TAS Reviewer flips out over RMAF Harbeth H40.1 comments

[mauidan]

REG must have lost his meds:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/message/33780

and read on.

Great post Marty!

 

[Gregadd]

I stopped by a room that was larger than most containing the Harbeth. I was not blown away. I made a mental note that it was a good speaker and I could see why others are impressed.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Start with:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsaudioforum/message/33780

and read on.

Great post Marty!

Dont see anyone losing it. Must have been deleted. I've never heard Harbeths, but as I've said, semantic arguments aside, I'll take a "laid back," "boring" ie; un-colored, speaker over an exciting one any day.

Tim

 

[Steve williams]

I didn't see any post by Marty

 

[RUR]

This link probably works better for purposes of this discussion. Scroll down to see the relevant posts, starting with Robert's.

 

[JackD201]

JV using the F word against some folks in his blog, REG going ballistic here, Mikey in a protracted word war with a NY journalist. Oh boy. Rise above gents, Rise ABOVE!!!!!!!!!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't know these people, but I'll say this in response to reading the post from "REG" -- he ain't all wrong, IMO. I think a LOT of audiophile speakers have tweeters that are exciting but edgy and exaggerated. Where I disagree is at the other end. I think a lot of them have bloated bass, too. Bloated bass is not "what music sounds like." But his basic point is one I tend to agree with: Many audiophiles have fallen in love with the sound of hifi and think excited tweeters, bloated mid-bass, and a lot of audio attributes are "musical." It's easy to understand. Even if they heard live acoustic music every day, there are few unadulterated recordings of it around for reference; there really is no reference. So what are we to do? Same old song: for me, it is endeavor to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible within system size and budget limits. For others it is enjoy what they enjoy. But the latter, I think, is the reason why there is so much upgrading and trading going on in the hobby. Audiophiles run from one form of excitement to the next, looking for satisfaction. The excitement is in the music, "audio" can only diminish it.

Tim

 

[Steve williams]

I don't know these people, but I'll say this in response to reading the post from "REG" -- he ain't all wrong, IMO. I think a LOT of audiophile speakers have tweeters that are exciting but edgy and exaggerated. Where I disagree is at the other end. I think a lot of them have bloated bass, too. Bloated bass is not "what music sounds like." But his basic point is one I tend to agree with: Many audiophiles have fallen in love with the sound of hifi and think excited tweeters, bloated mid-bass, and a lot of audio attributes are "musical." It's easy to understand. Even if they heard live acoustic music every day, there are few unadulterated recordings of it around for reference; there really is no reference. So what are we to do? Same old song: for me, it is endeavor to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible within system size and budget limits. For others it is enjoy what they enjoy. But the latter, I think, is the reason why there is so much upgrading and trading going on in the hobby. Audiophiles run from one form of excitement to the next, looking for satisfaction. The excitement is in the music, "audio" can only diminish it.

Tim

Tim

In keeping with your post my mantra in auditioning a new piece of gear for my system has always been, "did I hear something different or did I hear something better and if the latter, how so"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim

In keeping with your post my mantra in auditioning a new piece of gear for my system has always been, "did I hear something different or did I hear something better and if the latter, how so"

I think that's a pretty good mantra, Steve, and I suspect it has served you well, but you have to be very careful about what sounds "better," IMO. REG's post was a bit over the top, but some of it really rang true for me. The bit about the speakers people thought were "dull and dim and distant" ultimately being the best was right on target, in my experience. Give me a speaker that is exciting, toe-tapping, forward, and I'll have one that will ultimately wear me out. There is enough exaggeration in recording; I just don't need it in my transducers. But with that said, at first listen, the more dramatic speakers are almost always the attention-getters. Tizz sounds like transparency. Boom sounds like extension. Some very well-known high-end speakers I heard the other day come immediately to mind. They would have seemed good, had there not been a pair of lesser-known, much more conservative high-end speakers next to them, making them sound like a painted tart by comparison. Walking out, reading the little brochure that said their objective was to add nothing to the recording, I had a bit of a laugh.

