Why the Harman mono speaker test was wrong for dipole planers

[esldude]

Again are you guys serious? Do you confuse on axis with a preferred spot or sweet spot which may be on or off axis? On axis is straight ahead. If ML says you need to be off axis for best sound, then they are not alone in this. Other speaker manufacturers have suggested off axis as best for some speakers. Perhaps the Harman measurements could choose the best possible axis for a mono listener. Mirror images of that could be best possible axis for stereo use as well.

Assuming the algorithm they use is as advertised, and they have listener results supporting that as true, then they could pick a best possible axis for the speaker as well as predicting whether or not it would equal other speakers in a blind evaluation. Of course part of the info from Harman research is speakers requiring such careful placement tend to do less well in listening tests.

Also, I have mentioned in this thread, how someone here on WBF, I forget the user, owned some of these speakers and I believe posted his in room measurements which indeed looked to be good. I still don't see Harman has a vendetta against ML or panels.

 

[amirm]

Here is what ML says in one of their manuals: https://www.martinlogan.com/pdf/manuals/manual-electromotion-esl.pdf

"Experimentation
Toe-in
Now you can begin to experiment. First begin
by toeing your speakers in towards the listening
area and then facing them straight into the room.
You will notice the tonal balance and imaging
changing. You will notice that as the speakers are
toed-out, the system becomes slightly brighter than
when toed-in. This design gives you the flexibility to
compensate for a soft or bright room.

Generally it is found that the ideal listening position
is with the speakers slightly toed-in so that you are
listening to the inner third of the curved transducer
section. A simple, yet effective method to achieve
proper toe involves sitting at the listening position,
holding a flashlight under your chin and pointing it
at each speaker. The reflection of the flashlight should
be within the inner third of the panel (see figure 5)."

I see no specific mandate here.

 

[PeterA]

That user is ack. He recently wrote me that he is experimenting with toe in.

 

[esldude]

That user is ack. He recently wrote me that he is experimenting with toe in.

Thank you Peter, it was ack.

He has his measures on his system page here on WBF. One third octave. I would like to see more detail, but he has some good looking measures as far as it shows. He also has a variable attenuator for the woofer in his ML's plus he is using a Rel Subwoofer with them. So what I have heard from the hybrid ML's and what measurements show is a mismatch between bass and the higher frequencies. He has taken steps that would allow him to ameliorate those issues. That would go a long way to improve them.

I also wonder about waterfall plots of panels as nearly all show a long hashy, chaotic decay in the upper frequencies. I don't know if that is somehow not audible, somewhat audible and perceived as additional speed with clarity, or audibly detrimental.

 

[microstrip]

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.

Fantastic - in order to understand the competition success they recreated conditions in which they sounded poor to carry their tests.
Fortunately for the high-end the other manufacturers do not follow your advice.

I am sure that many audiophiles own great systems using Harman designed speakers, carefully tweaked and matched with synergy with high-end equipment. However, if you insist telling people them that they are being guinea pigs of high-end designers and they should stick with an average sounding powerful receiver, many people will never know how good they can sound.

 

[amirm]

Fantastic - in order to understand the competition success they recreated conditions in which they sounded poor to carry their tests.

Nope. Cheat like this and when you publish you work, you get skewered. Dr. Olive is a researcher with long history of establishing his academic credentials which is always done through publishing your work. No way would he compromise his integrity this way.

But that is not even at play here. No loudspeaker at Harman gets released without beating its competition/leading brands in double blind tests. Some products have been delayed and required redesign/tuning because of this. You think they would incorporate this process in their R&D only to fool themselves???

Remember, the reason much of this research occurs is not high-end audio. It is a $3 billion dollar business that Harman does in automotive area. Getting great sound in a car is super hard and Harman dominates that business through better sound as there are alternatives at cheaper price. It is that funding that allows them to have three anechoic chambers at a cost of $1M+ each. And why other manufacturers lack this and hence can't perform the same predictive measurements routinely.

So while there are no saints in business, you are very much out of line with your accusation. It is a true *gift* that Harman publishes its research for everyone to read, *and use* whether you are a customer or competitor. That you see something negative there, just makes me run and throw up. Whose side are you on anyway??? Their competitors?

