- 90 posts total
- 90 posts total
erik - CR’s testing of audio equipment at that time was very much a measurement approach - using primarily frequency response as the metric for their "accuracy" rankings. But they also wrote listening impressions. Their issues with the 901’s were the larger than life and any imaginable instrument image that they sometimes projected - e.g., a piano could be wide as the room even if the room was 15’ in width. I remember when the 901’s were introduced going to listen to them - they were pretty startling (whoa, how’d that guitarist get on the ceiling?!!?) and, even taking into account the limitations of the most popular speakers at the time (which were primarily bookshelf models), they departed considerably from the norm as well as what one might expect from live music. That was the first iteration - I admit that I have not listened to the later models. Although I don’t remember the particulars, my guess is that Roy Allison objected to the FR measure that was CR’s primary accuracy criterion which, I believe, was conducted in an anechoic chamber. That, of course, would negate the feature of Allison speakers that distinguished them from most others (positioning close to the wall to take advantage of the reinforcement effects the boundary afforded.
If I told you Karl-Anthony Towns is just as good as LeBron James because they both averaged the same number of points per game, would you buy that? What if I went further and said and perceived greatness of LeBron was simply snake oil that you dreamed up in your head?
There has been a revolution in sports analytics in this century to the point where it is now very easy to show why LeBron was better than KAT in a number of different ways.
The audio measurements crowd needs to similarly step up its game. Distortion and frequency response is points and rebounds. Points and rebounds are important, but Karl-Anthony Towns ain't leading you to a championship.
Good analogy whoopycat. We should continue to investigate the nature of audio reproduction, perception, and appreciation. Certainly, at this point in time all of the meaningful measures have yet to be defined and curiosity about what is missing is a primary driver for scientific investigation. The bottom line, to me at least, is that we can draw some conclusions from the measurements we can make, but we certainly can't completely describe the behavior of any piece of gear nor how we will perceive it. At this point, the quote below certainly obtains.
"Not everything that counts can counted and not everything that can be counted counts." (commonly attributed to Albert Einstein, but probably coined by William Bruce Cameron).