Objectivists, Harman Testing, Reviewers, and Reality

[amirm]

http://www.herronaudio.com/images/Measurements.pdf

Thank you Myles. That is a good read and nice format to let each industry person speak their point of view on the relevance of measurements. Out of all of those though, I only counted two people who commented on loudspeaker measurements. For now, let me discuss one of them whose work I know,Siegfried Linkwitz, from his AES paper, Room Reflections Misunderstood? It is a great easy to read paper that I hope membership seeks out and reads. Let's see what he says in your article first:

"Siegfried Linkwitz, VP, R&D,
Audio Artistry

I would have to say that measurement of
the speaker's frequency response is the
technical measurement that comes closest
to predicting the sound of a loudspeaker. If
you see a graph of a 20 to 20,000 kHz ±2 dB
on-axis, anechoic response you can be fairly
sure that the speaker has a smooth
sound characteristic.

However, this information
alone does not necessarily imply
that the sound is neutral. transparent and
dynamic, and that it would dis play those
characteristics in your room.
First of all, it takes more than the anechoic
on-axis response to describe t he
sound you hear. When you listen in a room,
your ears not only receive the on-axis sound
but also, with a slight delay, the sound that
has bounced around in your room and been
modified by it. Thus, the anechoic response
must also be measured at angles up to at
least ±60 degrees horizontally and ± 15
degrees vertically off-axis, in order to assess
the contribution of sound radiation in these
directions to the overall sound, when the
speaker is placed in a room.

Simply averaging the different anechoic responses over a
"listening window" or normalizing them to
the on-axis response is not as relevant a
description as is plotting the actual frequency
response curves at different angles on the
same graph.

The other half of the equation, which is
also related to a speaker's frequency
response. is its phase response.
[...]
However. I am not
convinced that the typical amounts of
phase shift due to crossovers that are
observed in these higher frequency regions
have audible effects. On the other hand, I
am convinced that phase shift is very
important at the low frequency end of the
spectrum."

You can read the rest of his write up in the article but it doesn't change the summary of it exposed above. That is, he is 100% in agreement with Dr. Toole's research that it is both on-axis and off-axis frequency response measurements that are great predictors of loudspeaker sound. As I mentioned, the research/Harman's measurements are for the entire hemisphere around the loudspeaker, and predictions are made by weighted combination of each class of reflections. Sound bouncing from behind the loudspeaker for example, has less impact on its sound than on-axis. Or first side reflection. I have also left the part about phase in there which above bass frequencies, it is not an audible concern (agrees with research from Vanderkooy).

For confirmation of how well he is aligned with Dr. Toole's research, let's look at what he says in the AES paper I referenced earlier:

"Furthermore,
it had been found that loudspeakers with wide
horizontal dispersion were preferred in listening tests
[4]. What is known scientifically about loudspeakers
and rooms for sound reproduction has been reviewed
by F. E. Toole [11]."

Notice how he completely differs to work of Dr. Toole with nary of an objection. The reference is: "[11] Floyd E. Toole, “Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction – A Scientific Review”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 54, pp. 451-476 (2006 June)"

Here is another point of agreement:

"For example, the
author and others had observed that wide horizontal
dispersion in the high frequency range of a
loudspeaker is subjectively desirable and increases
fidelity [4]."

And the reference: "[4] F. E. Toole, “Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 34, part 1, pp. 227-235 (1986 April); part 2, pp. 323-348 (1986 May)"

As I said, while this research may seem new to members here, it is accepted as foundation of acoustic and sound reproduction science by many researchers and designers. So it is no wonder that a reference that you pick Myles as a counterpoint to mine, happens to be completely supportive of the research I have been sharing. Yes, Linkwitz says he listens to loudspeakers too to find problems . Nothing different has been said. We still listen. But measurements of loudspeakers when made according to a system that takes into account how it acts in a room and our perception, is a strong predictor of our preferences.

 

[amirm]

I guess nothing is wrong with test except you ignore any set-up instructions by the various manufacturers and potential amplifier/speaker interaction problems.

Give me examples of those problems and back up to them please.

Never have I read that I can just plop them down anywhere and they will perform optimally.

That is true. But is also a reason to dismiss subjective comparisons of loudspeakers that are placed in different rooms and in different locations. When was the last time you dismissed a review based on where someone placed a loudspeaker?

