Stereophile complains it's readers are too informed.

Did you read the article? I don't see anything in it to support  your conclusion.

Agreed cleeds, intresting to see people “translate” what is said, into what they want it to say. I believe that’s actually the point of that last paragraph. That some people are using what they say and post, in a way that was not said, nor meant. There does seem to be a subset of the community who are biased towards certain views, and not open to any that don’t correspond to those. While some may not agree with a review or comment, they have no problem with someone who feels differently, but there is a group who it bothers greatly if anyone doesn’t acknowledge their views as the “correct” interpretation. 

Did I miss something?

I did. The issue is the context of the article, which you’d have to be reading the comments from recent speaker reviews to get.

While they invoke Toole here, they don’t in their reviews and completely ignore glaring differences from classical speaker design in their measurements, so they complain that their readers are using good speaker design practices to judge their measurements and reviews.

I agree with the overall statements, that speakers should be judged by the intention of the developer, not an industry standard. That’s fine. What I disagree with is that they feel no reason to point these differences themselves, and also ignore times when they’ve been dead wrong in their conclusions, or biased towards speakers that had obvious color and called them neutral.

They are producing measurements without context and are upset the readers will.

Best,

E

Stereophile seems pretty straightforward to me and they seem to be clear about their measurements. Of course, measurements can never tell the whole story and they're not a substitute for listening.

Stereophile is one of the few magazines that actually conducts its own measurements, so the OP's claim that the magazine "complains it's (sic) readers are too informed" just doesn't make sense. 

Agreed cleeds, intresting to see people “translate” what is said, into what they want it to say. I believe that’s actually the point of that last paragraph. That some people are using what they say and post, in a way that was not said, nor meant. There does seem to be a subset of the community who are biased towards certain views, and not open to any that don’t correspond to those. While some may not agree with a review or comment, they have no problem with someone who feels differently, but there is a group who it bothers greatly if anyone doesn’t acknowledge their views as the “correct” interpretation.

Right. Then to prove your point Erik posts a comment proving he does not understand a word of the article. There's nothing in there to support a word of what he says, but out of the way facts we got a narrative to push here! 😂

Stereophile seems pretty straightforward to me and they seem to be clear about their measurements. Of course, measurements can never tell the whole story and they're not a substitute for listening.

Yep, I like their measurements. I just feel that they should be contextualizing, and if they see an issue, go back to listening and explain if it mattered.

They are basically upset their readers are interpreting the measurements themselves. As I wrote in the comments section, providing data without context is often a road to disaster, especially at work.  If you do the measurements also provide the context, and follow up if anything sticks out.

From the article: " I admire Toole’s work, but I do not admire conformists who insist... that everything be judged by the same narrow criteria. "

I agree with writer Jim Austin.

Neither Floyd Toole nor his colleague Sean Olive claim that their measurements and analysis tell the whole story, though many mistakenly assume they do.

From one of Sean Olive’s landmark papers, A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II – Development of the Model:

"LIMITATIONS OF MODEL

"The conclusions of this study may only be safely generalized to the conditions in which the tests were performed. Some of the possible limitations are listed below.

"1. Up to this point, the model has been tested in one listening room.

"2. The model doesn’t include variables that account for nonlinear distortion (and to a lesser extent, perceived spatial attributes).

"3. The model is limited to the specific types of loudspeakers in our sample of 70."

Duke

@erik_squires I see your point, Erik. If I’ve got it right, you’re saying that because there is an influential standard out there by Toole, it would serve Stereophile and its readers if they simply included a sentence or two in any review where a speaker design is intentionally heterodox. This would help "locate" the decisions behind that speaker design. The best film reviewers do such things, too — very helpful.

@ebm

Who really cares what they think.

I’m new to the hobby relative to many here. Are you saying that Stereophile is *not* influential on other magazines, distributors, dealers, customers? Or that they should not be?

What issue of the magazine are you talking about?  Gimme the date, or the volume-issue number.

The date of the article is July 15, 2020. It's on the link provided.

