It’s All a Preference

[Robh3606]

In fact, the positional effects can be larger than the subjective differences between the loudspeakers themselves.

Hello microstrip

That's a surprise?? That's what proper placement is all about. The same speaker can sound awful if poorly placed. All the speakers under evauation are placed in the same spot during the evaluations. That really negates the effects in the referenced study

For me, the fantastic part of the work is taking all the data from 70 comprehensive measurements (having a resolution of 48 points per octave each, if I remember well) and reducing it to a reduced set of data (one parameter) that can be meaningful analyzed mathematically versus the preference parameter and validated. It is an huge work and it is why their papers are tens of pages long. Just reading the graphs and figure captions is not enough to appreciate their work.

Not as difficult as you think. If you look up LEAP Crossover shop you can have up to 200 measurements stored for each crossover. The program also does curve averaging. You can take any number of measurements and average them to get the curve. An example would be say the listening window +/- 20 degrees vertical and +/-30 degrees Horizontal. You would just select the appropriate measurements and use the average feature to get the curve. I have used it several times doing measurements on large speakers which are a real PITA to measure and it works great.

Attached are a couple of LEAP plots to show you what I mean. The first is the multiple measurements and the second is the ploted average against the predicted curve from the software.

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If I'm not mistaken the purpose was to find out what off axis FR behavior was preferred by the panel. The charts represent what the listeners were made to listen to.

Question: Did the panelist all do their evaluations from a set sweet spot?

You may be right. Given their (Toole and Olive) history of taking these kinds of measurements in Canada and the Canadian speaker industy's development of speakers with even off-axis response as a result, I assumed their objective was to correlate smooth, even on and off-axis measurements with preference, but it was an assumption.

The speakers are basically on a turntable behind a screen and the rotate to the playing position as the listener remains in a fixed positon. One speaker. Mono. Which is one of the objections noted here. I think it's probably a fine way to judge response to overall tonality (FR) but not a good way to evaluate imaging or sound stage. And in a stereo pair, I suspect the depth of Martin Logan's sound stage may have brought their preference scores up.

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

If anyone is interested

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20120509/5276.pdf

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20120509/5270.pdf

The Canadian based AES papers

More Here

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurComp...tions.aspx?CategoryID=Scientific Publications

Rob

 

[Soundminded]

Amir-

Firstly, I respect your contributions to the forum very much as a poster and as a moderator. This isn't a personal jibe.

However, in this thread you have specified that every other speaker you have had in store has not unseated the Revels and that you have participated in Harman studies that lead to listener preferences that make Revels sound better than others. Your other point is Harman has the money backing it to do superior analysis than other smaller speaker companies. You are unabashedly a fan of their techniques, studies, and methodology to the point of being "giddy" about it all.

The logical conclusion is that Revels are best and you are a dealer for them because of it. That comes across as a sales pitch to me.

I just think there is a conflict of interest for you in this thread, despite your efforts to be objective. If there are NRC studies that you can talk about, it would appear different. In some respect, you are an extension of Harman in this thread---and no speaker manufacturer would participate in such a thread other than to state or correct misrepresented facts.

I don't see it as a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell Amir has not in any way used his position as a moderator to argue to his advantage, all of his statements no matter for what reason reflect his position as just another contributor. The problem I have with his positions are A) I'm not sure why a popularity poll proves anything (more people bought Chevy Corvairs than Chevy Corvettes which does not make Corvair a better car) and B) I'm not convinced that the studies he's cited are valid science demonstrating a correlation between what Harman asserts is the reasons for the preference of the audiences they selected and why those preferences were really the way they turned out. Nor have their sales figures as far as I can tell begun to match the 32.2% of the market Acoustic Research had when it was the most popular speaker brand available. I've heard lots of JBL speakers in my life and I was unimpressed although none of them was the result of Floyd Toole's research AFAIK. I don't get around much to audio equipment stores anymore. From what I can tell many are doing a disappearing act anyway.

 

[microstrip]

Hello microstrip

That's a surprise?? That's what proper placement is all about. The same speaker can sound awful if poorly placed. All the speakers under evauation are placed in the same spot during the evaluations. That really negates the effects in the referenced study (...)

