Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[MAB]

I I

I disagree with this characterization.

I’ve given reasons already why many audiophiles preferred to have speakers away from the back walls, which isn’t entirely about getting smooth bass response. Often enough that will place speakers further away from the listening position then they want, they want more immersion so they pull the speakers closer, the imaging feels more natural when there is space behind and around the speakers and which the “ musicians appear” rather than “ appearing” against or behind a wall in between the speakers. Plus they can get more direct sound, or as placing speakers further away against the wall behind them can start to emphasize more room reflections.

Not how reflections occur or are perceived, but I am sure I wont be able to explain. Measurements might, but you and measurements are like Luke and the targeting computer:

It’s not for nothing that many high end speakers are therefore made for how many files are going to actually use them, and to perform best when pulled out from the back wall to some degree.

Therefore, the characterization “ Boomy showroom bass” doesn’t make that much sense. When the speakers are set up in a showroom away from the back wall, as they are likely to be used, they are not creating “Boomy bass.” Not even in the showroom.
I certainly wouldn’t have chosen my speakers if they had indistinct bloated boomy bass.
And they certainly don’t sound that way in my home.

Tail wags dog.

So, well, yes, I get your point about what you prefer in the design of loudspeaker, I find your argument this a touch exaggerated.

No, not exaggerated, you just don't seem to understand the point. And more interested in arguing rather then understanding.

 

[Ropeburn]

Good candidates: Magnat Transpuls 1500. 15" 3-way monkey coffins for around 1200-1300€ the pair. Definitely "vintage style":

... including the sound, looks like:

I guess what they can do well is big badaboom.

 

[MattHooper]

You know that you know it already, otherwise you would be enjoying music instead of writing pages of texts.

Apparently owning a serious system doesn’t stop you either

Yeah sure, typical anecdotal stories where "surprisingly" never documented measurements exist, despite having supposedly used DSP.

Well, sure you could take me to be lying.
That’s up to you. I’m not trying to convince you. I’m just mentioning my own experience.
I have listened to the Kiis in one set up closer to the back wall, in another if I remember properly, maybe about Two and a half feet or so from the back wall. The audio store provider demonstrated the difference between the boundary control settings, so I could hear the difference.

As for my own set up, it was a few years ago, and the only measurements were shown on the screen of the Dspeaker Anti-mode dual core used for the bass frequencies. Sorry I can’t reproduce these for you.

And of course "old and experienced power-audiophiles" would never admit that their approach is inferior, as otherwise they would admit spending their lifetime and money on aberrations, they rather choose recordings where the problems of their systems aren't as much exposed, see the review of your friend.

I don’t really know about this “ admitting” stuff. Most audiophiles go with the sound they like via what sound has impressed them.
If they had liked the sound of an active system or whatever, then they would go with that. I think a lot of audiophiles at this point have heard active speakers of one sort or another, and also more are using DSP. And there may be a bunch who’ve never heard either. But if they had encountered such systems that sounded better for their taste, then they would probably go in that direction. I don’t think this is too much about
“ admitting” anything or not.

If we’re doing the pop psychology thing when congress as well say “ everyone here is just trying to find justification for their own choices and purchases.”

 

[thewas]

Apparently owning a serious system doesn’t stop you either

My texts are short and my home system is nothing special, but the difference is that I know and have no problem to admit its not small shortcomings and don't write in forums about how great its supposedly to be. Also while spending my time here I am enjoying my 2.2 desktop setup which has quite some advantages over my classic "couch" system, nearfield listening rules!

Well, sure you could take me to be lying.
That’s up to you. I’m not trying to convince you. I’m just mentioning my own experience.
I have listened to the Kiis in one set up closer to the back wall, in another if I remember properly, maybe about Two and a half feet or so from the back wall. The audio store provider demonstrated the difference between the boundary control settings, so I could hear the difference.

Without measurements all such experiences are to be enjoyed with upper caution.

As for my own set up, it was a few years ago, and the only measurements were shown on the screen of the Dspeaker Anti-mode dual core used for the bass frequencies. Sorry I can’t reproduce these for you.

And exactly such a "click and run" automatic setup with some fixed placed transducers is not sufficient for a real reference.

I don’t really know about this “ admitting” stuff. Most audiophiles go with the sound they like via what sound has impressed them.
If they had liked the sound of an active system or whatever, then they would go with that.

