And the statement sound quality can be measured is inherently a problem. I wouldn't even agree with most of your subjective speaker descriptions. Plus you leave the stupid tapatalk ad which further denigrates your opinions
I mean to imply accuracy. As far as subjective preference, Harman has demonstrated that objective measurements can predict preference in blind tests, with subjects preferring the more accurate speaker over the colored one. How does one define sound quality? When one speaks of a any other product, quality is an objective measurement, for example, high quality leather, vs a cheap imitation. One might prefer imitation leather due to price, or animal welfare reasons, but its an obvious fact that real leather is more durable, and looks nicer.
If a speaker measures +-3dB, it can be said to be accurate vs colored. Does not matter if you've heard it or not. Doesn't mean one would prefer other characteristics of the speaker, for example, I like Klipsch speakers because of their high sensitivity, wide off axis response, and controlled dispersion. Their new models are more accurate, but I'd prefer their older models even with the brightness because of these characteristics, since high dynamic range, high SPL, and a wide sweet spot are among top priority for me, but put a reference II series (which is unnaturally bright) next to a reference premiere model (which is more accurate), and I'll always choose the premiere, even though brightness doesn't bother me.
What descriptions are you referring to? Obviously, not everyone will agree with my preference, since its an opinion, however, stating a fact, such as a speaker measures +-3dB from 50hz-20khz, isn't exactly debatable, assuming the measurement was performed correctly.
Sent from my 5065N using Tapatalk