Not getting defensive. Was being facetious. Sorry you missed that.
Data points? I don't know what anechoic weighted measurements are and frankly could care less.
Damns the product? IMHO, a judgmental / myopic perspective and, for me, totally irrelevant.
I do appreciate your passion regarding numbers and willingness to discuss. Suffice to say, I obviously disagree with your basic premise that measurements are a significant indicator of what one hears absent the obvious anomalies. Way too many other things that influence ones' final impression of how a product sounds.
Should have said that more clearly upfront so I could have avoided wasting my time and yours.
Appreciate that but once again I am at a loss how results of people listening to music and voting for the fidelity they hear being about numbers. This process is no different that someone auditioning loudspeakers and reporting on them. The only difference is that they are not allowed to know what they listen to so that other influences are not involved. Whether you believe in the measurements that go with them, is secondary in that regard.
I lose interest in listening to MLs the moment I am not centered in the narrow "sweet spot." (I find the off-axis sound to be thin, dry, unbalanced.) I have never listened to a single ML speaker in mono but I suspect I would find it to sound fairly ghastly.
Forgive me if this point was raised previously, but is there any reason to think that listening to only one speaker (mono) rather than two speakers (stereo) would disadvantage the sound of the ML relativelymore than it would disadvantage the sound of the conventional speakers?
Forgive me if this point was raised previously, but is there any reason to think that listening to only one speaker (mono) rather than two speakers (stereo) would disadvantage the sound of the ML relativelymore than it would disadvantage the sound of the conventional speakers?
That's the unanswered question, I asked the same thing and so far nobody has come up with any reasonable explanation.
The big difference is dispersion pattern and if you are sitting right in front of the speaker it shouldn't matter so much. If you were off axis from the ML it would be a larger disadvantage vs other speakers with "better", more even dispersion patterns. So I think we'd need to know the seating position of the listener to know if the ML was truly at a disadvantage...
The big difference is dispersion pattern and if you are sitting right in front of the speaker it shouldn't matter so much. If you were off axis from the ML it would be a larger disadvantage vs other speakers with "better", more even dispersion patterns. So I think we'd need to know the seating position of the listener to know if the ML was truly at a disadvantage...
Harman has three different listening rooms. In all cases the persons sits on-axis of the loudspeaker when testing in mono. Here is the picture of the room used in:
Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow
And performance ratings of loudspeakers tested (M is Martin Logan)
It would be interesting to see whether all dipoles would score as poorly as the ML speakers. My guess is that a speaker with much better lateral off axis out to 60-90 degrees would score much better. A comparison between a Linkwitz LX521 and any ML speaker would be interesting. The reason is that it's apparent that Linkwitz designs his speakers using very similar performance objectives to the way Harman designs their speakers.
Here where Harman tested high school and college students from different countries the test was done a bit differently. With limited time to test they didn't use one person per test and therefore some test takers were slightly off axis. The ML scored slightly higher for those off axis. The Harman directional measurements indicated a more balanced off axis frequency response and this result wasn't exactly unexpected. The ML still scored worst or tied for worst. This does support the idea that in stereo use which could be well off axis and careful room placement may allow the ML to perform much better. Given the Harman hypothesis they likely will not catch up fully with speakers exhibiting smoother off axis and on axis response. Given the ML's are by far the most expensive they still don't look like a good deal. The MLs primary problem measures just like it sounds to me. A mismatch between bass and mid/treble.
I have as yet! To hear a reasonable explanation as to the apparent discrepancy between the unbiased suite of measurements provided by Noel Keywood, and the 'poor' set of measurements for ML trotted out within this and other threads, oft by the same tag team respondents, and well past bordering upon Agenda.
I would also like to pose this simple question, If we are all to be badgered into believing that ML transducers measure 'SO' poorly and sound 'SO' abominably, WHY DO SO MANY MUSIC LOVERS PURCHASE THEM ?????????
I have as yet! To hear a reasonable explanation as to the apparent discrepancy between the unbiased suite of measurements provided by Noel Keywood, and the 'poor' set of measurements for ML trotted out within this and other threads, oft by the same tag team respondents, and well past bordering upon Agenda.
I would also like to pose this simple question, If we are all to be badgered into believing that ML transducers measure 'SO' poorly and sound 'SO' abominably, WHY DO SO MANY MUSIC LOVERS PURCHASE THEM ?????????
Speaker business is 90% about marketing, 10% about performance. Fail on the former and you die. No matter how good the other 10%. This is why you see so many varied industrial designs, colors, styles, etc. So let's not pull market success into this. It works on many factors unrelated to performance.
I would also like to pose this simple question, If we are all to be badgered into believing that ML transducers measure 'SO' poorly and sound 'SO' abominably, WHY DO SO MANY MUSIC LOVERS PURCHASE THEM ?????????
I would love if this debate was centered on planar speakers or at electrostatics, such as my large Soundlab's, avoiding this systematic ridiculous particularization of hate towards a specific brand.
Music lovers buy THEM because with the proper ancillaries, room and setup they please their preferences. IMHO anyone wanting to know more about ML should go in the Martin Logan users group forum, not just rely on the opinion of the WBF members who do not like them. YMMV.
Speaker business is 90% about marketing, 10% about performance. Fail on the former and you die. No matter how good the other 10%. This is why you see so many varied industrial designs, colors, styles, etc. So let's not pull market success into this. It works on many factors unrelated to performance.
I do agree with this. If you look up Philip Kotler's 4Ps of Marketing, they cover Product, Price, Place (distribution) and Promotion. How well you apply the other 3 Ps (apart from the product) will dictate how much the brand sells. I also believe American brands are the best at marketing. They are always seen in multiple reviews, at most hifi shows, are well distributed.
I would love if this debate was centered on planar speakers or at electrostatics, such as my large Soundlab's, avoiding this systematic ridiculous particularization of hate towards a specific brand.
The research is based on sound business reasoning, not emotions. B&W and Martin Logan are probably the top two, highest volume high-end loudspeakers around. That is why they are routinely included in the research. It is important to analyze their success and see how much of it is due to better sound, and how much due to other factors. This is what every loudspeaker manufacturer should be doing. Not leaving us as the guinea pigs to determine if they have built a better mousetrap than leading brands or not.
The research is based on sound business reasoning, not emotions. B&W and Martin Logan are probably the top two, highest volume high-end loudspeakers around. That is why they are routinely included in the research. It is important to analyze their success and see how much of it is due to better sound, and how much due to other factors. This is what every loudspeaker manufacturer should be doing. Not leaving us as the guinea pigs to determine if they have built a better mousetrap than leading brands or not.
Are you serious? On axis is 0 degrees or straight ahead. Mono, stereo, multi-channel whatever.
If you are referring to the vertical axis, you would expect a panel to vary less vertically than conventional speakers as they are more directional in the vertical axis.
Are you serious? On axis is 0 degrees or straight ahead. Mono, stereo, multi-channel whatever.
If you are referring to the vertical axis, you would expect a panel to vary less vertically than conventional speakers as they are more directional in the vertical axis.
Are you serious? On axis is 0 degrees or straight ahead. Mono, stereo, multi-channel whatever.
If you are referring to the vertical axis, you would expect a panel to vary less vertically than conventional speakers as they are more directional in the vertical axis.