 

[FrantzM]

Has Sean Olive ever being attacked as much as he's been in this forum? No wonder he no longer post here. He used to .. He's not the only Industry true luminaries with such elevated credentials who no longer post... Our loss.

 

[microstrip]

Nope. Cheat like this and when you publish you work, you get skewered. Dr. Olive is a researcher with long history of establishing his academic credentials which is always done through publishing your work. No way would he compromise his integrity this way.

But that is not even at play here. No loudspeaker at Harman gets released without beating its competition/leading brands in double blind tests. Some products have been delayed and required redesign/tuning because of this. You think they would incorporate this process in their R&D only to fool themselves???

Remember, the reason much of this research occurs is not high-end audio. It is a $3 billion dollar business that Harman does in automotive area. Getting great sound in a car is super hard and Harman dominates that business through better sound as there are alternatives at cheaper price. It is that funding that allows them to have three anechoic chambers at a cost of $1M+ each. And why other manufacturers lack this and hence can't perform the same predictive measurements routinely.

So while there are no saints in business, you are very much out of line with your accusation. It is a true *gift* that Harman publishes its research for everyone to read, *and use* whether you are a customer or competitor. That you see something negative there, just makes me run and throw up. Whose side are you anyway???

The objectives of the publication are completely different from those of the marketing people - for example the papers did not refer specifically to the brands being used.
But you say it all when you say that the reason much of this research occurs is not high-end audio, but to create predictable audio for most audio consumers.

Any one reading with care the comments of the Harman papers on stereo versus multichannel will understand where they put their research in home audio. Unfortunately for them the sound industry insists on keeping this compromised format, that when perfected is able of much more that what is referred in the F. Toole book, as wisely explained by S. Linkwitz.

BTW, my side is that of those who appreciate the extreme sound quality that stereo high-end can give us and try to understand the why's. I enjoy my hobby and love to learn from the people you consider as guinea pigs. And, as I have reported in WBF before, some of the best stereo sound I have listened long ago was using Mark Levinson products driving Martin Logan speakers using Transparent Audio top cables.

 

[microstrip]

Has Sean Olive ever being attacked as much as he's been in this forum? No wonder he no longer post here. He used to .. He's not the only Industry true luminaries with such elevated credentials who no longer post... Our loss.

No one is attacking the man - just saying that IMHO the conditions in which the Harman listeners and others listened to the Martin Logan are not adequate. Sorry, but systematically skewing arguments mixing science arguments and methods does not help.

 

[amirm]

The objectives of the publication are completely different from those of the marketing people - for example the papers did not refer specifically to the brands being used.

Of course they did. As in, "The Martin Logan loudspeaker is an electrostatic hybrid having an electrostatic panel crossed over to a passive subwoofer." From the paper, "Some New Evidence That Teenagers May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction"

But you say it all when you say that the reason much of this research occurs is not high-end audio, but to create predictable audio for most audio consumers.

I didn't tell you that. I said the funding came from that large business, not applicability of results.

As it turns out, we all have the same two ears and evolutionary traits in our perception so no group of population has different preferences:

Notice how the relative rankings of each loudspeaker (horizontal line graph) does NOT change no matter which group of listeners were tested (I have put a box around three of them for example). Random Joe, Marketing, High-end Reviewers and Trained Listeners all have similar rank order of what sounds good. Note again that "M" is Martin Logan and was rated the lowest by every group that listened to it.

The reason is simple: what these tests reveal is tonal quality of loudspeakers. Turn the bass up high and everyone in your family, audiophile or not can hear that boominess. Turn the highs up and again, everyone can detect the same. And we all have the same references in real life: what a voice sounds like. What we think drums are. Etc.

All of this could have been assumed but instead was tested, dating back some 30 years to research at NRC.

Any one reading with care the comments of the Harman papers on stereo versus multichannel will understand where they put their research in home audio. Unfortunately for them the sound industry insists on keeping this compromised format, that when perfected is able of much more that what is referred in the F. Toole book, as wisely explained by S. Linkwitz.

Anyone who has actually bothered to study the field would know that much of what is discussed here comes from academic world where both Toole and Olive worked (canadian NRC). I must have explained all of this dozens of times and yet here we are with more conspiracy theories.

