IME, a lot of high end speakers are designed to appeal to the consumer who has a certain amount of ’hearing loss’ due to age
Yes. This has been my point about Stereophile speaker darlings for years. Maybe it’s changed, but for a while the speakers they loved were absolute ear drills to me. You can find the explanation in the FR. My other possible explanation is purely financial.
See my recent thread here on the Dali Rubicon 8:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/dali-rubicon-8-the-listener-matters/post?postid=1873074
. My impression is that a certain technology catches on--like the metal dome ( beryllium or titanium, as an example) and the manufacturer sees a certain public acceptance of this technology from the --shall we say-- less abled in the high frequency hearing dept, and the rest is as they say...history. Your thoughts?
I don’t see this tied together the same way, because the FR of the tweeter in respect to the other drivers is under the control of the crossover designer, and not all metal tweeters sound the same, or remain uncompensated for. I think the branding (Be for instance) is what’s really mattering here. One interesting thing I found about Stereophile was their darling speakers had the same ragged response in the mid-treble. Nearly identical, regardless of tweeter type.
See my blog here:
https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/05/stereophile-reviews-data-doesnt-lie.htmlBut also, finally, I don’t care if a speaker is neutral or not in terms of product quality. We don't buy lab gear. Buy what you like. Listen to what makes you happy, but don’t come to me with a nasty FR and call it neutral.
Also see the posting from Toole about how impossible it is to actually create and listen to neutral speakers.