TAS Reviewer flips out over RMAF Harbeth H40.1 comments

[mep]

To me, the rationalist position is that measurements are important. You don't (or I don't) want to buy a piece of gear that was designed with flaws such as high distortion, ac hum riding on the dc power supply rails, a frequency response with all sorts of dips and/or peaks, etc. However, once you find a piece of gear that meets your criteria for good measurements, you have to use your ears to decide which one you think sounds better. I would hope that someone doesn't make the decision on which piece of gear to buy based on measurements alone. Yes, you want a competent set of measurements, but in the end, it all comes down to which one sounds better. Again, measurements are important to me, but the final arbiter will be which piece of gear sounds better. So, if that's not articulating a rationlist position, just call me a straw man.

And I am not one who makes statements such as digitial is perfect or you can't know which piece of gear sounds better, you can only know which you prefer. I would call those statements irrational.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To me, the rationalist position is that measurements are important. You don't (or I don't) want to buy a piece of gear that was designed with flaws such as high distortion, ac hum riding on the dc power supply rails, a frequency response with all sorts of dips and/or peaks, etc. However, once you find a piece of gear that meets your criteria for good measurements, you have to use your ears to decide which one you think sounds better.

That is the position of every "rationalist" or "objectivist" I've ever come in contact with. The idea that they listen to measurements, or choose audio equipment on the basis of specs alone is something I've only seen come from subjectivists caricaturing the positions of others.

Tim

 

[marty]

Well, I was surprised to find a trail here at "What's best" stemming from my comments to REG about the Harbeth 40.1. The fireworks really started after my comments (and those from some others) about his beloved Harbeths and is below. I didn't see the complete trail included previously here so I took the liberty of posted it below.

Before diving in, let me say this. I really like and respect Robert Greene. He has taught me a lot and I enjoy being a member of his forum. But he does have some buttons that are easy to push. First, he really eschews expensive equipment, almost invariably believing a priori that it can't be better or even justified in the presence of similar gear that performs well for less. In an age where the cost of gear has entered the stratosphere, REG's perspective is very important and valuable. But that does not mean he isn't biased. He is, and furthermore, not necessarily in a bad way. He is in part measurement driven and that too isn't bad. And he is unquesitonably a music lover and musician. But be prepared for his wrath when you tell him the Harbeth 40.1 isn't the end all and be all in speakers. Let's get real. Its a pleasant enough speaker but not one that many of us would own in favor of other choices that are available. My sense about REG is that he almost always knows what good sounds like, but has a hard time admitting that there is such a thing as great, and great is often costly. This is very hard for him to accept. Don't get him started for example, on expensive speaker cables, yet many of us here have heard a beneficial effect and have made the decision to purchase such accessories. He thinks we're all nuts. His basic attitude makes me recall the adage- "the enemy of good is great". In REGs case, if it cost a lot of money, it can't possibly be great. Oh well, it is what it is. I follow his postings because buried in his occasional diatribes is a lot of very good wisdom and advice. It's rare for him to post anything that is not thoughtful, but push one of his hot buttons and stand back! Start from the bottom and read up.




[regsaudioforum] Re: RMAF and the M40.1s
From:
Robert <regonaudio@aol.com>
Add to Contacts
To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
Voracity? Maybe I should have eaten a cookie first.

Quads as a whole do not make me "go ballistic".
I owned a pair for more than a decade(though I EQed them).
But you can look at Tony's measurements
and see that the 989 is very far off if uncorrected.
I am not making this stuff up. This is just a fact.

Of course no speaker sounds exactly like a piano. But the Harbeths
are a lot closer to my ears than the Magneplanars.

Now about "fast" and presenting the decay correctly

Read these two(from Stereophile) descriptions of actual
energy decay measurements and ask yourself which is which,
Harbeth versus Magneplanar(1.6 in this case--I did not find the 1.7)

"The cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.7) is extremely clean in the tweeter's passband"

"The mid- and high-treble regions, however, appear to have some delayed energy problems"

Did you guess? The former is the Harbeth M40.1 --the speaker that lacks snap according to Tony and does not decay correctly according to MW. The latter is the Magneplanar 1.6

All speakers are imperfect, as everyone admits who is sensible.
To some extent, one always names one's poisons. I am not averse
to planar speakers--I own several of them.