Harman's testing actually takes this into account by making sure all loudspeakers are always tested in the same location. You can argue that this may not be the optimal position for all loudspeakers, but you can't argue that your own testing is better. Subjective tests completely ignore this criteria. I mean what representation can you make that any subjective reviewer has placed the loudspeaker in the optimal position? How do you know the optimal position anyway?

This statement: "In this way, any
audible differences among the loudspeaker tests are
directly attributable to the loudspeakers and not from
positional differences." is absurd.

Not at all. They are saying by keeping the positions the same, unlike what you all do in testing loudspeakers, they are making sure the location is not a variable. What is perceived is the sound of every loudspeaker in the exact same location. It does not say that all loudspeakers sound the same in every location. That would be absurd.

Ultimately, whether it is in research or in your subjective reviews, we cannot remotely test every possible location of a loudspeaker. What we can do, is to create a reasonable scenario, and then keep that variable constant. A great loudspeaker will have resilient performance in different locations. A not so great loudspeaker, will not.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Amplifiers that require a very narrow set of speaker designs to sound good...speakers that require very specific room placement to sound good...it all sounds like weak design to me. I always find myself a bit shocked that it is accepted at all, much less at premium prices.

And there are a couple of people here (not you, Amir) who really should stop referring to Linkwitz and Toole in their arguments. They don't seem to understand the positions those men represent.

Tim

 

[still-one]

Give me examples of those problems and back up to them please.


That is true. But is also a reason to dismiss subjective comparisons of loudspeakers that are placed in different rooms and in different locations. When was the last time you dismissed a review based on where someone placed a loudspeaker?

Harman's testing actually takes this into account by making sure all loudspeakers are always tested in the same location. You can argue that this may not be the optimal position for all loudspeakers, but you can't argue that your own testing is better. Subjective tests completely ignore this criteria. I mean what representation can you make that any subjective reviewer has placed the loudspeaker in the optimal position? How do you know the optimal position anyway?


Not at all. They are saying by keeping the positions the same, unlike what you all do in testing loudspeakers, they are making sure the location is not a variable. What is perceived is the sound of every loudspeaker in the exact same location. It does not say that all loudspeakers sound the same in every location. That would be absurd.

Ultimately, whether it is in research or in your subjective reviews, we cannot remotely test every possible location of a loudspeaker. What we can do, is to create a reasonable scenario, and then keep that variable constant. A great loudspeaker will have resilient performance in different locations. A not so great loudspeaker, will not.

I no longer own my MBL's nor do I have the manuals. In both instances you were given ratios for placement in relation to back wall, side walls, listening position. You were also suggested to have diffusion objects (i.e. artificial trees) between the speakers and the room corners. I am sure other speakers besides Wilson Duette's and Sabrina work better with boundary reinforcement so placing one of these in the middle of a room is probably limiting their capabilities.

You indicate Harman believes that by keeping the speaker position constant they are removing a variable. Anyone who has tried their speakers in different positions knows what a difference position makes. (My MBL's ended up on the long wall whereas all of my other speakers were positioned on the short wall.) I also may have missed in the tsunami of posts on this topic how the variable of power was handled. Mosts speakers need x power to sound their best. If I listen to mine at ~68dB they can sound very flat. They come alive in the mid 70's. Is that another fixed "variable"?

There are many reasons one could dismiss a review. Since I do not use reviews for purchasing decisions it is a moot point.

Of course my testing is better. I place them in my room. If pair A sounds better than pair B, A will stay. If not they go. The only speakers that I did not use this method was the X2's. That was a leap of faith by assuming I could get similar results to what I had heard from X2' and XLF's in similar rooms. They were just too big to order, unpack and audition.

Depending upon how you qualify your last point I probably agree. Even a great speaker will not sound good in the wrong room, or with the wrong amplification.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I use reviews to a large degree , since most of the hifi equipment is scathered around at various dealers/importers , and some times very good brands are not even represented here , most dealers claim their products are the best anyway ,so nothing new,to me soundstage seems like a fair review magazine together with stereophile
Regarding speakerpurchases , the real good speakers i would want are not in my hifi budget (Q 7 top of the line wilson, kharma .....) and i certainly aint gonna sell a house for a speaker , so there is another option which is not in the list , design and make something yourself (or have it made )
I off course surely read measurements and if there are serious design flaws /anomalies i wont buy the product, smart /decent design and soundquality go hand in hand often

 

[amirm]

I no longer own my MBL's nor do I have the manuals. In both instances you were given ratios for placement in relation to back wall, side walls, listening position. You were also suggested to have diffusion objects (i.e. artificial trees) between the speakers and the room corners. I am sure other speakers besides Wilson Duette's and Sabrina work better with boundary reinforcement so placing one of these in the middle of a room is probably limiting their capabilities.