Not as difficult as you think. If you look up LEAP Crossover shop you can have up to 200 measurements stored for each crossover. The program also does curve averaging. You can take any number of measurements and average them to get the curve. An example would be say the listening window +/- 20 degrees vertical and +/-30 degrees Horizontal. You would just select the appropriate measurements and use the average feature to get the curve. I have used it several times doing measurements on large speakers which are a real PITA to measure and it works great.

Attached are a couple of LEAP plots to show you what I mean. The first is the multiple measurements and the second is the ploted average against the predicted curve from the software.

Rob

Rob,

Well, I find the opposite - I have owned too many speakers during the last five years and no two shared the same position or acoustical treatments in my room to sound the best. If you use the same spot for all you will never be using them at optimum position. Nice for development, but not good to evaluate the competition. May be I am wrong, but I could understand that in order to avoid bias due to listeners identifying speaker position all were positioned in the same absolute coordinates.

Are you comparing the LEAP averaging facilities with the Harman analysis software tools? As far as I know LEAP just averages , it has no weighting facilities.

 

[microstrip]

You may be right. Given their (Toole and Olive) history of taking these kinds of measurements in Canada and the Canadian speaker industy's development of speakers with even off-axis response as a result, I assumed their objective was to correlate smooth, even on and off-axis measurements with preference, but it was an assumption.

The speakers are basically on a turntable behind a screen and the rotate to the playing position as the listener remains in a fixed positon. One speaker. Mono. Which is one of the objections noted here. I think it's probably a fine way to judge response to overall tonality (FR) but not a good way to evaluate imaging or sound stage. And in a stereo pair, I suspect the depth of Martin Logan's sound stage may have brought their preference scores up.

Tim

Tim,

Two extra details. The preference was also affected by bass response. "The loudspeaker (M) has less bass output below 40 Hz than the other three loudspeakers" (quoted from the S. Olive paper) And the conclusion considers it "The loudspeakers with the flattest, smoothest, and most extended frequency responses received the highest ratings"

Since you referred to the B speaker before, can you imagine the wave of indignation in the US audiophile community if the speaker M was chosen to be a Magneplanar?

 

[Robh3606]

Are you comparing the LEAP averaging facilities with the Harman analysis software tools? As far as I know LEAP just averages , it has no weighting facilities.

What weighting are you talking about?? These are after all just anecholic measurements. The On Axis is self explanitory as is the Listening Widow and the Sound Power. The DI curves are calculated in the software. The only one that has me scrathing my head is the Early Reflection which appears to be some part or all of the measurements averaged without the On Axis and Listening Window which frankly is a quess on my part.

Maybe someone more in the know will pop in.


Rob

 

[microstrip]

What weighting are you talking about??
Rob

Rob,
To compute Soundpower each measurement should be weighted according to the solid angle it represents (or as Toole says - according to the portion of the spherical surface they represent). May be if we do not have measurement software with weighting capabilities we can define an weighted non linear grille, but some calculus is needed.

 

[Gregadd]

I said "straw poll." A more accurate term might be "focus group." A common tool in most industrys.

 

[Gregadd]

In general, we can outperform competitors based solely on the measurements made up to this point. However, this is where the real fun begins, where we can do blind-listening tests and aim to fine-tune the loudspeaker to perform as close as possible to the reference anchor loudspeaker. At this point, we compare the prototype to more expensive competitors to get a sense of where our performance lands relative to the (often much more expensive) competitive loudspeakers."

Amir post 216. Harmon does in fact use its science reserach as a sales tool.

They have a right to.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Amir post 216. Harmon does in fact use its science reserach as a sales tool.

They have a right to.

What is described in that quote from Amir is a research phase of product development, not marketing. Marketing, when it's good, is finding the competitve advantages of your product (or creating them), assessing their appeal to your target market and promoting them through focused, strategic public messaging -- ads, brochures, web sites, that sort of thing. When it's bad, which is quite often, it's all sorts of annoying crap we don't need to go into.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Rob,

Being blind does not mean bias free. All the conditions in which the tests were carried and the methodology of evaluation create a bias. Even the recordings that were used can create a bias.

There are no simple answers to the many questions raised in this thread. I am sure that Harman people though about them and tried to choose the best decisions for their purposes.

IMHO their scientists were much more interested in extracting one parameter from the 70 measurements that could be correlated with the preferences shown in the listening tests than in comparisons with the competition. This was the real challenge. Unhappily the marketing guys spoiled it all.

