difficult to get in Europe. It's very USA oriented I guess. German, Dutch, French, Italian, english and others never made this tests.
I agree it's against the spirit of this site...just wanted to hear how people go through the process of selecting speakers.
He does this, though. He listens to every speaker he reviews and tells us what he hears. Maybe I'm missing your point?
It's true that the speaker world is very hard to navigate. Some are trying their best to demystify it.
Now you’re just trolling. There are 140 speakers tested from all over the world. Why don’t you send in one to be tested? (I’ve sent 3).
My point is do people value it. I'm after how much evaluate, narrow down the speakers they want to audition. Measurement vs listen review... But seems we're going of topic. I do appreciate Amir listen review even if he would not measure one I can find myself in his "taste" . Eg KEF R3 which measure well but he didnt like. I also don't like KEF soundsignature.
