Agree with this, Tim. In the current edition of S'phile, the article by Sam Tellig is IMO nothing but absolute drivel in regards to the 'gong' that he has under review. OTOH,not sure how much of an authority Sam is in this hobby.
Do we hear differently?
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
Agree with this, Tim. In the current edition of S'phile, the article by Sam Tellig is IMO nothing but absolute drivel in regards to the 'gong' that he has under review. OTOH,not sure how much of an authority Sam is in this hobby.
Well, I wouldn't want anyone to overestimate my sadness. I'll go home, play my guitar tonight and all will be well. Actually I'm going over to the other guitar player's house this evening to work on double lead parts. It doesn't get much more fun than that without women in the room.
But I am, let's call it disappointed, by what is illustrated in this thead and what it exemplifies more broadly. Some VSGs (very smart guys) -- book writing, research study designing, advanced degree in the field holding smart guys have, through a very well thought-out set of methodologies and very well-controlled implementations, thoroughly measured some audio equipment, then tested it in very carefully constructed blind listening sessions with well-trained listeners and demonstrated, pretty definitively, that there is a solid link between good measurements and not only sound, but preference. That's anathema to Audiophile wisdom. Big news. Totally unsurprising to a grumpy old skeptic like myself, but shaking at the very foundation of the high-end belief credo.
But what really has folks upset? The fact that in the process of discovering the aforementioned earth-shaking info, it may have been revealed that some cheap midfi speaker outperformed a respected audiophile brand. <$700 Infinitys smoked the >$11,000 MLs? This is too much. This is inspiring hobbyist and respected audiophile pro alike to fight truth to the death, or more accurately, to the point of making *&(^ up in the face real data.
We cannot accept that hard work, serious measurement, listening testing, more hardwork (not to mention cheaply finished cabinets ) could possibly result in midfi (snif!) that could beat an audiophile pedigree and a high price point?
What does that tell the people who design, build and market the stuff of our hobby? How can that possibly be a good thing?
Tim
But I am, let's call it disappointed, by what is illustrated in this thead and what it exemplifies more broadly. Some VSGs (very smart guys) -- book writing, research study designing, advanced degree in the field holding smart guys have, through a very well thought-out set of methodologies and very well-controlled implementations, thoroughly measured some audio equipment, then tested it in very carefully constructed blind listening sessions with well-trained listeners and demonstrated, pretty definitively, that there is a solid link between good measurements and not only sound, but preference. That's anathema to Audiophile wisdom. Big news. Totally unsurprising to a grumpy old skeptic like myself, but shaking at the very foundation of the high-end belief credo.
But what really has folks upset? The fact that in the process of discovering the aforementioned earth-shaking info, it may have been revealed that some cheap midfi speaker outperformed a respected audiophile brand. <$700 Infinitys smoked the >$11,000 MLs? This is too much. This is inspiring hobbyist and respected audiophile pro alike to fight truth to the death, or more accurately, to the point of making *&(^ up in the face real data.
We cannot accept that hard work, serious measurement, listening testing, more hardwork (not to mention cheaply finished cabinets
) could possibly result in midfi (snif!) that could beat an audiophile pedigree and a high price point?What does that tell the people who design, build and market the stuff of our hobby? How can that possibly be a good thing?
Tim
Last edited:
Actually, Tim, I'm more interested in the identification of Speaker R - any idea?
How others deal with the news is up to them - it doesn't sadden me!
I'm guessing a bit, but the description of "M" makes it a Martin Logan (I've heard a lot of MLs and I'm not at all surprised by the measurements or blind listening results). Given that probably means the names of R and I begin with R and I, and this is a Harman International study, Revel and Infinity seem very likely. And given its performance and the competition it is up against, I'd bet the I is a P363. The R? A Revel seems likely. I couldn't guess which model, though I would hope the inexpensive Infinity wouldn't come that close to the Salon.
Tim
Tim
Critical typo alert:
That should read "<$700 Infinitys smoked the >$11,000 MLs." A zero can mean so much. Let the whinning and crying continue....
Tim
That should read "<$700 Infinitys smoked the >$11,000 MLs." A zero can mean so much. Let the whinning and crying continue....