The comment from Linkwitz in Amazon review of Dr. Toole is a side issue with Dr. Toole saying the ultimate presentation is multi-channel and Linkwitz thinking that sells stereo short. I think he is very much mistaken but that doesn't matter. All of this research is in stereo.

 

[esldude]

snip


. And, as I have reported in WBF before, some of the best stereo sound I have listened long ago was using Mark Levinson products driving Martin Logan speakers using Transparent Audio top cables.

Did you ever hear this same equipment playing thru some Infinity Primus 362 speakers? Otherwise a comparison without comparing seems unconvincing.

 

[Gregadd]

I for one showed Sean Olive great deference. I think Sean has not come around because he has not had anything to add to what he is already posting in his blog. OTOH I think god he was not treated like Micchael Fremer who clearly was run off this forum. The fact is I really would like the notion that "the better a device measures the better it sounds" and the more people like it.. After 40 years in audio that continues to be at odds with my experience and the overwhelming majority of the audiophile community. If I found it to be true, I could buy a system and spend all my time on locating and enjoying music.

I commend Harmon for "giving away " reserch. Although most "research" can be obtained at the patent office or from techncal association like AES.) Let's not get too carriesd away. The prefer a standard that makes their product sell. Just because they have a profit motive does not mean they can't beright,however. Like anyone else they have to create a product that comes closer to real music than anyone else if they seek to be the best. Utilizing what they claim to be superior techniques wwill not accomplish it.

Not that it is all that relavant I was once the proud owner of a Harmon car stereo. Ir came as OEM Personaly I found it wanting. Harmon car audio customers are essentially manufacturers, Not audiophiles.I never heard it but I think David Berning made a car stereo. Imagine how different things would be if they received an OEM contract from a major car manufacturer.

 

[Gregadd]

Treble dispersion. The other side of the panel-size coin: When a sound has a wavelength that is small relative to the size of the speaker diaphragm reproducing it, it tends to radiate over a narrow angle rather than dispersing widely into the room. Such high-frequency "beaming" yields a very small sweet spot where the listener can sit and hear proper tonal balance and often to a dry, sterile sound quality. Since every other consideration pushes electrostatics in the direction of larger panels, treble beaming is a serious concern.

Eh, maybe we should just throw some cones and domes in a box and call it a day.


ESL 101 Electrstatic Theory http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/electrostatic-speakers.php

Now if on axis is at 0 degrees of the speaker, where is the ML tweeter?

 

[Argonaut]

Where is the measurements by Noel Kenwood?

Read post number 23.

 

[microstrip]

Of course they did. As in, "The Martin Logan loudspeaker is an electrostatic hybrid having an electrostatic panel crossed over to a passive subwoofer." From the paper, "Some New Evidence That Teenagers May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction"

This quote is from a 2011 paper, a time when the identity was known by anyone. The studies we were referring precede it by many years.

The comment from Linkwitz in Amazon review of Dr. Toole is a side issue with Dr. Toole saying the ultimate presentation is multi-channel and Linkwitz thinking that sells stereo short. I think he is very much mistaken but that doesn't matter. All of this research is in stereo.

I am not addressing Amazon quotes, but the writings of S. Linkwitz about the limitations of Toole work when applied to stereo reproduction in his site www.linkwitzlab.com . And yes, we know since long that you think anyone thinking differently from you in WBF is also mistaken ...

 

[amirm]

I am not addressing Amazon quotes, but the writings of S. Linkwitz about the limitations of Toole work when applied to stereo reproduction in his site www.linkwitzlab.com . And yes, we know since long that you think anyone thinking differently from you in WBF is also mistaken ...

Me? No. If per chance I ever have an original thought, I go and throw myself a party that I am not as senile as I think I am .

The situation was that you appealed to Linkwitz as an authority to shoot down Dr. Toole's entire research around a topic that we were not even discussing, i.e. multi-channel. I said that I agree with Dr. Toole's position that multi-channel is superior to stereo. And Dr. Toole doesn't just declare that. He goes through extensive explanation of why stereo cannot ever present the real thing to us that we so desire. And how multi-channel comes far closer than stereo ever can.

