[YouTube] The Big Measurement & Listening Mistake Some Hi-Fi Reviewers Make - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi

[Raindog123]

When I wrote reviews for an on-line audio magazine, I faced no pressure to write anything other than what I thought about a product.

...and so is every single product-review here on ASR by @amirm (or so we hope).

But this this is a very different "mission" (or maybe "time phase") -- to attract, to grow the followers base. With the "influencing" phase to come after, and a key difference is whether it is paid vs unpaid influencing. IMHO.

 

[Raindog123]

…and to add. We should not trivialize the magazine-to-manufacturers transaction as a simple “you pay me, I give you a stellar review”. That would be a shameless bribe, obvious and repelling… What the industry does instead is it organized itself into this “unified front” - where individual positive-or-negative product reviews are absolutely not as important as this consistent, continuous “those are your goals, shiny objects you want, [handsome] prices you ought to pay for” borderline-hypnotic consumer shaping.

And in fairness to consumer-audio industry and marketing, whether printed or in showrooms - this is no different for any other “luxury” activities/brands - whether it’s watches, protein shakes, cars, or yachts…

 

[MattHooper]

Hello Matt

I understand what you are saying as far as how the speakers sounded to the reviewer subjectively. That's obvious but there are plenty of reviewers out there that don't provide measurements so "you can't see for yourself" from a technical stand point

Agreed. As I've said, adding good technical measurements ALWAYS makes for a more informative review than just the subjective portion alone.
However, I find a well described subjective report can be valuable.

It's going to boil down to an individual, his technical knowledge, his personal goals and criteria.

I have a basic understanding of speaker measurements, and I'm also generally familiar with they types of goals often touted here for speaker measurements (which tend towards the Harman Kardon school of thought). But in my case, I have never been able to predict exactly what a speaker will sound like from the measurements. Or how much I'll find myself enjoying listening to the speaker. And I'm damned finicky about which speakers will actually draw me in to wanting to sit and listen. Few, in fact, really do that for me.

So in my case, I really need to listen to a speaker before purchasing. Other people have different aptitudes or personalities or criteria. Some here say "I'm looking for as much accuracy as possible, I know what I want in a speaker measurement, and if the speaker measures that way...done. I'm good." They don't tend to think as much in terms of how speakers "sound" so much as "if the speaker is accurate, I'm hearing whats on the source accurately, and then I just take the sound as is, I don't worry, whatever a source track sounds like, it is what it is."

But that doesn't work for me. I like how speakers sound different. I've listened to *some* generally accurate speakers and loved them and others that...just didn't really move me (e.g. some Revel speakers included). I can not tell from the measurements which will do this...nor can someone else tell me, apparently. (Research can give odds on what I'd choose in a blind test, but not perfect prediction for an individual, nor does the blind testing necessarily translated in to the experience of sighted listening).

I pay attention to how live sound compares to reproduced sound, so I come to speakers with perhaps some slightly different criteria than some here. For instance, we might have a speaker in which some measurements show some frequency bulge, or a gathering of cabinet and/or port resonances, "thickening" the sound in certain regions. But what one ASR audiophile may dismiss as "bad design" because of it's deviation from neutral and "bad engineering practice," I may hear as giving a more credible sense of "body" to the sound, more like I hear with live sounds.

You may then say "well, there you go, if you like that...look to speaker measurements to guide you to the speakers you want." But here again the problem is that it's not at all easy to predict exactly how one may perceive certain speaker colorations. You see this pretty often in speaker measurements accompanied by subjective commentary e.g. "Though the lower midrange resonance looked troubling, in practice it did not seem obvious in many types of musical material." I know that I can not look at a speaker measurement and tell for sure if that coloration will be too obvious and bother me...or if, when I listen to my favorite music, I will perceive it as *just right* such that it fades in to the background in terms of not being bothersome, but still adds to the overall sound in a way I find pleasing.

So unfortunately pure measurements aren't going to be a deciding factor in my case.

What about purely subjective reviews? Well, they also have the issue that, however enticingly the product is described, I'm still going to want to hear it for myself before purchasing.

BUT...