MBLs are odd/unique designs and not representative of large class of loudspeakers. That aside, I still ask: what makes those instructions optimal location for the loudspeaker? Yes, the manufacturer said it. But where is the data to back it?

Many of such instructions by the way assume acoustic dimensions are the same as physical dimensions. That does not hold in reality. Walls are not immovable objects. Flexibility and construction differences mean that the dimensions that you see, are not the dimensions that sound waves see.

You indicate Harman believes that by keeping the speaker position constant they are removing a variable. Anyone who has tried their speakers in different positions knows what a difference position makes.

These two statements are orthogonal to each other. I have explained it a few times but it keeps getting raised. I explained very clearly that neither I, nor the research says anything different than your second sentence. Physical locations absolutely make a difference and the reason subjective tests which never attempt to equalize this aspect, produce faulty results. The research fixes this problem by making sure all loudspeakers are presented to the listener in the exact same location. That means the difference you hear is only due to loudspeaker changing, not the combination of loudspeaker+location changing as is the case in subjective ad-hoc testing. This is why it is "removing a variable."

(My MBL's ended up on the long wall whereas all of my other speakers were positioned on the short wall.)

Again, MBL is an odd design and I am not going to say how it should or should not be positioned in the room. What I will say is that they too have an iconic design and I like to see its sound evaluated blindly so that users are not thrown off by it.

I also may have missed in the tsunami of posts on this topic how the variable of power was handled. Mosts speakers need x power to sound their best. If I listen to mine at ~68dB they can sound very flat. They come alive in the mid 70's. Is that another fixed "variable"?

The listening level generally follow ITU BS1116 recommendation (85 - 10 * log(number of channels)). For the study I have been sharing as of late, it was 78 dB SPL (B-weighted, slow). In my testing, I would say it was slightly higher than average level from where I was sitting. I am not aware of most speakers requiring certain level to sound good relative to another loudspeaker.

Of course my testing is better. I place them in my room. If pair A sounds better than pair B, A will stay. If not they go.

Do that testing without looking at them, and quickly switch from one to the other (4 seconds and less) and you will have Harman's test . Do it sighted, swap one for the other and listen after minutes or hours, and your results become untrustworthy. Your decision to keep one or the other notwithstanding .

 

[amirm]

so there is another option which is not in the list , design and make something yourself (or haver it made )
I off course surely read measurements and if there are serious design flaws /anomalies i wont buy the product, smart /decent design and soundquality go hand in hand often

This is something I have not ventured in. How about creating a thread and walking us through the process of a DIY loudspeaker design? What tools people use, good sources of drivers, components, etc, cabinet choices, measurements, etc. How about it?

 

[andromedaaudio]

That would be to easy , ive said/ explained enough in my system thread already , I should have added it might be profitable when making a large design , for anything else i suggest buy a magico V 3 or S 5 or one of the smaller Wilsons or middle range of Dynaudio is good stuff etc etc , or else the project is gonna cost more then buying them new over time

 

[microstrip]

Facts on a lot of agreement

(...) Yes, Linkwitz says he listens to loudspeakers too to find problems . Nothing different has been said. We still listen. But measurements of loudspeakers when made according to a system that takes into account how it acts in a room and our perception, is a strong predictor of our preferences.

Linkwitz also says in his site (Keynote Address by Siegfried Linkwitz at ALMA International Winter Symposium, 2014 :

The JBL M2 exemplifies the work of Floyd Toole about loudspeakers and rooms. It has wide and controlled dispersion, low non-linear distortion and high dynamics. But it is also ported like the Genelec.
These monitors are designed for work in rooms with dead acoustics, not what we typically have in the home. These monitors are analytical tools for making recording decisions and not used for music enjoyment at home with its wide range of room acoustics.
It is certainly possible for experienced recording engineers to make excellent recordings using these types of monitors.