The key to above is physics of sound and psychoacoustics. No one has done a better job of connecting these two major domains better than Dr. Toole whose educational focus was psychoacoustics. The vast majority of his research is based on analyzing human perception through listening tests. Precisely what we advocate, i.e. use one's ears.

Our lay assumptions of how sound reproduction works only gets in the way of our understanding. For me, the first and most shocking lesson came where I was at Harman And Alan Devantier was presenting research on room reflections. He says, "reflections from this angle to that angle are beneficial while others are not." I just about fell of my chair. How could the identical sound coming out of a loudspeaker make a difference with regards to direction that it radiates??? Aren't all radiations the same? And all to be absorbed because they are bad?

Truth to be told, it made no sense to me. Then you study this and see that you have two ears and not one. And how sound waves hit the two ears is very different if the reflection comes from right or left where each ear hears differently versus from ceiling in which case, both ears hear the same thing. Then you read paper after paper by many other authors outside of Harman/NRC and you see that there is a science that has been built up over 30 years that leads to very powerful conclusions. The world of acoustics that is devoid of psychoacoustics is not worth the electrons it takes to store it. Unfortunately that is the view of sound reproduction many of us have.

So what do I think of name dropping of Linkwitz to invalidate the research being performed? Bad form on top of reluctance to learn.

Now, I get the fear in all of this as was stated before. Does it mean that unless I own Harman loudspeakers, I have bought the wrong product? Seeing how vast majority of audiophiles are in that boat, the negative feeling is justified.

Here is the thing though. You may very well own products that have followed this research. So don't assume you have the wrong product necessarily. Instead, use this research to enrich your vocabulary of loudspeaker performance. Next time you are at a show and the designer is standing there, go and talk to him. Ask him about this research. Listen to their answers. Many will actually agree but if they don't, ask them why and see if their answer makes sense. I do this all the time and I have yet to see any reaction like I see from likes of micro.

Understanding this research and speaking from it, highly elevates the level of conversation you will have with loudspeaker designers. It will immediately cut through any marketing pitch they were going to give you. You will learn things that you will never learn from listening to a few tunes in another room, hoping that you get the same sound at home with wide variety of music.

As to measurements, as I keep saying, it is secondary to results of listening tests. But what there is, is super powerful. It is the most successful attempt to connect measurements to listening test results. Isn't this what we cry about all the time? Wanting measurements that have value? Why is it that when we have it, we run the other direction? We need to celebrate it and push for more adoption of such research by asking our designers why they don't use it.

Let me summarize quickly what this research says. It says that the most important thing in a loudspeaker is its tonal characteristics. No loudspeaker has a flat response. It will have variations and those variations are direction specific. First and foremost you need to get a loudspeaker that does not color the sound in a way that our brain things is improper. And how is this proven? Time and time again in listening tests. That is, using our ears.

What technology is used to make the loudspeaker, its shape, type of material, etc., is all secondary to above. If it produces an unnatural tonal fidelity, you need to ignore the rest. Unfortunately that is where all of the marketing of loudspeakers if focused and they drag us into that. "We used unobtanium parts built by virgins in tropical island" is the pitch rather than simply telling us that they produced a loudspeaker that makes a human voice sound like what we expect it to sound like. And that they have done a fair comparison comparing their sound to the sound of competing loudspeakers to demonstrate that is true.

The notion that a loudspeaker can have horribly colored sound yet have some other benefit so grand to overcome that simply does not hold when we just listen to its sound. I don't care how big or fancy of soundstage your loudspeaker throws. If the bass is not right, vocals not correct, highs too bright, then it has gotten the equation wrong. I want my cake and eat it too. No reason to compromise these vital characteristics for esoteric ones we can't even quantify. This is what you learn when you sit through the blind test questioned in this thread.

 

[amirm]

Let me comment on another thing before more people want to hang me . And that is the notion of loudspeaker break in. Please don't fall for that.

Let me explain this with a personal story. We have two homes, one with city water and another from private well on our property. The water where we live is very high quality seeing how it rains all the time. We moved a few months ago to our vacation house. I come back to our main home with city water once in a while. I have tea in the morning. After staying in our vacation house for a month, I make my tea and I am shocked that it tastes like pool water! It is as if I am drinking Chlorine. We have lived in our primary house for 18 years and never ever did I detect this. Yet here I am, I can barely drink the water once I got used to having well water with no chlorine.