But some things are matters of fact. It is sensible to keep track of them. Actually the Harbeth is super clean in decay according to the Stereophile waterfall(not to mention according to listening). You will be hard pressed to find a better. It is really not a good idea to make stuff up--it tends to distract one from reality.

REG

PS It is a serious error to dismiss "nice tonal balance"
as one issue among many and sort of an incidental one at that. Frequency response(which I am supposing
is included in tonal balance) is the determining factor above
all others as to what speakers sound like. In particular,
smooth frequency response is very nearly equivalent to correct
decay--exactly equivalent in minimum phase systems. Uli and I
may disagree on occasion about details of how to model speakers in rooms or of what one is trying to fo with audio,
but he can tell you that , as I can, as anyone can who knows anything about how things work. In a minimum phase system,
flat and no ringing are the same thing. Speakers with analogue crossovers are not minimum phase in general and still less so in rooms, but the principle remains similar. If you look at waterfall plots, it is almost invariably the case that the ridges of delayed energy are associated to irregularities in frequency response around the same frequency of the ridge. It makes one look out to lunch to dismiss smooth response and then go on to worry about decay separately. It makes on look as if one did not know what one was about.

The failure to understand this standard technical point has haunted High End audio throughout. It is probably the second worst error of the common audio errors. (The worst is the idea that the kind of random microphone techniques by which commercial recordings are made deserve to produce a realistic "soundstage" on playback,
that this is somehow to be expected in such an explicit and detailed way that it is a worthwhile criterion, even the main criterion, for evaluation of equipment).

--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wax M.D." <mbw817@...> wrote:
>
> I can't say I'm surprised at the voracity of your objection to Magneplanar 1.7 +
> sub. I would argue you may not have heard them set-up well. I also have a
> rebuilt 1928 6'4" Model A that I play daily, so my sense of a real piano sound
> is not lacking. But let's be clear. The Maggie does not sound like a Steinway.
> And although this may come as a shock, neither does the Harbeth. As to which
> offers more musical enjoyment for whatever reason, I think it's perfectly OK to
> agree to disagree. Using words such as demented convey an arrogance that is, I
> must admit, atypical in my readings of your excellent work over many years.
> Clearly Maggies and Quads make you go ballistic. I guess the best we can say is
> that you leave nothing to the imagination as to where you stand on those
> speakers!
> Marty
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert <regonaudio@...>
> To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 12:21:05 AM
> Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: RMAF and the M40.1s
>
>
> Anyone who talks about "fast" speakers is automatically
> suspect to my mind. This is a word with no meaning
> in the context and people who use it are almost guaranteed
> to be audiodemented(if I may coin a word).
>
> Cabinet resonance in BBC school speakers is below the level
> of audibility--that is the whole point of the damped thin
> wall design and was carefully checked long ago.
>
> I leave in silence the idea that the Magneplanar with a
> subwoofer is a better speaker since I cannot think of
> anything even remotely polite to say.
> Except maybe you should play a piano recording and then
> play a piano.
>
> REG
>
--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wax M.D." <mbw817@> wrote:
> >
> > Before we start to impugn Powell Hall, let me say unequivocally that the sound
> in that hall is very dependent in the seat location. I spent 12 years attending
> the SLSO as a season subscriber in that hall, with a plethora of seats. I
> > finally wound up with dead center Grant Tier box N, seats 1 and 2, in which
> > there is no finer seat in the world, in my view, to hear an orchestra. And I
> > have been in just about every major hall in the world. But while I was working
> my way to seat heaven, I sat in many duds along the way. I would wager a Diet
> > Pepsi that the individual who reported muddy bass sat in the orchestra, right
> >of center, more than half way forward . Couple that location with the fact that
> >the cellos are slightly turned away from the audience (to face the conductor), and
> that there are no risers (except for the last row of bass) thus burying the
> > tympani to sonic hell from those seats, the and you have sound that simply
> > sucks. Powell is not unique in that most halls have variable sound depending
> >on the seat. The great Carnegie is not particularly impressive in center section
> > row H. But move to row R center, and you'll think you died and went to musical
> heaven.
> >
> > Now as far as speakers, realizing the likelihood I that REG may set a speaker
> >on fire on my front lawn, I have never been overly impressed with the Harbeth 40
> >or 40.1. It is indeed a nice sounding speaker. And it is musical. And if I owned
> > them I would not be quick to seek out other speakers since on the whole they
> >are very pleasant indeed in their tonal balance. But they have significant cabinet
> resonance, do not handle dynamics well at all, nor are they very fast speaker
> >so as to convey transients or decays with the versimultude found in other designs,
> > or for me, live music. Yes, I know, all the things that are apparently not in
> > what I think music should sound like, are not in the Harbeths, so it must be my
> > sense of what real music sounds like. No problem. I am not offended. To be
> > brutally honest, I far prefer Magneplanar 1.7's with a good subwoofer. But that
> >is the beauty of audio- there's vanilla, chocolate and strawberry and as the
> > famous dealer Paul Heath taught me long ago "you pays yer money and you takes
> > yer choice".
> > Marty
> >
> >

