Best new loudspeaker

Henryhk, they were right next to us at T.H.E. Show. He wanted to hear our amps and I had a backup set of M-60s available- The speaker is easy to drive (bass is handled by an internal amplifier) and every easy to listen to- spacious, detailed, wide bandwidth and very neutral.

MrT, you may not like the way that the record labels make their recordings but the fact is that they make their recordings the way they make their recordings. If you want the perspective to be the way you like it, you will have to go out and make a recording that way yourself. Whether best or not, any system that distorts the perspective of soundstage is in fact distorting the perspective of soundstage. An obvious distortion or inability like that is clearly not 'best', in fact it might be worst (the opposite of best), at least in the arena of soundstage depth.

Soundstage depth is one of many aspects heard by audiophiles. Audiophiles hear these things because they all have ears that use the same rules for sound location, intensity, bandwidth and so on. In fact these rules operate independently of taste.

I once met a guy who hated his teeth and wanted dentures. Loosing my teeth is one of my worst nightmares. Taste is the sort of thing that is so unaccountable that one person can hate their own teeth (even though they are healthy), or hate accurate reproduction of soundstage.

I submit to you that taste has nothing to do with 'best'. The best-sounding amplifier/speaker will be that thing due to the fact that it can reproduce an audio signal more closely according to the rules of human hearing than any other amplifier/speaker. You can still hate it though, for its attention to accuracy, detail, musical nature, relaxed and spacious presentation, bandwidth and impact: you can hate it for the very fact that it is the 'best'. You don't have to hate it consciously- and so to justify the taste issue it is also possible to say there is no 'best', but such would never be the case. It would be a simple denial of what is so.

i wish they would remove the word "best" from the english language, as it engeneders arguments.

Exactly...becuase to yourself you see everything as an argument....instead myself and others are trying to concentrate efforts on furthering knowledge and understanding in this hobby by trying to explain things, as best we can, and not without some errors and prejudices no doubt...but nevertheless in the interests of moving forward - we try our best.

The way I see it - you have a been offered a fine choice.

Either
1) Chose to learn about the acoustical, electrical & physics science and psychoacoustic science of hearing in enough measure to to gain a moderate understanding of this hobby and the issues that you comment so passionately about {clearly like many of us you love this hobby, you have vast practical experience however I suggest that a deeper understanding could increase enjoyment enormously!)
2) Stick with your "mantra" ..."there is no best", "there is no best"..."nothing can be compared meaningfully or even discussed because to each his own"..."Om Mani Padme Hum!"

It is up to you now. I do not see this as a "joust" at all...there is NOTHING to be won....except perhaps on one hand, enlightenment for everyone concerned or, on the other hand, continued propagation of misleading concepts or just plain useless uninformative mantras or platitudes....statements with little or no explanation.

FWIW the answer to life the universe and everything has already been solved a while ago and the answer is 42.

hi ralph:

aha, now i see your point. you have defined a criterion as to what best is, and you are applying that criterion to the evaluation of components and stereo systems.

i understand your perspective, but it is an arbitrary one. you use the word "best" and "worst", as it follows from your premise of accuracy, and "the rules of hearing".

your premise is arbitrary, although sensible.

i still say that there is no "best" or worst", in the absolute sense. i will accept your conclusions based upon your premise, but at the same time, i reject it because, i consider this hobby to be subjective and the basis for judging stereo systems to be a simple, "i like it" or "i don't like it". "best" or "worst", which follows logically from your premise is irrelevant. don't confuse facts with value. you are making a virtue of necessity.

by the way, i sent you an e mail. did you receive it ?

i see no point in debating with you. this is a philosophical argument. one could have a similar discussion with respect to food, literature, art and movies.

as i said in the e mail, it would be easier to discuss this in person with you. perhaps we may meet at ces.

"one could have a similar discussion with respect to food, literature, art and movies."

In my opinion this comment would be applicable if we were discussing music, which we are not. We are discussing the replication of music. That replication is either faithful in the areas that matter, or not.

Now as to which areas matter and how much - well, that would be a topic rich with diversity of opinion.

Duke

hi duke:

you can discuss accurate vs inaccurate replication of recordings. one can measure and state facts.

the problem occurs when a judgment is rendered.

here is an example:

stereo system a is accurate--fact
stereo system b is inaccurate--fact

so far, there would be no disagreement if the facts were established properly.

to say stereo system a is better than stereo system b is illogical and only an opinion.