Jeez, @erik_squires you used to seem like such an intelligent well-grounded bloke and now you seemingly have come off the rails (over the last few months). Whether you know it or not, that is not the point of Jim Austen's piece. Not at all. 
Perhaps I can break it down for you. He is commenting upon the divergence between the mainstream and the nonconformists. He is not complaining. S'Phile is not complaining. As the new editor, it his job in part to write a thought provoking op-ed piece here and there. That is what he did. He writes well and is more intelligent/knowledgeable (yes, two different things)-in my estimation-than most audio writers and editors. He is a very worthy successor to the also excellent John Atkinson. 
Perhaps you missed his effort-which was no coincidence-to pay tribute to Art Dudley who for as long as I can remember ignored the mainstream and went with what made him happy and made sense to his senses. 
FWIW, the yin and yang of S'Phile currently are Mike Fremer and Victor Jason Serinus at one extreme and Herb Reichert. Art was no match for the off-the-beaten-path nature of all that is Herb. He has gone so far into the pricker bushes that I don't even read his columns any more. 
At Axpona '19 I listened repeatedly to one room with CH Precision gear and Magico's driven by all digital and the Border Patrol/TriodeWireLabs/Volti room. That too is a pretty good example of the divergence that Jim Austen was writing about in the column you so misinterpret. Look up the S'Phile review-including the measurements-of the Border Patrol DAC. If you believe measurements of a DAC have significance, than what I heard in the Border Patrol/Volti room must have been delusional on my part. 

I agree w erik to an extent; on the other hand I don’t :) The part I disagree with is erik’s later comment that speakers should be judged based on the designers goal. I don’t give designers that latitude. It’s my firm belief that all speakers should be designed with the goal of reproducing the signal fed to it ... with precise fidelity to that signal in all aspects, frequency,dynamics,phase,etc.

@erik_squires,

Thanks for posting.

The entire article smacks of a desperate retreat against the vanguard forces of increasingly shared communal knowledge. Looks like Stereophile must have gotten complacent after all these years of churning out piffle on top of piffle.

However thanks to sites like this and others, (can I mention ASR?) an increasing number of today’s readers are far better informed than their brethren of yesteryear. The tide of knowledge has turned and there’s no putting the internet genie back in the bottle. The piffle must stop or else...

How about this for an initial plea for understanding?

’As the late Art Dudley wrote in one of his last columns, "From its acoustical beginnings, when two incompatible forms of physical media—Edison’s cylinders and Berliner’s flat discs—slugged it out for primacy, domestic audio has attracted an almost incalculable number of iconoclasts, heretics, mavericks, nonconformists, lone wolves, enfants terrible, and hidebound kooks.

Because the above are among my favorite people, I don’t have much of a problem with that state of affairs.’


No, of course you don’t, since your main directive in attracting as many advertisers as possible you can wallow in as much subjective twaddle as your readers will, sorry, used to permit.

Those intending to pay out large sums of money in search of sonic performance might have a lot of problems with this.

The article then goes on expound upon the crux of the matter here, the issue that’s bugging them the most as referenced in its title - ’Hoisted on your own petard?’


’It’s especially disheartening when narrow-minded online critics use one aspect of our coverage—our measurements—to attack the other side: our subjective judgments.’

Ouch! That’s what really hurts, isn’t it?
The fact that savvy readers are ignoring your subjective ramblings and obfuscations and using your own measurements to reach their OWN conclusions!!

To finish with, the author Jim Austin, offers up a final plea bargain to the reader.

’We’re providing a complete picture; the two halves make a whole. You don’t get that from our competition.

Broaden your mind. Seek perspective. Look at the big picture.’


He just forgets to add ’please, and pretty please!’

Face it Jim, the game is up. The broad picture, at least your version of it, has clearly very little value in today’s informed market.

Either you tell it like it is or dispense with what has been your main selling card for years - a decent set of technical measurements.

Not the final word in analytical data by any means, but as you say, more than some of your opposition.

Exactly how you will go about keeping your friends (and paying advertisers) happy in the future is not our concern. You need to keep in mind that your loyalty must primarily be to your readers who frequently place their trust in your words.

We understand you’re in a hard place now, having to chose sides (advertising revenue versus sales revenue), but that’s not the readers dilemna, is it?

