Best new loudspeaker

MrT, you might contact ML about that impedance. Its been that way with them for a long time, since the CLS 2 FWIW. I remember some of the Sequels were a little easier, and the old CLS 1 was the easiest of all...

With regards to the communication: I see in your comments that you do not regard a measurable and audible performance increase as good, for you there is only preference, such as your preference for the Quad, or perhaps the ML that you have not heard. Yet you acknowledge that the performance increase is real. I take it you don't see contradiction in that?

hi ralph:

is perception reality ?

there is no contradiction in saying i perceive a to be less inaccurate than b. note, i perceive is the key. i can't say what is real and what is not.

what is a measurable increase in performance ? as soon as you say "increase in performance", you are making a value judgment. i report perceptions. what does a perception have to do with performance. that word is value laden.

why not accept a statement that a is less inaccurate than b in its literal sense. even if there were a measurable change in frequency response, such a state would neither be bad or good.

the issue between us is whether i consider a reduction in inaccuracy an increase in performance. i do not. it is a change that is based either upon perception or measurement.

such a change is not better or worse. it is a change.

there is no contradiction between preference and perception. my preferences are based upon my perceptions.

i guess the word performance has one connotation for you, another for you. even if i accept your connotation of an "a performance increase", such an increase is not better than no increase. it depends upon what you prefer.

"even if there were a measurable change in frequency response, such a state would neither be bad or good."

"the issue between us is whether i consider a reduction in inaccuracy an increase in performance. i do not."

Somehow I can't see Peter Walker or Gayle Sanders not caring about frequency response or accuracy.

Duke

MrT, that which is real exists in time and space, and has the property of being measurable. Obviously specifications are measurable and therefore real, but so is love- it too exists in time and space, and the one experiencing it can definitely measure it. I have included the latter example because it is easy to think of something like that as being **perceptual** only.

So how much do you love your music and stereo? Enough to spend money on it and take a stand for the equipment that brings you that music?? You can't tell me that you have no idea!

Those things that rely on perception only are subject to interpretation, however in the cases I mentioned, I was careful to include those that were both audible **and** measurable.

There may be no contradiction in your preference and perception, but so far I see that there has indeed been contradiction in your communication. There also appears to be a sort of double standard that you have exercised over the years; where you hold amplifiers on an entirely different ground from that of speakers. I can go dig up the references if you like, but the most telling one is from any earlier part of this thread:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1201458336&openflup&21&4#21

You have maintained that there is no 'best amplifier' but you clearly are stating in 2 different ways in the above link that there is some sort of best when it comes to speakers. You can't have it both ways- there must be an amplifier for which no other will be better, period. Right?

i have not contradicted myself.

regarding speakers. i said that never will a cone speaker be the best. as well , never will any speaker be the best.
i have reported my perceptions and preferences. i don't recall saying the quad 57 was the best or is the best speaker, because there is no best speaker.

if it can be measured that speaker a is closer to 100 percent accurate than speaker b it doesn't mean that speaker a is better than speaker b.

noew, let's talk amplifiers. there is no best amplifier.

my preferences have nothing to do with "best". best is only meaningful in the context of a criterion. if there are two different criteria then there are two different "best" , whatever is being judged.

i think there is no doubt now, that better and best are somewhat arbitrary and not useful terms, as far as i am concerned.

its all about taste and preference.

there is no inconsistency and no contradiction. there may have been misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

now all is clear. i like what i like, and you like what you like. stereo systems and components are different. they sound different, some of their parts are different and some design principles are different.

listen and decide what you like. one man's trash is another man's treasure.

the only standrads and norms are thos suggested and imposed and based upon those standards one may conclude that something is better than something else.

since i do not accept such standards as a means of determining quality, i am not bound by them and hence i do not accept the the hypothesis that a is better than b, in life. rather i would say it is in my interest to own a or it is in my interest to do a. i won't admit that my choices are based upon my own conecpts of quality because i don't have any.

i can apply this philosophy to all areas of life.