 

[marty]

It will be interesting to see if REG has a reasonable reply to Tony's data. REG is a scientist, a mathematician who respects data. Since Tony thought the Harbeth was not a "fast" speaker and since REG called people who say that about tranducers "demented", it will interesting to see if the dialog continues. . REG should be careful. Tony is a regular poster on the TacT forum and his posted data is always meticulous and unassailable. (He is also generous with his time helping out newbies or others who need it). Me? If Tony is demented because he believes some transducers are faster than others, then I'm honored to be in company of the demented. I would further add that of all the systems described on several forums I read, his system is one I would go out of my way to hear if I could. He's a put an awful lot of disciplined know how into it and I'm eager to hear the results. (I should add that Tom Mallin's Harbeth system is another. I can't imagine that listening to Harbeths in the near field at nearly a 90 deg angle is going to be an epiphany, but Tom has made some compelling arguments and I'm intrigued to hear his set up.)
Marty

 

[Gregadd]

It is unfortunate that which should be obvious to even the uninitiated is subject to so much debate. I suppose if one keeps repeating something then one may convince onself that it is true. There are many ways to win an argument. Of course the only one that counts is on the merits. But then a debate emerges on what the merits are or should be. Ron is probably right. Perhaps I should just leave it alone or take it out back. I do worry that some neophyte would be misled and forced to "wander in the wilderness" until stumbling on the truth like I was. A bit presumptuous and apparently annoying to some. I do take some solace in the fact that the proof is in the pudding. You need only taste it. And yes your taste buds can be trusted.

My apology if that irritates anyone.

 

[JackD201]

I've been misled and stumbled in the dark, I still do. If I could do it all over, I'd still choose the same path. What's the fun of painting, if you have to do it by the numbers?

For that matter, what's the point of joining a forum wherein everybody agrees on everything? Let's leave places like that for folks that need slaps on the back to prop them up.

 

[JackD201]

Because a lot of the time, the best lessons are the hard learned ones. Doesn't mean I don't look at specs. I do my fair share of due diligence. What I mean is that I'd rather bank on my own experience than take the word of someone whose tastes I don't really know. Like REG and Tony, heck what's the big deal if they disagree? The controversy just makes me want to hear the 40.1 all the more. I like the HLP5 super. I think it's a very good loudspeaker. Not something I'd buy for myself but something I enjoy when I visit a friend who owns them.

Sometimes there are qualities that I look for that I instinctively know is missing but can't quite identify much less quantify. Experimentation becomes necessary. Fortunately one need not always need to buy to try

 

[microstrip]

And he (REG) is unquestionably a music lover and musician.> >

You are referring a questionable subject. Why should a musician be a more qualified judge in such questions?

Most music lovers have the perspective of being spectators and want to reproduce the feelings they have during a live performance.

I feel that a performer, who sits usually in the middle of the stage between other musicians and plays a precise instrument, will have a strong bias toward a particular type of sound, one that enhances the clues that he needs to play in an ensemble and makes him feel as a part of it . May be it is why REG loves the 40.1! The tonal balance in the stage an in the hall should be very different.

The emotions of playing should be very different from those of listeners.

BTW, I highly appreciated REG articles for many years, but always take them as just one of the many views over audio - I am not an adherent of near field listening.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Stumbling in the dark can be very expensive.

Why waste the time?

And it bangs the shins. Still, the counter arguments are all straw men: Whether the silly statement of the moment is "painting by numbers," or "listening to graphs," or the seemingly reasonable, but ultimately impossible "my reference is live music, I don't listen to numbers," it's all disingenuous. No one here who believes in measurement has ever said they don't listen. None have ever claimed to make purchase decisions only by the specs. And if you must re-cast a point of view into an absurd, but dishonest cartoon of a position in order to make your case against it, your case is what is in question.

Reminds me of politics.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Often when your opponent expresses thier position so clearly ,there is no need for rebuttal.

 

[JackD201]

So what are you saying Tim, that if we hear your system we'll all be in tears because your way is the only right way? That your philosophy is the absolute?

Reminds me of religion.

Jack

 

[Steve williams]

Tim would just have us drinking a different flavor of the Kool Aid

 

[JackD201]

Yeah , his

 

[Ron Party]

So what are you saying Tim, that if we hear your system we'll all be in tears because your way is the only right way? That your philosophy is the absolute?

Reminds me of religion.

Jack

Jack, I know you know better than this. Don't let your emotions control your intellect, otherwise you'll be guilty of raising this kind of straw man allegation.

I think we may in fact need a new thread in the General Debates section so that members can have at it on this topic.

 

[Gregadd]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Wikepedia

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
Quoting an opponent's words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments – thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.


Wikepedia

 

[Gregadd]

Now if you read the thread again the folowing debate arises:

Can we tell if one peice of gear is better than anothe? I say yes otherwise what is the purpose of all this?

How do we tell? I say ulimately by listening. Measurements create a product that you can evalaute. Listening must be the final test. Just as in a cooking contest a recipe is vitally important but it' the taste that counts. Yes we are going to have different recipes and different cooking methods. Some one or some group has to be the arbiter of what is best and what standards are applied. Thankfully we have an abundance of choices and are free to ignore what the experts say and do whatever the hell we like.

Why it stirs up so much anger is beyond me. State your opposing opinion and get on with it.

 

[The Smokester]

...Just as in a cooking contest a recipe is vitally important but it' the taste that counts. Yes we are going to have different recipes and different cooking methods. Some one or some group has to be the arbiter of what is best and what standards are applied. Thankfully we have an abundance of choices and are free to ignore what the experts say and do whatever the hell we like...

Greg, Is this an example of a "Straw Man Argument? Just kidding.

I have been interested in evidentiary reason (mathematica aspects) for some time. Turns out that a lot of contributions have come from the legal side. You have a great way of distilling complex argments. I'll bet you're a good lawyer, too.

 

[cjfrbw]

Uh, Oh! The lawyers are arguing terminology. This one is going all the way to the Supreme Court. What does the Constitution have to say about Audio Dementia?

 

[microstrip]

No, you can't. But you can measure what is heard. If you rely on a subjective evaluation of what sounds like music, you have no standards. What's better is what each individual likes better. And while that's just fine for listeners, it's not good enough for designers. They need standards to reach for if there is to be progress. Your way gives them none.

Tim

Tim,
This can be a dangerous route. If we accept that measurements are just tools for progress without having first developed confirmed models that correlate them with sound quality, they will became useless for progress, although they be will be useful for designing. The current simplistic models that only state that the less error the best is the device are not capable of describing the sound differences between high end equipment.
Bad luck that promoters of complex models, mostly high end designers, did not want to expose them openly, as they want to protect their investment.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So what are you saying Tim, that if we hear your system we'll all be in tears because your way is the only right way? That your philosophy is the absolute?

Reminds me of religion.

Jack

You need to work on your reading comprehension. What I said is that arguments which paint those who include measurements in their consideration of equipment as people who don't include listening in their consideration of equipment are disingenuous. Having now read your response to my very short, clear and direct post....

Still, the counter arguments are all straw men: Whether the silly statement of the moment is "painting by numbers," or "listening to graphs," or the seemingly reasonable, but ultimately impossible "my reference is live music, I don't listen to numbers," it's all disingenuous. No one here who believes in measurement has ever said they don't listen. None have ever claimed to make purchase decisions only by the specs. And if you must re-cast a point of view into an absurd, but dishonest cartoon of a position in order to make your case against it, your case is what is in question.

...I'm left wondering if such characterizations are straw men and disingenuous, or simply thick-headed and illogical. Let me repeat the fundamental part of it again, just to be sure you don't miss it a second time:

No one here who believes in measurement has ever said they don't listen. None have ever claimed to make purchase decisions only by the specs.

And now, if you have the capacity to be honest with yourself, perhaps you can wonder what, on earth, that has to do with "your way is the right way," or "your philosophy is the absolute."

Tim