That is, of course, a pretty good definition of accusing someone who believes in measurement of not valuing listening instead of refuting the value of the measurements. Thank you for making my case, counselor.
Tim
Last edited:
TAS Reviewer flips out over RMAF Harbeth H40.1 comments
- Thread starter mauidan
- Start date
That is, of course, a pretty good definition of accusing someone who believes in measurement of not valuing listening instead of refuting the value of the measurements. Thank you for making my case, counselor.
Tim
Come on, Gregg. Do you really want me to search and quote here all the times someone on this forum, you included, has said or clearly implied something to the effect that subjectivists listen to charts, or choose their equipment by the numbers, or don't listen when evaluating gear? Really? Because it would be divisive and pointless and a waste of my time. And I could get to you without even leaving this thread.
Tim
Attn. Tim and Greg...go to post #46 and watch the video repeatedly...and you might have a beer or something...z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z
@Ron. Yeah I got a bit carried away. Darned time differential has me logging on at weird hours. Sorry about that folks. I'm only human 
@ Phelonious Tim
My comprehension is fine at least that's what my SATs, GMAT and even TOEFL say
Actually Tim, I am eliminating the straw man with my question albeit with a bit of dramatics so okay let me state it clinically but first I will state my own position as concisely as I can. Forgive me for the humor I just can't help myself.
My position
1. This hobby is about enjoyment.
2. Whatever approach somebody adopts to attain his enjoyment in this hobby is fine by me for as long as:
a. he does not hurt himself*
b. he does not hurt anybody else*
c. he does not force it on anybody else
*by that I mean physically. Grief, buyer's remorse, emptied wallet, and the resulting frustration et al build character unless it brings one to to a or b
3. The definition of silly begins with Pebbles, Clocks, Stickers and wrapping foil over ones head.
4. The end goal is for the individual to build a system or systems that are the best.....for him. If this means a Bose Wave radio with a VPI brick on top. Why not? Just don't add the clock. The built in one works fine.
So the question without the rhetorical undertones. Prompted by the statement that a partial quote, "paint by numbers" ( clearly taken out of context, which fits the straw man definition exactly by the way as my post had absolutely no relation or intention to this ...."paint those who include measurements in their consideration of equipment as people who don't include listening in their consideration" ) from one of my posts was a straw man and to add insult to injury, a silly one at that. Misquote me and I do not take it lightly. So.....
Are you saying your way is the ONLY way?
@ Phelonious Tim
My comprehension is fine at least that's what my SATs, GMAT and even TOEFL say
Actually Tim, I am eliminating the straw man with my question albeit with a bit of dramatics so okay let me state it clinically but first I will state my own position as concisely as I can. Forgive me for the humor I just can't help myself.
My position
1. This hobby is about enjoyment.
2. Whatever approach somebody adopts to attain his enjoyment in this hobby is fine by me for as long as:
a. he does not hurt himself*
b. he does not hurt anybody else*
c. he does not force it on anybody else
*by that I mean physically. Grief, buyer's remorse, emptied wallet, and the resulting frustration et al build character unless it brings one to to a or b
3. The definition of silly begins with Pebbles, Clocks, Stickers and wrapping foil over ones head.
4. The end goal is for the individual to build a system or systems that are the best.....for him. If this means a Bose Wave radio with a VPI brick on top. Why not? Just don't add the clock. The built in one works fine.
So the question without the rhetorical undertones. Prompted by the statement that a partial quote, "paint by numbers" ( clearly taken out of context, which fits the straw man definition exactly by the way as my post had absolutely no relation or intention to this ...."paint those who include measurements in their consideration of equipment as people who don't include listening in their consideration" ) from one of my posts was a straw man and to add insult to injury, a silly one at that. Misquote me and I do not take it lightly. So.....
Are you saying your way is the ONLY way?
Last edited:
@Ron. Yeah I got a bit carried away. Darned time differential has me logging on at weird hours. Sorry about that folks. I'm only human
@ Phelonious Tim
My comprehension is fine at least that's what my SATs, GMAT and even TOEFL say
Actually Tim, I am eliminating the straw man with my question albeit with a bit of dramatics so okay let me state it clinically but first I will state my own position as concisely as I can. Forgive me for the humor I just can't help myself.
My position
1. This hobby is about enjoyment.
2. Whatever approach somebody adopts to attain his enjoyment in this hobby is fine by me for as long as:
a. he does not hurt himself*
b. he does not hurt anybody else*
c. he does not force it on anybody else
*by that I mean physically. Grief, buyer's remorse, emptied wallet, and the resulting frustration et al build character unless it brings one to to a or b
3. The definition of silly begins with Pebbles, Clocks, Stickers and wrapping foil over ones head.
4. The end goal is for the individual to build a system or systems that are the best.....for him. If this means a Bose Wave radio with a VPI brick on top. Why not? Just don't add the clock. The built in one works fine.
So the question without the rhetorical undertones. Prompted by the statement that a partial quote, "paint by numbers" ( clearly taken out of context, which fits the straw man definition exactly by the way as my post had absolutely no relation or intention to this ...."paint those who include measurements in their consideration of equipment as people who don't include listening in their consideration" ) from one of my posts was a straw man and to add insult to injury, a silly one at that. Misquote me and I do not take it lightly. So.....
Are you saying your way is the ONLY way?
I'm not sure I followed all of that, but the part that I got (numbered and lettered) I pretty much agree with, except I find a bit more to be silly, including when people characterize those who believe in measurements as people who listen to spec sheets, or other such nonsense. If that is not what you were trying to say with the "paint by numbers" remark, my apologies.
No, I don't think my way is the only way. I think you can build a system that you like and enjoy listening to music on it through many different paths. Enjoy yours.
Tim
I am curious if the above posters have heard the Harbeth 40.1's?