Most audiophiles like what they have achieved through their tortuous paths, as they have wasted so much time and money that human self-protection mechanisms and ego doesn't allow them anything else.

If we’re doing the pop psychology thing when congress as well say “ everyone here is just trying to find justification for their own choices and purchases.”

The big difference is ones have the current state of research on their side and the others not, but as long as they don't know or care, ignorance is bliss and I am honestly happy if some of them really enjoy their systems (although as said I have the feeling many don't as they are always on the "haunt").

 

[MattHooper]

I I

Not how reflections occur or are perceived,

So… in many rooms with loudspeakers of typical dispersion characteristics, pulling the speakers much closer to you won’t result in direct sound from the speakers dominating more than if you push the speakers very far away from you towards the other end of the room?

Can you explain?

Oh wait…

but I am sure I wont be able to explain.

Because you don’t understand it enough to explain?

Or because it’s easier to imply somebody is too dumb to understand?

No, not exaggerated, you just don't seem to understand the point.

Don’t mistake disagreement with misunderstanding.

Your point is not complex or abstruse.
Well designed loudspeakers are more flexible for room placement, working better for smooth bass even closer to the back wall as well as pulled out closer to the listener.
It’s poorly designed loudspeakers that force audiophiles to pull speakers out from the wall, in an effort to try and find smoother bass response, which also comes along with other compromises.

Your argument is not difficult to understand.

You seem to be missing or not addressing my actual point: that it’s not necessarily just trying to find smoother bass response that leads many audiophiles to pull their speakers out into the room. I mentioned the various beneficial effects some may be seeking.

If I had speakers that sounded perfectly even in the bass shoved against the wall, I still wouldn’t want that and would never place them there. I would still prefer the speaker/listener positioning I use, as would no doubt many other audiophiles.

Which is one reason why your “ boomy showroom bass” complaint isn’t a big deal for folks like me.

I hope the point is clear now?

 

[MattHooper]

My texts are short and my home system is nothing special, but the difference is that I know and have no problem to admit its not small shortcomings and don't write in forums about how great its supposedly to be.

Not sure your point there. Are you saying that it’s silly for me to find my system to sound excellent, even if not perfect?

And exactly such a "click and run" automatic setup with some fixed placed transducers is not sufficient for a real reference.

Yes, fair enough. I know that such meagre efforts pale in comparison to the effort and sophistication many go through trying to get there room response “ just right.” Having watched this on mini forms, I’ve seen people make it into practically a second job.
Not everyone, of course. But then the same goes for audiophiles not using subs and DSP/room correction. Some take a while to get the sound they want in the room others get it quite quickly.

Most audiophiles like what they have achieved through their tortuous paths, as they have wasted so much time and money that human self-protection mechanisms and ego doesn't allow them anything else.

Again. And alternative pop psychology take on many audiophiles in this form could also be presented

“ torturous” depends on the individual. Some people would find the amount of time some on this forum spend measuring gear or reading measurements to be “ torturous” where others find it fascinating and informative. Likewise many audio files do not see the paths they’ve taken as “ torturous.”
They’ve had a good time. I’ve owned plenty of different gear and nothing about it has been “ torturous”… it’s been a very fun and rewarding audio adventure.

The big difference is ones have the current state of research on their side and the others not, but as long as they don't know or care, ignorance is bliss

I’m sure as you say there is some ignorance is bliss factor for some. Personally, since I’m familiar with mixing in many carefully constructed extremely expensive mixing theatres, I’m not unaccustomed to that type of excellent sound.

And yet still my own system has been more carefully selected to fit precisely the Sonic profile I find most pleasing.

I spent quite a bit of time dialling in the subwoofers. I could certainly hear that the bass response sounded very even. But I still preferred my system without the subs.

Maybe somebody really into full room Cres would come along along and say “ but if you just tightened up that bass response a bit more perfect you would’ve been blown away at how much better it it would sound.”

I highly doubt it, given how far I am to the sound I love already. That might make a bigger difference to somebody who is more obsessed with perfectly even response.

and I am honestly happy if some of them really enjoy their systems (although as said I have the feeling many don't as they are always on the "haunt").

It has been often suggested here that audiophiles in other more subjective forums are on a constant merry-go-round - that they don’t hold onto their gear, whereas the approach taken here leads to longer lasting satisfaction and less changing up of gear.

