Best new loudspeaker

hi duke:

you can discuss accurate vs inaccurate replication of recordings. one can measure and state facts.

the problem occurs when a judgment is rendered.

here is an example:

stereo system a is accurate--fact
stereo system b is inaccurate--fact

so far, there would be no disagreement if the facts were established properly.

to say stereo system a is better than stereo system b is illogical and only an opinion.

stereo system a is accurate--fact
stereo system b is inaccurate--fact

so far, there would be no disagreement if the facts were established properly.

to say stereo system a is better than stereo system b is illogical and only an opinion.

Mrt, I did not get your email. BTW your conclusion above is not logical. System A in the example above is logically the better. This is because 'accurate' is deemed by the world at large (through agreement) to be better than 'inaccurate'.

Many things exist out of agreement. Money is a good example- the material of a $100 bill are worth marginally more than a piece of paper the same size; we give it the value out of agreement. Stop signs have their value out of agreement as well.

So logic dictates: if accurate is better than inaccurate, and system A is accurate and system B is not, then A is better than B. You may attach whatever personal meaning and value you wish to the contrary, but usually its best not to make those feelings public.

That replication is either faithful in the areas that matter, or not. Now as to which areas matter and how much - well, that would be a topic rich with diversity of opinion.

Agreed - this type discussion might be worthwhile but it requires a certain minimum of understanding. Clearly, different aspects are more important to some people than others. For this very reason audio engineers can prefer cone speakers whilst audiophiles can prefer Quad 57's. Neither is wrong in their views when they both say "my speaker sounds better to me"...they value differently what is important.

For some, accurate dynamics, realistic loudness levels and minimizing the affects of room interaction are much less important than the room acoustic ambience and reverberant low intensity sound field with a broad, deep soundstage.

The Sonic Circle is an attempt to address this problem intelligently rather than purile arguments.

However, I suspect the Sonic Circle is incomplete as I struggle to see where Panels/Ribbons/Electrostats fit in...anyone have some ideas....to me they have that rare quality in that they blend features from several dimensions of the Sonic Circle, they are certainly precise in some aspects of the sound but they have an emotional flare too in terms of ambience...?

I have heard a fair amount of the emerald loudspeaker
it is very good except it takes 2 amps and is a little finicky in it's choices this what a couple of people told me , I will be giving these a listen and the NsrD-3
in several weeks they say with the finalized Xover it is excellent ,we will see this is where the company sent me to .I am in Ct , the Emerald I think I will have to go to NJ http://www.hifidelityaudio.com/NSR_specifications.htm
I am a tough nut so I will bring the works to throw at both of them.

Shadorne, I like the idea of the sonic circle for its attempt to create a means of category. I'm not sure if I completely agree with it- what if you have a system that has all the aspects with none emphasized?

A lot of the panel speakers qualify to me as 'vivid' to use the terms of the circle; they combine emotional with precise. Yet I also hear them being smooth and detailed, they might be a good example of what I'm asking about here.

One thing that has really struck me is that as speakers/systems get better and better, the more they sound similar (and awesome), which is as it should be.