So what is going on here? Adaptation. Our brain has an amazing ability to filter out what is invariant. It took out the Chlorine since it was always there. I got used to it. Once I started to drink water without it, it built back up the sensitivity to it.

Back to loudspeakers, if you buy a loudspeaker, turn it on and it doesn't sound right, return it! That is the moment of truth. That is when your mind fresh and can detect variations that don't sound right. Do not keep the loudspeaker and let it "break in." Because what is happening instead is that your brain is starting to adapt and filter out what is bad about it sound. The speaker is not improving. It is your detection ability that is degrading!

If the manufacturer insists that such break in is necessary, ask them to break it in and then send it to you.

And yes, this has also been researched and break in makes almost no difference whatsoever to the tonal quality of the loudspeaker. The driver characteristics does change but is not reflected in loudspeaker performance.

 

[esldude]

Let me comment on another thing before more people want to hang me . And that is the notion of loudspeaker break in. Please don't fall for that.

Let me explain this with a personal story. We have two homes, one with city water and another from private well on our property. The water where we live is very high quality seeing how it rains all the time. We moved a few months ago to our vacation house. I come back to our main home with city water once in a while. I have tea in the morning. After staying in our vacation house for a month, I make my tea and I am shocked that it tastes like pool water! It is as if I am drinking Chlorine. We have lived in our primary house for 18 years and never ever did I detect this. Yet here I am, I can barely drink the water once I got used to having well water with no chlorine.

So what is going on here? Adaptation. Our brain has an amazing ability to filter out what is invariant. It took out the Chlorine since it was always there. I got used to it. Once I started to drink water without it, it built back up the sensitivity to it.

Back to loudspeakers, if you buy a loudspeaker, turn it on and it doesn't sound right, return it! That is the moment of truth. That is when your mind fresh and can detect variations that don't sound right. Do not keep the loudspeaker and let it "break in." Because what is happening instead is that your brain is starting to adapt and filter out what is bad about it sound. The speaker is not improving. It is your detection ability that is degrading!

If the manufacturer insists that such break in is necessary, ask them to break it in and then send it to you.

And yes, this has also been researched and break in makes almost no difference whatsoever to the tonal quality of the loudspeaker. The driver characteristics does change but is not reflected in loudspeaker performance.

Oh yes a big plus one on that posting.

 

[Argonaut]

Read post number 23.

Have you done so amirm?

 

[dallasjustice]

You need to get a better water filter. I have a triple RO filter I use. It makes very nice coffee. I'm sure nothing compares to the pure and natural water at your vaca home though.

I agree that first impressions matter most with audio. That's the time when our brains are best able to discriminate the new from the old.

Other than Harman, which other speaker manufacturers would you say design their products with the same performance characteristics the research demonstrates is most desirable?

Let me comment on another thing before more people want to hang me . And that is the notion of loudspeaker break in. Please don't fall for that.

Let me explain this with a personal story. We have two homes, one with city water and another from private well on our property. The water where we live is very high quality seeing how it rains all the time. We moved a few months ago to our vacation house. I come back to our main home with city water once in a while. I have tea in the morning. After staying in our vacation house for a month, I make my tea and I am shocked that it tastes like pool water! It is as if I am drinking Chlorine. We have lived in our primary house for 18 years and never ever did I detect this. Yet here I am, I can barely drink the water once I got used to having well water with no chlorine.

So what is going on here? Adaptation. Our brain has an amazing ability to filter out what is invariant. It took out the Chlorine since it was always there. I got used to it. Once I started to drink water without it, it built back up the sensitivity to it.

Back to loudspeakers, if you buy a loudspeaker, turn it on and it doesn't sound right, return it! That is the moment of truth. That is when your mind fresh and can detect variations that don't sound right. Do not keep the loudspeaker and let it "break in." Because what is happening instead is that your brain is starting to adapt and filter out what is bad about it sound. The speaker is not improving. It is your detection ability that is degrading!

If the manufacturer insists that such break in is necessary, ask them to break it in and then send it to you.

And yes, this has also been researched and break in makes almost no difference whatsoever to the tonal quality of the loudspeaker. The driver characteristics does change but is not reflected in loudspeaker performance.