What I find in some of the subjective reviews (and among some audiophiles in other forums) is some like-minded folks who seem to think of sound more like I do, and who seem to care more about noticing and describing some of the things I care about. Which don't get much attention in from the more typical "objective reviewers" who emphasize measurements. And the subjective-oriented writers can paint a picture of the sound in a more effective manner, for me, than what I will get from Amir's usually terse subjective portion of a review, for instance.

I've used the example of the Devore O/93 and O/96 speakers before which, design and measurements-wise, would no doubt get razzes from the ASR crowd (like the Zu speakers). But I found over and over subjective reviewers were reporting certain characteristics about the sound that were exactly what I seek in reproduced sound - a sense of size and body to instruments and voices, an organic sense of sound, good detail/texture but relaxed, but also a sense of "life" in terms of sounding a bit more "live" dynamically, etc. All the details and descriptions that some here would never use, and dismisses as mere fantasy or poetry, was actually informing me that these reviewers listened as I listened, cared about identifying what I cared about, and so...this was worth seeking out. And when I had some long auditions of the speaker they had just the characteristics that were zeroed in on by the many subjective reviews. They were among the most pleasurable listening experiences I've had in auditioning speakers. I highly doubt I would have sought out those speakers...and plenty of others...based on the criteria many at ASR hold for speakers.

And I have had similar experiences through my audiophile career. And it has been the case for tons of audiophiles. "Poorly implemented" designs of many types have provided great pleasure to many audiophiles. I'm not a Zu fan myself per se, and they are exoriated around here for their design, but plenty of Zu owners clearly experience great satisfaction with their speakers. Even though they have heard plenty of other "better designed" speakers. And where some at ASR will take this to be "they were duped by the subjective reviews" it may be in many cases that, no, they found subjective reviewers who described things they care about and are seeking in the sound of a speaker, so they were led to a purchase that fulfilled their criteria...hence the many extremely satisfied reports you can find from Zu owners.

If we only view things through our own goals and criteria, we will tend to see others as hapless dupes who've made the "wrong" decision. But, not everyone has the same criteria and goals. And the subjective reviews can fulfill some desires that are not fulfilled by the more "dry" objective emphasis on measurements. The end goal is that the person is happy with his system, and enjoys his music. If they read a description in a subjective review of a speaker that suggested characteristics they'd like, and their own subjective impressions conformed importantly to those of the review, which resulted in a satisfying purchase, I don't see why that should be frowned upon on principle.

 

[Robin L]

Agreed. As I've said, adding good technical measurements ALWAYS makes for a more informative review than just the subjective portion alone.
However, I find a well described subjective report can be valuable.

It's going to boil down to an individual, his technical knowledge, his personal goals and criteria.

I have a basic understanding of speaker measurements, and I'm also generally familiar with they types of goals often touted here for speaker measurements (which tend towards the Harman Kardon school of thought). But in my case, I have never been able to predict exactly what a speaker will sound like from the measurements. Or how much I'll find myself enjoying listening to the speaker. And I'm damned finicky about which speakers will actually draw me in to wanting to sit and listen. Few, in fact, really do that for me.

So in my case, I really need to listen to a speaker before purchasing. Other people have different aptitudes or personalities or criteria. Some here say "I'm looking for as much accuracy as possible, I know what I want in a speaker measurement, and if the speaker measures that way...done. I'm good." They don't tend to think as much in terms of how speakers "sound" so much as "if the speaker is accurate, I'm hearing whats on the source accurately, and then I just take the sound as is, I don't worry, whatever a source track sounds like, it is what it is."

But that doesn't work for me. I like how speakers sound different. I've listened to *some* generally accurate speakers and loved them and others that...just didn't really move me (e.g. some Revel speakers included). I can not tell from the measurements which will do this...nor can someone else tell me, apparently. (Research can give odds on what I'd choose in a blind test, but not perfect prediction for an individual, nor does the blind testing necessarily translated in to the experience of sighted listening).

I pay attention to how live sound compares to reproduced sound, so I come to speakers with perhaps some slightly different criteria than some here. For instance, we might have a speaker in which some measurements show some frequency bulge, or a gathering of cabinet and/or port resonances, "thickening" the sound in certain regions. But what one ASR audiophile may dismiss as "bad design" because of it's deviation from neutral and "bad engineering practice," I may hear as giving a more credible sense of "body" to the sound, more like I hear with live sounds.

