The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers

[markw]

I didn't think I was attacking them; however, yes that is the difference. Aesthetic buyers versus the "brand-whore" to a not very good brand (in terms of sound quality). The sound quality opinion may be opinionated but not snobby. Interestingly, it is the reason one often pays MORE for BOSE and tells everyone it's the best - they are actually the ones who fit the definition of "snob" as they are buying the brand to "have it over" everyone else.

Well now, I can't think of too many audio manufacturers that can get as much "decent" sound from as little real estate as their devices do and, when you consider their "lifestyle" systems, have as good a human interface. Some of those things cost money, ya know. For people who seek these qualities, I can see where they might see them as the best they could have purchased FOR THEIR NEEDS.

Now, as for lording it over others, I can't say that I've seen any Bose owners doing that. Have you? Do you even associate with Bose owners? I think not.I do, however, see them telling others how much they like their purchase.. And, ya know what? Others go out and buy them based on what they've seen and heard at a friend's house. That's called word of mouth.

I do see where a lot of their one-piece units are in the homes of older people who don't see the need for a big system. They seem to be their biggest market, at least from my experience. Good luck trying to talk them into a complicated system. Their infomercials aim for the heart of this market and hit the bulls-eye.

And, if print advertising in upscale magazines keeps their name recognition high, so much the better. That's the name of the game.

Say what you will, they can take one small box, place it in the room, plug in, and fill the room with pleasant sounding music. Maybe not the highest in fidelity, but certainly far from unlistenable, and easy simple to operate. Can Audio Note make that claim?

And, if print advertising in upscale magazines keeps their name recognition high, so much the better. That's the name of the game.

I do, however, see you flaunting your Audio Notes all over the place so I'd be careful about calling others "brand-whores". For them, their little system is as good as your beloved monkey coffins but, from your continuing posts here, you just can't give them credit for knowing what they want and like .

But, I await Audio Note's entry into the lifestyle audio jewelery systems that so far seem to be the sole domain of Bose and B & O.

So, quit trying to make THEM out as snobs. You should look into the mirror.

[RGA]

You know mark I am still trying to figure out where we're in actual disagreement with Bose products.

Seems to me we both agree that Bose hits a target market that is interested in simple easy to use unobtrusive equipment.

We both agree that that target market is happy with the product.

We both agree that they get "decent" sound from as little real estate as their devices do and, when you consider their "lifestyle" systems."

We agree that Bose's "infomercials aim for the heart of this market and hit the bulls-eye."

We agree that Bose is "not the highest in fidelity." I left the maybe out.

The original link was about people or manufacturers claiming to own or make the best based on DBT listening or measured response - when they are the ones stacking the deck in their own favor and insinuating no bias. Obviously a manufacturer who conducts a test - chooses the competition, chooses the listeners (if not employing them) running the test (which means it is no longer "double" blind. When Harman International runs the test it is not a DBT period. Yet their white papers claim them to be. That is a lie. When they create a test and then don't say what other speakers are in the test or provide specific listener results - and don't allow any third party test that is a problem.

Hi-Fi Choice magazine is at least independent SBT and has far more credibility than any manufacturer claiming to to do DBT. Interestingly speakers that are different measuring from Harman often win - funny how that works eh. And funny that Harman doesn't use ANY of those Hi-Fi Choice winners in their tests. And incidentally that includes a BOSE loudspeaker that finished well enough to be recommended in Hi-Fi Choice (which means it either won or scored close enough to the top to be recommended). How many reviewers can you list that give props to BOSE other than me? Aside from one reviewer back in the late 60's?

Like I said - I get Bose and their target market and the buyers. Most of them are exactly the kind of buyer you state - fully 100% agree with you.

Where we part is that I know several people in person and on forums who bought it based on the advertising where they were under the impression they were buying "elite" high end or the best sound. Only later to be upset that they felt they got ripped off because it wasn't "elite" sound. Or the people who bought it on the premise of it being "elite" level sound and tell everyone that Bose is the best. That part of the Bose market is the ONLY part of the market that I was talking about. And maybe that was not clear at the early part of this thread.

And side stepping Bose - plenty of people buy plenty of speakers and products for reasons that are not strictly for performance. Headphones are a great example. You may like several headphones but my advice is to buy the one that is most comfortable and worry about the sound later. Last thing you want is a great sounding headphone that you plan to listen to for 3 hours a day and it's so uncomfortable that you have to take them off after 20 minutes. As good as it sounds it may make better sense to take the third choice in sound for comfort.