If I were reviewing, I would state the data, and state what I heard in the product. It’s not for me to make inferences for others. Now maybe the magazine might claim to be adhering to those standards? Not sure they claim that they do that, or that they obligated themselves to point out deviations from a certain standard. 

~~~Whena   componet is measured,,,to what should be the comparison reference?~~~
Answer is easy, experience,,of course not exp as to say you've heard every speaker on the market,,
I have some 40 yrs, off/on audiophile experience...It does not take me long to figure out what grade i consider a  piece of audio.
Of course its not easy at times,,, you have to know how the amp is voicing in the system, the cd player is voicing and thus is reflected in the speakers.. You need to analyze how each is affecting the overall sound..
Thus if I hear a  over bloated midrange,,I know well enough there is no amplification chnage which will delete  /cancel the muddiness of the speakers unique character. Lets say the listening audition room in the adio shop has another set of spakers to compare,,now you can hear how the amp responds to speaker B vs speaker A. 
IMHO, SEAS speakers are the benchmark against which all speakers are measured. Relatively speaking,, I am not refering to speakers over 100 lbs. Speakers over 100 lbs are dinosaurs as they offer nothing over which a  99 lb /less speaker can offer, w/o breaking the bank, nor the back. 
Bigger is not always better, and in this case, not in any way superior to a  99lb/less speaker. 
Conclusion : all speakers over 100 lbs should not be drawn into a  topic of speaker recommendations. 
I see anudiogoners mentioning /suggesting speakers w/o telling us any of that speakers defects = its over 100 lbs and costs $$$$$$. IMHO speakers over say $3K, make sure you bring up the price factor , this way we are all ~~Informed/Educated/Enlightened~~~
this is what the author is trying to get across. 
Lets all get out of lala land (leave lala fantasy land to the CV19 hype propagandists *The Experts~~~ and let us audiophiles speak with some authority and accuracy,, We all want our systems to present highly refined music images,,yet most here on audiogon convey biased muddy opinions,,which do not help for the seekers who want solid fair evaluations.
Snakeoil buster here

 deviations from a certain standard.


I believe standards are real,, but I will not mention any product names. 
Read the reviws from unbiased critics,,that will tell you where the standards are. 
In speakers, I know well that SEAS is The Gold Standard. 
Scan Speak and SB are excellent, but as in all things of this world,,where Olympic swimmers win a  silver medal due to  ~~losing~~ by a  milli second, = no gold cigar, onlya  silver cigar...in speakers we also need Gold Standard (SEAS) , Silver Standard, Bronze Standard.
Time to bring audiophile out the early medieval times into at least The Renaissance Epoch...,,,, then we can start to move into ~~THe Audiophile Enlightment era~~~
Snakeoil buster here.

CV19 hype propagandists? What is *that*?

I was, and remain, remorseful, that John A stepped down and this person took on the role.  

The measurements will continue under the new editor.

We will take the reviewers like Herb at their word.

And then each of us draws his own conclusions.

I liken it to adult entertainment - don't ask for training wheels, because then you rob yourself of much of the pleasure.

As to those who cite the ASR website and its measurements-above-and-beyond-all-other-criteria credo as a corrective to Stereophile's modus operandi, the sound quality profiles of the gear ASR measures are 1 to 2 sentence afterthoughts... and you think that is a better approach to informing potential buyers of how a particular product might actually SOUND in their systems?

Respectfully, I think not.

rpeluso,
Why should you be remorseful? It's not your fault.

I think I've mentioned this in a post somewhere in the semi-distant past, but I find Stereophile vastly more informative, entertaining and readable than it was several years previously.  Sure, I use the magazine to glean info about the hobby and to get tips on where to next spend my inexhaustible pile of audio-oriented cash (in case you don't get it I'm just kidding here), but I mostly read the mag because I just enjoy it.  I don't  get huffy when an opinion doesn't go my way. ("Ugh!  Those tuttis are too fruity!")  I enjoy a touch of hyperbole.  It adds energy and verve.  The hobby is a playground for folks like me, i.e., folks who just like music.  I'd rather be spending my money here than playing the tables in Vegas.

To revisit audiokinesis' post for a moment...

"1. Up to this point, the model has been tested in one listening room.
(....and likely with the same equipment parameters, cables, source, etc.)

"2. The model doesn’t include variables that account for nonlinear distortion (and to a lesser extent, perceived spatial attributes).
("....we just listened with the same ears and stuff, took notes, and attempted to make specific judgements on what we perceived."...)