You may then say "well, there you go, if you like that...look to speaker measurements to guide you to the speakers you want." But here again the problem is that it's not at all easy to predict exactly how one may perceive certain speaker colorations. You see this pretty often in speaker measurements accompanied by subjective commentary e.g. "Though the lower midrange resonance looked troubling, in practice it did not seem obvious in many types of musical material." I know that I can not look at a speaker measurement and tell for sure if that coloration will be too obvious and bother me...or if, when I listen to my favorite music, I will perceive it as *just right* such that it fades in to the background in terms of not being bothersome, but still adds to the overall sound in a way I find pleasing.

So unfortunately pure measurements aren't going to be a deciding factor in my case.

What about purely subjective reviews? Well, they also have the issue that, however enticingly the product is described, I'm still going to want to hear it for myself before purchasing.

BUT...

What I find in some of the subjective reviews (and among some audiophiles in other forums) is some like-minded folks who seem to think of sound more like I do, and who seem to care more about noticing and describing some of the things I care about. Which don't get much attention in from the more typical "objective reviewers" who emphasize measurements. And the subjective-oriented writers can paint a picture of the sound in a more effective manner, for me, than what I will get from Amir's usually terse subjective portion of a review, for instance.

I've used the example of the Devore O/93 and O/96 speakers before which, design and measurements-wise, would no doubt get razzes from the ASR crowd (like the Zu speakers). But I found over and over subjective reviewers were reporting certain characteristics about the sound that were exactly what I seek in reproduced sound - a sense of size and body to instruments and voices, an organic sense of sound, good detail/texture but relaxed, but also a sense of "life" in terms of sounding a bit more "live" dynamically, etc. All the details and descriptions that some here would never use, and dismisses as mere fantasy or poetry, was actually informing me that these reviewers listened as I listened, cared about identifying what I cared about, and so...this was worth seeking out. And when I had some long auditions of the speaker they had just the characteristics that were zeroed in on by the many subjective reviews. They were among the most pleasurable listening experiences I've had in auditioning speakers. I highly doubt I would have sought out those speakers...and plenty of others...based on the criteria many at ASR hold for speakers.

And I have had similar experiences through my audiophile career. And it has been the case for tons of audiophiles. "Poorly implemented" designs of many types have provided great pleasure to many audiophiles. I'm not a Zu fan myself per se, and they are exoriated around here for their design, but plenty of Zu owners clearly experience great satisfaction with their speakers. Even though they have heard plenty of other "better designed" speakers. And where some at ASR will take this to be "they were duped by the subjective reviews" it may be in many cases that, no, they found subjective reviewers who described things they care about and are seeking in the sound of a speaker, so they were led to a purchase that fulfilled their criteria...hence the many extremely satisfied reports you can find from Zu owners.

If we only view things through our own goals and criteria, we will tend to see others as hapless dupes who've made the "wrong" decision. But, not everyone has the same criteria and goals. And the subjective reviews can fulfill some desires that are not fulfilled by the more "dry" objective emphasis on measurements. The end goal is that the person is happy with his system, and enjoys his music. If they read a description in a subjective review of a speaker that suggested characteristics they'd like, and their own subjective impressions conformed importantly to those of the review, which resulted in a satisfying purchase, I don't see why that should be frowned upon on principle.

I posted this somewhere else, the notion that there are such people as rational subjectivists and puritanical objectivists.

A puritanical objectivist is looking only at the numbers, working with those measurements to reach a conclusion that might not jibe with their subjective impressions. Rational objectivists understand that getting the sound they like is the actual goal, and that there's something they like that the numbers aren't measuring. This would apply to those super efficient speakers you cited, measuring wrong but doing things right that the speakers that measure right don't do. That's not the same as "can't be measured", it's just that we don't know what we're not measuring.

Subjectivists seem to be a hedonistic lot, otherwise would be a bit of an oxymoron [like "uptight libertine"]. So one won't find many puritanical subjectivists. A rational subjectivist would look for measurements that concur with listening impressions and understand that their personal biases might not be shared by others. By way of example, I've got to have 30hz in my system loud and clear, probably louder and clearer than average, I'd be looking at gear that goes that far down, more or less flat, with as little distortion as possible. But someone else is gonna want LS3/5a's. They're not wrong, their listening preferences are different.