I’ve never seen any empirical demonstration of this. And I have in other threads shown polls suggesting many on those forums have retained plenty of gear for long periods of time, as some do here.

In my view, audiophiles are going to audiophile. We like audio gear, and we’re going to find a way to spend a lot of time
thinking about and playing with it.

I hope it’s clear though in the above that of course I think your approach makes plenty of sense!

 

[thewas]

Not sure your point there. Are you saying that it’s silly for me to find my system to sound excellent, even if not perfect?

I wouldn't say silly but rather strange considering you claim you have listened to some great mixing setups. Of course now you will claim that you get similar fidelity in your system and I won't believe you so in the end we can only discuss reasonably measurements here.

Having watched this on mini forms, I’ve seen people make it into practically a second job.

Someone could also say the same about the posting time here, if someone approaches the corresponding theory and tools effectively, it doesn't take too much time.

They’ve had a good time.

Sure, spending much time and anger on non expedient choices keeping just the sick audiophool wheel rotating.

I spent quite a bit of time dialling in the subwoofers. I could certainly hear that the bass response sounded very even. But I still preferred my system without the subs.

Without real understanding and measurements this is just fooling around and self confirmation bias.

It has been often suggested here that audiophiles in other more subjective forums are on a constant merry-go-round - that they don’t hold onto their gear, whereas the approach taken here leads to longer lasting satisfaction and less changing up of gear.

I’ve never seen any empirical demonstration of this. And I have in other threads shown polls suggesting many on those forums have retained plenty of gear for long periods of time, as some do here.

I see them in my local audio shops and fairs, they just want (to justify) new equipment, enjoying music is secondary and often limited to some "audiophile" recordings of very mediocre music they don't even really like.

I hope it’s clear though in the above that of course I think your approach makes plenty of sense!

Thank you and don't worry, I also started this hobby in times where knowledge around it wasn't by far as easily accessible and wasted also few time and money on non expedient products and approaches.

 

[MattHooper]

I wouldn't say silly but rather strange considering you claim you have listened to some great mixing setups.

I don’t see why it’s strange that somebody might like a system that you wouldn’t like as much. There’s all sorts of different personal reasons that go into how somebody sets up their system.

Of course now you will claim that you get similar fidelity in your system and I won't believe you so in the end we can only discuss reasonably measurements here.

No, not of course. I mean, I know my system isn’t as high Fidelity as the mixing theatres we use.

However, a lot depends on the use of the word “ similar” there. I would certainly say that I’m getting the vast majority of the sonic information available on recordings.

As I’ve argued before: most of the relevant Sonic information from recordings can translate through any number of different systems. It’s the audiophile who seems to imagine he needs “ only the most accurate system” to hear what’s on a recording.

Sure, spending much time and anger on non expedient choices keeping just the sick audiophool wheel

Well… if you are stuck being that judgemental… I can’t stop you. But it’s just your opinion.

Without real understanding and measurements this is just fooling around and self confirmation bias.

It could be. But it is speculation on your part, since you don’t actually know either way how close I got to an even bass response in my room.

I see them in my local audio shops and fairs, they just want (to justify) new equipment, enjoying music is secondary and often limited to some "audiophile" recordings of very mediocre music they don't even really like.

So anecdote without data…

Thank you and don't worry, I also started this hobby in times where knowledge around it wasn't by far as easily accessible and wasted also few time and money on non expedient products and approaches.

Again, I do truly understand your viewpoint and I appreciate it. I’m not arguing I guess your approach at all; I mostly defending why some others like myself have been satisfied with a different approach.

I understand that you and some others on the forum feel that you finally come to the answer after a long time of fiddling around and making mistakes. I get that.

But that’s not how I look at my own journey with audio equipment. I can’t think of any equipment I’ve owned that I regret owning.
And if tomorrow I suddenly decide to go for an all active set up with full room EQ, I wouldn’t regret the wonderful Sonic experiences I’ve had in the past several decades. I was utterly enraptured and thrilled with those experiences as much as I could possibly be. Moving to a system that may be even more accurate would sound different, and no doubt I would like certain aspects, but it’s not going to erase all the great experiences I’ve had, or produce reliably new levels of emotion I couldn’t reach before.

A fully neutral system isn’t going to suddenly make all the sound better: It will be just as revealing of variations in recorded sound quality, so the sound quality is going to vary in any case. Right now I have a combination of being able to enjoy just about any recording on my system, as well as having plenty of jaw dropping sonic moments.

So… I’m good. I will leave all the quest for the last bit of neutrality to those who have a passion for that.

 

[Doodski]

I can’t think of any equipment I’ve owned that I regret owning.

I can. My J. A. Michell turntable was a tweaker's paradise and I was not into that. Too fussy and technical. But I got very enthusiastic showing it off to guests and they where fascinated with it too. It's strange because I was a specializing mechatronics technician and I really loved the job but that J. A. Michell turntable always seems a reach and I just wanted to listen to music when at home. A gorgeous piece on top of the stack though. I totally dug my Technics fully auto Quartz lock masterpiece.

As per your discussion on speakers and the audiophile mindset stuff. I think an audiophile makes what they want of the gear. Some are blooming idiots and others are very smart and they all both the technophile and the audiophile enjoy the music at the end of the day in their own way. Speakers are such a individualistic choice that I don't think any one person can say this or that is the best choice because it is room dependent, ear dependent and speaker dependent. What I can say that changed my listening experience in a major way was an active system. To be able to adjust X-over points and the levels of each driver was wonderous and a major advantage. No matter the speaker choice going active even with all that effort is beneficial. Toss in parametric EQ too and voila a tweaker's paradise arrives until that day comes and happiness is found and the controls may never need be adjusted any further. That's what it was like for me.

 

[Mart68]

Darn. Today I’ve learned I don’t have a serious audio set-up.



I understand the arguments for why many people want to “ perfect” bass response.
But having heard such systems, I haven’t personally found it game changing.
For instance, I’ve auditioned the Kii Audio speakers a number of times, tuned to the room, and even with direct comparison to some other passive speakers, I still preferred the passive speakers.

So some of us have kind of been there and gone back.

Also my experience, three demos - two with the bass modules, one without, three different rooms.
In the end I went with passive loudspeakers, big old school monkey coffins with fifteens.

Why? Because when I thought back to what systems I had most enjoyed listening to over the past forty-odd years, it was systems that used similar loudspeakers.

(I'll add the caveat that my room is large enough that the main mode isn't an issue).

Given that the purpose of the system is to entertain me and no-one else, it's a rational choice. It is not one made due to a lack of knowledge or experience. Quite the opposite.

I am also not searching for the last ounce of resolution and detail. Just something that makes music fun and enjoyable to listen to and which does not have any irritating flaws:

On axis 30cm measuring distance:



Whilst I appreciate many people make poor choices based on nonsense they read in mags and on the internet it doesn't work to tar everyone with the same brush.

 

[Koeitje]

I can’t think of any equipment I’ve owned that I regret owning.

I can. PMC Twenty.22. Absolute garbage loudspeakers. Sounded good on first listen, but when you listened more you would notice the huge amount of port noise or whatever it was in the low end. Add the messed up treble response to that and you have a loudspeaker that does nothing well. Fortunately lost only a little money on it and I also still had my old DIY loudspeakers. Those DIY loudspeakers were later replaced by Revel M106 and honestly I was surprised how close they were in terms of performance.

 

[thewas]

I don’t see why it’s strange that somebody might like a system that you wouldn’t like as much. There’s all sorts of different personal reasons that go into how somebody sets up their system.

It is strange when someone has heard a system with flawless reproduction of the full audio band and in blind testing always such are preferred, we know what happens with comparisons not done like that.

Well… if you are stuck being that judgemental… I can’t stop you. But it’s just your opinion.

Which is confirmed on a daily basis on audiophiles in anxiety for their next "upgrade".

It could be. But it is speculation on your part, since you don’t actually know either way how close I got to an even bass response in my room.

Because experience shows that with such approaches the chance is diminishing low to be optimal. Also when someone claims something he should deliver the proof, not the people who doubt it.

So anecdote without data…

A look at the current snake oil market is a good proof, if people would be happy with their systems and have understanding of what they are doing, they wouldn't fall for it.

Again, I do truly understand your viewpoint and I appreciate it. I’m not arguing I guess your approach at all; I mostly defending why some others like myself have been satisfied with a different approach.

And I am saying that many people like that are not being honest (possibly that doesn't apply to yourself), some of them even manage to do the big step at some time and later say how foolish they had been.

