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

Showing 1 response by newbee

newbee
4,785 posts
 
Anyone asking strangers for opinions usually ends up with something seriously value challenged. But you are right, many that come to forums believe that everyone has two good ears, good equipment, good environment, good set up, some degree of expertise, and accepts their advice as gospel. Even when they are accompanied by all of the overly used, non-descriptive terms, such as killer, best, worst, etc!

IMHO, the only value of most opinions in forums is the value they contribute to a very broad consensus, except for those which are very explicit and fill in all the detail needed to understand their value. Even then they are still just personal views, not science or fact.

I recently posted on a thread involving an ARC SP10II, a pre-amp I have used (with others) for over 25 years. The accepted consensus was that the line stage was not well resolved, the phono stage was great, still approaching SOTA by some, and one poster went so far as to say the line stage was "horrible"! Another dissatisfied poster apparently doesn't like the tone, or lack of resolution, but happens to (disclosed in another thread) admit to a serious hearing disability in one ear which of course negates anything which might extend to something like 'stereo imaging', especially subtle differences.

The funny thing is that while the detractors are right, that the line stage is less than highly resolved, it is because its design enlarges the sound field at the expense of absolute pin point imaging. PPI was not so greatly appreciated in the 80's. So it is a choice, no different from many others, such as picking a pair of panel speakers over dynamic speakers, or omni speakers. Except the difference with speakers is more obvious, easily recognized, and the differences are still seen as valid.

Another thing that bugs me are the comments so many folks make about tube equipment without regard to the differences made by the tubes selected. It ain't subtle, yet it is hugely ignored. Much as you must get irritated by folks who praise or dismiss speakers with out reference to amplification and set up.

So it goes I guess. Good luck on developing a format for intelligent equipment assessment from folks looking more for ego enhancement than anything else. :-)
More to discover