Best new loudspeaker

hi ralph:

you are confusing facts, perceptions and value judgments.

if i say speaker a is less inaccurate than speaker b, the statement is a reflection of a perception. in order to say that speaker a is better than speaker b, there must be a criterion or postulate that says accuracy is better than inaccuracy. i never established such a postulate and i would never say less coloration is better than more coloration.

you continue to misinterpret what i say, perhaps, because you believe that accuracy is better than inaccuracy. such a statement is a value judgment. value judgments apply to better and best, best upon criteria or held beliefs about sound quality.

i believe that sound quality is personal and based upon preference. thus there is no better or best because what i prefer is neither good nor bad, it is just what i like. i do not attach any value to what i like. it is purely an opinion.

i have not an am notb contradicted myself. i have a fine command of the english language. years of college and graduate school and writing have refined my ability to communicate.

if you have any more questions, why don't we discuss this on the phone, or next time we meet at an audio show.

one more thing, i believe a martin logan speaker can be driven with a tube amp. i personally have heard a sequel driven by an early quicksilver amp which used 8417 tubes.

i do not believe that martin logan speakers necessaily dip to .5 ohms. can this be verified ?

Ouch. . . I seem to be hearing some smidgin of stridency emanating from the black backgroun. . . Is it mayhaps that darn Supraphon box with the Panocha Quartet again? Alas no. . . seems it's coming from a badly overdriven Sackbut struttin' its stuff in full cuivre! . . . I better engage that -3db treble filter on those Mahlers. . . This glare is driving me batty!

"since this experiement has not occurred you and i are engaging in probabilistic statements."

MRT, did you mean: "thought experiment"?

"i have not an am notb contradicted myself. i have a fine command of the english language. years of college and graduate school and writing have refined my ability to communicate."

Sic.

MrT, you might contact ML about that impedance. Its been that way with them for a long time, since the CLS 2 FWIW. I remember some of the Sequels were a little easier, and the old CLS 1 was the easiest of all...

With regards to the communication: I see in your comments that you do not regard a measurable and audible performance increase as good, for you there is only preference, such as your preference for the Quad, or perhaps the ML that you have not heard. Yet you acknowledge that the performance increase is real. I take it you don't see contradiction in that?

hi ralph:

is perception reality ?

there is no contradiction in saying i perceive a to be less inaccurate than b. note, i perceive is the key. i can't say what is real and what is not.

what is a measurable increase in performance ? as soon as you say "increase in performance", you are making a value judgment. i report perceptions. what does a perception have to do with performance. that word is value laden.

why not accept a statement that a is less inaccurate than b in its literal sense. even if there were a measurable change in frequency response, such a state would neither be bad or good.

the issue between us is whether i consider a reduction in inaccuracy an increase in performance. i do not. it is a change that is based either upon perception or measurement.

such a change is not better or worse. it is a change.

there is no contradiction between preference and perception. my preferences are based upon my perceptions.

i guess the word performance has one connotation for you, another for you. even if i accept your connotation of an "a performance increase", such an increase is not better than no increase. it depends upon what you prefer.