 

[MaxBuck]

At the end of the day, this is a hobby intended to provide its practitioners sensory pleasure (and that can come from many different stimuli). If someone gets pleasure from spending money on a bunch of crap that doesn't improve their equipment's measured performance by one iota, that's no skin off my nose. One might as well excoriate yacht manufacturers for making expensive transport vehicles that are much slower than aircraft. Regardless, I won't be buying expensive cables, and I won't be buying a yacht.

 

[MattHooper]

At the end of the day, this is a hobby intended to provide its practitioners sensory pleasure (and that can come from many different stimuli). If someone gets pleasure from spending money on a bunch of crap that doesn't improve their equipment's measured performance by one iota, that's no skin off my nose. One might as well excoriate yacht manufacturers for making expensive transport vehicles that are much slower than aircraft. Regardless, I won't be buying expensive cables, and I won't be buying a yacht.

But I think it is relevant of people are spending money on "crap that doesn't improve their sound" when thinking it does.

Generally, we want to understand reality, because that's how we can *actually* get what we want, rather than be fooled in to thinking we got what we want. Usually, we don't want to be fooled, or mislead.

For instance, if you send money to a charity organization and are sent information about the specific "poverty stricken family in Uganda" you are helping, if the information they are giving you is true, that means your desire to help is actually being fulfilled.

But what if it turns out it's a scam organization, who just send you fake "letters of thanks" from the family or whatever, making you think it's true your money is helping out a family, but it's really just going in to their own pockets? Do most of us say "Well, that's fine, as long as I am led to believe my money is going to a real family, that's all that matters, because if I'm tricked it feels the same to me either way?"

Of course not. We actually care about having our goals satisfied in reality. Knowledge is power. Delusion is not.

Similarly, if someone has been tricked in to believing a super expensive digital cable will "improve" the sound of his system, and he believes it does, it is more empowering to know what is going on, than be in a state of delusion. If you KNOW that the cable will not in fact change the sound of your system, then that gives you the power to get what you want in a clear minded way. You can say "ok, not worth my money." Or, you might even say "Actually, it's worth it to me because I like how it looks, and it feels better for me having a system with cool looking high priced items, and it even tends to make me perceive the sound differently." That too is fine. But it's a decision made advisedly, with knowledge, rather than deception or delusion.

That's the value of a place like ASR insofar as it can offer information and education, which can empower people to spend their money in a way that actually gets them what they want.

(I defend some aspects of subjective reviewing...but only IMO the defensible parts. There's plenty of indefensible parts to complain about, in terms of misleading and misinforming people).

 

[amirm]

If someone gets pleasure from spending money on a bunch of crap that doesn't improve their equipment's measured performance by one iota, that's no skin off my nose.

This thread is not about what you all must do but what reviewers must do. If equipment is crap, it is our responsibility to express so reliably. What you then do is indeed up to you.

What some reviewers are pleading to do is to say their hearing in totally non scientific evaluation is perfectly reliable. To which I say hogwash!

 

[MaxBuck]

This thread is not about what you all must do but what reviewers must do. If equipment is crap, it is our responsibility to express so reliably. What you then do is indeed up to you.

What some reviewers are pleading to do is to say their hearing in totally non scientific evaluation is perfectly reliable. To which I say hogwash!

All of which I agree with fully! This site is a blessing.

 

[witwald]

FYI a follow up video has been posted

And this influencer states in the video that: "Measurements are really hard to interpret and most people get them wrong." It is difficult to understand the intent of that comment, especially when that very same criticism could be easily applied to the subjective review side.

An alternative comment might be: "Influencers reporting on biased subjective listening 'tests', which most get wrong, provide results (in the form of prose) that are really hard to interpret and are confusing, and they are providing poor quality information to their viewers or readers, as their interpretations are open to conjecture and many things will be overlooked, and did they really hear what they say they did; the story is the most important end result of their process."

The influencers routinely discount the above, as it doesn't suit their purposes. They simply fall back on poo-pooing a more learned and scientific approach.

A considerable number of subjective opinions about audio equipment are also published under the soundstagenetwork banner.

