Isn't there a built-in bias here? Wouldn't Harmon employees be likely to listen to Revel's frequently and therefore be somewhat pre-conditioned to their "sound"? Don't get me wrong, I've heard the F228be and found it to be an outstanding speaker. And, I've heard the Magico's (also good but not quite as "great" as the Revels IMO). But ... is there not more than likely a bias that's been introduced into the "testing" here by using all Harmon employees for the test?

I suspect so. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've read that Harman conducts meetings with the employees about the listening tests and what to listen for.

well test were DBT and who knows, but there is a chance they had no knowledge of what speakers they were listening to until after the test was done ?

That is the standard procedure.

Even if that were true the Harmon employees are likely "accustomed to" the sound of the Revel speakers. If the Revel sound is their "reference" it would follow that they "may" have a preference for those voicing tendencies. While we would all like to think that our "reference" is live un-amplified music, we listen far more to our "stereo systems" which become our de-facto "reference". If Revel speakers are the majority of the lisening panel's "aural reference" the results are "tainted" by an intrinsic bias - I would think.

That having been said, I personally like the voicing choices Kevin tends to make, so.... I'm not complaining, but I would think they would try to lessen the bias via a more random choice of "listeners" for such a test. Unless the goal is marketing - in which case I would want a panel with such a "built-in" favorable bias. Wouldn't it be more "believable" if the listening panel were professional reviewers that listen to a large array of different transducers on a regular basis?

yep, all possibilities .........

I can understand that long time listeners of Revel, or any other brand for that matter, will develop a brand preference based on sonic signatures specific to the physical design properties, and I can freely admit to this myself.

The main problem I have with DBT's is that they're rarely done fully independently. Sure, that shouldn't matter if speakers are assembled in a well designed room and listeners are exposed to musical selections without knowledge of the speaker they're auditioning you might think, but as we're all aware the setup and positioning of speakers is far from an easy task, and getting the best, most neutral performance from a speaker isn't easily achieved without lengths taken to position them relative to room boundaries, experimentation with toe-in and rake adjustments etc, and sometimes even adjustments to room furnishings and acoustic treatments. And as we know, some speakers are far more fussy than others in this respect.

That's not to suggest of course that Revel's DBT's are flawed or deliberately engineered to discriminate in favor of Revel speakers, but at the same time I wouldn't expect that Revel would be going out of their way to fully optimize a competing brand's speaker to their DBT environment.

Harman's setup treats all equally. First, it is mono and that eliminates a lot of the setup particularities that you refer to. Second, the DUT is strapped to a platform and positioned in the middle of the room for each and every candidate. Nothing is optimized except for sound level.

Are you indicating that there is something wrong for a company who deals with music reproduction to train its people what to listen for?

:thumbsup: