Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. J. K. Galbraith
Some More Evidence that Kids (American and Japanese) Prefer Good Sound
- Thread starter tonmeister2008
- Start date
Better yet, Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Or even better yet, from John Wooden: It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
Einstein was mum on that point, actually. Rita Mae Brown is the source:
This quote "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" appears in the Basic Text of Narcotics Anonymous by Rita Mae Brown which was copyrighted in 1982 and later published in 1983. It is found on page 11 of the final "Review Form" (for a Narcotics Anonymous group) which was distributed to the fellowship in November of 1981. This is 2 years before Ms. Browns book and said by members to be contained in the original "red booklet" released, (although never formally published) sometime in the 60's. It is found on page 23 of the current sixth edition.
Ben Franklin's also been quoted as the source, and again incorrectly.
This quote "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" appears in the Basic Text of Narcotics Anonymous by Rita Mae Brown which was copyrighted in 1982 and later published in 1983. It is found on page 11 of the final "Review Form" (for a Narcotics Anonymous group) which was distributed to the fellowship in November of 1981. This is 2 years before Ms. Browns book and said by members to be contained in the original "red booklet" released, (although never formally published) sometime in the 60's. It is found on page 23 of the current sixth edition.
Ben Franklin's also been quoted as the source, and again incorrectly.
Fortunately, audiophiles are massed at the extreme end of the Bell Curve distribution.
Thanks for the correctionPoint remains the same though
Well, does it bear reflection?
To Jack: was there bias in your evaluation of which end of the Bell distribution audiophiles belong in?
We're not talking about farmers here.
But since you raised the point, do farmers do the same thing every year? Well for one, they usually rotate their fallow and active fields and plant different crops on the land so as not to deplete the soil of important minerals, etc. Kinda helps avoid dustbowls
<snip> Point remains the same though
Not sure I follow you here ... What's your point?
Let me clarify this first... The biases that I see are 100% with the process of putting the test together, not with the evaluators, and consequently with the people behind putting the test together. The biases involve the software, hardware and the room.
Starting with the software biases I see, the musical material appears "light" and not very demanding to me, but I have to admit I am not familiar with it. I am only guessing there was voice, a guitar and perhaps a couple of other strings and maybe some light drumming involved. However, having lived with the similar $3K ML SL-3 in the past and also owning $600 Monitor Audio mini-monitors in another system, I can safely guess that, if one were to put on much more demanding material on - like Mahler's 2nd - I would hazard a guess the cheap dynamic speakers in the test would fall apart and the ML would hold well. I get really beautiful sounds with quartets from my Monitor Audios and they just [naturally] suck at large orchestral.
On to the hardware bias... It's a very common mistake to assume that any sufficiently powerful amp can properly drive difficult loads as an ML - flat out: NO; I can't stress this enough. I have posted in the past that I was about to purchase the ML Summit X last September (a more difficult load than my Odysseys), had a custom configuration quoted for me, only to kill the deal at the very last audition. Why? Because even the very capable, close-to-state-of-the-art and one of the top amps in the market Spectral 360 Series II monos that I use sounded harsh up top and would eventually shut down, and they are one of the few amps rated at 2ohms. In case anyone thinks that I am simply making a statement to win an argument, here's a PM I sent Myles back then, so he can corroborate the truth of my claims:
So I am thinking twice about the X - not a good match with the Spectrals, it seems. I took another listen today, and the sound is aggressive from the midrange up, tilting doesn't really help - it's not a tonal balance issue - and the amps shut down with high-frequency content like mass brass on Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, at high enough (but not ear splitting) volumes. Overall, the X is a more resolving speaker than the Odysseys - crisper - but the system right now is so beautiful that I wonder why do I need to break it. If nothing else, I might look at rebuilding the average-quality crossover.
Next, the room - am I right that the room was unechoic? A dipole is not meant to have its back wave absorbed - this is a fundamental flaw.
ack said: It's HIGHLY suspect that a panel would be chosen for the comparison as the poster child, considering that panels of most kinds sound considerably different than dynamic speakers - they just don't fit in the test, and instead, an expensive dynamic speaker should have been chosen. Very few people are exposed and/or like panels, and it's unknown what prior exposure to panel speakers those "trained listeners" have had
amir said: I am not quite following your comment here
There are a couple of points here. The test simply shows that most people like dynamic speakers over panel ones; at least with the material used. _We know that_. That's why out of the 600 speaker manufacturers out there, there are only a dozen specializing in panels, and size differences (the visual aspect) is not enough to account for this disparity. The test should have used an expensive dynamic speaker as the poster child. For what is worth, I stated the other day that my own references are primarily the Magico Q3 and Q5, with the ML CLX close behind. But they come from two completely different schools of thought, so it's unfair to directly compare them, unless the room, software and hardware are equally optimized for all subjects under test - an extremely difficult feat. I just don't see this requisite unilateral optimization in the test we are discussing.
