Why can't I tell much or any real difference between speakers? - Page 3

LOL!

I agree. Freakin' hilarious. I wonder if PULLIAMM was TRYING to be funny, there.

OMG, I think maybe he is finally starting to get it!

Knowing you, it's hard to tell there, big guy.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. No doubt there are better speakers than the Paradigm Studio 100s I'm using. However, IMO, this speaker is in the zone where the curve of diminishing returns starts to kick in.

That price range starts around $200/pr.

Not even close.

You know of some for less?

RaymondLeggs, is that you in disguise?

Yes, and the Studio 100's are probably the best example too.

Damn did he just write Bose and Klipsch in the same sentence? Son of a bi***.

i guess you missed it, he had Wilson in the same sentence as Bose and Klipsch!

Funny that everybody keeps responding to Pulliamm's posts when he has been suspended and gone for about a week now

I was wondering why it seemed so peaceful. The chi of the forums seems much better these days

I completely agree with Pulliam here, honestly.



Most of the really expensive speakers are actually less accurate than the middle of the road speakers. They just flavor the sound in a different way.


The problem here, is, despite saying they want "accurate, transparent" speakers, audiophiles don't. They want speakers that shape the sound in a way that is pleasant to them. Theres nothing wrong with that, except when you're doing that and still insisting that you're looking for something that is transparent.

The simple fact that a large percentage of audiophiles do not actually want a transparent speaker makes almost all conversations on the subject a waste of time.




This is very similar to the discussions on Tube Amps. Horrific distortion levels, but the audiophiles love them, because they distort in a way that is pleasant.

Where do you get these ideas from? None of what you're saying is true. Stereophile has published the measured results of all the speakers they've reviewed for the past 40 years, so there's no secret that the advantages of "expensive" speakers are measurable.

You seem to be confused by the simple, non-dynamic measurements that magazines such as Consumer Reports perform on speakers and amps, wherein they conclude that they're all the same, or that 0.001% THD is better than 0.005% THD. And non-audio people will often emphasize an unimportant measurement, while overlooking an essential one.

Your statement, "The simple fact that a large percentage of audiophiles do not actually want a transparent speaker" is amazing to me. Where did you come across this "fact"; what is the "large percentage"? Because, in all my years, I've not come across a single audiophile who feels that way.

I'd agree with that. I got to the point where I'd have to double my replacement cost to get a worthwhile improvement. However, everyone's got their threshhold.

I'm amazed that you can even try to deny it, although, I suppose it fits perfectly.


We have people here buying $60K pairs of speakers that are SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ACCURATE than speakers that are $1K a pair. How do you explain that?

What do you consider a middle of the road speaker and a really expensive speaker? Are you speaking in generalities about price points? If so what price points?

OK, now I'll challenge you !

name the 60k and 1k speakers you speak of !

No kidding! They must be some real phenomenal 1K speakers, or some really , REALLY bad sounding 60K speakers!

Has anyone noticed that many of these threads are started by people who have since opted-out of the discussion? Curious...
Anyway, I think the OP's comments were more aimed at the poor setup of department store type audio areas than anything else. Everything he mentioned was similar asian mid-fi stuff that probably does all sound the same anyway, especially in a poor auditioning environment.


Now this is a whole different topic! Personally, I can only think of a few $60K speakers off the top of my head, the Wilson WAMMs, maybe Martin Logan Statement, maybe top-of-the-line Thiel, or Avalon, or Ariel - but these are all supremely accurate and stunningly capable speaker systems, that only the idle rich can afford. Since few people in this forum have them, why is this being brought-up?

I was going to say the same thing ... sounds like synovia it talking out of his a**

Exactly, as you can see he hasn't responded !

And he won't, because he's just another internet forum drive-by shooter.

Its the second one, not the first.


And they don't sound BAD, they're just LESS ACCURATE. My whole point is that "Sounding bad" and being "less accurate" are not the same thing.


When people use equalizers in their home to get a flat response from their speakers, most of the time they don't like it. Why? Because they prefer a certain type of sound (warm, bright, etc).

What "they" are you talking about - what speakers?

Well, aside from the fact that people get crazy with equalizers which can introduce their own problems with phase issues, many of the problems that exist in a room have to do with issues that relate to the time domain and not frequency. 'Fix' the FR and you still have signficant issues when it comes to arrival times. That's why room treatments have this tendency to improve matters.

Who uses equalizers in their home? And how would one get a "flat" response? Flat response where? At the listening location, at the side walls, on the speaker axis, off the speaker axis? It's a ridiculous concept.

You seem fixated on the idea that everyone wants a "colored" sound, but I don't see anyone saying that but you.

At the listening position of course. Theres plenty of them being used on this forum.


Thats my point. Nobody is willing to admit that they like colored sound, despite the fact that their purchasing decisions indicating otherwise (high capacitance cables, tube amps, esoteric speakers, etc)