They prefer to stick to emotive descriptions of their loudspeaker listening sessions using a writing style filled with florid prose such as "reaching out with your hand and grabbing the singer", and "feeling the body and texture of the instrument", and "perhaps this is the fastest bass I have ever heard", and "it is very detailed and has a great sound stage", and "it is not as focussed", and "the amplification pairing is quite vital", and "the bass was stronger, quicker and overall more pleasant", and "it punches extremely hard and is very precise", and "was felt with visceral impact", and "it was almost like a therapy", and "it is more than that", and "it is so seamless", and "it is well textured and very satisfying". All of those and more are all par for this particular course. Where o where is the transferable data in reviews such as this?

How is it that such an approach can be expounded to be way, way more important and accurate and should be allowed to proceed before any measurements are viewed by the influencer. Maybe the measurements would undermine the "full-bodied sound that is not too clinical", or any of the many other stylised comments listed above.

And then there is this: "Of the speakers that I review, 99.9% of them I enjoy." That is helpful to know. In the end, it would seem that what we get is simply entertainment masquerading as information.

 

[Newman]

…What some reviewers are pleading to do is to say their hearing in totally non scientific evaluation is perfectly reliable. To which I say hogwash!

Hear Hear! I would extend that to “usefully reliable” also being hogwash, before someone thinks your use of the word ‘perfectly’ is their escape hatch.

 

[MattHooper]

And this influencer states in the video that: "Measurements are really hard to interpret and most people get them wrong." It is difficult to understand the intent of that comment, especially when that very same criticism could be easily applied to the subjective review side.

An alternative comment might be: "Influencers reporting on biased subjective listening 'tests', which most get wrong, provide results (in the form of prose) that are really hard to interpret and are confusing, and they are providing poor quality information to their viewers or readers, as their interpretations are open to conjecture and many things will be overlooked, and did they really hear what they say they did; the story is the most important end result of their process."

The influencers routinely discount the above, as it doesn't suit their purposes. They simply fall back on poo-pooing a more learned and scientific approach.

Where are you getting this from that video?

Doug mostly made sense, voicing essentially legitimate concerns about bias, interpreting measurements etc. Where did he "poo-poo" a "more learned scientific approach?"

His concern about how knowing measurements before hand could bias the listening is reasonable.

But, seemingly since our esteemed ASR reviewer measures first and listens second, there is pushback on what shouldn't be controversial.

And remember, the ASR listening reviews are not done scientifically - the subjective listening reports are sighted. So..."glass houses" if one is going to start going down the "I accuse you of not doing your work scientifically" route.

They prefer to stick to emotive descriptions of their loudspeaker listening sessions using a writing style filled with florid prose such as "reaching out with your hand and grabbing the singer", and "feeling the body and texture of the instrument", and "perhaps this is the fastest bass I have ever heard", and "it is very detailed and has a great sound stage", and "it is not as focussed", and "the amplification pairing is quite vital", and "the bass was stronger, quicker and overall more pleasant", and "it punches extremely hard and is very precise", and "was felt with visceral impact", and "it was almost like a therapy", and "it is more than that", and "it is so seamless", and "it is well textured and very satisfying". All of those and more are all par for this particular course. Where o where is the transferable data in reviews such as this?

How is it that such an approach can be expounded to be way, way more important and accurate and should be allowed to proceed before any measurements are viewed by the influencer. Maybe the measurements would undermine the "full-bodied sound that is not too clinical", or any of the many other stylised comments listed above.

Again, I don't understand why you are citing that particular video with your comments. Where did Doug "expound" that the subjective reports were "way, way more important and accurate" than measurements? He's NEVER said or even implied that as far as I know. He's been a proponent of the importance of measurements since way before this web site was in inkling in anyone's imagination.

The guy is essentially on the same team.

Both Soundstage and ASR provide sighted listening impressions of speakers and also measurements. Both sites can be useful.

Sometimes the skirmishes that occur between some audiophiles, and the comments on such videos, brings to mind:

The Narcissism of Small Differences

 

[witwald]

Where are you getting this from that video?

The relevant section where the statement "Measurements are really hard to interpret and most people get them wrong." is introduced is around 1:56 into the video.

Where did he "poo-poo" a "more learned scientific approach?"

Comments such as these come to mind: "they're probably using the measurements as a crutch", "they simply don't know better", "they haven't learned enough", "I'll say that most people agreed with me". Of course, all of those comments help to protect the influencers who he also said are "putting [their] ears and reputation on the line". Does one need any more?

