Maybe we are being a little to hard on Microstrip. Distortions can come in two forms. Errors of commission and errors of omission. T he former being the most objectionable. I think most listeners well be more bothered by hard brittle highs as oppose to rolling them off
Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...
- Thread starter Andre Marc
- Start date
Amir,
I and many others also have been posting our ideas about sound reproduction in WBF for a long time. We had debates on them, mainly openly exposing our arguments. You approach any question concerning Harman research as if it was a new virgin court session, making a reset of WBF history and previous debates and any high-end knowledge.
I am not interested in aggressive debates rebating single isolated sentences, taken out of the whole context and carefully ignoring the more important remarks. I regret, but I am leaving this debate.
There is no point in re-iterating the same thing over and over again - for your own sanity
This is why I am not participating in this thread and others like it. At the end of the day, Harman presented the testing audience ONE loudspeaker from each manufacturer, driven by an outdated Proceed amp which cannot possibly drive MLs correctly because of the wild load they present (just look at how high quality electronics I have been able to throw at them over the years, and they still respond; and mind you, I have heard Proceed amps in the past), and based on that, said people made their own judgements and formed a firm opinion... and that's the end of that story. Now, you tell me when was the last time you or anyone else invited their friends over to listen to your LEFT channel only, and we can take it from there - we should do it next time at your place... I am obviously being sarcastic. But let it be known that, to me, Toole et al mean NOTHING, when it comes to this particular research; in fact, I think very low of them (which is a nice way of saying it's one of the ____est things I have ever read in audio print).Sorry, no. We are having a discussion because you stated how I listen is by searching for "flaws" and how you only think of what is good about a loudspeaker. There is nothing in there about Harman. I am exploring how you can state that when I can show easily that all of us, let me repeat, all of us do focus on imperfections of one loudspeaker against another when comparing them side by side. This is so factual that it needs no proof point. I can show you review after review where comparisons are made in this manner. As I said and keep repeating, we are the same in this regard and your attempt to factionalize us is not correct.
This tactic is getting old Micro. You were the aggressive one in this, changing the topic completely to me. I did not take apart your post line by line. I simply quoted the short statement you made and I asked you clarify without talking about objective vs subjective, your right to say this and that and all the other off-topic remarks you made.
You don't like my approach, do as I have asked you repeatedly. Do not address me with these strong points. I don't know a single member here who would not take you on if you attempted to position them in some manner they don't agree with. It is not proper. It is not friendly. It is not constructive. Just discuss the topic and don't engage me if don't like how the discussion goes.
MOD: Commentary about the forum and thread deleted.
Guys, this is the last soft warning. I will repeat: do not enter this thread if it is bothersome for you to read it. The rest of us are here, having a discussion because we get value out of it. If you don't, then just don't read it. We don't need a commentator judging the discussion for the rest of us.
Guys, this is the last soft warning. I will repeat: do not enter this thread if it is bothersome for you to read it. The rest of us are here, having a discussion because we get value out of it. If you don't, then just don't read it. We don't need a commentator judging the discussion for the rest of us.
No one should ever pass on a speaker they like the sound of for such reasons. But they might want to consider passing on the MLs if they don't want to put up treatments to kill off-axis dispersion and/or if they want their speakers to sound good in the room, not just the sweet spot.
Tim
Just a note for our readers, interested people should read the full text and think if they agree or not.
Quoted from The Sound Reproduction, by F. Toole, at some time Harman Vice President of Acoustical Engineering,
Fortunately, it turns out that when given the
opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of
artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is
good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize
what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. By
the end of this book, we will see that technical excellence turns out to be a high
correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional grati?cation, and most of us
can recognize it when we hear it.
Quoted from The Sound Reproduction, by F. Toole, at some time Harman Vice President of Acoustical Engineering,
Fortunately, it turns out that when given the
opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of
artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is
good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize
what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. By
the end of this book, we will see that technical excellence turns out to be a high
correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional grati?cation, and most of us
can recognize it when we hear it.
evolution (natural selection) wins again.....along with experience over time and emotion.
Nothing to disagree with there, but all you have to do is change the emphasis and it supports Amir's argument. Maybe you two are contentiously in agreement?
Tim
The curved surface means they are not true dipoles as pointed out by the owner of Bryston in review of the ML CLX. That review was posted on the Martin Logan Owners Forum.
Yes but their bass integration is much better than 2-way horns with digital active bass woofers
I think an interesting topic is Audiophiles who do not have confidence in their ability to hear.
This is NOT, I repeat NOT, about having "golden ears" or being a "gifted listener" or any such lofty nonsense.
It is about the ability to trust your experience, your perceptions, and what your ears are sending to your brain.
So many here want to see measurements to "back up" what they have heard, and many also seek approval from
others in the hobby to justify their purchases.
Maybe I am just out there, but I still own the same amps, speakers, and cables I bought 7 years ago. The only things that have changed
are my digital sources.
I have absolute confidence in my ability to believe what I am hearing. Anybody else?
