The Fallacy of Accuracy

[Folsom]

For the objectivist it means vanishingly low THD+N, preferably flat with frequency, ruler flat FR, best possible SNR of individual components.

Even so, it doesn't account for current.

 

[Fidach Lad]

Didn't Monty Python make a movie of this, and they had the advantage of knowing what they were looking for, a physical object with no no brains or ears.

 

[TitaniumTroy]

I like the idea of companies like Harman trying to figure out what is more accurate in speakers. Plus you have to give them credit as the research is made availble to other manf. As their are so many conflicting theories, trying to bring Order to Chaos. Just like when I first started to figure it out when I got the stereo bug back in at Avaino Air Force Base, Italy.

I was told Bose 901s were the best, by most lay people. However thru an audiophile friend here and there and mags like Stereo Review, Audio, etc... I found that their were more accurate speakers, if not as good a marketing dept.Well plus my own ears, I think they were ok for 9 midrange speakers. But I still had a lot of questions, as to what is closer to better sound, still do.

I am going to try and hear the JBL 4367's and some KEF Reference speakers not under show conditions to see if I want to make a change. From the planer path and go with a more "accurate" or how about just better sound. I think you can use Harman's research and have different ways to achieve the same goals.