Yes indeed bias could develop from the test it self. Supose I created a focus group by reviewing the warranty cards of Revel , Soundlab,Martin Logan and Sanderssoundsystems. I choose for review stereo pairs the Revel previoulsyevaluated, Sounlab Dynastat II, Sanders 10c and ML Summit x. Prior to the test I had the group read the paper from Green Mountain that I submitted earlier. I then asked all the menbers of the focus group to state thier preferences. COulkd they be biased to the electrostats after listneing for awhile?

 

[Robh3606]

To compute Soundpower each measurement should be weighted according to the solid angle it represents (or as Toole says - according to the portion of the spherical surface they represent). May be if we do not have measurement software with weighting capabilities we can define an weighted non linear grille, but some calculus is needed.

OK

In this case there are 70 measurements each representing 10" of the Arc. Wouldn't they all have the same weighting??

Rob

 

[microstrip]

OK

In this case there are 72 measurements 36 in each axis each representing 10" of the Arc. Wouldn't they all have the same weighting??

Rob

As far as I can read in page 379 of the book "Sound reproduction" they have different weighting. But I do not have the time to go to to the original paper to understand exactly how it is done.

 

[Soundminded]

Amir post 216. Harmon does in fact use its science reserach as a sales tool.

They have a right to.

They can use whatever they like for advertising. They can claim theirs will be the first speaker on the moon if they want to. But is their science real science or "junk science." There are lots of ways to set up tests that will arrive at conclusions you wanted all along. And then there are inadvertent mistakes even objective scientist make. Peer review is only one method of checking the validity of a technical paper and it's often not very critical or effective. Independent verification by an expert uninvolved third party is another. Scientific theories only stand until they are successfully challenged.

The testimonial is another method for advertising. In XYZ magazine Reviewer Q said about this product: "It's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Put it on yourself and it will cure cancer." I don't see that many Revel/JBL/Harman speakers featuring prominently in recent rave reviews although I must admit I usually don't follow them or read them. Right now they seem to talk more about Wilson, MBL, YG, Gallo and other brands. Of course how could you trust that they aren't biased? The do take paid advertising by some of the manufacturers whose products they review. It must be something to own a $40,000+ speaker system that got rave reviews a few years ago only to read that the new version beats the pants off of it fixing all of the older version's shortcomings they hardly mentioned and all it will set you back is $60,000 +

"Although the XXXX 2's MTM-configured upper cabinet permitted some rotational adjustability, the drivers it contained moved only as one, making ideal Propagation Delay impossible. TheXXXX 3's introduction of Aspherical Group Delay splits the higher-frequency array: the tweeter and one midrange are in the lower cabinet, the second midrange in the smaller, upper box. Both cabinets can be shifted fore or aft, and independently tilted while maintaining rigidity via an ingenious and complex set of interchangeable spikes, grooved and dimpled channels, locking clamps, and a sliding, stepped aluminum wedge—not quite as good as the [TOTL] three independently movable drivers, but more adjustability than with the XXXX 2. (Seems that for twice the price you get another swivel. But then what do you want for a less than $70,000?) For other brands it's about the same.

 

[Gregadd]

Here's a larger version with an explanation so we all don't have too look back

Rob

We do need to pay careful attention to graphs as we can manipulate them like suqeezing an accordian in and out. Squeeze it together and we can make them appear like a compilation of peaks and jagged edges. Pull it out and it appears smooth and flat!
As Roger would say , The term "wide sweet spot is an oxymoron". Whatever altruism we may feel for our fellow audiophiles sitting on the couch with us,notwithstanding. I have sat bobsled style listenig to the Wilson Alexandria and the Sandersoundsytem 10c. Consider this:





As Roger would say , The term "wide sweet spot is an oxymoron". Whatever altruism we may feel for our fellow audiophiles sitting on the couch with us, I have sat bobsled style listenig to the Wilson Alexandria and the Sandersoundsytem 10c. Consider this:

Here is where the physics get very interesting. I eventually came to understand that there are three serious problems caused by wide-dispersion in speakers. These are poor frequency response, poor transient response, and poor imaging.

Let's look at each of these issues in detail. For examples in this discussion, I will refer to two, imaginary speaker systems. For simplicity and to eliminate confusion, we will assume that both speaker systems are perfect in every way. The only difference between them is that one will have wide dispersion and one will have narrow dispersion.

