High end audio: different rules seem to apply.

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I bought a hifi magazine (HiFi News) the other day (long train journey, forgot my book). Many of the items were very high end and the measurements were intriguing. 2 examples of speakers. Now I know that a flat FR on axis is not everything, and some of my favourite speakers are full rangers, BUT

Metaxas Maceophone. 200-20k +/- 6dB. -6dB 67hZ (actually more like -9dB compared with average) Described as a studio monitor!! £25,000

Wilson Watt Alexia Series 2. 200-20k +/- 5.5dB. £64,998

Both are beautifully built.
 
You don't buy a high-end audio product purely because it has the best specs - just as you don't by a Rolex (or a Lange/AP/VC/PP) because it is a the most accurate watch :)

Yes I agree. It just seems odd to go to such technological trouble to make something that is technically flawed. If a Rolex was only accurate to +/- 15 minutes a day, it might lose some of it's kudos.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
That's a great analogy and probably true. I've yet to discover the origin of the reality damping field that seems to permeate high end audio.

It does seem rather odd since I strive for better than +/-3dB over 200 - 20kHz at home and sometimes even make it. (Listening position only of course)
 
Yes I agree. It just seems odd to go to such technological trouble to make something that is technically flawed. If a Rolex was only accurate to +/- 15 minutes a day, it might lose some of it's kudos.

All about bragging rights. Do you think that fancy wood grain and hand finishing sounds better than chip board?
 

Attachments

  • Rolex.jpg
    Rolex.jpg
    86 KB · Views: 165
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.