Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater NRC data show Energy & Paradigm better than Axiom

Oooh, Saturn, why do you insist on using information from a magazine?
They are leaving out alot of info esp. on speaker types and testing methodology (although i did find the page on how they did their measurements).

Best sounding speakers as defined by the ever so trustworthy "audio afficionados"?

Take a look at some Thiels. Also a highly touted speaker and they do have a very flat response curve.
Can you detect a loss in control of the subjective vs. the objective here?

I don't think that was his point...there are plenty of speakers that sound good that are flat. I think Saturn was trying to point out that there are also speakers out there that don't have a flat chart and still sound very good to most people.

FWIW, I once talked to a speaker designer who said:

"You have to trust your measurements."

Thanks Zarak. I was about to send out a lenghty response and deleted it but you understood what I getting at. Thanks.

chess: Are the people on here more of "experts" than the ever so trustworthy "audio afficionados" of Stereophile Magazine and or any other industry magazine such a Sound and Vision. Are you saying Alan is bunk?

you miseed the point....and proved it, all in one thread in responses to me and others.....


Regards,

BBIBH

In reply to:

---

some just like to collect vintage equipment (without intentions of even using it)

---

Guilty as charged. I have several beautiful pieces that I never use and I keep saying I need to put them on Audiogon but just can't bring myself to do it.

I think the point, BBIBH, is that single-factor analysis of anything almost always falls short. Buy a car based on nothing other than HP figures? A receiver based on nothing other than power specs? It seems to me that how the speakers sound to your ears would be most important and that the NRC graphs might be helpful in understanding what you're hearing.

BUT... who would buy a speaker, unheard, based on those graphs alone?

In reply to:

---

BUT... who would buy a speaker, unheard, based on those graphs alone?

---

Exactly. Thanks BigWill.


I guess we can look at it with respect to the other side of the coin where most current Axiom owners do not have a priveledge to listen to the models. People are taking our words and the NRC graphs to give a level of assurance that Axiom's are great products. It is better than just blindly purchasing.

I could go back maybe a year or so in the forum posts when someone negatively critized me because I mentioned that such and such "brand name" cost $5,000-$8,000. The frequency response curve of that speaker did not have a flat reading so they surmised that that "brand name" is inferior and most likely sounded crap without even hearing that "brand name".

BBIBH if you re-read my post you are the one missing my point.
I did not disagree with you as audio is entertainment and i also believe it should be the general goal. However, i also pointed out that for some, the technical and historical side of things, NOT just what they hear, IS the fun part about audio and there are alot of those ppl out there.
The thread started by those who sneered at someone interested in the NRC speaker graphs but maybe that is his cup of tea.

Saturn,

In reply to:

---

Are the people on here more of "experts" than the ever so trustworthy "audio afficionados" of Stereophile Magazine Are you saying Alan is bunk?

---

I would take the opinions of everyday users (as a whole) that are not bent on audio jargon or marketing over a person who writes for an audio magazine.
I would also take the opinion of someone who does or has been involved in controlled science over someone who is only providing their personal, subjective opinion.
Some ppl like Alan fall into several of these categories but even then, each opinion provided must be weighted on its own merit. Why trust an individual's opinion implicitly and without waiver? That would only make a person a blind fool.
Information from any source must be scrutinized for accuracy and if you think the material that contract writers put into audio magazines is always thorough, factual and accurate....

We could almost start a poll on this.
Which media source is perceived as having the most accurate information?
CNN?
Stereophile magazine?
Newspapers?
Internet webzines?
Scientific journals?
None of the above (for the cynics)

if I may jump in, I think BB's point was that the advice varies even on the same topic with the trust this, then don't trust the very same thing. We tell people to listen, then tell then they can't possibly hear differences!!

so in reading your post (which seem to have taken very serious tones lately)you state:

"I would also take the opinion of someone who does or has been involved in controlled science over someone who is only providing their personal, subjective opinion."

well, that would include you, and even then scientific data provides one measure, but as we all have different tastes and hearing abilitiies, should we trust what they hear and like? Our opinions are all subjective.

how do you "scrutinize" personal taste "for accuracy"