A fully neutral system isn’t going to suddenly make all the sound better: It will be just as revealing of variations in recorded sound quality, so the sound quality is going to vary in any case. Right now I have a combination of being able to enjoy just about any recording on my system, as well as having plenty of jaw dropping sonic moments.

So… I’m good. I will leave all the quest for the last bit of neutrality to those who have a passion for that.

That is a flawed thought which is seen often in forums. On the contrary, an optimal neutral full bandwidth system without wide dips or peaks works better with any recording as its a better basis to be adjusted with some EQ or tone controls for personal taste and/or poor recordings.

 

[Mart68]

It is strange when someone has heard a system with flawless reproduction of the full audio band and in blind testing always such are preferred, we know what happens with comparisons not done like that.
.

No strictly, it is true for around 80% of listeners, not all, and the sample size was small.

If you look at the measured performance of B&W's current loudspeakers it seems clear to me that their own market research delivered a different result to Harman's.

For casual listening at home it really isn't necessary to go 'all in'. Although obviously there's nothing wrong with doing that, for the reasons you outline.

 

[puffreis]

I see them in my local audio shops and fairs, they just want (tojustify) new equipment, enjoying music is secondary and often limitedto some "audiophile" recordings of very mediocre music theydon't even really like.

I can confirm that.
I have the impression that these people are only looking for music that makes their system look better at home.
Why is it that demonstrations are not usually done with music that everyone knows and that also challenges the system?

I wasutterly enraptured and thrilled with those experiences as much as Icould possibly be

I was able to impress a buddy of mine with an extremely affordable system. He had tears in his eyes because he had never experienced this quality before.
Achieved through reasonably decent components and a Harmancurve with APO+REW.
Before these new insights for me, I changed components like the devil.

Costs:
Loudspeaker Grundig Box 660: €25
Amplifier Yamaha RX-V595a: €50
Subwoofer amplifier Yamaha RX-300: €46.15
4 car subwoofers Sinus LiveB25D: €43.33

Total: almost €165

Here is another nice quote from Dr. Joseph D'Appolito:
“No successful loudspeaker design can do without measurement technology, because however incorruptible the human ear may be, it always remains a very subjective measuring instrument due to its incredible learningability.... Over time, the ear 'learns' the sound characteristics of frequently heard loudspeakers and, when changes are made, it initially reports an error. In many cases, such a change, even if it objectively represents an improvement, initially produces a subjective negative impression. It takes time for the ear to adjust to the new situation, and then the change is also subjectively evaluated as positive.”

 

[Purité Audio]

No strictly, it is true for around 80% of listeners, not all, and the sample size was small.

If you look at the measured performance of B&W's current loudspeakers it seems clear to me that their own market research delivered a different result to Harman's.

For casual listening at home it really isn't necessary to go 'all in'. Although obviously there's nothing wrong with doing that, for the reasons you outline.

B&W are no longer in the business of transparency, of ‘hi-fi’, as you state they are simply selling to their demographic.
Keith

 

[Mart68]

B&W are no longer in the business of transparency, of ‘hi-fi’, as you state they are simply selling to their demographic.
Keith

Like any business the sole aim is to make money for the shareholders - I don't think they changed their design targets on a whim.

My speculation is that their 'interesting' FR sells in showroom comparisons against more textbook speakers. Whether they will continue to satisfy long term is, I agree, debatable.

But then if the purchaser decides to blame some bad sounds on the recording, or his power cables or whatever, as many do, then B&W are golden.

 

[Purité Audio]

Absolutely, and of course if the listener is already used to a very coloured design and may never have actually heard a neutral loudspeaker.
I have heard customers state that although the ( neutral/ contemporary active) design they were evaluating might be clearer have better bass they still preferred the colouration of their current speakers.
I have always felt that potential purchasers should be ‘made’ to listen to a really good loudspeaker so at least they know what neutrality sounds like.
Keith

 

[Galliardist]

No strictly, it is true for around 80% of listeners, not all, and the sample size was small.

If you look at the measured performance of B&W's current loudspeakers it seems clear to me that their own market research delivered a different result to Harman's.

For casual listening at home it really isn't necessary to go 'all in'. Although obviously there's nothing wrong with doing that, for the reasons you outline.

Like any business the sole aim is to make money for the shareholders - I don't think they changed their design targets on a whim.