That applies to Bose cubes - you want something for the WAF and takes up not space and can easily be moved etc. Perfectly good reasons to buy them. I still maintain you can get alternatives - to me Gallo or Totem off similar sizes and better sound at similar dollars. But I would only offer that advice to people "into audio." I respect the fact the the vast majority of people just don't give a rat's bottom and Bose is perfectly fine for them.

Please don't mistake having an opinion on sound quality and stating it in a matter of fact way as being a snob. I am not telling a Bose owner or an owner of anything else that they should buy what I tell them to buy or their system is rubbish. Certainly, I am entitled to have an opinion that A is better than B and on a forum dedicated to audiophiles - I expect that people come to read about a guy who believes A is better than B and wants to know why that person thinks A is better than B and even the ranting and raving of posters like RGA who very strenuously and over excitedly want to tell everyone that in his experience A completely destroyed B in his auditions of both A and B.

Isn't that partly the point of Audio Forums. User experience. After all, if it is about marketing and word of mouth then folks would simply go an buy a Bose. The reason this place exists isn't for "most" Bose owners - it's for people who maybe don't have to answer to partners and who can buy butt ugly big stuff purely for sound quality reasons and not for home decor.

Even for WAF products forums are useful to get people to consider alternatives they may not have considered. Sure there is the Bose Cube but perhaps the poster could have a slightly bigger speaker and discovers the Totem Mite or a single driver or a dual concentric small speaker from Tannoy. All of which may sound considerably better and all of which may still satisfy the WAF. The people who come to these audio boards are people interested audio reproduction and alternatives. The plenty of happy Bose owners who don't don't. Comments by forum posters should really be taken as comments to "audiophiles" and not the Bose target market you and I both agree is the vast majority of their market.

[markw]

Do you remember when, in grade school, kids would start out with "No offense, but..." and follow that with a slam. Somehow, I see your backpeddaling here a sort of retroactive application of the same princiiple.

When I read the article, I don't recall any single product singled out. I do see where you, in your infinite wisdom, saw that they were talking about Bose. Where did you get the impression that is who they were talking about?

Are you sure they are the only one guilty of this? Are they the only ones that design a product to meet the demands of their target market?

Assuming they do what the article states (you offer no proof), are you sure that they don't simply poll their listeners for what features they want or, perhaps have them in for listening tests, not unlike food companies call in people off the street for taste testing.

To blatantly state that they train the people that appear in their commercials, (I've never seen civilians endorsing their stuff) is a bit much. As for the celebrities that appear in them, how are they any worse than those that sell insurance, juice and whatever else they shill on TV?

No, just let their users go and enjoy their purchase, unless you're jealous that they can derive such pleasure from something you fine so onerous.

It's kinda like being married. You should settle for the one that suits you and makes you comfortable and happy, one you can spend a life with, not one that meets the approval of some anonymous experts that write magazine articles. What you're doing is essentially insulting some guy's wife behind his back to people who you think he'll never associate with.

[mlsstl]

Anyone else wondering if this horse is dead yet?

[Hyfi]

Anyone else wondering if this horse is dead yet?

Taste Great

[bobsticks]

Do you remember when, in grade school, kids would start out with "No offense, but..." and follow that with a slam. Somehow, I see your backpeddaling here a sort of retroactive application of the same princiiple.

When I read the article, I don't recall any single product singled out. I do see where you, in your infinite wisdom, saw that they were talking about Bose. Where did you get the impression that is who they were talking about?

Are you sure they are the only one guilty of this? Are they the only ones that design a product to meet the demands of their target market?

Assuming they do what the article states (you offer no proof), are you sure that they don't simply poll their listeners for what features they want or, perhaps have them in for listening tests, not unlike food companies call in people off the street for taste testing.

To blatantly state that they train the people that appear in their commercials, (I've never seen civilians endorsing their stuff) is a bit much. As for the celebrities that appear in them, how are they any worse than those that sell insurance, juice and whatever else they shill on TV?

No, just let their users go and enjoy their purchase, unless you're jealous that they can derive such pleasure from something you fine so onerous.

It's kinda like being married. You should settle for the one that suits you and makes you comfortable and happy, one you can spend a life with, not one that meets the approval of some anonymous experts that write magazine articles. What you're doing is essentially insulting some guy's wife behind his back to people who you think he'll never associate with.

Damn...I tried to give you Greenies just for being pithy...