Finally, if I haven't driven this point hard enough, it is hard to drive a panel correctly, and it's equally hard for many listeners to like the panel sound. I'll save all the details for another thread, but to give a common example, panels can render unrealistically large images - that's a big turnoff for most people. But, alas, this is not necessarily a function of the speaker alone; I have had a number of amps inhouse and only the current Spectrals can make my ML's sound small when the program calls for it, likewise large when appropriate. It's not by happenstance that serious ML setups (and frankly, all Magnepan and Analysis Audio I have heard) run these speakers with very capable (and unfortunately, expensive) amplifiers.
If the A/B test wanted to point out that inexpensive dynamic speakers can be preferable to unoptimized panels with light material, it succeeded. But it's biased in my view, and simply points out common preferences.
I'd get the Spectral's checked. I've driven Martin Logan hybrids quite loud, with less capable amplifiers that did not self-protect and shut down. But in the end, if the decision you made was that the MLs didn't play well with others and you moved on to something else, you made, in my view, the right choice. If "proper" amplification mitigated all the probems and suddenly yielded an even, smooth, accurate response on and off axis (rapidly falling off-axis response being particularly aggregious in a dipole) from the MLs, their eccentricities might be worth the trouble, but that's not the case. I've run them in many positions with pretty widely varying amplification. A big, powerful Mac tube amp did best at smoothing out the harsh upper mids, but it didn't help the off-axis response at all. The sound still changed radically, just barely out of the sweet spot. I listen to headphones, and active monitors in a near-field configuration. I'm not opposed to a narrow sweet spot. But I find it a bit odd in an $11k dipole speaker. Maybe I don't get the ML thing. Are they designed for the single, dedicated listener?
The listening tests were not done in an anechoic chamber, by the way. The measurements were taken in one, of course.
Tim
That's a strong statement. If one desires accuracy the backwave has to be absorped from a dipole. Otherwise, one is adding coloration to the recording. Nothing wrong with that if that's what one desires, but I don't think one could say that it has to be there and is flawed otherwise. That would depend on the goal the listener has.
Right on. You don't get the ML thing, I don't get horns. None of these and/or dynamic speakers should be mixed in a serious test, not to mention they are usually driven by different amps (system matching anyone?).
Tim,
No you don't get the ML thing, you just got the anti ML thing. I have owned Prodigy's and have moved to other speakers - for me it was part of the hobby, something you will probably not understand. It did not mean I did not like or enjoy them.
And no, the Prodigy's had a very reasonable sweet spot in my room. And I do not consider myself antii-social just because 99% of my listening is carried alone. BTW, I hate having a meal or a drink alone!
It is curious that sometime ago when a few of us referred that we listened many times moving or not in the best spot and some people immediately considered that we were not serious listeners.
As soon as a science says we should invite listeners we can forget about listening in the sweat spot ... To refresh your memory, we were debating Sanders electrostatics and near field listening.
Tim,
No you don't get the ML thing, you just got the anti ML thing. I have owned Prodigy's and have moved to other speakers - for me it was part of the hobby, something you will probably not understand. It did not mean I did not like or enjoy them.
And no, the Prodigy's had a very reasonable sweet spot in my room. And I do not consider myself antii-social just because 99% of my listening is carried alone. BTW, I hate having a meal or a drink alone!
It is curious that sometime ago when a few of us referred that we listened many times moving or not in the best spot and some people immediately considered that we were not serious listeners.
I do 99% of my listening alone as well, Micro. A narrow projection in a dipole strikes me as odd, but what I really just don't get about the ML thing is the tonality. To me, they always sounded just like those Harman charts look -- ragged, uneven and rolled off rapidly at the bottom. But maybe I never found an amp that made them work. I definitely don't get it. Occasionally a customer would fall in love with them, and I never quite got why. Probably just a personal taste thing. I'm a subjectivist.
Tim
Similar threads