I heard these speakers a few months ago in a VERY large room and with a couple of subs,where they sounded acceptable to my ears.
However, i think that if one didn't own a very large room, they would be a disaster.. Absolutely impossible to place in a room of probably anything smaller than 25'X20'
One of the other factors that these speakers portray is a easily discernible coloration that is due to their "Thin wall boxes". To these ears that coloration would soon be a very big turn-off and annoyance that would preclude my purchase. If I hadn't heard some of the better competition, I would probably defend these speakers as REG does. While at their price range and in a VERY large room they wouldn't be bad for some listeners, like I said not for me
I have also heard the Maggie 1.7's which IMHO are a MUCH better fit in a normal size room, but are also IMHO showing their di-pole lineage.. which I hear as a coloration. If you were to compare the Maggie's to the 'Beth's ( which frankly is like comparing 'Apples and Oranges' ) I would say that you would come away with a distinct preference for the 'Beth's, if price were not a factor.
However, IMHO, both of these speakers are not close to the top tier.
I heard these speakers a few months ago in a VERY large room and with a couple of subs,where they sounded acceptable to my ears.
However, i think that if one didn't own a very large room, they would be a disaster.. Absolutely impossible to place in a room of probably anything smaller than 25'X20'
One of the other factors that these speakers portray is a easily discernible coloration that is due to their "Thin wall boxes". To these ears that coloration would soon be a very big turn-off and annoyance that would preclude my purchase. If I hadn't heard some of the better competition, I would probably defend these speakers as REG does. While at their price range and in a VERY large room they wouldn't be bad for some listeners, like I said not for me
I have also heard the Maggie 1.7's which IMHO are a MUCH better fit in a normal size room, but are also IMHO showing their di-pole lineage.. which I hear as a coloration. If you were to compare the Maggie's to the 'Beth's ( which frankly is like comparing 'Apples and Oranges' ) I would say that you would come away with a distinct preference for the 'Beth's, if price were not a factor.
However, IMHO, both of these speakers are not close to the top tier.
Keep in mind that if you were comparing Maggie to Beth, Maggie is only $2000!! You could add a sub (a must), a CD player, a good integrated or modest separates, cables and have enough left over for a year's worth of music while you are still saving up for a date with Beth. Nobody gives more bounce for the ounce than Maggie!
I have only heard Harbeth at show conditions and always liked them, showing up all the time in my top-5 picks as for better rooms visited.
It has been brought to my attention that there has been this discussion, and I thought that there may be some value in getting a few of the issues corrected. The REG tirade was in response to a note that I had posted on the REG forum commenting on three speakers that I had been interested in hearing, and that I heard under essentially identical conditions in the Simplifi Audio room (room 411) at the RMAF this year. I am not sure if REG even got beyond the first part before he went ballistic. If you have not read what I wrote it is message 33780 on the REG forum. I found one speaker to be too aggressive, one to be balanced about right, and then the Harbeth. I would not buy any of these speakers for myself.
REG essentially tried to excuse the unconvincing performance of the M40.1 by accusing me of liking souped-up high frequencies. This is not my position, as REG well knows – he just seems to lose all rational thought when gets this way. I happen to have a very neutral system that is probably much more truthful than most in presenting, at the listening position, a close approximation to what is actually on a recording. If you are interested you can find a description of my system, the results for measurements at my listening position, and a description of my listening room at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/acourate/files/Tony Knight's files/System Description.pdf
My system has moved on a little since the material was put together (for example I now have a Metric Halo ULN-8 to go with my Earthworks QTC 50 microphones) but it is close enough to make an assessment.
Perhaps one thing to point out is that the way I designed my room results in exceptionally clean bass,
with no significant room modes (just look at the subwoofer impulse response). The missing plot in the description is the frequency response of the subwoofers - the attachment to this note.
I would like to comment that I consider measurement and listening complimentary. I can hear some things that I can’t measure and I can measure some things that I can’t identify unambiguously by listening. I do not understand why people try to split into two camps – either just measurement or just listening.
Tony
REG essentially tried to excuse the unconvincing performance of the M40.1 by accusing me of liking souped-up high frequencies. This is not my position, as REG well knows – he just seems to lose all rational thought when gets this way. I happen to have a very neutral system that is probably much more truthful than most in presenting, at the listening position, a close approximation to what is actually on a recording. If you are interested you can find a description of my system, the results for measurements at my listening position, and a description of my listening room at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/acourate/files/Tony Knight's files/System Description.pdf
My system has moved on a little since the material was put together (for example I now have a Metric Halo ULN-8 to go with my Earthworks QTC 50 microphones) but it is close enough to make an assessment.
Perhaps one thing to point out is that the way I designed my room results in exceptionally clean bass,
with no significant room modes (just look at the subwoofer impulse response). The missing plot in the description is the frequency response of the subwoofers - the attachment to this note.
I would like to comment that I consider measurement and listening complimentary. I can hear some things that I can’t measure and I can measure some things that I can’t identify unambiguously by listening. I do not understand why people try to split into two camps – either just measurement or just listening.
Tony
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Tony
Welcome to the forum, I like the very last part of your post....
I wasn't able to open the link you sent us, it referred me to a Yahoo Group..
At any rate your bass response is impressive ... care to share with us the particulars of your system?
Welcome to the forum, I like the very last part of your post....
... Exactly my positon.
I wasn't able to open the link you sent us, it referred me to a Yahoo Group..
At any rate your bass response is impressive ... care to share with us the particulars of your system?
Speechless.. To use a French Expression... A en couper le souffle... Woah! Damn! IMPRESSIVE! This ought to sound as good as it looks ...Woah ! Dang! I am looking forward to listen to this system... On my must list ...!!! Well worth the wait ... Oh la la!!!
Similar threads