Linkwitz concerning stereo current status:

+++ There is room for improvement!

+ The potential in the realism of stereo sound has not been reached

Linkwitz On F. Toole book "Sound Reproduction"

SOUND REPRODUCTION - Loudspeakers and Rooms
Floyd E. Toole, Focal Press, 2008

(...) It deals with the reproduction of sound - which existed in a space - inside another space. My only regret is that the potential of 2-channel playback in doing so has not been fully explored and misrepresented. This is understandable because the conventional box loudspeaker with its frequency dependent directivity index has been used for almost all of the observations that are discussed. In fact, the particular interaction of a box loudspeaker with the listening room makes it more difficult for our ear/brain perceptual apparatus to hear the recording venue's space and acoustics, provided that such information has been captured in the recording process. Floyd focuses on multiple loudspeaker surround sound. He considers this approach to spatial sound reproduction as much more rewarding and he provides extensive practical information for that. (...)

BTW, F. Toole on dipoles ("Sound Reproduction"):

When viewed from the perspective of what a surround loudspeaker is intended
to do, the dipole con?guration falls short. In terms of generating envelopment,
the signi?cant sounds arrive at the listener from ineffective directions: the front
and rear walls (see Figure 8.6). In terms of delivering strong, high-quality, direct
sounds to all listeners for purposes of localizing sound effects, the dipole attenu-
ates the very sounds that are needed to initiate the precedence effect. In terms
of sound quality, the inconsistent destructive and constructive acoustical inter-
ference in the direction of listeners is not amenable to delivering high sound
quality, and the directivity is very inconsistent with frequency (see Figure 18.20).
It is time to move on to other designs

Siegfried Linkwitz prefers and designs dipole speakers. As he writes about his best design Sound as close to Live - as the Recording provides!
(figures taken from his page on the LX521)

They really agree ...

 

[amirm]

BTW, F. Toole on dipoles ("Sound Reproduction"):

When viewed from the perspective of what a surround loudspeaker is intended
to do, the dipole con?guration falls short. In terms of generating envelopment,
the signi?cant sounds arrive at the listener from ineffective directions: the front
and rear walls (see Figure 8.6). In terms of delivering strong, high-quality, direct
sounds to all listeners for purposes of localizing sound effects, the dipole attenu-
ates the very sounds that are needed to initiate the precedence effect. In terms
of sound quality, the inconsistent destructive and constructive acoustical inter-
ference in the direction of listeners is not amenable to delivering high sound
quality, and the directivity is very inconsistent with frequency (see Figure 18.20).
It is time to move on to other designs

Siegfried Linkwitz prefers and designs dipole speakers. As he writes about his best design Sound as close to Live - as the Recording provides!
(figures taken from his page on the LX521)

You are comparing apples and oranges. I have highlighted the key point above. Dr. Toole is speaking in the context of surround loudspeakers which have their worst response in the angle you hear them, i.e. in between the two opposing radiators which are parallel to walls like this example:

That would be like listening to the LX521 sideways where the drivers fire left and right. Pretty sure Linkwitz doesn't advocate their use that way.

I have heard Dr. Toole lament at length about what is wrong with dipoles but it has always been in the context of home theater and surround sound applications where he correctly recommends bipoles. I do not recall his views about the design in front firing configuration. What you quote certainly is not it.

They really agree ...

They do if you don't look for agreement on every period and comma. This is from his home page: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/links.htm (emphasis mine)

"Links

A listing of sites and pointers to references which are of some particular interest to electro-acoustic loudspeaker design, to sound reproduction in small spaces and to listening enjoyment. It also refers to recording, music, amplifiers and other subjects of interest to me. The links are ordered chronologically from oldest to most recent on top, the way I posted them.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Floyd Toole, retired from heading R&D of the Harman Group, continues to educate about loudspeakers in rooms. Here is a recent lecture at CIRMMT on YouTube. As always he gives a lucent presentation, arguing for a flat on-axis frequency response, non-resonant behavior and a smoothly controlled directivity index, e.g. JBL M2.

According to my observations/conclusions he does not go far enough towards constant directivity and only talks about box speakers, which always start out as omnis at low frequencies and have associated room resonance issues."


