In reply to:
I didn't think he was attacking any one company.
Well I saw it differently, and am surprised you didn't.
From his first post in the thread.
"
One thing that keeps popping up thru my mind as I read about these incorrect measurements is how quickly people seem to jump to the conclusion that the measurements are flawed and that the correct measurements are those advertised by the speaker manufacturer.
Take Axiom, measured by a respectable company, which has no reason to publish either positive or negative reviews, and they come up with Graph A for m80ti. Some find offense, and claim that this measurement was done with an old version of the speaker, and point to a graph B, this time performed by the speaker manufacturer himself is the correct measurement!
There's a saying, "if you don't like the measured FR of a speaker, move the microphone". Personaly, I would take any graph/stat from a manufacturer with a grain of salt, for the simple reason that its to their advantage that they display the most positive information possible, even if its not totally true..
Take Axiom's M3TI, from soundstage's measurements, they are +/- 4dB from 70hz to 20... They claim +/- 3dB from 60-22.. I'm fairly sure most manufacturers do things like to an extent...
They also show two stats for speaker sensitivity, one for 'in room', another for anechoic.. Shouldn't speaker sensitivity always be measured in anechoic? What is the point in showing "in room"? In what room? In my room? In their room? In room of what size? It makes no sens... I guess its just to 'confuse' people, so that when looking at the stats, they see an 91dB efficiency speaker instead of an inefficient 88dB...
Anyhow, for the m80ti graph's, I'd wait for a third party measurement before believing that the FR has so drastically changed.. Not that I believe that its impossible that is has, but until we can see it from an unbiased source, I'd be hesitant to believe the graphs by the manufacturer, because in the end, their interest lies into showing the most possible positive graph they can find, not the most accurate..."
Isn't he implying that graphs published by Ascend, or, for that matter, ANY manufacturer, are unreliable, and unworthy of the public's trust?
From another of his posts:
"
Axiom might specify that they want measurements to publish on their website, vs measurements for their technical staff... I have no clue, then if the measurements for publishing aren't to Axiom's liking, then they can have them redo the tests, or just go to another company which will provide them with better graphs.
But the point is, that in the end, Axiom has control of the test results, and whether or not they are published... Why don't they have measurements for their other models? They haven't been measured? The results weren't to Axiom's liking? I won't pretend to know things I don't, but third party results is more credible than the company who would benefit/profit from sweetened results...
Could you tell me exactly how many times Axiom has their speakers measured? And if they have published ALL of those results no matter how unflattering they were? No one can be sure of that besides Axiom, so as I said, I prefer to remain objective and not jump to conclusions..."
Do you really believe that Axiom manipulates the graphs measured by the NRC? Do you really think it would be good business to do so? What do you think would happen if that came out?
I must disagree with you, Curtis. I strongly feel he was attacking Axiom specifically, and virtually all manufacturers in general.
