As far as I'm concerned there's nothing political (in tone or emotion - at least for most involved) in here at all. Sure there are misunderstandings, there are also emotions - but largely well kept under control. I think the discussion serves as a good underlying architecture for a review of these speakers. I think Roy and I have both misunderstood each other in several posts - but we are getting somewhere IMHO.
The crux of the 'conflict' if there even is any - is whether the subjective trumps the objective - and further if it does (i.e. if the subjective is, for all intents and purposes, the ONLY criteria that matters) then how can one person say that there is something wrong with another person's subjective analysis being different.
To recap - this entire discussion began based on subjective analysis alone for the most part. Jerry did not begin his review with "I didn't bother to audition these speakers because the response graphed so poorly I didn't care". Had he said this, then it would make much more sense.
@Dr. Parthipan - I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. It is that resistance that I take umbridge to - not that time-coherency makes an inherently better speaker. I believe I posited that I believed as much in a previous post.
@davidtwotrees - I too appreciate Roy's contributions here, and look forward to more as I throroughly research the materials presented on his site and the indicated 3rd party research materials/papers listed as well. However, the 'forthcoming' is a bit less unclear to me.
Often the statement is made that 'the scientific explanation is presented clearly' on his site - or that the 'exact description of how the measurements were achieved' are presented along side the specifications. This is clearly not the case - or at least if it is they are not 'exact descriptions'. There are narratives to be sure and some extensive background theory and historical documentation - however, none of these does more than describe theory.
However, I would ask you directly (and I'm hoping that this does not come across as argumentative, because I swear that's the last thing I'm going for)... If the subjective assessment of audio equipment - be it speakers, amps, sources, cables, etc... is paramount in the consideration - do you believe that one person can then ever be 'right' for anyone but themselves? For me at least this is the real issue. I've listed at least two pairs of speakers I own that I love in one way or another that measure poorly and are in general disregarded for this. I understand this because they are not able to hear the speakers with my ears and my brain.
But this leaves that nagging question - is it because my ears are 'better', or my methodologies 'better' for critically listening to them? Or is it simply a matter of personal preferrence? I believe it is the latter, and that my ears are no better or worse than anyone elses - with the exception of hearing losses, etc.
I do not believe, nor have I said that Roy is "selling snake oil" - simply that I have an issue with the way in which his site and his posts present his engineering and singular genius in this area. Throughout human history there have always been men of significant intellect and insight that have posited what was deemed heresy in the face of the status quo. However, where would be be today if Galileo, Neuton, Einstein, Bose (Jagadish or Satyendra not Amar), Edison, etc... had simply said - I've discovered something fantastic, that will change everything... but I can't be bothered to reveal it's details to you or to document it properly and submit it for peer-review and publication.
Make no mistake about it, I firmly believe that the enjoyment of music and therefore the relationship with the equipment we use to enjoy it is completely subjective - and varies from person to person (as long as it at least covers the basics needed to present identifiable aural information). However, I also believe (and I doubt Roy would disagree with this at all) that the manufacture, design, and production of that equipment is simply a matter of science and engineering. The math and physics - according to Roy - is the source of the GMA sound. Yet science and mathematics, by their very nature, can not be subjective at all... else they would not be reproduceable, nor able to be expanded upon by others.
