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
kiwi_1282001
312 posts
 
Hi James63,

I very much agree on the importance of context. What drives me over the edge is to read opinions proffered on one product vs. another when the context is very different, i.e. the products were heard in different locations and/or with different electronics. It seems to miss some folks that one of the biggest problems in evaluating loudspeakers comes down to the unavoidable fact that the speaker is at the end of a chain of other components, and that chain (particularly the amplifier) will impose its own character on the signal the speaker reproduces.

Even assuming two pairs of loudspeakers are heard in the same room and system there are still difficulties in proclaiming one product is better than another in part because the components being used and / or the inherent acoustics of the room may suit one loudspeaker more than the other. I've witnessed situations where I thought one pair of loudspeakers was superior to another - then I moved some acoustic panels around and my earlier thoughts were completely undone.

One (of many) potential other problems is one of expectation bias. We think one product should sound better than another even before the listening actually startsÂ… We then look for affirmation of that expectation and we come to sites like AudiogoN to receive it.
dsper
663 posts
 
I think that the point about context is really important, especially as you get into tweaking versus component changeout.

I shy away of opinions regarding speaker wires and interconnects because I question how many people get the context right - a true A to B comparison without knowing which one is A and which is one B.

This is an area where I have virtually no experience so maybe someone can provide some free advice regarding cables (or affirmation of my opinion!).
cdc
1,827 posts
 
Old timers here may remember Sean describing how components sounded solely based on measurements and how it was designed (layout, type of components, etc.) To that end, auditioning becomes less meaningful and even irrelevant. Some designers of components like Lamm or YG do it solely this way and I understand their stuff sounds pretty good :-)

Before I get my head taken off, I just throw this out there because there's gotta be a better way than driving across the country to hear stuff or deciding on vacations based on stereo dealers.
More to discover