Objectivists, Harman Testing, Reviewers, and Reality

[PeterA]

With questions come answers, and good photographs. Thank you Amir.

 

[Atmasphere]

We need Amir to beat on Harman and get them to release their treasure trove of data they only share with their dealers in private. Amir is calling for a revolution and thinks that we should all demand more data/measurements from companies so we can collectively raise the bar on the products we buy and then we need to figure out a way to make reviewers write better reviews because Amir doesn't approve of the vast majority of reviews being written.

Plus we need to sort out what is fair for an amplifier to drive them. Its no secret really that SETs and other amplifiers with some fairly high output impedances have shown up in the last quarter of a century- and that they drive speakers in an entirely different manner from the high current devices to which Tomelex refers below:

Yes THD, and IMD and phase and impulse response in anechoic conditions and in say three industry standardized room types and MTF plots and other stuff too. Then one can have an idea of what the speaker is all about. , And all done on super high current capable amplifiers, with super low output resistance and with cables of no more than 3 or 4 feet in length and standardized on one type as well.

Standardization was the name of the game when ElectroVoice and Mac developed the specs for the voltage rules used in design and measurement today (http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php). But through the last 60 years somehow tubes have survived- in fact done so as an 'obsolete' technology longer than when they were the only game in town. All I am am saying is we have a long ways to go before such standardization could occur.

While I think Harmon's testing regime is a great attempt, it still ignores a number of problems having to do with the human ear. I doubt we will make much progress until we start paying attention to how the ear/brain system actually works.

 

[mep]

No, I am here to beat you up to ask for it and importantly, care. If this thread was full of excitement over having such data, I would have forwarded it to Harman as additional motivation for them to do this. As it is, it is all disdain for the very thing you are saying I should go and ask for it. Become an advocate Mark. Don't keep yourself in the dark. You can always ignore the data. But can't have it if it is not there.

Believe it or not Amir, I actually enjoy looking at the measurements of gear when they are available and I look to see if there is correlation in the review to what the measurements show so there is no disdain on my part. I just keep pointing out the obvious that we don't have much measurements to go on even though some people on this forum act like they have measurements for everything they buy. But I don't see it as my job to demand that companies provide measurements. You would think that dealers like yourself would be doing that. You need to make decisions on what lines you are going to carry and you would think that dealers would want to see those measurements before they make their decisions on what lines to carry. You admitted you got burned with Wisdom. However, I suspect that there is a high degree of ambivalence on the part of many audio dealers with regards to measurements and they are happy with the status quo because their customers are satisfied with the status quo. At the end of the day, many people don't care how good you tell them a product is because you have some great measurements to 'prove' how good it sounds, they want to hear it.

Exactly what I said above. You seem to want consumers in the dark. Why? Is it to make sure the data can't be used to demonstrate a reviewer got it wrong?

I never said that so I have no idea where that came from. Consumers should be enlightened as much as they want to be enlightened. I think the evidence shows that consumers are happy with what they have at the fingertips of their keyboards. Many have mistaken specifications for actual measurements and think they already have everything they need. If there was a big hue and cry from consumers for audio manufacturers to change their ways, it would happen. Most people seem to love the apple cart the way it is.

What fair alternative and why should we, as customers care? John has made measurements. If you don't know how, then you are not qualified to be a technical reviewer. You should review music, not equipment. Learn something about the science you want to write about for heaven's sake. Don't seek car reviewers crying that they don't know how to measure cornering g force of a car... And how hard do you think those measurements are that JA creates? Have you ever studied how he does it? I suspect you have not. Shame.

Seriously?? JA doesn't even own the AP piece of gear he uses to take his measurements-it's on loan. Why is it on loan? Maybe because it cost so much? Do you think AP is going to loan out a piece of their gear to every reviewer? Oh, and when is the last time you had your measuring gear calibrated? All test equipment that is used to take quantitative measurements has to be calibrated on a regular cal cycle if the measurements are important. Depending on the complexity of the gear, calibration costs and repairs can easily exceed $5k per year. Are reviewers supposed to eat that cost too? How many reviewers do you think are qualified to take measurements that could withstand scrutiny? I hope you were kidding with your advice that all reviewers should be taking measurements of the gear they review. I don't know too many reviewers that are electrical engineers or electronic technicians.

Oh, and are car reviewers actually measuring the G force of a car or are they simply driving it on a test track where the measurements are being taken with internal and external measuring devices?