Here is the presentation he mentions which we recently discussed here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17673-April-2015-Toole-video-on-sound-reproduction

Pretty hard to paint a picture of opposing views which I suspect was the reason Myles put his opinion forward when the man puts Dr. Toole's work and latest presentation as the first link in his home page.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It may be true that there are no dumb questions, but clearly there are some seriously misinformed answers. Amir, my friend, you need to be speaking truth to power instead of to the stone deaf.

Tim

 

[amirm]

Linkwitz also says in his site (Keynote Address by Siegfried Linkwitz at ALMA International Winter Symposium, 2014 :

The JBL M2 exemplifies the work of Floyd Toole about loudspeakers and rooms. It has wide and controlled dispersion, low non-linear distortion and high dynamics. But it is also ported like the Genelec.
These monitors are designed for work in rooms with dead acoustics, not what we typically have in the home. These monitors are analytical tools for making recording decisions and not used for music enjoyment at home with its wide range of room acoustics.
It is certainly possible for experienced recording engineers to make excellent recordings using these types of monitors.

OK, with an enjoyable smoked rack of ribs for dinner out of the way , please allow me to address this part now. The presentation transcript is here by the way: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ALMA'14/Sound_quality.htm

"Open reel and cassette tape are gone, but vinyl is hanging on though it is very limiting for producing highest quality playback. Digital disc formats and digital streaming of high-definition content should by all rights become quality standards."

Not a good reference to protect one's position in the high-end . He goes to show this slide:

You say the man disagrees with Dr. Toole and yet he puts up a picture of Dr. Toole's book this way? I don't think so. "Much has been investigated and understood." Unfortunately not in audio forums but as I keep saying, the people in the industry absolutely believe that. Note also the reference to AES.

Linkwitz concerning stereo current status:

+++ There is room for improvement!

+ The potential in the realism of stereo sound has not been reached

Yes, he believes in highly diffused sound fields. I can see why he goes there, but don't agree that this fixes stereo. A system which presents the signer with the wrong frequency response in the phantom center, is too broken to be saved by a wide soundfield. This is the point that Dr. Toole makes about what is broken about stereo. What Linkwitz is saying is not to address that but to say we don't need multi-channel because people don't know how to do multi-channel recordings. That I agree with it. But from technical point of view, that doesn't make Dr. Toole wrong.

BTW, ALMA where Linkwitz was giving this keynote, bestowed the "Beryllium Driver Award for Lifetime Achievement" in 2011 to Dr. Toole.

Linkwitz On F. Toole book "Sound Reproduction"

SOUND REPRODUCTION - Loudspeakers and Rooms
Floyd E. Toole, Focal Press, 2008

(...) It deals with the reproduction of sound - which existed in a space - inside another space. My only regret is that the potential of 2-channel playback in doing so has not been fully explored and misrepresented. This is understandable because the conventional box loudspeaker with its frequency dependent directivity index has been used for almost all of the observations that are discussed. In fact, the particular interaction of a box loudspeaker with the listening room makes it more difficult for our ear/brain perceptual apparatus to hear the recording venue's space and acoustics, provided that such information has been captured in the recording process. Floyd focuses on multiple loudspeaker surround sound. He considers this approach to spatial sound reproduction as much more rewarding and he provides extensive practical information for that. (...)

Let's quote the full review: http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprodu...F8&qid=1435453369&sr=8-1&keywords=toole+floyd

A long overdue summary [5 stars]
By Siegfried Linkwitz on August 5, 2008
Format: Paperback
In this book Floyd Toole summarizes and explains conclusions from a lifelong involvement with audio. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in factual information about loudspeakers and listening rooms, about measurements, listening observations and their practical implications. It is lucidly written in easy to understand language, extensively illustrated and referenced. It deals with the reproduction of sound - which existed in a space - inside another space. My only regret is that the potential of 2-channel playback in doing so has not been fully explored. This is understandable because the conventional box loudspeaker with its frequency dependent directivity index has been used for almost all of the observations that are discussed. In fact, the particular interaction of a box loudspeaker with the listening room makes it more difficult for our ear/brain perceptual apparatus to hear the recording venue's space and acoustics, provided that such information has been captured in the recording process. Floyd focuses on multiple loudspeaker surround sound. He considers this approach to spatial sound reproduction as much more rewarding and he provides extensive practical information for that. The book is very comprehensive and in my opinion a "must-read" for loudspeaker designers, recording and mastering engineers, room-acoustic consultants, audio reviewers and audiophiles. The book is about theory and praxis. It debunks much of the BS that seems to have permeated the audio industry and many of its customers.
Enjoy!