"3. The model is limited to the specific types of loudspeakers in our sample of 70."
(...which would all be considered 'vintage' by now....one would hope such has improved, even if repeated with 70 'specific current versions'....)

...and it's generally accepted that no speaker pair in a different room, driven by 'X' equipment and accoutrement', listened to by different ears coupled to a different wetware bias will Ever sound the same.

All Stereophile publishes is a humble opinion that one pays for....or not.

"Seas is the gold standard..."  For you...perhaps shared by others....or not.

Perfection is a myth.  One can pursue it, but like the gold @ rainbows' end, a dream.  Some feel they've attained it, some just revel in the pursuit.

One hopes you enjoy the music that drives your vehicle, be it 'Toyota' or 'Ferrari'.  Otherwise, this begins another forum that spans pages of chatter proving nothing except persistence to no real end.

I'm done, and out.

Have 'fun'....cheers, J

We are kidding ourselves if we think this forum is mainly fact.  Facts are things that proven or else are universally acknowledge to be true by everyone apart from the mad.  Facts are hard to come by.  This forum is about 90% opinion and 10% fact.  Stereophile contains much the same mix, but their measurements are as factual as it gets.  Long may that last!

Four cheers for John Atkinson.  I have followed him since he started on Hi-Fi News & Record Review here in the UK in the early 1970s.  He improved HFNRR and stood out as an innovator with his feet firmly on the ground.  Stereophile is hugely better for his 30something years leadership.  Jim is finding him a hard act to follow.  Jim's editorial stance is quite a bit different from John's even though he says the mag won't change.

Those who question the benefit of measurements should note John's speaker measurements often confirm artifacts that the reviewer had heard (before he saw the measurements).  But sometimes an appararently glaring fault in a speaker is not noticed at all by the listening reviewer.  And that is not always because the reviewer might adore single-ended triode amps and horn speakers.

One thing which differentiates audio equipment magazine reviews from those reviewers of other cultural products— painting, music, film, dance, etc. — is that audio equipment is only partially an expressive artifact. It is necessarily instrumental to its purpose; in short, it is not trying to communicate something meaningful in the same vein as those other cultural products are.
Because of the above fact, magazines like Stereophile are forever beholden to the churn and hype of products-for-sale. They exist to help companies sell new stuff, and while they have developed standards based on subjective listening experience and engineering know how, they can never abandon their core mission: to celebrate or denigrate somehow, the “consumability” of the new thing for sale.

People say it all the time: namely, that the improvements made in various elements of an audio system are either imaginary or incremental. Given all the equipment which has been produced so far, if there was never any more “progress” and all we could lay our hands on was the existing range of options, surely there would be an adequate number of combinations to keep our quest for the absolute sound alive and well until the sun burns out.

The gist of my point is simply that there’s a major difference about the kind of “criticism” done by audio reviewers from those in other areas (who are *not* just trying to stuff a concert hall or a rodeo with easy marks) trying to interpret and convey the meaning of a new work of art. I make this point explicit here not because I think folks are unaware of it, but because I suspect this aspect is playing a role, somehow, in the ongoing discussion. 

John's speaker measurements often confirm artifacts that the reviewer had heard

No it doesn't. There is no connection between what the reviewer hears and their measurements. The ONLY way to assess a speaker is for me to hear them. Experience has taught me that the reviews are wrong and i am right. i hear artifacts that NO measurements can reveal and few other audiophiles hear. I am supreme. 

+1 Millercarbon

I gave up on that post and greatly appreciate your summary!

Buy what you like hearing. Measurements are measurements. Ratings are ratings. Neither of them are a convincing factor. The only convincing factor is what you hear...

Stereophile are forever beholden to the churn and hype of products-for-sale. They exist to help companies sell new stuff, and while they have developed standards based on subjective listening experience and engineering know how, they can never abandon their core mission: to celebrate or denigrate somehow, the “consumability” of the new thing for sale.

People say it all the time: namely, that the improvements made in various elements of an audio system are either imaginary or incremental. Given all the equipment which has been produced so far, if there was never any more “progress” and all we could lay our hands on was the existing range of options, surely there would be an adequate number of combinations to keep our quest for the absolute sound alive and well until the sun burns out.

