Earth 2 Denon: Umm, there's world recession in progress ?!

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by A Y

There is good testing, and bad testing. I suppose it would be possible that Wilson does as extensive of blind testing as Harman, but this has never been borne out by either photo tours of their factory done in several magazines and websites, nor by the actual quality of their speakers.

Harman's blind testing of speakers is very special, and unique to the speaker industry --- no one else does it as well or as rigorously, and what they do is pretty much incomparable. Have you been to Sean Olive's blog to see what they actually do?

--Andre

What about Paradigm? They have an anechoic chamber and they do double-blind testing iirc.

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

What about Paradigm? They have an anechoic chamber and they do double-blind testing iirc.

Paradigm claims they do DB testing. So does Magnepan and Focal/JM Lab.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

What about Paradigm? They have an anechoic chamber and they do double-blind testing iirc.
Have you read Sean Olive's blog? If you have, it would be very clear why Harman is head and shoulders above everyone else as far as speaker testing goes especially if you care about double-blind testing. Any speaker manufacturer worth their salt has an anechoic chamber --- anyone can build one, and many have. The distinguishing factor there is the size of the chamber, and very few people have one large enough to choose an anechoic chamber over a windowed MLS measurement. --Andre

 

[Artisan Fan]

Blind testing at Wilson Audio: http://www.wilsonaudio.com/culture/a...blind_test.php

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Blind testing at Wilson Audio:

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/culture/a...blind_test.php

Not good enough since the speakers cannot occupy the same place in space when switched so their response will be different due to room interaction. Harman solved that.

--Andre

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by A Y

Not good enough since the speakers cannot occupy the same place in space when switched so their response will be different due to room interaction. Harman solved that.

--Andre

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

Why do you think the placement issue will not dominate and mask cabinet vibration effects? By any measure, the effects of room interaction are orders of magnitude higher than those caused by cabinet vibrations, therefore the test would have to find some way of isolating the effects of cabinet vibration. And that's not the only thing wrong with their test as it's seen in the picture: reflections from the adjacent speakers will also muddle the test results.

For someone who seems to believe in infinitesimally small audio effects such as jitter and cable sound, I find it surprising that you would ignore something so obviously audible as room effects.

--Andre

 

[Artisan Fan]

Originally Posted by A Y

Why do you think the placement issue will not dominate and mask cabinet vibration effects? By any measure, the effects of room interaction are orders of magnitude higher than those caused by cabinet vibrations, therefore the test would have to find some way of isolating the effects of cabinet vibration. And that's not the only thing wrong with their test as it's seen in the picture: reflections from the adjacent speakers will also muddle the test results.

For someone who seems to believe in infinitesimally small audio effects such as jitter and cable sound, I find it surprising that you would ignore something so obviously audible as room effects.

I am not sure this is necessary. David Wilson is very bright and quite scientific in his testing. The example in the link is testing for cabinet material. I would bet you that David is listening for a specific thing that allows the side by side testing. It would be a concern if they were testing everything about the speaker.

 

[Sprezzatura2010]

Originally Posted by A Y

LOLwut? ML car audio systems pick from the Harman parts bin, and aren't any more special than any other Harman car audio brand.

I think it's best to let AF stew in his deaf delusions.

Originally Posted by A Y

For someone who seems to believe in infinitesimally small audio effects such as jitter and cable sound, I find it surprising that you would ignore something so obviously audible as room effects.

Ranting endlessly about nonexistent things such as "cable sound" or "DAC sound" or "jitter" is the provence of the deaf who want to impress others with how poorly they can misallocate resources in an audio system. Room effects are something audible to those who can hear.

Originally Posted by Artisan Fan

I am not sure this is necessary. David Wilson is very bright and quite scientific in his testing..

Then why do his speakers measure so poorly, and sound if anything even worse than they measure to someone who can hear? (I'll stipulate that Wilsons sound great to deaf people who use price tags as their proxy for actual audio fidelity.)