Best new loudspeaker

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.

Hi Duke, you said, "Somehow I can't see Peter Walker or Gayle Sanders not caring about frequency response or accuracy."

I dont know why, but when I say that in my posts... I get lambasted.

Bob

hi ralph:

thank you for all of the intellectual jousting. you are contributing to the health of a 66 year old brain.

I must admit MrT, I thought you meant best too - especially given this statement

the quads unlimited quad 57 are closer to real than anything out there, period.

"anything out there, period"

In my simple mindedness I equated your "criteria" of being "closest to real" as the Quad 57 being defacto "the best", period. (Throw a heavy dash of perception into the criteria if you like...no problem)

Furthermore MrT, you implied to me, and probably others, that given this "closer to real" metric: ANY electrostat/ribbon/panel will BEST any of 1000 audiophile quality cone speakers that you have auditioned.

In essence MrT, you ARE saying there is a "best" for this particular perceived criteria (by your ears), which is "the real thing" or a live performance.

Surely this is the single most important criteria in sound reproduction for the majority of audiophiles? Yet now you are back peddling and saying NO - you didn't mean best at all - and to each man his own!

If I were a psychiatrist, I would probably conclude that MrT has the preconcieved notion about Quad 57's sounding the most like the real thing...better than any of 1000 audiophile quality cone speakers. This notion also applies in general to any Electrostat/Panel/Ribbon speaker viz a viz a cone. Therefore, even a new ML speaker will be perceived as sounding better than ANY cone speaker regardless of whether MrT has actually heard it or not!

Therefore, I propose that you don't need to audition anymore speakers MrT => you already KNOW what will sound "most like the real thing" or "least inaccurate timbrally". This Panglossian attitude towards all Electrostats/Ribbons/Panels is actually quite charming and I think that these and your other statements are keeping you well amused. No harm in that. And I do agree that, properly implemented and installed, these speakers can and do sound awesome. Peace and I wish you many more years of happiness - perhaps with advances in science (my domain) you may reach another 66....it certainly won't come from Panglossian thinking alone - although Doctors do say that an optimistic attitude really helps!