 

[amirm]

When I wrote reviews for an on-line audio magazine,

Whaaaaat??? You were a subjectivist maganize reviewer? All this time you didn't tell us this? You didn't think it was important to share that you were defending fellow subjectivist reviewers? I was wondering what the source of tenacity was. Now I know.

 

[amirm]

Doug mostly made sense, voicing essentially legitimate concerns about bias, interpreting measurements etc.

Legitimate sources of bias? Knowing the cost, model, design of a speaker are not legitimate sources of bias? How about how designed the speaker? None of these are legitimate sources of bias but measurements are? You can't be part-time vegetarian. If he/you care about bias, then he should set up controlled double blind tests like Toole set up at NRC. If you don't care, then you don't care.

His concerns about interpreting measurements are his. He pays to have measurements done by NRC so he doesn't have first hand understanding of what they are what they mean. The measurements are also incomplete, and hell to try to read visually given the black and white and compressed formats. You would think it is dead easy to fix this. Why have they not? Is it to keep them obscure and hard to interpret to double check his subjective remarks?

 

[witwald]

Again, I don't understand why you are citing that particular video with your comments.

The video that I referred to is part of the soundstagenetwork publisher on YouTube. A considerable number of subjective opinions about audio equipment are also published under the soundstagenetwork banner. The subsequent comments that I quote came from one of those subjective opinion pieces published by the soundstagenetwork.

I added an extra sentence to my previous post commenting on the "More About Why Measuring Hi-Fi Gear Before Listening is Wrong - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi (Ep:12)" video, placed in the section where I went on to comment on some aspects of another soundstagenetwork video, in order to make that aspect somewhat clearer.

 

[Newman]

Whaaaaat??? You were a subjectivist maganize reviewer? All this time you didn't tell us this? You didn't think it was important to share that you were defending fellow subjectivist reviewers? I was wondering what the source of tenacity was. Now I know.

15,000 words of passive aggression in this thread are instantly explained.

 

[JJB70]

I think Matt Hooper has articulated his views rather eloquently. It is pretty obvious from his posts that he is connected with the audio review segment. I don't agree with everything he has written (and I think there is something profoundly unhealthy about looking for echo chambers) but if I review this thread I really think some of the comments aimed at him are unfair and rather disappointing.

 

[goat76]

Legitimate sources of bias? Knowing the cost, model, design of a speaker are not legitimate sources of bias? How about how designed the speaker? None of these are legitimate sources of bias but measurements are? You can't be part-time vegetarian. If he/you care about bias, then he should set up controlled double blind tests like Toole set up at NRC. If you don't care, then you don't care.

Who in this thread is a part-time vegetarian? I don't think anyone here is against what you are saying about knowing the cost, model, and design can be possible sources of bias, as well as knowing the measurements before doing the subjective review. If you take away one of them the better, like not knowing the measurements before listening, and if you take away all the rest, it's even better.

By knowing the brand, the cost, and maybe not liking the design can also give you a negative bias towards the speakers, as well as the opposite.
If you happen to be a hardcore objectivist, then it's likely that knowing the measurements before giving your subjective verdict will give you an even bigger impact bias-wise, depending on what you saw in the measurements. If you have a liking towards a specific brand, that will also likely have a possible impact on your final verdict, even if you saw the measurements before the listening. It all depends on who you are and where you happen to be on the scale from extreme objectivist to extreme subjectivist or somewhere in between, bias goes both ways.



Talking about things that can go both ways even if you see the measurements before you do the subjective part of the review. Did you ever get to a definitive conclusion why you did find the overall experience of the KEF R3 "unexciting and unengaging for lack of a better word", did you manage to tweak them to your liking and get them more exciting and less unengaging?


Listening part from your review:

Speaker Listening Tests
I setup the KEF R3 in the same far-field setting I have used for my other high-fi speakers in my main system. It is stand mounted with tweeter roughly at ear level with me sitting some 12 feet away. The speaker was driven by a 1,000 watt monoblock amplifier (into 4 ohm) so power availability not an issue. Fancy audiophile cable was used so no worries there.