Very different picture than what you quoted micro. The bit in the middle is really Linkwitz' personal research direction into diffused sound fields and really has little to do with the central message. The central message is what I have highlighted at the end. He could not express more respect for Dr. Toole, the book and debunking the "BS" that gets "permeated in the audio industry." Exactly what I am trying to do here.

 

[microstrip]

You are comparing apples and oranges. I have highlighted the key point above. Dr. Toole is speaking in the context of surround loudspeakers which have their worst response in the angle you hear them, i.e. in between the two opposing radiators which are parallel to walls like this example:

(...)

According to my observations/conclusions he does not go far enough towards constant directivity and only talks about box speakers, which always start out as omnis at low frequencies and have associated room resonance issues."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/COLOR]

Here is the presentation he mentions which we recently discussed here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17673-April-2015-Toole-video-on-sound-reproduction

Pretty hard to paint a picture of opposing views which I suspect was the reason Myles put his opinion forward when the man puts Dr. Toole's work and latest presentation as the first link in his home page.

My apologies I do not debate videos content, it is not referenceable.

Through the "Sound Reproduction" F. Toole is very critical of dipoles - they are one example of the speaker that sounds reasonable in stereo but poor in mono in his tests. We find it in chapter 8. Even before the Martin Logan example.

SL and FT also diverge on the fundamentals and the capabilities of the stereo system and how to design speakers. The opinion on the M2 is clear.

But it is nice to know you consider they agree. Specially on "I use my memory of un-amplified sound as reference for judging accuracy of the illusion. " (S. Linkwitz).

Thanks for highlighting the part on stereo and multichannel. And please do not try to mix respect for F. Toole and divergence of opinion.

Nice to know what you really think about the high-end industry. I avoided quoting the offensive part your quoted in red to avoid insults and flames in a forum that includes as contributing and valuable members many people I respect and think differently from you.

 

[ack]

That is not what I showed you. I showed measurements, taken in a very specific way, correlating with listening tests results. It was not pure measurements. It was measurements that agreed with listening test results.

Yes, understood, and bears no significance to me. I hear panel speakers DIFFERENTLY than what you show and claim, having been exposed to them for 30 years. We are expressing different views. Is that clear?

Your reaction? "so STUFF THE MEASUREMENTS, for being unrepresentative of reality." And you say you didn't denigrate? What is this then?

It's a reaction to something I perceive as completely misguided and misinformed; "nonsense" as I called it. Notice, I addressed the cited "research", not the individuals, so, yes, stuff it, plain and simple, if you are going to bring it into the discussion as fact - polar opposites indeed. So here's a suggestion: how about we present the "research" as a data point and asking the audience, especially those deeply exposed to panels, of their opinion regarding the "research"... instead of trying to stuff it in everyone's faces.

I'd like to know how much exposure to panels anyone involved in that testing has; and I mean that literally, even if it inevitably comes across as personal.

This is incredibly hard work and expensive research that has been shared with all of us. Again, I am OK with expression of disbelief. I know it is hard to believe ML did this poorly.

It's not hard at all, I've been modifying my MLs so extensively for good reasons. What I am opposed to is the approach, not the final result; and the approach comes across as a joke. We happen to pick, and be talking about, ML ,because it was the least-rated speaker, not because I care about the fact they happen to be MLs. Really? Really. I've been meaning to get Magico and ditch Logans for a long time, but they don't do some things as well as my modified panels, until I heard madfloyd's M-Projects; not to mention again I've been tirelessly trying to modify mine.

Until such time that you sit your butt in the chair, compare its sound immediately to that of other loudspeaker and wonder what broken loudspeaker that was. The curtains open and you see the ML and reality sets in. You listen to them sighted afterward and all of those flaws are now apparent to you. Your eye has been opened. You can't ditch it. At least this is what happened to me when I now listen to them.

Condescending personal comments by a forum leader. Language please. let me respond in kind: you sit your own butt down in front my own system and then we can have a level-set discussion. "Until such time", you probably may want to show some respect around here and not attempt to make things personal. Again, I am talking about the research. Let's stick with the words written, not the posters.

