Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Gene DeSalla's latest video with a stab at...

Nick - It's nice to see you getting your Mojo back.

Yes, Nick. You are now ready for that very scientific YABBA DABBA DOO test with Craig and Gene.

Hey, we can't help it that you get too tired to listen after 5 minutes.

You need aural Viagra.

Hee hee...good one, Craig.

Thought I would comment on the suggestion of offering Gene to participate in a double-blind listen test. The problem I see is that it would likely be futile and even, in an odd way, harmful to the pursuit of science in sound quality. I can remember the first time I ran into speaker design dogma. It was in the 80s at the NRC. A guy came in with a speaker design that included a little chamber behind the tweeter dome. His line of thought was that this chamber could lower the resonance point of the tweeter and therefore would make his speakers superior in sound quality. I should note that the lowering of the tweeter resonance with the chamber is sound, it works. The problem is simply that it is unnecessary depending on your crossover point. In the double-blind listen tests that ensued his speaker lost against the ones that had the superior family of curves. To me I thought this would be an awesome revelation for him; it demonstrated the importance of the family of curves and that his invention would not matter unless it had a positive affect on the family of curves. But that is not what happened. He just got angry with Floyd and was going on about how the testing at the NRC must be flawed. Afterall, everyone he had told about his invention before demoing it for them thought it sounded amazing. We did not have audio forums back then but if we did, no doubt he would have been out there bashing the work being done at the NRC, perhaps for decades on end. This presents an interesting question; are we better off ignoring these dogmatic fanatics and just getting on with making better sounding audio products utilizing science? They will never change their mind, instead they will just get angry and blame the testing in some way, and this anger will result in public bashing of the science.

Ian - pardon me for going into humour mode:

1. I have a better chance of winning Canada's Got Talent than we have of Gene agreeing to the double blind test. My posting this was tongue in cheek.

2. Over the years, I would say 95% of audiophiles claim they "don't need a blind test" to hear a difference between amps, preamps, speakers, speaker wire ... etc ...

It's funny, even if one ASKS the person this question: "If you are so sure you can hear the difference, why not take the blind test?", one is greeted with profanity. I have even been called a cultist in this regard.

3. Rational conversations are impossible with 95 percent of audio buffs. Allow an example: I Was told the M100's could not POSSIBLY match the Legacy Signature SE's because the Legacy's quasi ribbon tweeter is far superior to the "cheap Axiom dome tweeter."

When I pointed out that Harbeth uses a similar dome tweeter in their Stereophile Class A speakers, the person replied with "The Harbeth is a super expensive tweeter with solid engineering behind it."

SOOOOOOOOOOO ... I had to ask ... Who makes the tweeter? What are the parts cost? Have you directly compared the Harbeths to the Axioms?

The answer was "no, and I don't need to."

THAT is the state of this industry, and it is fueled by Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and other magazines.

The simple truth is most people would rather be TOLD what to buy instead of buying what their EARS tell them is the best sounding.

Craig,
Putting company marketing aside (which i think DeSalla is a part of ...and blowing his own horn as an expert is an important part of keeping him in that loop ... boosting an ego is probably also a primary part but it’s the latter which can pull in the money) ....

I believe, for most buyers, in the high end category, it’s a pride of ownership thing, being able to put a “great” system in their living room without putting a lot of time and energy into it ... brand recognition and looks are paramount ... sound is the 3rd or 4 fourth thing on the list (if on the list at all). I believe a lot of these buyers would not be interested in doing anything close to critical listening (it’s s actually scary to them). They just want something that another buyer like themselves would not look down upon and they can talk up.

To be hit with the idea that their system is less then “great” requires Them to hit back with justification. Marketers and sudo experts give plenty of a ammo for for that.

What Craig and Rich describe feels right to me.

I have to tell you, from what I have witnessed amongst my peeps, speaker size or looks did not influence their decision around what speaker sounds best. You have to know though that my peeps are not audiophiles although they are becoming far more discerning as they listen to their systems, mine and others'. I'll also qualify all this by saying, as you all know, I am no expert who conducts formal audio tests all day. I do have a ton of experience with formal testing and characterization (not in audio) though and know the biases and pitfalls and worked very hard, and still do, with large teams of people to minimize them. So I am always skeptical about these things but not closed-minded.

I also like to think I am not influenced by size or looks either. I mean, just look at my experience and history of my posts on these boards. I like the M3v4 better than the M80v2 and so do others. And I prefer the M5s over the M100s. Now Ian and Craig may think I'm nuts but hey...that's what works in my rooms. And Ian, may you live long and prosper for bringing the active LFRs to market.

My ears starting ringing when i heard "double blind test".
(Yes, still occasionally trolling the boards when time allows.)

Interesting conversation. Not much new here (except for a few more details of behind the scenes stories that developed situations).
Those who seek objective truth are confronted by those with idealistic belief. It is the argument of ages (religion, audio, climate change...).

The double blind tests are fun if not anything else. Tried some of these in my own home and it wasn't any different an experience from the one at the Axiom factory though i found the remote control to be a slower switch than our manual one. If i recall, i ended up picking the B&W speaker over the Axiom but both had close scores.
I've found that i like the sound of Monitor Audio over Axiom (this one tested at home) except for the heavier MA bass. Now that MA has moved to a 3-way design, i would love to try this test again.
Lately i've found myself not enjoying my Angstrom Legatto office speakers so much. The low end sounds thin unless i really turn up the volume and the clarity at the midrange and high end is almost too sharp on the ears. It is better at a distance but that doesn't work well while sitting at the desk. In contrast, the Tannoy Revolutions that sit on top of the Angstroms have a muted vocal component but nicer bass for lower volumes. I might switch them both out for something else.

And back to on topic, yes that was a dig at Axiom. There was no need to include a brand name as part of that youtube video discussion let alone a very specific brand in which there's been known public animosity in the past between the two entities.
Audioholics, move on already!
Sheesh.