My speculation is that their 'interesting' FR sells in showroom comparisons against more textbook speakers. Whether they will continue to satisfy long term is, I agree, debatable.

But then if the purchaser decides to blame some bad sounds on the recording, or his power cables or whatever, as many do, then B&W are golden.

The Harman research (at least prior to the Samsung takeover) is known to us in some detail. It's the best we have available in this regard. I'd be interested in what you would accept as a good sample size for the research, and your take on what the other 20% prefer and how that fits other makes of speaker. For what it's worth, I consider the Harman research a good starting point for choice of a system or component, but not necessarily the end point (if you can't find a "Harman compliant" product you like, then move on to alternatives).

We have no idea of whether B&W market research into speaker design says, or whether it even exists in the sense that Harman research does - we should be aware by now how many companies design for the sighted response of a small group of people in the design team, or for what gets immediate attention in showroom type conditions.

What I do know is that for most of the last 15 years, B&W has been a loss making exercise, despite their size and resources. Also, while I can't speak for the entire planet, I understand sales in Australia of B&W products is said to depend on there being (for the most part) no in store comparison with other brands - they sell on reputation, not in demonstration. When the customer hears something else, they buy something else. I can't believe that is a good place to be, even if much of the market is online purchasing now.

I'm convinced that their past woes - and I presume things are no better now, given the collapse of sales for their current parent company's hifi division overall - have a lot to do with the rather poor sound of their products.

 

[fredoamigo]

The Harman research (at least prior to the Samsung takeover) is known to us in some detail. It's the best we have available in this regard. I'd be interested in what you would accept as a good sample size for the research, and your take on what the other 20% prefer and how that fits other makes of speaker. For what it's worth, I consider the Harman research a good starting point for choice of a system or component, but not necessarily the end point (if you can't find a "Harman compliant" product you like, then move on to alternatives).

We have no idea of whether B&W market research into speaker design says, or whether it even exists in the sense that Harman research does - we should be aware by now how many companies design for the sighted response of a small group of people in the design team, or for what gets immediate attention in showroom type conditions.

What I do know is that for most of the last 15 years, B&W has been a loss making exercise, despite their size and resources. Also, while I can't speak for the entire planet, I understand sales in Australia of B&W products is said to depend on there being (for the most part) no in store comparison with other brands - they sell on reputation, not in demonstration. When the customer hears something else, they buy something else. I can't believe that is a good place to be, even if much of the market is online purchasing now.

I'm convinced that their past woes - and I presume things are no better now, given the collapse of sales for their current parent company's hifi division overall - have a lot to do with the rather poor sound of their products.

I think that B&W relies on some generalities of the circle of confusion in the design of their speakers, unlike KEF, staying with the English, who rely on science and more specifically on the Harman preference criteria. Moreover, in France and perhaps unlike Australia, B&W benefits from a very structured network of dealers where comparative listening with other models is possible. But since most B&W speakers have the "smile curve" frequency response, it is immediately more spectacular for first-time hi-fi buyers, and thus more sellable. Neutral speakers are rarely chosen by novice buyers because they are less spectacular on the first listen...

 

[Mart68]

The Harman research (at least prior to the Samsung takeover) is known to us in some detail. It's the best we have available in this regard. I'd be interested in what you would accept as a good sample size for the research, and your take on what the other 20% prefer and how that fits other makes of speaker. For what it's worth, I consider the Harman research a good starting point for choice of a system or component, but not necessarily the end point (if you can't find a "Harman compliant" product you like, then move on to alternatives).

.

Not any sort of expert in statistics but I'd suggest the higher the sample size the better the accuracy. I think - without consulting my copy of Toole - that they only had 18 people.

For the other 20% - horns, panels, electrostatics, omni, semi-omni, single driver, something 'warm and forgiving' (to various degrees). It's a long list.

We have no idea of whether B&W market research into speaker design says, or whether it even exists in the sense that Harman research does - we should be aware by now how many companies design for the sighted response of a small group of people in the design team, or for what gets immediate attention in showroom type conditions.

We don't and I'm only assuming, given the size of the company, that they have done some listening test comparisons at least similar to Harman. Maybe you are correct and it is just what the design team like.

Would be interesting to see their sales numbers over time -- just because they are losing money doesn't mean the speakers aren't selling.

Look at BMC with the Mini - sold like hot cakes but because of an accounting error they lost money on every car.