Now let's examine what happens to frequency response in both of these speakers. We will hear the sound from the narrow dispersion speaker being beamed directly to us at the sweet spot. Therefore the frequency response from the narrow dispersion speaker will sound perfect (because we defined the speakers as perfect in every way).

But the vast majority of the sound from the wide-dispersion speaker will be sprayed all over the room rather than being beamed directly to our listening location. We will therefore hear most of the sound from this speaker after it has bounced off various surfaces in the room and is eventually reflected to us at the sweet spot.

Because the reflected sounds have to travel a greater distance to reach us than the direct sound from the speaker, the reflected sounds will be delayed by the speed of sound. Another way to say this is that reflected sound will be out-of-phase with the direct sound. The phase-angle will be determined by the amount of time delay between the reflected sound and the wave length of the particular frequency of interest.

For simplicity, let's examine just one of these reflections and how it interacts with the direct sound from the speaker. Let's assume that the magnitude of both the direct and reflected sound is the same (in real life, the magnitudes can vary all over the map).

If a 1 KHz tone arrives directly from the speaker at 80 dB, it will mix with the reflected sound (at 80 dB) at some phase angle depending on how much the reflected sound was delayed. Let's assume that this particular wave arrives 180 degrees out-of-phase. If so, the reflected sound would completely cancel the direct sound and you would hear nothing.

If the reflected sound arrived 90 degrees out-of-phase, it would reduce the direct sound by 50%. If it arrived 360 degrees out-of-phase, it would increase the sound by 100%, etc.

As you move up and down the frequency range, this particular delayed reflection would interact with each frequency differently (because the wave lengths are different so the phase angle would be different for each frequency). The result is that you would hear (and measure) the speaker's frequency response as consisting of severe, alternating peaks and troughs that look like the teeth of a comb -- hence we call such frequency response a "comb filter."

Now a comb filter sounds perfectly awful. Conventional, wide-dispersion speakers would be unlistenable if it weren't for the fact that there are thousands of delayed reflections in a room, and they are all random. As a result, there are thousands of comb filters formed and to a considerable degree, they can average themselves out so that the frequency response from a wide dispersion speaker is tolerable.

But this problem assures that the frequency response will never be perfect in a wide dispersion speaker. It is often necessary to move the speaker around to get satisfactory response, which is why speaker placement is so important.

The very short and intense reflected sounds from walls directly beside the speaker are particularly troublesome as they tend to dominate the sound. Hence, smart audiophiles have discovered the trick of using sound-absorbing "room treatment" near the sides of wide dispersion speakers to help achieve reasonable frequency response.

You can now see how the frequency response of a speaker is seriously degraded by room acoustics. This background information will make it obvious why transient response is degraded by room reflections as well.

For simplicity, let's examine a single, sharp transient (like a rimshot from a drum). The transient coming from the narrow dispersion speaker will be perfect (because we said the speaker was perfect). But what happens to the transient from the wide-dispersion speaker?

Once again, most of the transient sound is blasted all over the room where it bounces off various surfaces and eventually arrives at the sweet spot after being delayed by various amounts depending on the distances each reflection has to travel. So instead of hearing one, crisp transient, you will hear "popcorn." Like a pan of popcorn popping, we will hear a whole bunch of identical transient sounds separated by very short intervals.

These delayed transient sound are actually echoes. But the typical listening room is too small for the delayed sounds to be separated by a sufficient period of time for our brains to recognize them as distinct echoes.

It is a fact that the delayed sounds are distinct. We can see that on an oscilloscope. But we don't hear them that way -- as a multitude of distinct transients. We hear them as one sound.

Our brains have learned to understand that having a bunch of rimshots close together means that there was only one rimshot with room acoustics following it. So our brains do one of their psychoacoustic tricks and sweep all the delayed sounds together to form one rimshot.

But there is a "catch." And that is that the transient time of the rimshot now includes all the delayed sounds following it. This extends the transient time we perceive with the result that the transients are now "smeared."

If you doubt this, just think of the last time you heard headphones. I'm sure you will agree that the transients you hear in headphones are crisper and cleaner than what you hear from wide-dispersion speakers. This isn't because headphone drivers are so good (actually most are pretty bad), it's simply because there are no room acoustics in headphones to mess up the sound.

Now let's look at imaging. A holographic image will be 3-dimensional. It will not only have left/right information, but it will have depth.

Left/right position in the image is determined by loudness differences between the two channels. But depth is defined by timing information (phase).