 

[Atmasphere]

The funny thing is that the AP gear has been a around a while, but even it is not going to get exactly correct measurements even when used properly. I discovered this a while back: when measuring balanced line equipment, the AP does not conform to AES 47! Sheesh. We got docked hard for that in a Stereophile review years ago; because our preamp did and their equipment didn't, it made it look as if our preamp was a lot noisier than it really was.

 

[amirm]

But I don't see it as my job to demand that companies provide measurements.

The moment you say you are reviewer, then it becomes your job to be our advocate. To ask hard questions of the manufactures. To push for more information disclosure.

That is precisely what I do when I write for Widescreen Review. That is why I have the spin data. I plan to write an article, reached out to Harman, and got the data.

You would think that dealers like yourself would be doing that.

Why would you think that? A dealer wants to know how to sell something, what the terms are, lead time, support, co-marketing, etc. Harman goes out of its way with a 2-day acoustics university for their dealers but most of them don't care about this stuff. I assume you don't think your job is to sell equipment. And that you are writing to help the reader be better informed. In that regard, it is so strange to see you pass the buck.

You need to make decisions on what lines you are going to carry and you would think that dealers would want to see those measurements before they make their decisions on what lines to carry.

Says who? Which one of you have refused to buy a high-end loudspeaker because the dealer didn't have those measurements? You see, we are back to we being the problem. When we start asking for that information, and make it part of our buying decision, then the dealer goes and asks for it. Until such time that you do, they are not going to care either. What they want to know front and center is how much profit margin they have, what terms they can get for payment, what free or low cost demo gear they can have, what co-marketing program is available, etc. Dealers do not perform technical due diligence on high-end products. Don't confuse what I and my company does for the norm in the industry. We are an engineering company, not a "dealer."

You admitted you got burned with Wisdom. However, I suspect that there is a high degree of ambivalence on the part of many audio dealers with regards to measurements and they are happy with the status quo because their customers are satisfied with the status quo.

So you come around to what I said. The solution then is to change the customer mindset. And reviewers have a strong role in that. As do forums like this where I am doing my part.

At the end of the day, many people don't care how good you tell them a product is because you have some great measurements to 'prove' how good it sounds, they want to hear it.

They can and should hear it. Customers have not cared about loudspeaker measurements because they have been completely in the dark in remarkable progress we have made in correlating them to how we hear. High-end consumers are smart. Highly successful in real life. I am confident if they were exposed to more of this information, far more of them would take it into account. We have to give them a chance.

We have now for the first time have had substantive discussions on this topic and I think the membership is getting more informed. But it has come at a cost that Bruce mentioned: people have literally thrown themselves on the railroad tracks, hoping to keep the train from coming to their town. They are that convinced that educating the high-end consumer on more of audio science is damaging to the cause. In what other aspect of our real life is this accepted response to getting enthusiasts more educated on the science? Can you tell me? Or are you fully on board on the value of this science?

 

[mep]

The funny thing is that the AP gear has been a around a while, but even it is not going to get exactly correct measurements even when used properly. I discovered this a while back: when measuring balanced line equipment, the AP does not conform to AES 47! Sheesh. We got docked hard for that in a Stereophile review years ago; because our preamp did and their equipment didn't, it made it look as if our preamp was a lot noisier than it really was.

Can you imagine the hue and cry from OEMs if every reviewer started taking full sets of measurements and publishing them like they were facts?

 

[mep]

Amir-We are talking in circles. Reviewers don't have a vested monetary interest in audio companies and we don't sell gear to the public. We may help sell gear from positive reviews, but no products are getting shipped to customers from our houses. It's dealers like you that the customers come to in order to buy products. Dealers do have a vested monetary interest in audio companies. If dealers don't care about demanding more measurements from the companies they represent and they aren't worried about educating their consumers about measurements and why they chose the lines they carry, why in the world do you think it's the reviewer's job to do that? What's next? Do you want reviewers to design the equipment too?

It's my opinion that the public expects reviewers to tell them how a piece of gear sounds. They aren't looking for reviewers to take measurements or to demand that audio companies provide more measurements anymore than you would hire a plumber to wire your house.

 

[amirm]

Seriously?? JA doesn't even own the AP piece of gear he uses to take his measurements-it's on loan. Why is it on loan? Maybe because it cost so much? Do you think AP is going to loan out a piece of their gear to every reviewer?

As I said and suspected, you have not read how JA performs those loudspeaker measurements. All you need to replicate the measurements he has performed for loudspeakers is a microphone and a PC. The software is free, and the microphone less than $100. He presented his test methodology at RMAF. I even linked to his video presentation in the other thread. You didn't watch it, did you?