Tim

 

[cjfrbw]

I certainly respect that someone would value neutrality and authenticity in playback. I personally don't want listening to be a chore, however, and want to enjoy the experience at least a little. Put me down on the sensuous side of the docket.
I guess that puts me in the painted tart camp, it is neither right or wrong, just the way I prefer to spend my time.
Live music does tend to have a lot of boom and sizzle. I hear live music most frequently at our local library, big band to solos, amplified to acoustic, jazz to small ensemble classical. Instruments in this environment have a lot of low and low mid energy even in acoustic guitar. I usually hold a 12 oz water bottle. It develops a standing frequency when half full that is quite resounding. I have not been able to replicate this energy in my home system, no matter how I crank the frequency bands.
Live cymbals have a spatial shimmer that I have never heard on a stereo system of any price or ambition.
I think REG's comment that he would no longer have anything to do with anybody who doesn't appreciate the musical characteristics of the Harbeth sounds like extreme rigidity or hysteria linked to product patriotism.
I don't require that much validation for my choices, I can respect anybody who likes or prefers something different. However, I don't have to spend time in their listening rooms, either.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I certainly respect that someone would value neutrality and authenticity in playback. I personally don't want listening to be a chore, however, and want to enjoy the experience at least a little. Put me down on the sensuous side of the docket.
I guess that puts me in the painted tart camp, it is neither right or wrong, just the way I prefer to spend my time.
Live music does tend to have a lot of boom and sizzle. I hear live music most frequently at our local library, big band to solos, amplified to acoustic, jazz to small ensemble classical. Instruments in this environment have a lot of low and low mid energy even in acoustic guitar. I usually hold a 12 oz water bottle. It develops a standing frequency when half full that is quite resounding. I have not been able to replicate this energy in my home system, no matter how I crank the frequency bands.
Live cymbals have a spatial shimmer that I have never heard on a stereo system of any price or ambition.
I think REG's comment that he would no longer have anything to do with anybody who doesn't appreciate the musical characteristics of the Harbeth sounds like extreme rigidity or hysteria linked to product patriotism.
I don't require that much validation for my choices, I can respect anybody who likes or prefers something different. However, I don't have to spend time in their listening rooms, either.

I respect your choices too. Yeah "REG" was over the top. Some of it rang true, but there's no reason to be jingoistic about audio. It's supposed to be fun.

Tim

 

[cjfrbw]

Marty's comments about choosing a particular seat at the symphony, and some being good and some being bad, makes sense. There are are dozens of listening venues in a single symphony hall.
His final choice is based on his preference of direct and ambient energy, high and low frequency balance and projection etc. etc., similar to somebody tuning a stereo system. Same band, same space, different preferences and experiences of the same "absolute sound."

 

[mep]

Tim

In keeping with your post my mantra in auditioning a new piece of gear for my system has always been, "did I hear something different or did I hear something better and if the latter, how so"

Now Steve, remember that both Tom and Ethan say that you can't know which gear sounds better, only that which you prefer.

 

[Gregadd]

Now Steve, remember that both Tom and Ethan say that you can't know which gear sounds better, only that which you prefer.

With all due respect if we can't say what sounds better how do we progress? Because there are so many faactors involved there is a preference as to what matters most for each indivdual.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

With all due respect if we can't say what sounds better how do we progress? Because there are so many faactors involved there is a preference as to what matters most for each indivdual.

Without falling back on objective criteria, ie: measurements, how can we possibly say what sounds better? And yes, indeed, how do we progress? This is at the very heart of the objectivist's position.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

You can't hear measurements. The standard is make it sound more like real music. The closer it sounds to real music the better.

 

[FrantzM]

You can't hear measurements. The standard is make it sound more like real music. The closer it sounds to real music the better.

But that's what we hear... The reproduction is possible because of measurements taken and it could be argued that it is exactly what any reproduction system does, take measurements .. I fail to understand that stands against measurements they are what make our hobby possible ... Measurements are not sufficient for a great gear or system, they are however necessary

 

[mep]

Without falling back on objective criteria, ie: measurements, how can we possibly say what sounds better? And yes, indeed, how do we progress? This is at the very heart of the objectivist's position.

Tim

If you need measurements to make up your mind you are in the hurt locker. If measurements are all that matter, the Japanese won the spec wars back in the late 1970s-early 80s. I guess we should alll be listening to that Japanese gear that had incredible measurements and incredible amounts of negative feedback to achieve said measurements. And Steve knows I was only kidding when I made that comment although Tom and Ethan are dead serious.

 

[Ron Party]

Once again, the same old tired misconceptions and misunderstandings rear their ugly head as OT posts.

And like usual, those that cannot even articulate the rationalist position, let alone comprehend it, set up straw man arguments, the only kind they can then knock down.

Then the downward spiral takes members to a flame fest, the OT is long forgotten, and the thread will be closed. Nevermind that there is a General Debates section of the forum for discussion of these very kinds of topics.

It's all so inevitable.

"I'm hovering like a fly, waiting for the windshield on the freeway"

-Genesis, from The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You can't hear measurements. The standard is make it sound more like real music. The closer it sounds to real music the better.

No, you can't. But you can measure what is heard. If you rely on a subjective evaluation of what sounds like music, you have no standards. What's better is what each individual likes better. And while that's just fine for listeners, it's not good enough for designers. They need standards to reach for if there is to be progress. Your way gives them none.

Tim