What if a high end speaker measures really badly?

Sometimes I would rather hear a lot of poeticisms about why a speaker sounds great, rather than hear a bunch of pretenders spout off about graphs and charts that they are not equipped to interpret meaningfully. It's a misleading pretense and not in any way science related, or more importantly, pertinent to the art of speaker design. The only participant in this thread who has the expertise to speak to the science is Audiokinesis. And I am noticing that he shines a lot of insight, but has nothing negative to say. I really appreciate that. 

😂

It’s quite apparent from his posts that Audiokineses doesn’t have a strong grasp of speaker science. So that leads me to presume you do not either. 

Read, learn, then read some more, then test the theories for yourself. 

The issue with ideal measurements vs actual performance is that many listeners who design these products actually possess little experience and knowledge themselves. That, and/or they have a convoluted perception of what’s “good” based on their years of accumulated hearing damage (hence the rising treble or “V-Curve” we often seen in graphs). Many DIYers like Troels Gravesen possess far greater knowledge and experience than most of the commercial product designers. And it’s not often you’ll encounter an experienced DIYer who aims for anything less than good linearity and low distortion. 

 

so you believe that Harmon and Toole don't have any bias, after all they are competing in the industry. All the Toole listening test I have read about place one speaker in the same position not taking into account the design of the speaker.

AFAIK, Toole is retired. And Harman (not “Harmon”) does actually test speakers at different listening axis. Sure it’s the same boundary lengths but then so will it be in the majority of listener’s setups. Harman aims for what performs good in a real-world room as well as in an anechoic environment. Perhaps you could research further into their processes.

By no means am I claiming they make the best speakers or the absolute best at their price points. Their main intent is to beat out their handful of primary competitors (B&W, Focal, Paradigm etc.) when it comes to performance/dollar. IME, they typically achieve that goal in terms of currently available competitor products. Thus, I believe their DBX test methodology bears fruit in real world applications. Again, not saying they are THE Best,” only that they tend to produce better value than their primary competition at respective price points. I surmise that’s likely because they stick to established science, but of course, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility they have access to magic fairy dust. 😉

Yeah, speakers with lumpy response can tailor our setlist because while they take some songs over the top, they hold others back. Companies like B&W have obviously done some research on their target market and tune their speakers for them I'm great with that because they're a legitimate company building consistent products.

@helomech wrote:

"It’s quite apparent from his posts that Audiokineses doesn’t have a strong grasp of speaker science."

Could you elaborate?  I'd like to know where you disagree with me.  I'm not infallible. 

Thanks.

I can respect that horn lovers prefer dynamics to flat response. There was a good argument for the fletcher munson curve also. A flat speaker nearly always sounds bass shy.