First the good news: the type of buzzing distortion I thought I heard with KEF Q100 was not there. It was replaced by very clear response together with strong deep bass when required. Power handling was now excellent as I could turn up the speaker as much as I needed and despite only one speaker playing. The sound was clean.

Alas, once again subjective feeling was low. My standard routine is to cycle through my reference clips that I have selected during all my normal listening to sound superb on my Revel Salon 2 Speakers. Sadly hardly any of them sounded all that good here. Yes, the highs were there. The lows at times were there. But overall experience was unexciting and unengaging for lack of a better word.

To make sure my mind has not gone crazy, I replaced the R3 with Revel M16 which I recently reviewed. Wow, all that gorgeous came right back! There are two things I clearly detect:

1. Warm, fantastic mid to upper bass. I can't emphasize enough how much difference this makes and how it impacts my subjective reviews.
2. There is a "loosness" to notes that is hard to describe but notes are separated and delightfully clean and pleasant. I get this same sense when I EQ a speaker for a room.

Discussion and Conclusions
The objective measurements will nail the Olive score no doubt. And they present for the third time a conflict with my subjective listening impressions. Of course my subjective evaluation is much less reliable. I like us to allow some allowance for them to sink in though. Olive's latest tests shows people like to hear more bass than originally though. So could this be behind my preference for speakers like Revel M16?


...I am really starting to think the 100 to 200 Hz region plays a much stronger role than we think in subjective sound a speaker produces. The other factor is not letting the higher frequencies dominate the mid-range. As I noted in the review, broad deviations in the measurements, despite their low level, may have a much larger subjective difference.

At some point we will have to reconcile these differences, either setting me straight on my subjective evaluations being wrong, or us not knowing all that Harman knows about good speaker sound. Let's remember that they won't release a new speaker unless it passes double blind listening tests against its competitor. No other score allows them to skip this test. Components are tweaked until they achieve this. So one wonders if this is not released to public.

For now, objective measurements are superb enough to give a thumbs up to KEF R3 and hence the choice of panther.

 

[John Atkinson]

I hope I did not totally ruin your day.

Not at all. I just wanted to correct the uninformed misinformation about Stereophile that was being posted on ASR. There are magazines and webzines that tie coverage to advertising - for example, the editor of 6Moons posted a couple of years ago that he would only publish reviews of products from advertisers - but Stereophile isn't one of them.

BTW, you’re very welcome to educate us on what Stereophile’s true missions and policies are.

Perhaps you didn't read the essay or watch the YouTube video, to which I posted links. But you can find an essay on the relationship between Stereophile and its advertisers, including an analysis of how many reviewed products were from advertisers and how many were from non-advertisers, at https://www.stereophile.com/content/great-wall-china-0 .

In the time period that I examined in that essay, 42 products reviewed in Stereophile were from advertisers, 48 were from non-advertisers.This analysis was some years ago, of course, but the conclusion is still valid, I feel. See an earlier essay I wrote on this subject at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/366/index.html .

Again, just remember we were not born yesterday(As an example, some of us still have a vivid image of that recent Stereophile editorial in our memories)…

You make my point for me. The subject of Jim Austin's essay, MQA, has never advertised in Stereophile. And while companies that make MQA-compatible digital products do advertise in Stereophile, so do companies that are publicly critical of MQA, like Schiit and PS Audio.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[MattHooper]

The relevant section where the statement "Measurements are really hard to interpret and most people get them wrong." is introduced is around 1:56 into the video.

Well, I guess I'll just repeat the quesiton. How in the world do you go from "Measurements are really hard to interpret and most people get them wrong" to: "They simply fall back on poo-pooing a more learned and scientific approach. "

That is non-sequitur.

Comments such as these come to mind: "they're probably using the measurements as a crutch", "they simply don't know better", "they haven't learned enough", "I'll say that most people agreed with me". Of course, all of those comments help to protect the influencers who he also said are "putting [their] ears and reputation on the line". Does one need any more?

The relevant section where the statement "Measurements are really hard to interpret and most people get them wrong." is introduced is around 1:56 into the video.

Comments such as these come to mind: "they're probably using the measurements as a crutch", "they simply don't know better", "they haven't learned enough", "I'll say that most people agreed with me". Of course, all of those comments help to protect the influencers who he also said are "putting [their] ears and reputation on the line". Does one need any more?

See above.