This is a reality that per my last post none of us have been exposed to. That is, hearing loudspeaker one after the other automatically, and with no ability to know their identity in advance. This is not a scenario that you have experienced so you can't say it must by definition be wrong.

I haven't heard speakers in the same system one after another? Another out-of-line comment. Yes, I have.

No, my ranking of loudspeakers matched countless others from reviewers to dealers to marketing people and engineers in audio.

Understood, but notice, I have not invoked higher authority, as you have, by pointing, say, to others' comments about my system's sound (under my own system's thread). So for all intents and purposes, we are talking about your own preferences, plain and simple. And that's because I know nothing about the other persons you are citing in your own defense.

Are you the exception? You may be like that Harman employee. If so, why should we care about your preferences when it has little chance of agreeing with everyone else? Fortunately I think the odds are against you being the exception. You just think you are because you have not been tested in a controlled manner.

Before you ask why should anyone care about my opinions, ask yourself why should we should care about yours. Because they are based on "research" and data and seemingly fall in the majority? Think again. You've made your point over and over again, and I think it's wearing thin with some of us (talking offline), but thank you, really.

None of this matters one bit in a discussion of audio science unless you can present some formal data that shows when you swap amplifiers, loudspeaker ratings with their massive difference in tonality changes. You have a theory that you have to test yourself and bring us data. Such data needs to be devoid of your audio beliefs and sighted evaluation. This is easy enough to test. Replace one of your loudspeakers with another brand and test them with your current amplifier behind a curtain. Have a few people take that test. Then replace the amp with another that you think puts the ML in bad light. Run the test again. Then report to us how loudspeaker preferences swapped in favor of the other loudspeaker.

Until then you are again sharing disbelief with us, not anything concrete that we can use to counter formal, published, peer reviewed research over 30 years whose authors are luminaries in the industry. And a theory that no one in the scientific and formal industry has brought up as an issue with the test or I assure you that it would have been tested and dismissed as an influence on loudspeaker preference.

I was hoping you'd say all this. So basically you are asking me to _prove_ my own preference and beliefs, by providing "formal data" - the same way you have? Once more, I find that approach utterly flawed, so no, don't expect me to prove anything; and neither have you, despite best effort. Simply asking anyone to "prove" their preferences comes across as a helpless and hopeless statement.

 

[JackD201]

Micro I'm on record for saying this many times over. If I were working on a track I want to hear what's on the recording and only what's on the recording. That would mean either headphones, near field or very flat speakers in a very dead room depending on what I am listening for. That differs greatly from how I like to listen for pleasure where I have to adjust to material I have had no part in the creative process. To that end put me in Linkwitz' camp. Given only these limited choice of 2 speakers it is indeed more probable that I might choose the M2 over the Orion for work. As for play, I would need to try both. I would not be surprised if I found the Orion the more pleasurable if not the more "accurate" in a live room.

 

[microstrip]

(...) . As for play, I would need to try both.(...)

No, Jack. You should ask for the measurements ...

More seriously, although I have never listened to any of them I think that a comparison between the JBL M2 and the K2 would be of great value in this thread. I have now read the opinions of several experienced people on them and have read about the technological differences in the Harman literature. Very interesting.

 

[JackD201]

Lol!

 

[JonFo]

I was going to point out the issue with quoting FT on dipoles, which were surround speakers, not panels, but Amir got to it already.

I firmly believe in all the research work Harman does, and value the results they publish, but in some cases, the methodology results in improper outcomes. The case in point is the MartinLogan they tested. All the other speakers are point-source box monopoles of one flavor or another, and I see the speaker shuffler is a great way to compare amongst speakers of a similar topology and dispersion characteristic. An ESL is a dipole line source, a very, very different beast in terms of how it interacts with a room than a point-source box monopole. Testing it with no regards for how a significant portion of its output is managed (the dipole rear-wave) is akin to grabbing one of the Infinity’s and laying it on its side and testing that, with predictably bad results.

After 23 years with ESL’s, I know full well that to get the most out of them, one needs to very, very carefully manage the rear wave. And I arrived at the knowledge through many, many measurements (and yes, lots of listening to correlate), some of which led me to change my views on reflection, diffusion and absorption topics. I won’t bore everyone with the details, but a dipole line source can’t just be plopped into the same spot as a monopole box and be expected to deliver its best.