Even if you needed the AP, you can get one pretty easily. I have one but for my jitter article I wanted to use the dSound from Prism Sound. I saw them at CES, and just asked if they would loan me the gear for a couple of weeks for the article I was writing for Widescreen Review magazine. They had never heard of the magazine. Nor knew me. But after a few minutes of conversation were very supportive and not only gave me the equipment but provided me all of their experts on call for technical discussions of what I was doing.

Oh, and when is the last time you had your measuring gear calibrated? All test equipment that is used to take quantitative measurements has to be calibrated on a regular cal cycle if the measurements are important.

Who says? Move your ear one inch and the numbers change more than any variation in equipment. Indeed, proper, psychoacoustically aware measurements filters out variations that are not audible. Too much resolution is recipe for an incorrect picture of what is perceptually important.

Instruments for other uses and other applications do require calibration. But for this type of work. Not remotely so.

Depending on the complexity of the gear, calibration costs and repairs can easily exceed $5k per year.

Where did you get that number from?

Are reviewers supposed to eat that cost too?

Of course. This is my test setup for the last set of testing I did on jitter for WSR magazine:

That is $60K to $80K worth of hardware on that table that I gathered on on my own nickel.

This is the setup I used to test loudspeaker wires (see http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?14134-When-12-Gauge-Wire-is-not-12-Gauge!)

I don't get paid to do these reviews either. I care about learning the field and just like you all buying $50K loudspeakers, I buy $5,000 scopes and $20,000 analyzers. If you need a tool and can't afford it, that is not the reader's problem. It is yours.

How many reviewers do you think are qualified to take measurements that could withstand scrutiny? I hope you were kidding with your advice that all reviewers should be taking measurements of the gear they review. I don't know too many reviewers that are electrical engineers or electronic technicians.

All of them can make measurements we are talking about. Heck, you better posts measurements of your room with the loudspeaker in there so that we know what you are hearing. That per earlier note, should only cost you $100 if that.

Oh, and are car reviewers actually measuring the G force of a car or are they simply driving it on a test track where the measurements are being taken with internal and external measuring devices?

I am not a car guy but I believe they have a meter they install in the car and then drive it around the track.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Can you imagine the hue and cry from OEMs if every reviewer started taking full sets of measurements and publishing them like they were facts?

If you want to read a magazine that puts measurements first, buy Stereo Review. Ooopsss. It's gone. Guess everything sounded the same so who needed the magazine? Certainly not for the music reviews.

Otherwise it's simple. The other magazines have subjective reviews and it's up to you read or not. We are all adults. It's like watching TV. You don't like the show, change the channel.

 

[amirm]

Amir-We are talking in circles. Reviewers don't have a vested monetary interest in audio companies and we don't sell gear to the public. We may help sell gear from positive reviews, but no products are getting shipped to customers from our houses. It's dealers like you that the customers come to in order to buy products.

It is not dealers like us because we don't have retail operations. That debating tactic aside, the dealer is on the side of himself and the manufacturer. The reviewer is supposed to be on my side, the consumer. Do you advocate that car magazines not do reviews and instead we demand that dealers give us the same information they provide to us now?

Dealers do have a vested monetary interest in audio companies. If dealers don't care about demanding more measurements from the companies they represent and they aren't worried about educating their consumers about measurements and why they chose the lines they carry, why in the world do you think it's the reviewer's job to do that?

You actually asking me that question? Why they carry the line? It is to make money. They get a training presentation from the manufacturer as to the best way to sell you something. Money is the motivation.

The reviewer as I keep saying, is supposed to be on our side. I can't believe I have to keep explaining this. Is this not a concept that is understood? That it is reviewer's job to find product weaknesses and share it with us? And to get us more information than we can read from company website? Your job is not to get free gear in exchange for writing a bunch of subjective words that can't be verified in anyway to be correct.

What's next? Do you want reviewers to design the equipment too?

Nothing is next. You act like I am asking for something very unusual. A number of audio reviewers do perform measurements. I am trying to get you to understand their value, ask for more of it, and if you are going to do them, learn to measure yourself. Or else, come and demonstrate why measurements have no value. Can't keep saying you are in support of the number but only if someone else goes and gets them whose motivation is not aligned with us as consumers.

It's my opinion that the public expects reviewers to tell them how a piece of gear sounds. They aren't looking for reviewers to take measurements or to demand that audio companies provide more measurements anymore than you would hire a plumber to wire your house.