Tim
Real quality doesnt come cheap, a well constructed full range loudspeaker simply costs .
There are reasonably well made small speakers with for example very good FR response , these might initially sound very good, neutral FR is just a part off course.
I think there are a number of factors what make a good speaker and fits your taste .
First of all , there is freq response i think from expirience that people find a 2,5 dB -+ bandwith acceptable in a loudspeaker, a narrower bandwith beeing better off course , this being the 250 Hz till at least 20 khz area .
The bass can be more elevated because most people just love bass energy , so a bit extra dB s there wont matter , (it might also correct for poor recording mics who have a big bass roll off, so extra db s there might be more neutral instead of flat response)
Other thing is correct/optimum phase in my opinion , meaning the different units moving as one when producing a music tone , the ear is very sensitive for that and one can disguard a speaker within seconds if its not up to standard /optimized .
Next is enclosure , more stiff/non resonant means more decay of tones
and clearer sound.
Unit construction /membrane material is also very much a matter of taste some like ceramic some paper and so on
there are a million ways to construct a flat freq response in the crossover
1 order /second order parallel /series what ever, and every manufacturer does his own thing .
just my 2 cents , henk jan
There are reasonably well made small speakers with for example very good FR response , these might initially sound very good, neutral FR is just a part off course.
I think there are a number of factors what make a good speaker and fits your taste .
First of all , there is freq response i think from expirience that people find a 2,5 dB -+ bandwith acceptable in a loudspeaker, a narrower bandwith beeing better off course , this being the 250 Hz till at least 20 khz area .
The bass can be more elevated because most people just love bass energy , so a bit extra dB s there wont matter , (it might also correct for poor recording mics who have a big bass roll off, so extra db s there might be more neutral instead of flat response)
Other thing is correct/optimum phase in my opinion , meaning the different units moving as one when producing a music tone , the ear is very sensitive for that and one can disguard a speaker within seconds if its not up to standard /optimized .
Next is enclosure , more stiff/non resonant means more decay of tones
and clearer sound.
Unit construction /membrane material is also very much a matter of taste some like ceramic some paper and so on
there are a million ways to construct a flat freq response in the crossover
1 order /second order parallel /series what ever, and every manufacturer does his own thing .
just my 2 cents , henk jan
I hear you talking and I know you're speaking the conventional wisdom, but I'm sitting here looking at the measurements, and reading the results of very professionally-designed and executed blind listening tests, conducted with trained, experienced listeners, and if that "I" does, indeed, stand for Infinity, your conventional wisdom is down in flames. Could Harmon have skewed the tests? Sure. How stupid would that be? They aren't running the tests to prove something to Audiophiles on the internet, they're doing it to drive their own product development. They're not screwing around or making excuses for anything.
Tim
There is no magic in loudspeakerdesign , there also is no free ride also .
Depends what one looks for , enjoyable sound or accurate sound .
Accurate sound is more enjoyable in the long run , but it needs listeneracclimatisation
Depends what one looks for , enjoyable sound or accurate sound .
Accurate sound is more enjoyable in the long run , but it needs listeneracclimatisation
Sorry to reply so late.
The argument is that theh speakers were set up as recommended by the manufacturer. I am not aware of a recomended mono setup procedure. I have not consulted a manual in awhile. I have listened in mono but with two speakers using the mono switch on the amp/preamp. I would think the difference in mono and stereo is well documented at this point.
Whether something "sounds bad" to an aidince of one is not only vague but listener dependent.
BTW, for those that want to follow up on blind audio tests, there's a list of tests that showed no difference & those that showed a difference here http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com/2010/06/blind-test-results.html
It seems that Sean is testing the new Primus against even more expensive competitors. And it's still kicking butt. Have you heard these? Properly amplified - and they present a pretty easy, even load so that's not a huge challenge - they go way beyond "bang for the buck."
Tim
Funny. Only from the SACD crowd. From the usual audiophile crowd, nothing is higher resolution than analog. An excellent needledrop of vinyl to 24/192 just diminishes it.
Tim
Evidently not. Well, I suppose it depends on how long you think it takes to acclimate. A few hours? Long enough for some folks to listen to some different music samples on some different speakers and conclude that accurate is more enjoyable? That's what the Harman test shows. That's a pretty short long run.
