2. speakers
  3. 1306764448

Compairson ground rules....should we have them?

More often than not, someone will ask, 'How do you compare...' regarding two products--speakers, or electronics. This is fair game, this is a blog site--but too often the comparisons become the 'last word' of the product's value, and with little or no thought to be paid to the relationship of cost between the two products.
This is fair too--but..and a big but here (think Kardashian) if we're talking about the THIEL 3.7 and we start railing about it's lack of deep bass (when comparing it to a speaker costing 2 or 3X as much)...I KNOW, and maybe some of the more traveled audiophiles know...but without context...does the typical person, or neophyte know? Or do they walk away, storing only the statment, 'THIEL 3.7 has limited bass output', in their memory banks--this being misleading.
Audiogon is a constant source of amazement to me--or should I say, 'Human Nature' is that source?

'My name is Dilbert, and I own a pair of $38 dollar, not thousand dollar, Sony speakers that I bought 23 years ago...I'm thinking of replacing them with the MBL 101's...has anyone compared these two?'
At that point someone will offer a comparison of the two with little or no regard for the price differential--in other words an emperical not practical comparison. Don't get me wrong, emperical and practical are both good, and both relevant but rarely part of the discussion.
I suppose this bothers me because people always seem to do this with THIEL--compare them with speakers costing multiples of the THIEL price, as if that's somehow Kosher.
I suppose that it bothers me, because the shortcomings of speaker A (THIEL in this case as I'm harking to a comparison of THIEL versus Egglestons) are highlighted in great detail, as compared to B (the multiple thousand That, coupled with my personal impressions of the Egglestons which is that they are not neutral sounding AND I don't happen to prefer the colors that they've chosen...but now we're in to the crux of audio preferences...chose the 'color' you like.
Whether you're splashing the walls with paint, or splashing the walls with sound, shouldn't a comparison be based on some commonality if we're delving into the two personalities of speakers?
I got cross ways with someone on another A'gon post and made this same point, but it got no traction whatsoever--someone comparing the 3.7 with the Tidal...which at that time was about 2X the price. My comments were...OK, the Tidal may be better, but how does the Tidal compare with speakers costing twice THEIR price? Within that context, let's detail the shortcomings of the Tidals now.

I suppose I'm really saying that questions should have the caveat--I'm asking this question for edification, not to damn with faint praise nor condemn by comparing. CNO comparisons(Cost no object) which would be emperical...all comments are of the 'absolute' variety...any shortcommings of product A, (the lesser priced one) should be taken in context of that obvious price differential.
In my lexicon, Quality is a constant, Value is more elastic...and very time dependant...i.e. where is the buyer's financial health at the moment in question?
My best friend always talks about how much of a 'value' the Mercedez is...yes, of course in his world this is true--at $115K it's a good car...but for the masses, maybe the $39K Buick LaCrosse might just hit the mark more easily. Now, am I going to pretend that the Buick is the equal of the S Car...NO...but all comparisons deserve context.
Just sayin'

Good listening.
Larry
lrsky
lrsky OP
1,118 posts
 
Kiwi,
Well said--I'm especially fond of the 'opinions' people seek for medical treatments...Why would you ask a bunch of audiophiles about a medical malady?? What value does that have...I always reply, and just did within the past
week...PLEASE GO SEE A DOCTOR...
What could any of us 'non physicians' offer to someone that would assuage any pain or give them hope?

"The best thing about opinions is the cost involved in getting them."

Good listening.
Larry
isochronism
2,893 posts
 
value in one's opinion has to be earned with time.
isochronism
2,893 posts
 
imho, that is
kiwi_1282001
312 posts
 
Thanks Larry,

Regarding "opinions" on audio (as opposed to say medical) it has been my experience that people who come to this and other audio forums don't largely come for the answers – they come in search of affirmation...

To put this another way – people who travel to the AudiogoN Wild West are looking to confirm what they believe they already know. A synthesis has already taken place.

The above observation applied to the topic of this thread might lead us to conclude that the guy who thinks the THIEL 3.7 has limited bass output - likely believed this before visiting this site. Since we do not see things as they are, rather we tend to see things as we are or how we have already interpreted them – the suggested comparison ground rules are not likely to be helpful.

What do you think?
james63
534 posts
 
Kiwi,

I agree with your last post and want to add some food for thought, context.

Context is very important, take a good pair of speakers with "great" bass output and add a sub. Turn the sub WAY up (like your 16) and listen to a few songs. After a few songs turn the sub off and I am sure your speakers with "great" bass will now sound thin and weak. Now they are not thin at all but in context they are and it can take a good bit of time to readjust.

I had this type of thing happen to me when I demoed the 3.7. I demoed the 3.7 a good number of times (5 or more, lost track). The first time I heard them I was impressed by their solid bass. It had good depth, power, tonality, and was very balanced, all in all it was memorable.

A few weeks later I listened to the Sophia 3 in the same room and then switch to the Thiel 3.7. The Sophia sounded fine and had lots of bass output with a clear hump in room at 80hz-ish. I got use to the bass output after listening to the speakers for a good hour or two. I then switch to the 3.7 on the same system. This was the same room and system I originally heard the 3.7 where I liked the bass so well..... after the Sophia's humped bass (in this room at least) the 3.7s sounded thin and weak. Even after 30 minutes the bass seemed weak.

So I have to ask myself was the bass really weak on the 3.7 or was the Sophia 3 colored tonally. I tend to think the Sophia is colored but other would disagree. But the demo did make me think the 3.7 may not have enough bass output for large rooms. I never questioned the bass depth of the 3.7 though. Thiels specs are very honest and it really does play down to 30hz. If the Thiels only go to 30hz in the room I heard them, many other brands are lying about their speakers because the 3.7 reaches far deeper (before taking a dive) than some speakers I have heard "rated" as low or even lower.

All in all context is often forgotten and I believe that is what Larry is really trying to make a point about. The context of money gets tricky though. How many times have you read a review or thought a speaker plays way out of it's price class? With so many good "budget" speakers playing out of their price class maybe we should expect more for our money. Maybe the over achievers are not over achievers but the expensive speaker is under achieving.
More to discover