It is my job to change that situation. To the extent you are not in favor of that, you need to come out and say it clear and justify why. Not giving lip service to it and passing the buck to someone else. The motivation for that argument is too obvious to be accepted as such anyway.

 

[mep]

As I said and suspected, you have not read how JA performs those loudspeaker measurements. All you need to replicate the measurements he has performed for loudspeakers is a microphone and a PC. The software is free, and the microphone less than $100. He presented his test methodology at RMAF. I even linked to his video presentation in the other thread. You didn't watch it, did you?

Nope. I'm not paid to take measurements nor am I expected to. And as you said about the method that JA uses, it's not even in the same ballpark as taking measurements in an anechoic chamber.

Even if you needed the AP, you can get one pretty easily.

Of course you can get one easily, they are for sale. You just have to lay out the cash for it. And please don't tell me that AP is going to loan one to every reviewer in the world.

I have one but for my jitter article I wanted to use the dSound from Prism Sound. I saw them at CES, and just asked if they would loan me the gear for a couple of weeks for the article I was writing for Widescreen Review magazine. They had never heard of the magazine. Nor knew me. But after a few minutes of conversation were very supportive and not only gave me the equipment but provided me all of their experts on call for technical discussions of what I was doing.

They were probably supportive because I'm sure you told them you would mention their gear in your Widescreen Review just like JA does for every measurement article he does for SP.

Who says? Move your ear one inch and the numbers change more than any variation in equipment. Indeed, proper, psychoacoustically aware measurements filters out variations that are not audible. Too much resolution is recipe for an incorrect picture of what is perceptually important. Instruments for other uses and other applications do require calibration. But for this type of work. Not remotely so.

I come from a world that we absolutely have to care if our gear is in calibration. When we send the gear off for calibration, sometimes it comes back with an "Out of Tolerance" notice and we have to figure out if where the gear was out of calibration could have possibly affected the measurements we took on our products and whether we need to recall them. So calibration is a big deal in my world. Now, if your AP SYS2722 was no longer taking accurate measurements because the calibration was out of whack and you started publishing wacky numbers that made OEMs look bad, do you think that the OEMs would say it's ok that you don't calibrate your gear?

Where did you get that number from?

From the calibration bills I have to pay every month.

I am not a car guy but I believe they have a meter they install in the car and then drive it around the track.

I'm pretty sure that car reviewers are not instrumenting the cars they review, but I could be wrong. I think the measurements come from a combination of external and internal measuring devices. Car guys can speak up here. I'm pretty sure that F1 and Indy car drivers don't take their own measurements. Should we say they aren't professional drivers because they don't take their own measurements?

I can't believe the direction this has taken with you. You (dealers)can't get manufacturers from the companies you represent to give you full sets of measurements (or dealers don't care), and yet you expect reviewers to make this happen and you expect reviewers to somehow acquire test gear that cost over $30k and learn how to use it and publish measurements along with our reviews. You are way, way out there Amir. Earth calling Amir...

 

[microstrip]

(...)

And how about that phase response? While I am sure hardly anyone knows what it means, is critical to determining if the loudspeaker is a difficult load and hence requires a very powerful amplifier to drive it or not. isn't that a useful thing to know if you are buying this loudspeaker??? I am confident beyond confident that loudspeaker manufacturers have this graph. But they just give us the same marketing numbers as everyone does because we are not only OK with it, but seemingly praise them for telling us less than more.

It is not hard to learn to understand these graphs. Let's have the willingness be there and we can get educated in a hurry. But keep resisting it for countless reasons and we are doomed to sitting in the dark.

Sorry, but is not easy to take valid and reliable information from these graphs. It is much more than just Ohm's law! You have to consider the speaker efficiency that is given in dB/W ( a logarithmic unit), its dispersion , the voltage and current limits of the amplifier , your room gain and your musical and listening preferences.

Amateurs will probably oversimplify and make erroneous assumptions.

 

[amirm]

Nope. I'm not paid to take measurements nor am I expected to.

You are expected to by readers like me. You are choosing to not take them. As to getting paid, that is for you to sort out as a business decision. Not my or any reader's problem.

And as you said about the method that JA uses, it's not even in the same ballpark as taking measurements in an anechoic chamber.

Didn't say that.

Of course you can get one easily, they are for sale. You just have to lay out the cash for it. And please don't tell me that AP is going to loan one to every reviewer in the world.

They were probably supportive because I'm sure you told them you would mention their gear in your Widescreen Review just like JA does for every measurement article he does for SP.