Andre, have you gotten an answer to your OP?
LOl..good question! My feeling is that "philes for the most part do not trust their ears. And they
are conditioned to be this way by a very shrewd industry and press. But who knows in the end.
Trust comes with experience, it's daunting to listen and then describe what is being heard, to separate the range of variables from room artifacts, component and infrastructure contributions and then heaven forbid allow for the cocktail of variables caused by the synergy monster.
But most who are drawn to this hobby seem to be addicted to improvement so we experience and modify and we learn. To do this we do need to develop reasonable faith in what we do hear by getting a range of experiences in listening and not get caught up in the notion that just because we aren't perfect at something that we just lose faith in our perceptions. Most of us are much worse at interpreting measurements than we are at identifying what we hear. Choice of two the focussing on learning to listen and having experience with different gear while enjoying music is a no brainer over the option of looking at graphs and trying to synthesise this into experience and understanding.
But most who are drawn to this hobby seem to be addicted to improvement so we experience and modify and we learn. To do this we do need to develop reasonable faith in what we do hear by getting a range of experiences in listening and not get caught up in the notion that just because we aren't perfect at something that we just lose faith in our perceptions. Most of us are much worse at interpreting measurements than we are at identifying what we hear. Choice of two the focussing on learning to listen and having experience with different gear while enjoying music is a no brainer over the option of looking at graphs and trying to synthesise this into experience and understanding.
Hello all who are following this thread. I would just like to point out that a while back, I polled the WBF on whether or not they trusted their ears. The results didn't surprise me but with this latest thread? Here is a link to the poll >>> http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?11768-Do-you-trust-your-ears
For those who don't want to click on the link, here are the results;
78% of the WBF trusted their ears.
18% of the WBF did not trust their ears.
4% of the WBF were still on the fence with the question of whether or not they trusted their ears.
Just thought I'd throw these facts into the discussion.
Tom
Andre, look @ Tom's quote above yours.
Good advice for any speaker. Room treatment is basic at least for the corners and point of first reflection. Also you may get by if you have a lot of plush furniture. In addition you might want to see Ralph Sanders of Sandersoundsystems take on sweet spots. IMO neither issue is a reason to pass on an excellent speaker. YMMV.
Interesting post
A couple of things come to mind.
Just thinking out loud...
But why is important to describe what one hears..why not just lock in and enjoy it? Why do many feel to the need to share what they
are hearing? Do you people eat a wonderful meal then post about what they tasted?
You say many in the hobby are addicted to improvement..from my experience 90% if not more of "upgrades" are side ways moves.
Just a couple of my own thoughts.
I'm not a computer program from Tron. I don't need to put a value on everything for an everyday human task.
Here's an analogy. If you were up to bat, do you think you'd hit the ball better if you calculated the ball's telemetry? The catcher would be laughing his head off ball in hand while you were standing there still trying to enter the input data. That's exactly what happens when you're looking at an RTA while music is playing. By the time your brain processes the visual display the actual event has gone and you will never catch up. It's a case of using the right tools the wrong way. A batting or pitching coach would definitely find great value, the players too when it comes to training but when it is time, that player had better have only one thing on his mind and that is hitting the ball. Not paralyzed obsessing over his form or if that fast ball is going to come in at 91 or 95 mph.
I do not need to know exactly how high a step is on stairs or exactly how wide the planks are. Why should I not be allowed to make my rough estimate and just climb up or down?
As consumers all we want are things that work and work well.
As far as Stereo goes it's existence is predicated precisely on fooling our senses. If anything, if you want to enjoy this hobby, you should be able to accept the limitations of our senses. Trust that we can indeed be fooled and just enjoy it. It's no different from good CGI. Make the goal the banishment of the audio equivalents of the uncanny valley effects while accepting that you will never get the real thing because reproduced music is a thing all it's own.
Here's an analogy. If you were up to bat, do you think you'd hit the ball better if you calculated the ball's telemetry? The catcher would be laughing his head off ball in hand while you were standing there still trying to enter the input data. That's exactly what happens when you're looking at an RTA while music is playing. By the time your brain processes the visual display the actual event has gone and you will never catch up. It's a case of using the right tools the wrong way. A batting or pitching coach would definitely find great value, the players too when it comes to training but when it is time, that player had better have only one thing on his mind and that is hitting the ball. Not paralyzed obsessing over his form or if that fast ball is going to come in at 91 or 95 mph.
I do not need to know exactly how high a step is on stairs or exactly how wide the planks are. Why should I not be allowed to make my rough estimate and just climb up or down?
As consumers all we want are things that work and work well.
As far as Stereo goes it's existence is predicated precisely on fooling our senses. If anything, if you want to enjoy this hobby, you should be able to accept the limitations of our senses. Trust that we can indeed be fooled and just enjoy it. It's no different from good CGI. Make the goal the banishment of the audio equivalents of the uncanny valley effects while accepting that you will never get the real thing because reproduced music is a thing all it's own.
Similar threads
- Sticky