A fairer fight might have been to put up a monopole line-source like a Scaena, which might have just blown away all the others with the benefits of its line source topology.

So even if one is a firm believer in the value of research, measurement and such, one needs to also evaluate the methodology and the details. Therefore, I reject the results of the ML in that test as completely invalid, however, I find the rest of the test extremely informative and useful.

 

[Robh3606]

One more data point on the subjective side.

My friend with both the M2s and E2s has recently done the the full ARCOS calibration on his M2s and gave me his listening impressions. For those that don't know about ARCOS, it is a variant of Harman's HATS acoustic analyzation system that is geared towards the JBL Synthesis systems and allows a trained technician to perform very sophisticated multi-channel speaker configurations with multi-amping and full room calibration. With this system driving the M2s, you not only install the correction filters provided by the Crown amps, but you custom tailor the system for the room it is in with additional EQ phase correction etc.

Like everyone else he thinks the M2s are exceptional speakers. The imaging "sweet spot" is exceptionally wide. He said that the M2s just do not sound like a horn system. He said that they sound more like the Revel Ultima2 Salons but with more dynamics. After the ARCOS calibration the bass is tight, well behaved, and extended in his large room to below 30Hz. The room plot was insanely flat with no downward tilt from bass to treble and while he said some might find the sound lean it is in no way bright or harsh. It is very detailed and open sounding. He was also very impressed with the ultra hi frequency response of this two-way speaker system.

Now in comparison to the E2, he said that the E2 lacks the bass control of the M2s (not really a fair comparison since the E2s are a single amped all analog system with no DSP or room correction). He also said that even though the E2 doesn't sound honky, there is something more horn like about them than the M2s. That said, he also said that the E2's imaging when sitting in the sweet spot was actually a little better and the mids are definitely more resolving. The big Be driver has a greater sense of speed or attack on transients. Overall the E2 is more dynamic sounding.

When I have a few free minutes I plan on dropping by to do my own comparison. I'll update this thread if I find anything of additional interest.


Widget

From Lansing Heritage just a data point. Widget has Everest's

Rob

 

[amirm]

From Lansing Heritage just a data point. Widget has Everest's

Rob

The SOB stole every one of my lines about the M2. We had the Everest on load for a few days and I post my impressions of it back in 2011: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3426-Houston-the-Eagle-has-landed!-JBL-Everest-Speaker. We have also had the M2s now for almost a year now. Listening to the Everest with our second gen master tapes was one of the best audio experiences I remember. That said, it has been a few years, and I no longer have a precise memory of it to compare to the M2. My designer though, lives and breaths JBL/Harman products. He knows them intimately. He like me has come to the conclusion that neither one of us have ever hear a loudspeaker as capable as the M2. I am contemplating pulling out all of my Revel loudspeakers and putting in the M2 in my listening room. And he, despite being so proud of having recently gotten his hands on his long believed Snell's, is seriously considering putting in the M2 in his own room.

Traditionally, there was a trade off between power handling of JBLs and delicate response of the Revels (there I go with poetry ). The M2 the moment I heard them, erased that trade off. I was in the shop last week listening to some demo material my designer had. And my jaw dropped on the floor. I like my music dynamic and well, loud . To hear it with zero strain as you crank up the level as much as you want, is something that I have not experienced before. No doubt some of that is because I haven't experienced everything. But I can say within the Harman product lines, the M2 is a unique achievement.

As the poster says, it also has an unfair advantage in having both electronic crossover and room correction all in the same DSP processor. So unless you have a marvelously designed room with respect to bass response, objectively and subjectively the M2 "wins."

Now, if you bring in your eyes in addition to your ears, there is something very fitting with the Everest playing classic music versus M2. The former just "fits in" the mood. It looks old fashioned and combined with its sound, teleports you back in time, reminding you of how the best analog sounds must have sounded then. The M2 doesn't do that. In our application we have it behind our screen so people don't notice its modern, and "pro" look it has. I plan to do the same thing in my room.

Note: my company carries these products and combined with my own personal preference, you should read all of these as potentially highly biased. You should do your own evaluation of it and draw your own conclusions.