[markw]

Anyone else wondering if this horse is dead yet?

We'll know when/if it's backside responds

[RGA]

The article I posted was not referring to Bose because Bose isn't acknowledged by anyone as an audiophile maker. And Bose doesn't do DBTs to cull what people like nor do they publish white papers involving "claimed "DBT"s and also uses an Anechoic chamber. Harman International which makes Revel, JBL and others do make those claims. And that is very likely the company they were referring to - Unless someone knows of another obvious American speaker maker that does all three of those things.

I never said anything about training for commercials - show me where I said that - stop lying.

Harman trains their listeners to listen for aspects of sound they tell the listener is best. They don't hide the fact which is a plus but then it's also not letting people decide for themselves either.

I say again because the "thick" don't get it - I don't care what people like or enjoy. I don't write thousand word essays as to why Bose makes a bad sounding product.

This is an audiophile board - people are looking to buy audiophile products - Bose isn't one of them.

As illustrated here - From a guy who owns the product.

"Unlike other speaker manufacturers, Bose refuses to publish any frequency response charts or distortion data on their products (and for a good reason). Thus a few independent audiophiles, industry professionals, and newsgroups have taken it upon themselves to benchmark the much debated Acoustimass system. Here is a pretty credible one sourced from the August 1999 issue of Sound and Vision magazine...

SATELLITES BASS MODULE
Frequency Response 280 Hz to 13.3k Hz at �10.5 dB 46Hz to 202Hz at �2.3 dB
Sensitivity (SPL at 1 meter)* 85.1 dB N/A
Impedance (minimum/nominal) 5.3/8 ohms N/A
Bass Limits (-3/-6 dB) 280/220 Hz 46/40 Hz

* measured with 2.8 volts of pink-noise input

To reiterate the above, the Acoustimass's bass module responds to 46 Hz to 202 Hz at �2.3 dB, while the satellites respond to 280 Hz to 13.3 KHz at �10.5 dB. This is, by the way, the only speaker that I have ever seen tested with a �10.5 db allowance.

Still, this leaves a frequency gap between the satellites and bass module of about 80 Hz! That is 80 hertz of sound that is completely erased within the system's internal crossovers! I wonder how Bose figured out which 80 hertz matters least in the audible spectrum? I will say though that this gap accounts for a huge loss in midrange sound, which is responsible for the majority contralto, baritone, and tenor vocals in music, and many sound effects in home theater. And let us not forget that the Acoustimass system also ignores audible signal from 20Hz to 45Hz on the low end (deep bass), and 13KHz to 20KHz on the high end (high treble). Do the math folks, this Bose system only produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible sound spectrum. That's roughly 66% of the actual recording being played back to you! Is this the kind of performance you'd expect from a $1300 product?

Not only will you missing out on a considerable amount of sound with Bose, but the fact that the subwoofer has to respond to frequencies as high as 280 Hz means that there will be extreme amounts of localized midbass in the Bass Module. A well-mated subwoofer should never have to produce any frequencies above 80 Hz and ideally should be crossed over around 60-70 Hz. The purpose of a subwoofer is to produce non-directional low frequency effects. So essentially when you're watching movies with a Bose system, you will hear the gunshots and explosions coming from the subwoofer in the corner of the room, and NOT from the sound imaged television screen. In music, you will hear the singer's voice come from the subwoofer next to the CD rack in the corner of the room, and not the converging point of the two main speakers. This is known as extremely poor 'sound imaging'. For you current Bose owners, try unplugging all your cubed satellite speakers and play a DVD on your Acoustimass system. I used the DVD 'X-Men' for my review. You will be able to follow the entire movie off of dialogue picked up by your Bose Bass Module alone.

continued here
intellexual net · m k i v

Like I said - there are reasons to buy this but audiophiles do not - audiophiles who have heard this tend to draw the same conclusions - it's atrocious sound for way too much money.

[JoeE SP9]

Do you remember when, in grade school, kids would start out with "No offense, but..." and follow that with a slam. Somehow, I see your backpeddaling here a sort of retroactive application of the same princiiple.

When I read the article, I don't recall any single product singled out. I do see where you, in your infinite wisdom, saw that they were talking about Bose. Where did you get the impression that is who they were talking about?

Are you sure they are the only one guilty of this? Are they the only ones that design a product to meet the demands of their target market?

Assuming they do what the article states (you offer no proof), are you sure that they don't simply poll their listeners for what features they want or, perhaps have them in for listening tests, not unlike food companies call in people off the street for taste testing.

