Extensive measurements including relative cabinet panel resonance exist in the Stereophile database. The speaker meets the requirements of: lower than average cabinet resonance, flat on axis response, flat off axis response for a considerable range, low energy storage in the driver/crossover section. The specific combination of things provides for a relatively neutral starting point, and the extended off axis response linearity ensures it will work well in a very wide variety of acoustic spaces. While no distortion measurements are provided, it is safe to say the speaker is not going to produce any substantial level of distortion within normal SPL ranges, and use with the active crossover to stereo subs will further increase it's dynamic ability.
The ONLY variable actually left is frequency response, since for all other intents and purposes, this is one of the most neutral speakers in this price range.
You can add resonance and tonal response changes with a precision EQ system. You can add more sophisticated resonance behavior by using a mix back system and feeding pass band signals back to the original signal.
So in other words you never have put this to your own tests. You may prefer what you recommend, and other may as will, but that doesn't mean everyone under a controlled test will. Even if they did, I doubt you could remove all the bias and nuisance factors. In other words, your recommendations might be good for you and many others, but not everyone, which puts you in the same boat as me. Of course, I don't bash your speakers, so that's where we differ.
What kind of proof are you looking for exactly? The speaker meets the definitions, perceptually, as a preferred speaker. Variable left: tonal response/EQ. Do you propose a mystery factor exists? If so, please specify.
You said you saw the insides of the cabinets. Here is your exact wording:
"
Yes. Utterly average cabinet construction that is found on most other hi-fi speaker cabinets."
So I ask, where and how? How do you know that? I want proof that you have seen them, as you say you did.
It "meets the definitions perceptually?" How about actuality or reality, as in you've seen the insides in person and can testify to your previous statement? So I ask again, did you see the insides of the SongTower's, and if so, why are they a "highly resonant device?" Now if you haven't seen the insides, then how do you know they are a "highly resonant device?" If you say it's because the speaker meets the definitions of one, perceptually, that's not a real answer. It's a guess. It would be a very good guess, as most speakers are highly resonant, but it wouldn't be more than a hypothesis.
I am not sure what you think you have presumed. For my own use, is exactly that; you are rambling non sense here. I do not engineer ANY specific coloration into my speakers. They are designed to be as neutral as possible within the context that they will be used, and based upon the weighting of perceptual research that is shown to dictate neutrality.
I presume that while you call one speaker's cabinet design "utterly average" that you also recommend only the speaker's of your choosing, which would be the same thing manufacturers and other forum members do, but while NOT bashing other speakers. In other words, you are no different than us, as you recommend only what you think is the best. Where you do differ is you bash and/or dismiss other offerings without ever having heard them.
You claim to have some of the papers, and if you did, then it is apparent you don't have any faith in the works, even though the statistical confidence of this work is extremely high. Either that, or you only know bits and pieces of the work, and presume to speculate the rest.
It's not a claim, it's a fact. I've attached an image of a few of the papers I have from Harman Int, Toole and some other great minds. The most important thing I have learned is there are no certainties unless ALL biases, nuisance factors and other distracting and questional variables can be taken out of the equation. Only then is the research and results viable. Unfortunately, it's not plausible for most of the human population, so going through the trouble is useless. If this is something you disagree with, then perhaps you are the one who doesn't have any faith in the works.
In control testing, the same measured behavior(s) are preferred by the overwhelming vast majority of listeners.
I agree with that, which I said earlier. But remember, those results only apply to that group of participants. My point is that most of the audio community is not going to be listening under completely controlled circumstances, thus what's the point? Just let them pick out what they prefer. If we used your method, and it was actually viable, the B&M's and most other audio companies would go out of business, thus this hobby would go to the dumps. It would also mean we had become a brainwashed cult, at least concerning all things audio.
Not at all, the speakers I recommended have a wide/even off axis response, as to work well in many room acoustics. As long as the user is looking for monopole speakers, then the recommendation stands. As I stated earlier, if a radically different polar response is desired, then they would not be suitable for the recommendation.
Again, you prove my point that you are no different than the next guy making a recommendation. You only recommend what you prefer and think the others will prefer. But in your case the intricacies involved won't be plausible for many many people. And even if it is, they will have been influenced by your bias, rather than there's. The latter is preferred because this is their system, for their ears being used in their rooms. THEY should make the decision whether it's a speaker that measures horribly or not. All that matters is that they like what they hear in their own room. If one can find a speaker that sounds good in their room, why go through the effort of buying one that doesn't, spending money on EQing and an active crossover and more unnecessary expenses?
You have read the research: where is the credible research project showing that listeners prefer significantly different speakers when tested in a controlled situation?
Are you reading what I write? I am not speaking of controlled environments because almost all listener's rooms and homes aren't 100% controlled, thus making it all moot. I already said I agreed about controlled environments, such as Sean Olive's case study in 2003. We're talking abut the general population here man! Who of those people is going to have a room that is completely controlled and a frame of mind with zero biases?
I have not seen sufficient 3rd party analysis, nor measured them myself. In addition, if I was to assume the driver and crossover is excellent(which I presume it is, as Dennis Murphy is very skilled in this area), the cabinet system is highly suspected to be just as resonant as the average cabinet system. Based on pictures of the construction process of these Salk speaker that I have seen in the past(I am not sure if they are still available), it's a common single wall system with moderate bracing density and no special provisions to reduce cabinet panel vibration.
You can't answer those questions by listening? Do you NEED measurements because you can't hear the flaws you speak of? If not, why not just listen, like everyone else does?
So the "pictures of construction" no longer exhist huh?
Were they even of SongTower's? Honestly, I don't even care, because this isn't about the ST's but rather your quick dismissal of many other speakers without ever having heard them, or perhaps seeing the inside of them. Again, measurements don't tell it all.
I though you were familiar with a lot of the perceptual research? If so, this statement is confounding, since what you jest, is exactly the results that result when trained listeners are put to the test in a control listening situation.
HA! You aren't reading what I am typing. Jeez... I already said I agree about the controlled situations. Again I ask, how often is that actually going to occur with a consumer? Rarely, like less than 2% I bet.