And you can't do that in exchange for equipment loan? That is how you got the loudspeaker to test, right?

I come from a world that we absolutely have to care if our gear is in calibration. When we send the gear off for calibration, sometimes it comes back with an "Out of Tolerance" notice and we have to figure out if where the gear was out of calibration could have possibly affected the measurements we took on our products and whether we need to recall them. So calibration is a big deal in my world.

Funny there that you live in a world where objective data is so critical as to rely on calibrated equipment. Yet in audio you somehow suspend that reality and want to convince people to do without.

Now, if your AP SYS2722 was no longer taking accurate measurements because the calibration was out of whack and you started publishing wacky numbers that made OEMs look bad, do you think that the OEMs would say it's ok that you don't calibrate your gear?

Yes. They are welcome to measure their own and show me how in loudspeaker evaluation, such differences are not remotely in the noise. Remember, the noise in the room dwarfs equipment noise. And, we are not at all interested in absolute values in the frequency response. What we care about is the shape of that graph. It matters not that at 1 Khz it is at 90 or 80 db SPL. What matters is whether there is a 5 dB dip at 2 Khz.

From the calibration bills I have to pay every month.

What you pay for calibrating equipment for a different application and field has nothing whatsoever with this field. I have shown measurements of my AP that has not been calibrated in countless articles online and offline. Not one manufacture or critique has come and asked for calibration because they know the nature of testing and the fact that we are comparing equipment not testing for absolutes. Calibration is provided by AP but that is to be used in manufacturing where you create pass/fail tests of say, DACs and you would want the numbers to be accurate. For the type of testing we do as I explained it is not material.

 

[amirm]

Sorry, but is not easy to take valid and reliable information from these graphs. It is much more than just Ohm's law! You have to consider the speaker efficiency that is given in dB/W ( a logarithmic unit), its dispersion , the voltage and current limits of the amplifier , your room gain and your musical and listening preferences.

Amateurs will probably oversimplify and make erroneous assumptions.

Everyone can learn to extract insight from these measurements. Again, I encourage you to watch John's video, and read his articles. So there is a fix to lack of education. There is no fix for lack of data that is not provided in a review. If you have the measurements, you can learn to utilize it. If you don't , that is the end of the road.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Everyone can learn to extract insight from these measurements. Again, I encourage you to watch John's video, and read his articles. So there is a fix to lack of education. There is no fix for lack of data that is not provided in a review. If you have the measurements, you can learn to utilize it. If you don't , that is the end of the road.

So Amir, which do you believe when an established reviewer hears one thing and the measurements don't necessarily agree?

 

[PeterA]

Amir, Thank you for posting those photographs of your testing equipment. I have seen similar images of Nelson Pass' table with his FirstWatt amplifiers and visited some cable manufacturers who have similar testing areas. After initial hesitation, I am beginning to see the value in what you are proposing.

Have you thought about establishing a large scale audio testing facility? I can see how we consumers/hobbyists would benefit from good measurements along with subjective written reviews, but I understand the difficulties (reality) in establishing this as the norm, as many have pointed out. I see at least three hurdles that would need to be overcome:

1. Cost. How much do you think it would cost to test a piece of equipment, and who would pay initially? The consumer would pay eventually through higher end prices or reviewer subscription charges. Perhaps the owner of the facility could sell test data directly to the consumer. That would be interesting, but perhaps not a viable business plan.

2. Manufacturer resistance. As others have mentioned, I'm sure manufacturers have all of this data and measurements, and they have chosen not to share it. They may not be willing to send a component for review if the reviewer said that it was going to a facility to be measured. Time, shipping costs, potential damage, and most likely, potentially unfavorable results. Do you know if manufacturers put current restrictions on reviewers not to do these tests? Manufacturers, I'm told, do sometimes put restrictions on dealers about which competing brands they can sell. I presume they don't want to be directly compared to other brands quickly in the same dealership, but I really don't know the reasons.

3. Reviewer resistance. Others have already discussed this better than I could.

Personally, in addition to speaker measurements, I would love to see cable tests and learn how to interpret them and how the measurements correlate to their sound. I would also love to see cartridge frequency responses, arm/cartridge resonance measurements, and especially turntable speed measurements, wow and flutter, and rumble. HiFi News, I think, does this, but it would be great to see some database where this is all listed and easily compared. Some vinyl guys advocate taking a Sutherland Timeline along to dealerships and to test turntable speed right there while an LP is playing, but others have commented that it is a faulty measuring device and I don't think dealers would want you to put one on their expensive turntables for such an acid test.

