[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



snip

There's another fallacy - that you need live music to be present to
compare
2 speakers????

Please notice that we're comparing loudspeakers, not live versus recorded.

And also notice that much of what's wrong with live versus recorded
happens
at the live performance end of the system.


Cutting "live music" out of the equation is what is wrong with much of the
"objectivist" philosophy extant today.

IF, and only, IF you attend lots of live music concerts of your choice (in
my case unamplified, but that is my choice) can you decided what set of
speakers you think sound most like live, in your room, with your equipment.
"Obective" comparative testing of speakers may be useful for development of
speakers, but it is hardly a mechanism for deciding even which speakers are
"best" or "preferred" when it comes to long term satisfaction. That comes
from monadic evaluation against an imbedded sense of "rightness" about live
sound.

And with all due respect to Sean Olive and Harmon International, despite a
decades worth of objective testing there is hardly any consensus among pro
audio folk or home audiophiles that their speakers outperform any number of
competing designs when it comes to which speakers people feel best for their
assigned tasks or tastes.

If you listen to a lot of live music, and then carefully audition equipment
both in-shop and at-home before making choices, you can assemble a system
that is unfailingly musical (for music of your choice) and satisfying to you
with nary a blind test in the process.