I like this post...

I cannot imagine that any piece of gear will sound like his measurements say they will....Sound is hearing experience...

I cannot imagine that an audio system has a sound of his own, when it is "off" in the box in the warehouse by virtue of the different measures of his components... He must be out of the audio laboratory and "on" and then in a particular different electrical grid, in a different particular acoustical room, in a different particular resonant vibrations states of his own treated or not treated against that....Then it has a particular "sound" for one pair of ears not the same for others one....

I cannot imagine that a reviewer or a seller or any manufacturer, will oblige himself and will do a duty to reveal these inconvenient truths (for the sale pitch) that an audio system will sound vastly different in relation to the way these embeddings would or would not be adressed before you bought his 10,000 dollars amplifier or dac?
Will you be pleased to learn that day that his perfect engineering gear is not enough by themself to create Hi-Fi experience? Asking the question is answering it.... :)

Reviewers and manufacturers are, willing or not, sellers....

They cannot insist on the truth of their business not because they are liars, they are mostly not, but because an audio system S.Q. exist only in a precise particular state in a particular environment, for specific ears...And they must promote the only thing and facts they know of: the alleged superiority of their design in the audio laboratory or for their own taste, room, house, experiences, etc...

Is it not?

The key problem in audio is never adressed in magazine and if it is, they cannot focus on that key problem, because they must sells the piece of gear like a definitive solution...They must put the key problem under the rug so to speak.... The key problem is complex and triple problems that no single piece of gear can solve on his own ... :)

The key problem is how to embed, mechanically, electrically and acousatically an audio system, in a way that his sound would be optimal?

Is it not evident?

Some people, due to a lack of imagination, which is tied to a lack of cognitive speed or range, tend to drift into diktats, papal bulls and rule books.

As they can’t do the range, flavors, nor the risk ---of the intelligence shuffle.

That thing which comes to the forefront, when some are out of their range. The animal thing of knowing how safe they are.

The body, the emotions, the hindbrain... comes to the forefront, it forces the mind to retreat, when it can’t intellectually reach a thing. Danger!

So they get ’factual’, and ’linear’ and ’law-book’ oriented. They consult the biblical texts and lawbooks of their area of trade or ’expertise’, as they don’t have the range to be in the field, inventing or perusing the living moving always changing -edge of it all.

Oh yes. they, generally speaking -absolutely HATE the people who can.

They hate them for minimal sin (of all the sins of the intelligent and capable) where they can’t cognate the essence of what intelligence does or how it moves. They can’t decipher it and it’s not in the book.

Intelligence, much to it’s chagrin, to keep the entire thing moving or flowing.... is forced to be kind, in return, seemingly...forever. The endless beatings from the lack of intelligence. It’s called an act of humanity.


Some days, it wears thin.

@cdamiller5
"Just get what sounds good to you" was how I used to approach audio, food, film, etc. It’s such a simple, seemingly irrefutable bit of common sense.
I’ve given up that bit of "common sense" because I have found it partially false.
I have not given up following my own instincts and tastes, but people able to hear more (or differently) than me have pointed out what I was missing.
They were friends and sometimes dealers. In all cases that mattered, they helped me discover something I couldn’t experience before but now was empowered to. That’s what good critics (amateur or professional) do — they teach you how to listen (taste, see, think) differently. And in my own case, I’d say they *improved* my listening. 

@mahgister
+1 on all you wrote.

Especially:

I cannot imagine that an audio system has a sound of his own, when it is "off" in the box in the warehouse by virtue of the different measures of his components... He must be out of the audio laboratory and "on" and then in a particular different electrical grid, in a different particular acoustical room, in a different particular resonant vibrations states of his own treated or not treated against that....Then it has a particular "sound" for one pair of ears not the same for others one....

When I’ve gotten good advice, it’s usually come in the form of nudges, hints, tips. They’re always vague because they need to acknowledge the difference in our perspectives and experiences; but they are offered because of there *are* similarities we often discover. The most common ending I see in audio posts is: YMMV, and the key word in that acronym is "may."