I understand what you are advocating, but I can imagine all sorts of reasons why it has not and probably will not happen soon. And some of those reasons are understandable. I don't think the lines between the objectivists and the subjectivists are as clearly drawn as you write. Quite a few of us see the benefits of using both approaches at the same time for a more complete understanding of what a component is doing.

 

[rbbert]

It's worth noting that as with Stereophile, the actual quantitative testing (in car reviews) is usually not done by the reviewers themselves but by a separate testing crew, and I think this model (shared by Stereophile) is one that more audio review magazines should pursue. But as with car reviews, the results of testing should be shared with the actual reviewer, perhaps for a separate comment after the review is written.

IMHO the biggest problem with most audio equipment reviews today (and I think it's noticeably worse than it was even 5 yrs ago) is the apparent desire of the reviewer to imbue almost every product with some "special" property. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of products reviewed are excellent performers and it would be far more useful to merely describe a product's strengths and weaknesses rather than try to demonstrate one's command of flowery language and excess verbiage. As I said, this chaacteristic of audio reviews seems to be getting more common so some readers must prefer it, just not me.

 

[amirm]

So Amir, which do you believe when an established reviewer hears one thing and the measurements don't necessarily agree?

My reaction would be like JA's when that happens. He shows puzzlement why the reviewer said X, when the measurements show the opposite. If there is a dip in mid-frequencies for example, the reviewer can say all he wants about how great the vocals are. I won't believe it because I know there is no model of fidelity that calls for sucking out the vocals that way. If I were hearing the person in the flesh, there would not have been that suck out. And I know loudspeakers can be designed that sound great without that dip.

 

[ack]

Really guys. You have to resist the urge to keep thinking this is a bunch of corrupt agenda meant to confuse people. For that, you need to look at the marketing material you are reading about your favorite loudspeaker. These are true researchers who happen to work at Harman with very deep pockets, able to conduct such research at grand scale. They are not sitting there fooling themselves or other people because you all happen to think of things they have not.

First of all thanks for clarifying that they measure in an anechoic chamber - but the ML response graph looks to me quite wrong. And no, no one thinks there is some sort of corrupt agenda here, it's just that I personally cannot take those "researchers" seriously, who perform listening tests: a) in that room with other speakers present (whose drivers do and will contribute to the sound of others playing); b) using Proceed amps. So I ask, what does anyone think about Proceed amps driving all kinds of loads, including those dropping to 1ohm or less in the treble? Would Proceed be able to drive the Q5, an extremely difficult load, if not only by its phase anomalies (as measured by magazines). And more than that, what about the Proceed sound? Come to think of it, I did listen to Proceed well over a decade ago, and frankly, I thought they were a bit of a joke. If these "researchers" work for those with deep pockets, why not use better electronics? No need to answer, I remain unmoved by Harman's approach and "research", which to me is, again, investigation more than anything else. It may be time for Harman to repeat those old tests with modern speakers and far worthier electronics, in far better rooms.

Regardless of the acoustic "research" Harman may have done, there is so much more to making a great speaker, and it all starts with the quality of the dynamic drivers. If Harman thinks they can build drivers the way Magico does or better, I'd like to hear about it.

 

[MylesBAstor]

First of all thanks for clarifying that they measure in an anechoic chamber - but the ML response graph looks to me quite wrong. And no, no one thinks there is some sort of corrupt agenda here, it's just that I personally cannot take those "researchers" seriously, who perform listening tests: a) in that room with other speakers present (whose drivers do and will contribute to the sound of others playing); b) using Proceed amps. So I ask, what does anyone think about Proceed amps driving all kinds of loads, including those dropping to 1ohm or less in the treble? Would Proceed be able to drive the Q5, an extremely difficult load, if not only by its phase anomalies (as measured by magazines). And more than that, what about the Proceed sound? Come to think of it, I did listen to Proceed well over a decade ago, and frankly, I thought they were a bit of a joke. If these "researchers" work for those with deep pockets, why not use better electronics? No need to answer, I remain unmoved by Harman's approach and "research", which to me is, again, investigation more than anything else. It may be time for Harman to repeat those old tests with modern speakers and far worthier electronics, in far better rooms.

Regardless of the acoustic "research" Harman may have done, there is so much more to making a great speaker, and it all starts with the quality of the dynamic drivers. If Harman thinks they can build drivers the way Magico does or better, I'd like to hear about it.

I,already asked the same question! Must be an echo in here!