The reason you hear the violins in a symphony orchestra to be in front of the brass is because their sounds reach your ears slightly sooner than the sounds from the trumpets and trombones. This phase information has to be preserved in the recording and then reproduced accurately by the speakers for you to get depth in the image.

By now, you probably know what I am going to say. The sound from the narrow dispersion speaker will supply proper phase information to your ears. The sound from the wide dispersion speakers will be blasted all over the room and the delayed sounds will completely confuse the phase information. As a result, the sound from wide dispersion speakers (and omni speakers are the worst) will have very diffuse and ill-defined imaging.

In summary, the frequency response, transient response, and imaging of a loudspeaker is ruined by room acoustics. So to achieve outstanding performance, a loudspeaker must eliminate room acoustics as much as possible.

My curved electrostatic panel failed to eliminate room acoustics. I found that a planar panel was far superior because it beams the sound directly to you and eliminates the room acoustics. So I abandoned the curved panel. Once you hear highly directional panels, you will immediately understand.

Many audiophiles believe that a good speaker should have a wide sweet spot. But this is a physical oxymoron.

The laws of physics dictate that all stereo speakers will have an infinitely small sweet spot, regardless of their high frequency dispersion. That spot is when you are exactly equidistant from both speakers. Only when you are equidistant from the speakers can the phase information arrive at your ears simultaneously from both speakers. Obviously, there is no hope of imaging well if the sounds from both speakers do not arrive at the same time as the phasing will be destroyed.

For a speaker to have a wide sweet spot simply means that the phase information from the room is confusing the sound so badly that you can't even tell when you are in the sweet spot and when you aren't. A wide sweet spot is a guarantee that a speaker has poor imaging and transient response.

I don't compromise. I want narrow dispersion in my speakers to minimize room acoustics so that I can get the best possible sound.

"Beaming" is not a fault. It is a huge advantage. It is the only way to achieve truly high performance in a loudspeaker.

Audiophiles sometimes say that narrow dispersion speakers require you to have your head in a vise. This is nonsense. You just sit in your listening chair and listen as you would to any speaker.

And what about the off-axis performance of a narrow dispersion speaker? Well, they sound just like wide dispersion speakers when you are off-axis.

That is to say that when you are off-axis, you hear the room acoustics, not the speaker. So my speakers sound just fine off-axis for casual listening. Of course, the image is diffuse and of poor quality, just like a wide dispersion speaker when you are off-axis. So for serious listening, you need to be at the sweet spot. This is true for all speakers.

As an aside, it is best to NOT absorb the rear wave from my speakers. Let it help energize the room for off-axis listening. That way the highs will be preserved off-axis.

Finally, the question arises, "Why doesn't the reflected sound from the dipole beams mess up the phase just like in a wide dispersion speaker?" The answer is that the reflections from a dipole radiator are only one rather than thousands.

Also this beam has to bounce off many surfaces before it finally reaches the sweet spot. In so doing, it is greatly delayed and attenuated. It arrives at the sweet spot so late and attenuated that our brains simply ignore it.

Of course, directionality only applies to midrange and high frequencies. Bass is omnidirectional in all speakers due to the long wave lengths involved. So bass room resonances still need to be addressed.

There is one perilous pitfall you need to be aware of with regards to delayed reflections in all speakers, even narrow dispersion speakers. This involves sitting close to a wall directly behind you, which is very bad.

Typically this occurs if a couch is used for a listening chair. Most of the time a couch is pushed up against a wall. If you sit in it, your ears are only a few inches from a wall that is perpendicular to your head. As the sound beam from a planar speaker arrives at your ears, some of it passes by your head, bounces off the wall, and returns to your ears after a very short delay.

This one reflection is very powerful. It is almost as intense as the direct beam and it will seriously mess up the frequency response and transient response of the sound.

To avoid this problem, ideally you should sit in a chair out in the room away from the wall. Even better would be to have the system on a diagonal so that the wall behind you is angled and reflects the rear reflection away from you instead of back at you. Diagonal room placement is also best for controlling the bass resonances from a speaker.

If your room decor makes this impractical, then there are several options you have. First, you can put sound absorbing material on the wall behind your head. The could be a simple as a very soft pillow that you set on the back of the couch so that it is behind your ears. This is not as effective as I would like because it will only absorb high frequencies. The midrange will still have a reflection.

