Magico A3 vs. Joseph Audio Perspective vs. Spendor D9

So sciencecop claims the JA speakers sounded "awful" and not clean. 


Virtually every other discerning listener has found the opposite.

Including Atkinson who I'm sure is far more experienced measuring speakers/correlating them to audible artifacts.

That suggests sciencop's claims should be treated as the anomoly they are.

And, sciencecop, if in fact your own claims are pitted against opposing subjective reports great many more experienced listeners, it *could be* that you are a particularly discerning golden ear.  But even IF you are a Golden Ear anomoly,  the fact that the overwhelming majority of sonic reports on the speakers do not report the "problem" to be audible and that they perceive very clean sound, suggests that your claim is highly exaggerated.  If we are talking about the audibility of an artifact, sorry, we don't just take a sample of "one," that is, you.  It appears the artifacts are not nearly as audible as you claim.

@soix

You might want to take a gander at this thread to see get a taste of the way sciencecop argues, won't back down from an obviously rash claim, and ignores contrary evidence:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/best-loudspeakers-for-rich-timbre?page=4

That should put his claims here in to "Perspective."

;-)

@prof
I remember the last argument was finished when you folded and ran away, a cowardly thing to do when you run out of empty slogans (or twist my words - did I say that JA sounds "awful"?). You did not need to copy SP review; I can read it myself (read any lousy review lately?). Learn how to look at measurements and understand how loudspeakers work, then we can talk. This is not your high-school debate team, already told you that last time.

I will just caution people to take your advice with a grain of salt. They are mainly a fiction of your imagination.

sciencecop,

Best not to characterize a previous conversation that anyone here can look up. Remember, anyone can click that link and see how that conversation went ;-)

It’s funny you came in to the thread claiming I "keep feeding the forum misleading information" when, in that last thread, I was the one arguing against someone making a clearly misleading claim that the Harbeth SuperHL5 Plus are "low resolution" and only giving 50% resolution.And YOU were the one entering to SUPPORT that guy’s ludicrous claim. (And clearly failing to do so, given the evidence presented against it). And of course you could not point to one iota of actual misinformation in what I’d written.

or twist my words - did I say that JA sounds "awful"?

Uh...you wrote:

but I can definitely tell that a gross breakup at 5K will SOUND AWFUL. Of course I heard JA speakers, and sure enough, it is EXTREMELY AUDIBLE.

(my emphasis)

So... you heard in the JA speakers a break up that SOUNDED AWFUL, was "extremely audible," but it’s unreasonable that I infered that you found the JA sound "awful?"


Should I have inferred from the fact that upon hearing a speaker with an EXTREMELY AUDIBLE artifact that SOUNDED AWFUL...that you actually thought they sounded good, not awful?

I’ll let others decide if I have been "twisting" your words.

As for "misinformation," I had simply been describing my subjective impression of the JA sound - of being clean and clear - and noting that the speakers produce that subjective impression among a great many listeners, including experienced listeners.

YOU are the one who came in and implied that "nasty break up" discredits the subjective evaluations. And yet, virtually all the subjective evaluations one can find...including people adding more comments here...point to the opposite conclusion: that the measured artifact you point do DOES NOT produce a grainy sound, and in fact the speakers sound subjectively clean and clear to most listeners.

If you have a hypothesis that "X" artifact sound grainy or obviously awful....and there is plenty of subjective evaluations pointing to the opposite conclusion, then you need to (if you are at all fair-minded or rational), dial back your claim to fit reality. If that artifact DOES NOT produce the impression of grain or sound "awful" to most listeners, your emphasis of that artifact is OVERBLOWN in terms of it’s audibility to most people.
MOST listeners (if not all I’ve ever seen but you), find the JA sound clean and clear, and THAT tells us more about the audible significance of your claim, as it relates to most listeners, than you are willing to admit.

And I'm sorry, but not knowing anything at all about your experience, I'll take people like JA's information over yours in terms of correlating objective measurements with his subjective reports.  (And, no, lame conspiracy-think won't due to simply dismiss JA as credible; he very often DOES correlate objective artifacts in explaining what he heard in a speaker, as he does in the Perspectives review, both good and bad).

This is not your high-school debate team.
I will just caution people to take your advice with a grain of salt. They are mainly a fiction of your imagination.

Those hollow jabs couldn’t stick the first few times you tried it. I suggest you try induction: learn from experience. ;-)

Yeah, whatever...