The facts, as seen by a reviewer (If you can't trust me, who can you trust?):
The MMMicros are exceptionally good; whether they are among the very best will be determined when Jonathan sends me some to review. ;)
Robsker has a legitimate point from some audiophiles' perspectives. He is right in asserting that the massively high end system ahead of the MMMicro One does radically influence the sound of the speaker. The community should know that this is universal, not particular to any given brand. You can take the Best Buy Insignia speaker and put $75K worth of gear on it; the speaker will sound far different than with $10K (this is a generalization, of course, as you all understand) worth of gear. I have done so myself. IOW, the quality of the gear ahead absolutely dictates the performance level reached by the speaker in the same fashion the quality of the rocket engine dictates how high the rocket gets.
When the Magnepan 1.7 was being used in review with $80K of gear ahead of it I pointed out to potential owners on the message boards that they should not expect that level of performance from the speaker; the performance experienced by the rank and file audiophile with $10-20K of gear would typically be quite different than in the review. The speaker was not a sea change but a freshening up. Time has borne out that some were disappointed that the speaker was not radically better. There is only so far any more economical speaker can take the music.
Now, to address Jonathan's valid point; Whether the speaker is worthy of the upstream gear is another question altogether. The Insignia poops out quite quickly with serious flaws showing themselves. The MMMicro has the guts to acquit itself well with better gear. It is a reference caliber, affordable, bottom-end limited speaker. Frankly, I don't know too many economical speakers of which that can be said. :)
The logic that the introductory model should be showcased more cheaply is interesting. If I were making speakers aiming for the top end of the market would I want to set up a low end rig to showcase them? I think not; it would likely be terribly confusing to customers. Why should someone who's making a statement product, regardless of price, treat it like a thoughtless comment? It seems obvious to me the statement of quality potential in terms of a system is in the system accompanying, while the statement of the speaker's sound quality itself is independent, yet subject to system variables. The statement of value is in the pricing.
I'll tell you what the discussion would be if Jonathan had put an econo-rig together for the MMMicroOnes:
A segment of audiophiles would surmise that Evolution Acoustics had compromised their quality standards, that the internals of the speaker were not up to snuff, and that's why the sound was not as primo as a fully pimped system. People would be saying, "Why didn't they show the speaker as well as it can sound?..." It would certainly cross my mind, and it would be my goal to find out if it was true or not.
It's a "no win" for Jonathan when he puts his absolute best foot forward in terms of demo, but is shot down that it was TOO good! ;) I'm not sure this point has been made; I skimmed the responses to the thread, but keeping the rig he same in terms of attending components allows people familiar with Evolution's sound to confirm that the house sound is intact. I believe that was happening at those demos. Robsker's core point of performance relative to systems is correct, but is not an obscure influence like a hidden subwoofer. You don't need to defend yourself, Jonathan, the MMMicros are superb as I have heard at shows.
For those with incessant skepticism regarding reviewers, I have spoken to Jonathan prior about reviewing the MMMicro One's but I have not to date reviewed any Evolution Acoustics products and am not currently, nor any associated gear shown in demos.
The MMMicros are exceptionally good; whether they are among the very best will be determined when Jonathan sends me some to review. ;)
Robsker has a legitimate point from some audiophiles' perspectives. He is right in asserting that the massively high end system ahead of the MMMicro One does radically influence the sound of the speaker. The community should know that this is universal, not particular to any given brand. You can take the Best Buy Insignia speaker and put $75K worth of gear on it; the speaker will sound far different than with $10K (this is a generalization, of course, as you all understand) worth of gear. I have done so myself. IOW, the quality of the gear ahead absolutely dictates the performance level reached by the speaker in the same fashion the quality of the rocket engine dictates how high the rocket gets.
When the Magnepan 1.7 was being used in review with $80K of gear ahead of it I pointed out to potential owners on the message boards that they should not expect that level of performance from the speaker; the performance experienced by the rank and file audiophile with $10-20K of gear would typically be quite different than in the review. The speaker was not a sea change but a freshening up. Time has borne out that some were disappointed that the speaker was not radically better. There is only so far any more economical speaker can take the music.
Now, to address Jonathan's valid point; Whether the speaker is worthy of the upstream gear is another question altogether. The Insignia poops out quite quickly with serious flaws showing themselves. The MMMicro has the guts to acquit itself well with better gear. It is a reference caliber, affordable, bottom-end limited speaker. Frankly, I don't know too many economical speakers of which that can be said. :)
The logic that the introductory model should be showcased more cheaply is interesting. If I were making speakers aiming for the top end of the market would I want to set up a low end rig to showcase them? I think not; it would likely be terribly confusing to customers. Why should someone who's making a statement product, regardless of price, treat it like a thoughtless comment? It seems obvious to me the statement of quality potential in terms of a system is in the system accompanying, while the statement of the speaker's sound quality itself is independent, yet subject to system variables. The statement of value is in the pricing.
I'll tell you what the discussion would be if Jonathan had put an econo-rig together for the MMMicroOnes:
A segment of audiophiles would surmise that Evolution Acoustics had compromised their quality standards, that the internals of the speaker were not up to snuff, and that's why the sound was not as primo as a fully pimped system. People would be saying, "Why didn't they show the speaker as well as it can sound?..." It would certainly cross my mind, and it would be my goal to find out if it was true or not.
It's a "no win" for Jonathan when he puts his absolute best foot forward in terms of demo, but is shot down that it was TOO good! ;) I'm not sure this point has been made; I skimmed the responses to the thread, but keeping the rig he same in terms of attending components allows people familiar with Evolution's sound to confirm that the house sound is intact. I believe that was happening at those demos. Robsker's core point of performance relative to systems is correct, but is not an obscure influence like a hidden subwoofer. You don't need to defend yourself, Jonathan, the MMMicros are superb as I have heard at shows.
For those with incessant skepticism regarding reviewers, I have spoken to Jonathan prior about reviewing the MMMicro One's but I have not to date reviewed any Evolution Acoustics products and am not currently, nor any associated gear shown in demos.