I was relieved to read the opening column of the latest stereophile. There is a ...group of Dr toole followers that do believe because he wrote the book and contracts to HK that anything other than Revel is a complete wast of time and money.

Those that need to believe, god bless ya'll. 
First how boring would hifi be if we only had Dr Toole designs to choose from.
My experience doesn't jive with his and designing speakers with his requirements puts unnecessary requirements on partnering components reducing odds for successful implementation.huh, I mean the speakers can sound good, but often don't.
Most of us agree measurements aren't complete because we can find speakers that measure quite similar, but sound very different. Dr Toole offers his science as to why, science is theory.

teo_audio1,518 posts07-17-2020 9:53amSome people, due to a lack of imagination, which is tied to a lack of cognitive speed or range, tend to drift into diktats, papal bulls and rule books.

As they can’t do the range, flavors, nor the risk ---of the intelligence shuffle.

That thing which comes to the forefront, when some are out of their range. The animal thing of knowing how safe they are.

The body, the emotions, the hindbrain... comes to the forefront, it forces the mind to retreat, when it can’t intellectually reach a thing. Danger!

So they get ’factual’, and ’linear’ and ’law-book’ oriented. They consult the biblical texts and lawbooks of their area of trade or ’expertise’, as they don’t have the range to be in the field, inventing or perusing the living moving always changing -edge of it all.

Oh yes. they, generally speaking -absolutely HATE the people who can.

They hate them for minimal sin (of all the sins of the intelligent and capable) where they can’t cognate the essence of what intelligence does or how it moves. They can’t decipher it and it’s not in the book.

Intelligence, much to it’s chagrin, to keep the entire thing moving or flowing.... is forced to be kind, in return, seemingly...forever. The endless beatings from the lack of intelligence. It’s called an act of humanity.


Some days, it wears thin.

I love you man.

Thanks hilde45....

I am astonished after my 2 years own journey to make Hi-Fi my own experience, to learn that most people have no idea how....

Reviewers sells, consumers buy.....

But how to create a Hi-Fi experience is never adress even here, only by small pieces, never facing the real fundamental problem: How to embed an audio system?

The audio community is divided in subjectivist, objectivist, sellers, consumers, engineers, regular folks and all in between these categories...

No consensus at all...

But i will repat myself, it is simple: the fundamental audio problem, after creating a new electronic design, is how to embed it....

Is it not clear like day?

:)

This was the problem i has to solve for myself in the last 2 years without which i will be till my death in the without end upgrade race to create my hi-fi experience...

It is way less costly to rightfully embed an already good system, than buying other so called better pieces to solve the puzzle....

is it not true?

By the way embedding the speakers is the more complex task ,even more complex than adressing the noise floor of the electrcal grid of the house, or the mechanical resonance of the audio parts...

why?

Because the speakers dont exist apart from the room, and apart from the ears....

Speakers+ room + ears = one not 3 elements...

It is also the more rewarding part in S.Q. results at the end....

@twoleftears bad example. Dr Tooles theory is wrong. The truth is that there are all kinds of speakers out there and theres no single design that is favored overwhelmingly.

Oh, sorry, my mistake.  Dr Floyd Toole, after years of experiments in anechoic chambers is clearly wrong, kenjit bicycle-enthusiast and perhaps of Bromley is clearly right.

@ cdamiller

 The only convincing factor is what you hear..


Yes very true,, But the old stereo shops offering speakers X,Y,Z are now a thing of the past, 
We are left to hopev for honest opinions from Audiogonners and Sterophile to leda us in the right direction,,and not lead us astray,,,((tongeincheeck)))
I make uploads on YT, this way folks at least get a inkiling of how each of my components sound. 
Sure the micing is shabby (can 't afford a  high tech mic right now,,all my money has been blown in modifications)), YT sound compressed,,but you at least geta   hint of how my speakers sound. via my components.
There is no other YT vid showing the Seaws Thor.. So if someone has a interest in the Thors,,he can at least get a  hint of what to expect..
I have uploaded about 5 audiophile vids,,and plan to make  another 20+ more over the commming 12 months,,, as i document all my new upgrades, tweeks, mods.
While others disclaim that a  YT vid has any ligeit value as to determing how a  component/mod sounds,,I havea  ability to translate what i hear,,and get a  inkling of yea/nay vote on the component/mod.
Thing is one needs experience, long term and a  instinct at determing what one is hearing viaYT upload format...
.