To blatantly state that they train the people that appear in their commercials, (I've never seen civilians endorsing their stuff) is a bit much. As for the celebrities that appear in them, how are they any worse than those that sell insurance, juice and whatever else they shill on TV?

No, just let their users go and enjoy their purchase, unless you're jealous that they can derive such pleasure from something you fine so onerous.

It's kinda like being married. You should settle for the one that suits you and makes you comfortable and happy, one you can spend a life with, not one that meets the approval of some anonymous experts that write magazine articles. What you're doing is essentially insulting some guy's wife behind his back to people who you think he'll never associate with.

Puleeeze! If I think your wife is ugly and that upsets you well that's just too bad. This is just to say I agree with RGA. It's not snobbery to be aware of and desire something better. It's snobbery when you berate someone for not desiring what you want. RGA has not done that.

All things being equal, me choosing a Bentley over a Ford Focus isn't being a snob it's merely exercising personal prerogative. It's not snobbery to want a better cut of meat, a better wine, a single malt scotch or a better sounding stereo.

It is reverse snobbery when you accuse those who want the "high priced spread" of snobbery. There is an awful lot of reverse snobbery in the US. A depiction of "Joe six pack" being glorified is reverse snobbery at it's worst.

My system sounds better than anything Bose has ever sold to the public. That doesn't have anything to do with snobbery. It's just simple truth. That Bose owners visit and say my gear sounds better than the Bose gear they have still doesn't make me a snob. I tell them the difference is being an informed consumer. IMO RGA is ranting about the "Joe six pack" idea that an uninformed opinion is as valid as an informed opinion. If you believe that then you worship at the fountain of ignorance.

[markw]

No basic argument with wanting more for yourself that Bose Offers. I do, too, but if I had a need for a small, simple to install and operate one-box solution, they would be a great place to start.

And, since nobody seems to get it, my main complaint was some snob's suggesting that all Bose buyers fell for the advertising instead of making a conscious choice based on their personal wants and preferences.

To wit, or twit. I'm still deciding which is more appropiate.

That's true - let's see the accountant's books on how much they spend on R&D versus marketing verified by an independent auditor.

Bose has more money than anyone for R&D. Is that where it's being spent? Marketing me thinks.

Very few here seemed to pick up on that.

That, plus digging on Bose in an audio forum is a great way for simple-minded snobs to jump in a dog-pile, kinda like suggesting picking on the unpopular kid in school. Nobody's gonna have a problem with that. So, in essense, deal with it.

As for my wife, I married her for love and she's still beautiful to me.
You can buy whatever one you want for yours. Money offers many options..

[RGA]

Puleeeze! If I think your wife is ugly and that upsets you well that's just too bad. This is just to say I agree with RGA. It's not snobbery to be aware of and desire something better. It's snobbery when you berate someone for not desiring what you want. RGA has not done that.

All things being equal, me choosing a Bentley over a Ford Focus isn't being a snob it's merely exercising personal prerogative. It's not snobbery to want a better cut of meat, a better wine, a single malt scotch or a better sounding stereo.

It is reverse snobbery when you accuse those who want the "high priced spread" of snobbery. There is an awful lot of reverse snobbery in the US. A depiction of "Joe six pack" being glorified is reverse snobbery at it's worst.

My system sounds better than anything Bose has ever sold to the public. That doesn't have anything to do with snobbery. It's just simple truth. That Bose owners visit and say my gear sounds better than the Bose gear they have still doesn't make me a snob. I tell them the difference is being an informed consumer. IMO RGA is ranting about the "Joe six pack" idea that an uninformed opinion is as valid as an informed opinion. If you believe that then you worship at the fountain of ignorance.

Everyone gets a case of envy at some point. I would love to own some of the system's I have heard - but I can't afford it or will never be able to afford it. But I won't bury my head in the sand and say it doesn't exist.

Bose is a marketing engine. The link intellexual net · m k i v illustrates their success.

Bose buyers IMO are duped into believing they're getting premium sound quality. That is an opinion based on several Bose owners and retailers I have met over the years.

Even Soundhounds which carries high end brands presumably selling to audiophiles note that 90% of the people NINETY PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come in and buy stuff without auditioning the product in any serious way (if at all) and say "this magazine gave this B&W a great review - do you have one?" And they buy it without trying anything else or they ask "what's the best" or "That looks cool I want one." I have witnessed this and even my short stint in audio retail I had customers do that.

None of this matters to me in the sense that most people just want something in the corner that will play a CD or now their iPod. Only the Thick would take my comments on Bose or Bose owners to include the people buying it JUST for lifestyle related reasons. And again - we're not discussing products "outside" of audio sound quality topics. When I refer to Bose or Bose owners it should be pretty clear that I am talking about Bose in terms of sound quality and owners who bought it based on sound quality or their belief in the product's sound quality being best.

Educating people on what is out there is what the hi-fi press does and what forums filled with passionate audiophiles about audio quality are doing - telling people to avoid schlock and buy better alternatives.

[markw]

It's too bad that your favorite companies aren't as sucessful at reaching their target market as Bose is.

[RGA]

"Bose has more money than anyone for R&D. Is that where it's being spent? Marketing me thinks."

Take what I said and then the link I posted about the guy talking about Bose Acoustimass. Or simply take one apart.

They have lots of money - advertising is EXTREMELY expensive - Bose advertises more than anyone in audio - they advertise on TV for half hour commercials. Which audiophile company can you point to does that? Money has to go somewhere - Bose is spending it on marketing research and teams of experts in marlketing and advertising to get them to buy. Other companies are spending it on good drivers, cabinets, and engineers.

Bose is simply an "obvious example" as to a company that spends mostly on marketing and not on R&D related to sound quality. Harman International which also spends large on marketing is a less obvious example which is why I chose Bose as the example and not Harman. Though IMO many companies spend more on marketing hype in various forms rather than selling sound quality. Which for people who listen to products rather than pay attention to what got class A in Stereophile, tend not to need advertising.

Take the Shawshank Redemption - this movie did poorly at the box office. It wasn't marketed very well - people did studies suggesting its poor performance was related to the title and to the subject matter. Even after the academy award nominations and they re-released the movie I think it still only pulled in $17 million at the time. It became one of the highest rented movie in history and one of the biggest DVD sellers based on word of mouth.

No attacking Bose is not the same as being a bully picking on the poor unpopular kid in school. HELLO! - Anyone home McFly? Bose IS THE BULLY. They're the biggest richest gorilla on the playground.

Bose could care less what audiophiles think of their product because HELLO!! McFly!! we're not their target market. Their target market is not audiophile communities because they make "generally" poor sounding products.

[bobsticks]

Taste Great

Is the response you're looking for, "LESS FILLING!!!!" ?


Res ispsa loquitur,

Sticks

[RGA]

It's too bad that your favorite companies aren't as sucessful at reaching their target market as Bose is.

Seriously, you're going to equate quality with sales? Really. Have IQ's fallen off a cliff?

It's a different target market. Bose hits their target market. So does McDonalds. Are you really going to say that the quality is best because it sells more?

My favorite audio companies hit their target market as well as can possibly be expected. Why this matters to me is purely because I can get products from them in the future.

I assume you're referring to Audio Note. No bones that that is my favorite audio manufacturer in terms of sound quality - it isn't necessarily my favorite in terms of value of the dollar or build quality or affordability (generally). That is why most of the things from them that I rave on about isn't even the stuff I own or can afford to own. Again it's not about snobberry to tell someone you should consider the AN E model X - I have never EVER owned the Audio Note E in any form cause I can't afford them. I am recommending a speaker I don't own! You don't see me recommending my OTO or my turntable. The former has limitation and the latter will take forever to get. Snobs usually recommend what they have. I have products from them that is true but there is a reason for that.

When a company such as Audio Note has far more demand than they can supply, continue to grow, and are one of the only high end companies in the world that have dedicated showrooms in several countries - selling hi-fi not lifestyle - then that is as successful as High End Audio gets.

Entirely different goal and different kind of buyer. It's simply a different perspective. The guy in the link will tell Bose owners they should check out NAD, B&W, Cambridge Soundworks, Paradigm, Magnepan etc. These are better sounding products.

I, in turn, tell these owners of these brands to check out Audio Note, Trenner and Freidl, King Sound, Line Magnetic, Silbatone, Teresonic, Gallo, Acoustic Zen, Mystere, Melody, etc.

Though the first group do make quality music reproduction products I believe there is a league or level of gear. Whether I own it or can afford to own it is another matter. All the stuff I consider to be the best I can't own and do not own.

But Bose and McDonalds are not the best hi-fi and burger - or for that matter even good. But they sell.

[markw]

And those two, my friends, Bose has in spades. Oh, and customer support as well.

Like it or not. If not, they wouldn't be the big dog in the field.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. They must be doing something right.

Hurts to have to admit that, doesn't it?

[RGA]

"Quality" can be determined by reliability and customer satisfaction.

You should know better than to even state something this horrendously dumb.

Ask a 5 year old if he is satisfied by happy meal and yes dada I am. He's ignorant to the world of quality burgers. Yes he satisfied - goes back to ignorance is bliss. The only difference between the 5 year old and McDonalds is that it's a 35 year old and Bose. Assuming it's about the quality of sound and not all the previously mentioned "other" reasons to buy an acoustimass.

As for reliability - pretty much all audio companies have similar reliability. And according the link I piosted - Bose doesn't do very well on that score either because they use bad quality parts they tend to fail early and more often. And their warranty isn't exactly generous 1 year and only for the original owner and they will not pay for any of the shipping costs even if the product fails and it's 100% their fault.

Got any evidence with independant statistics to show the forum how they're more reliable than anyone else in the industry and/or that they have the best customer service?

The way to judge quality for audio equipment is to judge the "quality" of music reproduction. The fact that people have to explain this to you is quite frankly absurd. Virtually all audio companies epxensive or cheap are built pretty well and mostly offer acceptable or better customer service.

[markw]

It's called "puffery". Look it up.

It's not illegal. Every company does it. Bose is just better at it than most.

And, all manufacturers put forth things they want you to hear and withhold stuff they don;t.

And, like it ir not. so do you.. You have a point to make and you do the exa tsame thing. Even moreso, you claim to be a reviewer.You get paid, or some other consideration, to distort facts to your, or someone's, favor in print. Heck, I've seen you do it here in other subjects. We all have.

So, quitcher*****in and face the fact that that company you hate so much makes a heckuva lot of people very, very happy.

As for reliability, i've heard nothing buy good things about their customer service. Have you heard different over there?

[mlsstl]

Saw an interesting article this morning that made me think of this thread.

The journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science had an article by Professor Kendall Eskine (Loyola University) that studied the moral judgment reactions of people based on whether they were an "organic" foodie, or ate a more normal diet or were into "comfort" foods. MSN Health had a nice summary of the study.

Rather unsurprisingly, the broad suggestion of the study was that being an organic food advocate turned people into jerks - they had harsher moral judgments about people and situations than the other two groups. The study was apparently suggested by encounters at organic markets where staff and customers can be quite snooty if you're seen with the "wrong" things in your cart. One lady interviewed likened it to a scene from the show "Portlandia".

On one level, it is kind of sad when it takes a university level study to confirm what we already know about human behavior - people love to feel superior to others. One way to do that is to become an enthusiast in a hobby or other area of narrow interest. That always makes it easy to feel sorry for the less educated commoners.

And, once again, it illustrates there is nothing special about the behavior of audiophiles. It is still intrinsically human.

[filecat13]

The article I posted was not referring to Bose because Bose isn't acknowledged by anyone as an audiophile maker. And Bose doesn't do DBTs to cull what people like nor do they publish white papers involving "claimed "DBT"s and also uses an Anechoic chamber. Harman International which makes Revel, JBL and others do make those claims. And that is very likely the company they were referring to - Unless someone knows of another obvious American speaker maker that does all three of those things.


Harman trains their listeners to listen for aspects of sound they tell the listener is best. They don't hide the fact which is a plus but then it's also not letting people decide for themselves either.

I wondered if the Harman International card would come out. It's certainly the first company I thought of when reading the article. Nonetheless, I doubt it.

Since I own both a JBL K2 S9900 stereo pair and a Synthesis® One Array 7.1 system, it's impossible for me to be impartial. I've already voted with my $$$. Plus I've been to the JBL/Harman Northridge campus and visited the labs, the listening rooms, the speaker switching room, etc.

Naturally, I disagree with the overall tenor of the article if Harman is in the gunsights, since my subjective experience tells me otherwise. (I have no comment on the discussion in this thread, per se.) My disagreement stems from the passion and professionalism I saw on the Harman campus, coupled with the willingness to spend lots of money to figure out why some things work and others don't, and also why people prefer some things even when the science might be contrary.

The listener training tools seem pretty agnostic to me. In fact, the tools are available for download for free. One does not need to be in a Harman International lab drinking the HPAV kool aid to learn the process and improve one's listening skills. Listen on any system anywhere. When some buddies from the LA Home Theater Group and I did the tests in a couple of venues, we all improved our abilities to discern frequencies, elevated output in a specific FR, etc., and we all came to different conclusions about what we preferred to listen to. At least we knew what our preferences looked like and sounded like, and we could also determine the areas in which our tastes seemed to merge virtually unanimously.

As for the DBT nature of the listening test, the speaker mover is computer driven. The operator does not know which speaker is being used at any particular time until after the test is over. Plus everything is hooked up and level matched in advance, so there's no operator or assistant mucking about during the process.

From my experiential perspective, Harman does better science than any other major manufacturer, and it is actively engaged in advancing several important frontiers in audio. It also tends to share a lot of that info freely through its white papers, AES presentations, and free downloads.

In my opinion, if Harman was the target of the article (and who really knows?), then it's a specious piece with little validity or value. If on the other hand Dellasala is just stirring the pot, with no particular brand in mind but intends a general indictment, then I guess it serves a purpose as a challenge to critical thinking. There are a number of things in there that I would concur are used by lots of electronics manufacturers and dealers to the detriment of our hobby.

[filecat13]

How To Listen:

Harman How to Listen: Welcome to How to Listen!

[Mr Peabody]

Filecat, I have become a believer. I got to use/audition some Array 1400's in my system and they sounded great. Those horns are a credit to the technology and the 14" driver can be very physical. I passed on them because I couldn't get imaging in my room to my satisfaction. I could have had those with a 800 center. Out of curiosity what do you drive the K2's and the 7.1 system with? It's a shame the Synthesis isn't more widely displayed, the lesser expensive LS in that series are very good in my opinion and priced well too.

I'm happy with my Revel and what ever the marketing it's still a very good product. If any one read my past posts they would discover I was not a Revel or JBL fan. This was based on past products heard, however, current products have certainly changed my mind about both. Of course, this could change again, I haven't heard the new Performa stuff yet, , but I'm confident it will be up to their standard.

I wish my access to this forum wasn't jacked up, I just bought some Revel in-wall for one of my rooms, a set of 580's and a 552L, I'd like to talk about the project and once installed the sound.

[RGA]

These are true points - I still think the articles is targeted at Harman because there isn't anyone else big enough to bother writing the article. This doesn't mean they don't make good products IMO - And umm I am listening to my AKG headphones (Harman company owned). Nevertheless, the implication unfortunately it is that they are the ones fronting the science papers and ALSO selling loudspeakers with the implication that it will be better than anything on the market by anyone else - because we do tests and ours came out on top (without a list of products). Does the speaker selector account for corner loaded speakers like mine? Pleny of high end speaker makers from Tannoy, Silbatone, Trenner and Freidl etc are close to room boundary designed speakers. Does the size of the room change. Not all speakers are made for the same "size" of room. Some are far-field designs not near-field designs.

People under test listening for "individualized" aspects of sound are not listening to music as they normally would. They're listening for compartmentalized traits. And unfortunately that is what most of these loudspeakers end up sounding like to me when listening in the "real world" and why other, many other speakers sound more musically satisfying over the long haul. Do they change amplifiers with the speakers? Some speakers don't like High damping factor amplifiers. My speakers sound like crud with HDF SS amplifiers - designed for LDF amps for example. Something tells me it's the same amps - they make Crown amps.

I want to see the independent tests because the only magazine that puts out a quasi blind test is Hi-Fi Choice (level matched and blind) with a panel of experienced listeners. And what wins the shootouts sometimes is in line with Harman and sometimes not. So it would be nice to know which speakers Harman used so that I can see secondary confirmation. Tests need to be reproduced by outside organizations no matter how well the perceived "goodness" of their facility or methodology may seem. Which is why the fellows at that link I provided want to have their ringer speakers tested and have it run independently.

Are the speakers set up to the manufacturer's respective set-up guidelines (as opposed to where Harment thinks they should be positioned)? Are they being driven with appropriate amps/cables/sources, in the right room dimensions at the correct distance with the right amount of room acoustics for each speaker.

Devil's advocate
Since my speakers are made for corners and if I was running a test maybe I could bring in 10 speakers (that I know suck in corners) and shove them in a corner and run a 5 watt SET. Listeners would wind up drawing conclusions I know they would end up drawing - even if I used a robot to switch the speakers and I had no idea which speaker was being used - I nevertheless stacked the deck in my favor be very carefully selecting the competition and gearing the experience to what my product is doing well.

Granted we all bring a bias to this - If I was more impressed with their speakers "musically" in regular rooms I might be more moved by their views. But even with the AKGs - I prefer Sennheisers, and Revel has yet to sound pleasing to me (arguably could be the amplifiers they tend to get paired with.

[filecat13]

When I was at the CAS in Emeryville, CA a couple years ago, the Revel Ultima2 Salons, JBL 1400 Arrays, and JBL Everest II DD66000s were in the same room, and I far preferred the Salons. The dealer had a pair of K2 S9900s sitting, disconnected against the wall. He had no intention of demoing them. I was at that point ready to bite on the Salons, but after the show closed for the day a few of us prevailed on him to hook up the K2s just for grins.

Once I heard them, there was never any doubt that I'd find a way to get them, and a few months and lots of haggling later, they were in my house.

To me, the 1400 Arrays seemed great, but they didn't pull me in like the K2s did, and curiously the 1400s don't sound as convincing as the SAM1HF units in the Synthesis set up. (Of course, that's in a pretty well-designed room vs. a hotel ball room divided in half.)

The K2s are driven by a pair of ATI 2003 amps, passively bi-amped, from the analog bypass of an Outlaw 990 through the balanced outputs. The DACs in use are in the Oppo BDP83SE and the iStream DAC for digital files. The third channel of each ATI 2003 feeds a Synthesis S2S sub that handles frequencies starting around 40 Hz.

JBL has such a broad range of products, it's like a smorgasbord: some things are exquisite, and other things aren't worth putting on your plate.

Filecat, I have become a believer. I got to use/audition some Array 1400's in my system and they sounded great. Those horns are a credit to the technology and the 14" driver can be very physical. I passed on them because I couldn't get imaging in my room to my satisfaction. I could have had those with a 800 center. Out of curiosity what do you drive the K2's and the 7.1 system with? It's a shame the Synthesis isn't more widely displayed, the lesser expensive LS in that series are very good in my opinion and priced well too.

I'm happy with my Revel and what ever the marketing it's still a very good product. If any one read my past posts they would discover I was not a Revel or JBL fan. This was based on past products heard, however, current products have certainly changed my mind about both. Of course, this could change again, I haven't heard the new Performa stuff yet, , but I'm confident it will be up to their standard.

I wish my access to this forum wasn't jacked up, I just bought some Revel in-wall for one of my rooms, a set of 580's and a 552L, I'd like to talk about the project and once installed the sound.

[filecat13]

I understand your cynicism about testing methodology, and no doubt would feel closer to you if I hadn't been there and experienced it myself. That's why I write it's impossible to be impartial.

Perhaps part of the trust that I have comes from dealing with designers and engineers in Northridge rather than the marketing and accounting departments. Since the love of my life is an MBA, I won't rail against them, but thank goodness I didn't have to talk to any MBAs while I was there.

I will say that when the speaker changing apparatus was revealed to us and we could see the speakers utilized, they were all of comparable design: rear-ported, towers approximately 42" high, drivers arranged in a single row from top to bottom, cabinets deeper than wide, baffles all of similar width. One was narrower at the top and wider at the bottom due to its use of an actual 14" woofer. The apparatus shuffles them all to the same central position, so they're always the same distance from any wall and the same distance to the listener's position, and I purposely took in an SPL meter (in my big pocket) to assure the SPLs were the same. There was only one set of electronics driving them, though it's certainly possible that the setting had been tweaked to favor one over the rest. I saw no evidence of that, but couldn't attest to it in court.

Did I mention it's one speaker at a time--no stereo pairs? It's a comparison of a single speaker centered on the apparatus to other single speakers centered on the apparatus.

I didn't think about and in retrospect cannot discern a way to accommodate speakers that require corner loading. Of the many speakers I saw waiting in the wings to be loaded into the apparatus, I saw none that would require it in order to perform as designed.

There's no doubt it is an imperfect model, yet it is far more sophisticated and applicable than anything else I've seen, so I credit it as an honest effort, far exceeding anything the typical advocate for DBT can pull off. If there were an adequate range of independent tests, I'd be all for it, but it appears only Harman has both the money and the will to do so at this point.

Rather than spend too much time considering what is not available, I just try to be as honest with myself as I can with what is available, and, of course, I depend on my personal preferences to guide me toward happiness.

As I wrote, Dellasala's opinion piece has some points worth considering; it also has some points not worth considering. Thanks for the link. I did enjoy the read.

Now I'm going to listen rather than write about it.


* Sorry the forum software won't let me use all CAPs in the title.