Probably the best compromise is to have a movable listening chair. When not being used, the chair can be placed in the room wherever it pleases your wife. When you want to listen seriously to music, you move the chair out into the room where you have identified the sweet spot (usually with tiny pieces of tape on the floor). Then the sound can be spectacular. < Prev Next >

 

[rbbert]

Actually Revel Salon 2's in particular have garnered rave after rave, with reviewers from both Stereophile and TAS (at least) saying they would be happy to make them the last speakers they own.

 

[Gregadd]

What is described in that quote from Amir is a research phase of product development, not marketing. Marketing, when it's good, is finding the competitve advantages of your product (or creating them), assessing their appeal to your target market and promoting them through focused, strategic public messaging -- ads, brochures, web sites, that sort of thing. When it's bad, which is quite often, it's all sorts of annoying crap we don't need to go into.

Tim

Semaaantics is fun.

Revel speakers are at the pinnacle of sound reproduction. Their extremely low distortion provides a superbly enjoyable musical experience. Designed using objective double-blind studies, and with components manufactured in house, they perform as beautifully in your home as they do in our showroom. We usually have a number of Revel speakers on display including the superlative Salon 2, and the small but incredible M22 bookshelf.

Emphasis added

 

[amirm]

Rob,

I am not alone. See the abstract of this Sean Olive article. Would love to read it, but it is not accessible for free.


The Effects of Loudspeaker Placement on Listener Preference Ratings

Through the use of an acoustically adjustable listening room and a binaural recording and reproduction system, live and binaural subjective evaluations were made of different loudspeakers placed in different room locations. The experimental results from both tests show that listener preference ratings for different loudspeakers are significantly influenced by the loudspeaker location within the room. In fact, the positional effects can be larger than the subjective differences between the loudspeakers themselves. The binaural evaluations indicate that listener preferences are influenced significantly by interactions between the loudspeaker, its location, and the type of program material auditioned. These secondary effects were less significant in the live tests, suggesting that traditional real-time listening tests may be inadequate for measuring or controlling these effects.

Authors: Olive, Sean E.; Schuck, Peter L.; Sally, Sharon L.; Bonneville, Marc E.
Affiliations: Institute for Microstructural Sciences, National Research Council, Ottawa, Ont., Canada ; Canadian Audio Research Consortium, Scarborough, Ont., Canada(See document for exact affiliation information.)
JAES Volume 42 Issue 9 pp. 651-669; September 1994

I am not saying that the Harman people did not think about it , but I would like evidence that each speaker position was optimized.

I have access to the paper so if there is something you want me to look up, I can. For now, here is a graph related to the topic at hand, showing that preference for speakers is position dependent. But based on this test, it does not serve to reverse the order of preference in "live" tests. The top graph would be what you would be experiencing either in Harman tests or the ones you would do:

 

[Soundminded]

Look at graph No. 6. Does that look like wide dispersion to you? To me it looks like at 60 degrees off axis at 15 khz it's down 24 db where the AR tweeter is down 5 db.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/revel-ultima-salon2-loudspeaker-measurements

"The Salon2's horizontal dispersion is shown in fig.6. The loudspeaker's behavior is almost textbook perfect, with smooth, even off-axis behavior up to 8.5kHz or so, the frequency where the tweeter's waveguide begins to restrict its off-axis output. Due to this increasing directivity in the top audio octave, the Salon2 might sound a bit airless in large or overdamped rooms"

What do you want for $22,000, perfection all the way up to 20Khz?

"The Salon2's midrange and treble showed the greatest differences in direct comparisons with the Salon1. The Salon2 had less emphasis in the presence region, but the pair of them didn't produce as much air and soundstage depth, perhaps due to the removal of the Salon1's rear tweeter. However, the Salon2's midrange and treble showed greater top-to-bottom transparency than the original Salon. While the Salon1 continued to impress with its bass power, speed, and rear-tweeter ambience and air, the Salon2 seemed to be more relaxed and more neutral, with greater overall transparency. Both had deep bass to spare, but the Salon2's response in this region seemed more effortless and smooth, with even less dynamic compression than the Salon1."

Funny, I don't recall ever reading anything about dynamic compression in the bass of Salon 1? And it's stil there but to a lesser degree in Salon 2?

Well Larry Greenhill liked it. He said it was the best speaker he ever had in his listening room....until something like a Salon 3 comes out. C'mon Mr. Voecks, let's get crackin'. This is four years old. What have you doen for us lately?