kinds of speakers out there and theres no single design that is favored overwhelmingly.

I could never come around to speakers with high efficency, designed for SET amplification.
I am a  devotee of low efficiency speakers which a  nice push pull can deliver to respond. 
also i could never come around to any speaker witha weight more than 100 lbs,,would not even make it a consideration. 
Also I am favored towrads a  midtweeter. vs a  super tweeter. 
Lastly I am a  devotee of the MTM design,,although I do seea  SEAS 2 way thats seems very convincing,, but next to my MTM Thors,,might be a  let down. 
So although there are many designs, ,, it is up to us to research and figure outa  plan as to whaich works best for our individual preferences. 

There's an example in the same issue provided in the link. This months speaker review of the Volti Razz which JA measurements show it kind of sucks but the subjective review says it's a fairly nice sounding speaker with tube amps. The speaker builder gets in on the comments moaning how measurements don't matter he makes them to sound good not measure good and that's what he's sticking with. 

Measurements of speakers is for the design increase effectiveness and optimal quality of the design...

The measurements cannot reveal how ultimately the speakers will sound, wrongly, partially, or correctly embedded...Or throw in a corner without any treatment of any kind in the 3 embeddings nor any controls?

I will not even speak of different hearings and tastes and experiences....

Is it too difficult to figure it out?

:)

speakers+ room + ears/ brain = one

Measurements divide the speakers from the room.... Other sets of measurements will divide the speakers+room from the ears/ brain....

No measurement can explain or replace the lived experience , too much non-mearurable parameters....

speakers+ room + ears/ brain = one

Multiplying both side by variable “brain”:

speakers + room + ears = brain

A brain is a room with speakers and ears? ;)

:)

Here we enter philosophy....

brain on one side and brain on the other side : one consciousness....

« Indeed you have a brain my dear, but you need consciousness... »  -Groucho Marx

It's not least, indeed predominantly due to Art Dudley's fondness of the "incalculable number of iconoclasts, heretics, mavericks, nonconformists, lone wolves, enfants terrible, and hidebound kooks" that Stereophile has seen some degree of real diversity spread these latest years - one so keenly advocated by now editor-in-chief Jim Austin - that would include a limited selection of high sensitivity speakers (by all accounts mostly favored by the "passionate outliers"), without which Mr. Austin's claim would've seemed quite hollow. I still find it is, though, because former editor-in-chief John Atkinson saw to it with his, to my mind, rigid adherence to the low to moderate sensitivity direct radiating speaker dogma - no doubt fueled and aided by his measurements - that horn(/-hybrid) speakers were mostly expelled from any serious consideration in their review slate. With Mr. Dudley now sadly having departed our earthly realm it remains to be seen whether the "hidebound kooks" will have a new ambassador to voice their cause over at the 'Phile. I doubt it.

If only there was a Consumer Reports for high end audio equipment. Would at least insure countless flame wars.  My bet would be the differences would be negligible.  

jpwarren58,

For normal people yes, but we’re audiophiles.

We don’t mind paying exorbitant prices for those loudspeakers that will be guaranteed to induce headaches.

There is a belief that beyond a certain price loudspeakers can start to sound very odd.

In my experience, large expensive loudspeakers tend to impress with huge dynamics and scale (Avantgarde Trio XDs!), but sometimes at the expense of a homogeneous sound.

Even worse, some of them can have what appears to be serious treble/sibilance issues.

You only have to look at the numbers of bad reports regarding some of the Magico and Wilson models.

Everything suggests that they must be excellent transducers, (years of R&D and cost no object materials) yet they seem do something that some folks cannot stand.

Assuming that those people are voicing genuine concerns, and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t, either those speakers are doing something seriously wrong, or it may be they are simply too revealing in laying 'poor' recordings to waste (by poor recordings we mean 95% of released output between 1950 and the present).

More to the point perhaps, recordings that were made using entirely different loudspeakers to the ones being played back on.

Some people believe that you need similar speakers for playback as to the ones that were used in the original recording.

Not an option for most of us when we look at all the different loudspeakers used for monitoring in different studios around the world.

You only have to think how different vintage Tannoy studio monitors sound to vintage JBL studio monitors to realise the problem of audio's notorious circle of confusion.

Hence the need to find an acceptable compromise between the hardware and the software.