I definitely agree with you here. In fact I think I agree with everything you just wrote, and as a result I’m thinking perhaps this is all a natural misunderstanding due to different expectations / assumptions about what these review are actually claiming.
I don’t think anyone is seriously claiming that this single review (or any other handful of others on this site) conclusively disproves the Olive score, or conclusive proves that the parameters under which it operates/applies are wrong.
I think all that anyone hopes for here is for the subjective impressions to not be dismissed outright as having zero value. Aside from how insulting that is to accuse Amir of, it’s just objectively incorrect to say it has zero value — just as incorrect as it would be to say that this single review has suddenly conclusively disproved all existing speaker science.
Of course to consider a new theory a replacement to an old, we need equal scientific methods and perhaps equal weight of data to back it up before the new hypotheses graduate to the next level of widespread acceptance. Again, I don’t think anyone is trying to argue otherwise.
The are several hypotheses for alternate models that might be more successful than the Olive score. Again, I am not saying that the Olive score mode is conclusively invalidated, or that any alternate model has been conclusively proven
All I am saying is that there is too much low-effort drive-by dismissal going around here trying to portray the subjective part of this review as having zero value. It’s all too easy to post low effort quips like “no science has been done here”. That adds nothing constructive. Even reasonable argument as to there being any value in the subjective impressions (e.g. blind vs sighted) have been repeated endlessly over and over and over on every review. I’m not sure what anyone hopes to accomplish by repeating such things again. Do you think maybe that Amir, upon seeing the criticism for the 173,729th time, will suddenly have an epiphany and decide to change things?
If a fallacious argument is repeatedly stated by many on here, the counterargument to it will be repeatedly stated, so new or casual readers will not be misled. If the fallacious arguments stop, so will the counterarguments. I think we generally agree on everything else though. I would just say, I don't actually think there's much tension between the Olive rating and Amir's subjective impressions here when the speaker was judged in a similar scenario as Olive's listening tests i.e. actually within the scope of the model. Amir said (my emphasis):
I started testing with the M55XC in my usual location which is at least 4 feet from back wall and 3 foot from side wall. Lack of bass was quite obvious so I moved the speaker back so that it has my system and Reel-to-Reel and TV behind it. That nicely boosted the bass although the speaker was still a tad bright.
So lack of bass, and bright even after placing it in front of a TV which would act similarly to a wall in boosting bass, so subjectively likely even brighter overall spectral tilt without this. This is all reflected objectively in the measurements, which is in turn reflected in the low Olive score. So I don't see much disagreement here.
Last edited: