The biggest debate in the history of humankind -Tannoy crossovers original vs new.

[Pharos]

Yes absolutely Matt.

[Pharos]

No that's not my position. My position is that you have to start from a measurement persepective to at least get in the ballpark, then you can fine tune 'by ear'. Which I'm pretty sure is what you are saying too. You can't just pull inductors and capacitors at random out of a bag and use that as a starting point.

Yes Macca.

[Marco]

I see no contradiction in the two comments you refer to above.

The ear can be deceived, and the purpose of training to try to eliminate or at least reduce that possibility.

I have never said that design of speakers can be undertaken without listening to the result, but I would rather take a pair on trust which were designed by accomplished designers purely on numbers, than a pair designed entirely with the ear.

I wouldn't take any form of audio equipment 'on trust' from anyone, least of all a pair of speakers, no matter how 'well-endorsed' by a so-called 'expert'! I would ALWAYS need to hear them FIRST, in the context of my system and room, and crucially, with my own MUSIC.

In terms of the bit in bold, yes I agree, but the point is for someone with such a (seemingly) measurement-based, objectivist outlook as you to hi-fi, how can you rely on someone else's ears, no matter how "well trained", if they're still fallible? And those at ATC won't necessarily be any more "well trained" than yours or mine.

Marco.

[Pharos]

Yes, we're on the same page

I repeat though, for absolute clarity, that the *main point* I was making was to dispel the myth, created by staunch objectivists, that making love to your test equipment is a mandatory procedure before you can achieve any genuine improvement, when applying some change/tweak to the circuit of either electronics or loudspeakers.

Quite simply, that's closed-minded, arrogant bollox, and patently untrue. GOOD EARS are just as important. And what pisses me off, is the former view [often portrayed by so-called 'experts'] discourages people with perfectly good ones from USING them!

Marco.

The use of test equipment is IMO a pre-requisite in the process of design in order to verify and validate, and avoid error.

The equipment is not a 'God' but a tool which helps to avoid obvious errors by validating steps towards a completion.

[Marco]

And that methodology is what can lead to becoming embroiled in the "circle of confusion".

No "confusion" here, only 100% satisfaction

Marco.

[Marco]

The use of test equipment is IMO a pre-requisite in the process of design in order to verify and validate, and avoid error.

I agree, but it's not the be-all-and-end all either. That's my point. Test equipment isn't infallible either, nor being used by someone to measure the wrong thing.

Ultimately, good ears are also needed to make any proper judgement on the role played by a hi-fi system, in the accurate reproduction of recorded music.

Marco.

[Pharos]

"Why has this thread taken 13 pages to be debated?"

Because people tend to be lazy and not be thorough and diligent in ensuring that their thought processes are objectively verifiable, and once embedded they defend an entrenched but often erroneous thought process.

[Macca]

The use of test equipment is IMO a pre-requisite in the process of design in order to verify and validate, and avoid error.

The equipment is not a 'God' but a tool which helps to avoid obvious errors by validating steps towards a completion.

You'll never convince the staunch subjectivist that hi-fi is 99 percent engineering and science and just a little bit of what you fancy. They just don't see it that way.

Regards Neat and the 'design by ear approach' even What Hi*Fi struggled https://www.whathifi.com/neat/momentum-sx5i/review:

'take the best part of a week to settle' - (balls, it took a week for you to get used to how wrong they were).

'Without the feet, the Momentum SX5is are likeable but fairly middling four-grand floorstanders. With them, the speakers become more serious contenders with enough ability to warrant a place on the shortlist. ' ( the optional feet cost the thick end of £600 and just as if they make that much difference).

'though a hint of excess bite at higher frequencies suggests careful partnering is needed to keep things civil.' (they sound harsh)

'they have a tendency to overlook subtle nuances somewhat.' ( the frequency response is all over the shop)

'They impose their enthusiastic character on the music a little too strongly to achieve that'. (i.e to get a recommendation)

'The company tunes its speakers by listening rather than measuring. It might seem an obvious thing to do, (Nope) but most of the industry tends to prioritise things the other way around.' (I wonder why?)

[Marco]

"Why has this thread taken 13 pages to be debated?"

Because people tend to be lazy and not be thorough and diligent in ensuring that their thought processes are objectively verifiable, and once embedded they defend an entrenched but often erroneous thought process.

Just like you then

"...Ensuring that their thought processes are objectively verifiable".

Bloody hell.... Are you a human being, capable of rational self-thought, or a computer, programmed to obey a predetermined form of logic? So who decides what's "erroneous"?

I think we live on different planets, Dennis.

Marco.

[Pharos]

"One thing that helps in that area is having confidence in the efficacy of your senses, when making judgements, and not believing that 'experts' will *always* know better!"

But Marco, we must constantly question what we are doing.