Speaker rating question..


Just wondering, in the case of rating the condition of a speaker using Audiogons guide, do you people think the Bottom of a speaker should be taken into the Rating of a speaker?....i ask, as i cant imagine in any situation where a speaker bottom doesnt get scratched while moving them on a floor or placed on a Speaker stand.

So say a speaker is 100% blemish free, but the bottom is scuffed, would that qualify for a 9/10?
128x128justlisten
That's a tough one to answer. When people post the condition of an amp, they don't report on the condition of its feet. It occurs to me that it would be virtually impossible to set up a pair of speakers without at least a little scuffing taking place.
Let me know when you get the definative answer, I'm curious too.
The Audiogon rating scale says yes, the bottom of a speaker should be considered.

The 9/10 rating specifies:

"Speakers should be perfect except for the back or bottom, which may show slight indentations from stand mounting, but the indentations do not show through the veneer..."

My interpretation of the rating scale indicates to me that the answer to your question is yes, a floorstander with some bottom scuff marks would still qualify as a 9/10.

Does anyone out there disagree?
The Audiogon rating scale says yes, the bottom of a speaker should be considered.

The 9/10 rating specifies:

"Speakers should be perfect except for the back or bottom, which may show slight indentations from stand mounting, but the indentations do not show through the veneer..."

My interpretation of the rating scale indicates to me that the answer to your question is yes, a floorstander with some bottom scuff marks would still qualify as a 9/10.

Does anyone out there disagree?
My recent experience on Audiogon has been that many sellers are overrating their gear. I believe we've experienced "grade-creep", just like the Stereophile RC ratings. A 7/10 piece is a very clean piece according to the standards, but as of now that's considered the lowest saleable rating you can give for working gear, from what I can tell. My impression is that almost no one feels comfortable rating their decent-shape gear less than a 9/10 these days, or if they do, they include a disclaimer stating that it's just for age or something similar, clearly implying that if they weren't so scrupulous, anybody would think their item was at least a 9/10. Way too much gear is being listed at 10/10 when it's too old or too well-used, which is like grading a used record that's been played more than once as "Mint" - it's definitionally incorrect. I have bought a few "9/10" items on Audiogon that strictly speaking did not deserve the designation - 8/10 or 7/10, or even 6/10 would have been more appropriate. We have effectively created a four-grade system out of an eleven-step scale: New or "10/10", practically perfect or "9/10", good or "8/10", and OK or "7/10". Honesty and accuracy, which nobody should be penalized for, have been sacrificed.