Tim
Last edited:
It's not really important to me whther someone likes or dislikes a particular product.
It does however present an interesting point to discusi AMIRMs "reverse Dororthy-esqe expereince" (if you saw the Wizard od OZ,If you have not, please do so immediaitely). When Doprthy first confrontss the Wizard she views him as omniscient and omnipotent cowering in fear at his very presence. hhen defrocked by ToTo her view changes to just a harmless oldman playing a cruel hoax. AMIRM is impressed by the ML sighted not so much blind.
The real question is of course: How do we account for such a daimetric opinion change. If we then assume AMIRM is being genuine as we must, the only thing that changed is knowledge ofspeaker branmodeld.
Before I go any further, Let me ask AMIRM was it just your opinion M/L cnge or was it your overall ranking that changed?
It does however present an interesting point to discusi AMIRMs "reverse Dororthy-esqe expereince" (if you saw the Wizard od OZ,If you have not, please do so immediaitely). When Doprthy first confrontss the Wizard she views him as omniscient and omnipotent cowering in fear at his very presence. hhen defrocked by ToTo her view changes to just a harmless oldman playing a cruel hoax. AMIRM is impressed by the ML sighted not so much blind.
The real question is of course: How do we account for such a daimetric opinion change. If we then assume AMIRM is being genuine as we must, the only thing that changed is knowledge ofspeaker branmodeld.
Before I go any further, Let me ask AMIRM was it just your opinion M/L cnge or was it your overall ranking that changed?
Mono in this case means one speaker heard on axis. They are not playing two speakers in mono.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think a bit of skepticism/questioning is out of order with regards to Harman’s test methods and results. Harman builds speakers that give excellent anechoic measurements. Harman trains listeners on what to listen for and Harman says that one trained listener is worth 7 untrained listeners (and professional reviewers are viewed by Harman as untrained listeners). The trained listeners get the sweet spot seats in every session and the unwashed masses fend for themselves. It sounds like between the sessions that people talk and compare notes which doesn’t sound right as it could influence the next round of testing.
Near as I can tell, Harman speakers win every shootout against the competition. I asked the question numerous times: “Does any non-Harman speaker ever win a shootout.” I never got an answer. The closest I came was when Amir said that one person picked a non-Harman speaker. If I read that correctly, that would be statistically insignificant and would mean that the Harman speaker still ‘won.’
In summary, Harman designs their speakers to measure and sound a certain way. Listeners are trained on what to listen for so they can pick out the obviously superior Harman designs. Listening tests are conducted in mono, but I didn’t read anywhere if the speaker is fed a L+R signal or a true mono signal. Harman speakers, Harman controlled testing, Harman trained listeners, and Harman speakers win every time. Hmm. It appears the deck is a little stacked is all I’m saying even though some people want to ascribe nothing but pure motives on Harman’s part.
Now here is a telling question: How many people on this forum personally own speakers that fall under the Harman brand? And if you have an old pair of pre-Harmon JBLs or any other brand they sucked up before they were actually built under Harman’s umbrella, they don’t count. Inquiring minds want to know the answer.
Near as I can tell, Harman speakers win every shootout against the competition. I asked the question numerous times: “Does any non-Harman speaker ever win a shootout.” I never got an answer. The closest I came was when Amir said that one person picked a non-Harman speaker. If I read that correctly, that would be statistically insignificant and would mean that the Harman speaker still ‘won.’
In summary, Harman designs their speakers to measure and sound a certain way. Listeners are trained on what to listen for so they can pick out the obviously superior Harman designs. Listening tests are conducted in mono, but I didn’t read anywhere if the speaker is fed a L+R signal or a true mono signal. Harman speakers, Harman controlled testing, Harman trained listeners, and Harman speakers win every time. Hmm. It appears the deck is a little stacked is all I’m saying even though some people want to ascribe nothing but pure motives on Harman’s part.
Now here is a telling question: How many people on this forum personally own speakers that fall under the Harman brand? And if you have an old pair of pre-Harmon JBLs or any other brand they sucked up before they were actually built under Harman’s umbrella, they don’t count. Inquiring minds want to know the answer.
Last edited:
Similar threads
