advertisement


3rd edition of Floyd E. Toole's "Sound Reproduction"

If a tool for blind test auditioning places the Harman speaker in its optimal location

Where did you get that from???

The speaker shuffler puts all speakers quickly in the same position, namely the position where the mechanism of
the shuffler is located. That is a feature of the building. The reason for this is because it was found that any difference
in relative position between speaker and listener skews the listening result and compromises the test data.


The shuffler does not position Harman speakers any better than their competitors. You can only blame the shuffler that
it is valid only for a specific type of speaker, in this case apparently direct radiators that do not rely on boundary gain.

You could blame them for including an aberrant design like a ML, but don't forget that comparative advertisement and slamming
competitors is part of the US culture.
 
You could blame them for including an aberrant design like a ML, but don't forget that comparative advertisement and slamming
competitors is part of the US culture.

So it is a piece of advertising by your own description?!

My point is almost all speakers are an “aberrant design” as they need to be positioned carefully to obtain the best presentation and response. One can’t just plonk a transducer randomly in a location and expect it to perform as its manufacturer intended given so many manufacturers have differing views as to where their speaker should be placed.

PS I’m surprised this is becoming so cyclic as what I am arguing is very far from being controversial, it has been tested and proven audio knowledge for at least 70 years!
 
"As an industry courtesy the speakers were only ever referred to as A.B,C and D". The Harman model was an Infinity $500 budget model. The purpose of this test(amongst hundreds of others) was clear, to establish a general trend in listener preferences-it wasn't to give dipoles/electrostatics or anything else a hifi review.The audience didn't know what they were listening to. Toole, Olive et al aren't conmen, nor are they stupid. Aside from these shuffler tests were extensive anechoic FR measurements. I'm struggling why this is a hard concept to grasp ie it wasn't about the brands it was about the FR and poorly positioned or not(Olive responded to that accusation) even poor positioning and its negative effect on FR will still be valid in establishing the trend.
They work for Harman, the company is implementing their research results, the relationship is no different from plenty of other manufacturers /designers when it comes to White Papers (which are PR btw) or the lecture circuit.
 
So it is a piece of advertising by your own description?!

My point is almost all speakers are an “aberrant design” as they need to be positioned carefully to obtain the best presentation and response. One can’t just plonk a transducer randomly in a location and expect it to perform as its manufacturer intended given so many manufacturers have differing views as to where their speaker should be placed.

PS I’m surprised this is becoming so cyclic as what I am arguing is very far from being controversial, it has been tested and proven audio knowledge for at least 70 years!

I think your interpretation is wrong to put it simply - and that you are accusing Harman of unfairly treating a model that measures poorly - please note Tony REGARDLESS of orientation.

Mlpfig3.jpg


That's not to say Logans don't sound nice - they do. Accurate though? Not in my memory. I don't remember instances of the suspension of disbelief or remarkable timbre when owning my Ascents.

Imaging is nice sure, but often quite diffuse and less than palpable. I think that's why the argument continues. You are saying you have lost faith in an audio engineer because you claim that he participates in tests that unfairly handicap certain products. The actual scientific evidence presented both here and in threads across the internet suggests otherwise hence people taking exception to your assertion.
 
As I understand it the whole point of the listening tests was to objectify the subjective impressions of the listeners so that the data thus acquired could be used to assess futher designs. A laudable aim if the comparative tests place each speaker within their best setup. Sean Olive's response indicates that this wasn't done despite his claims to the contrary.

For the purposes of drawing conclusions from the test the other manufacturers speakers should have remained undisclosed. In his lecture, Toole makes clear, without actually naming them, that he is referring to Logans and his prejudice against such a design. It would be interesting to know if he, and some of those contributing here, have ever heard a pair of Logans setup properly in a sympathetic room. Of all the speakers I have owned they are the most dependant on careful positioning and room. Get it wrong and "aberrant" might be a reasonable description, get it right and that description becomes laughable. Feed them a good recording and they can be capable of an uncanny illusion of the real thing in front of you. Feed them a poor recording and they will not paper over the cracks; such a revealing speaker can be a double edged sword!

Anechoic chamber tests are problematic for a speaker which relies on rear dispersion and reflection to help give an illusion of real performers playing in a real space. Naturally, a lot of people won't, and won't want to, get this!

The rest of Toole's lecture was very interesting and instructive so I suppose we should forgive him this aberration regarding a speaker from a rival manufacturer.
 
2 points about this thread.

1) I'm staggered that Tony has to make a repeat an argument about the specific demands of panel speakers, and more so that people as knowlegeable as Werner don't appear to have sufficient experience with electrostats to realise how crucial the argument about positioning is.

2) As far as I can see, noone arguing for the merits of Toole's book has yet pointed out what exactly they value about his wisdom. I'm certainly interested to hear about that, as I've not glanced at his book for some time and would very much appreciate a brief digest.

I'm naturally inclined to be sympathetic to Toole, as for many years I used some speakers devised at the NRC with his input, but they were conventional 2 way monitors. I'd be surprised if Toole were narrow minded enough to be blind to the exceptional merits of panels, as well as their limitations, and would have little but contempt if he used that one ML test as a basis for an argument against the form.
 
2) As far as I can see, noone arguing for the merits of Toole's book has yet pointed out what exactly they value about his wisdom. I'm certainly interested to hear about that, as I've not glanced at his book for some time and would very much appreciate a brief digest.

I think the value of the book is in the way he explains a lot of the research into what people find pleasing, and why, as well as the pretty comprehensive treatment of room acoustics.
 
I stand to be corrected but I believe the main thrust of Toole/Olives research points to listeners preference for loudspeakers with a flat on axis response and an off axis response which is flat, even and mirrors the on axis response.
A ragged off-axis response being one of the main contributors to colouration.
Keith
 
don't appear to have sufficient experience with electrostats to realise how crucial the argument about positioning is. .

Hahahahachoke.

Tell that to someone who owned two pairs of Quads and also Magnepans, and who twenty years ago used to spend quite some time with MLs in a sympathetic room.

The MLs I knew could do some things incredibly well. At the cost of something else that made them, to me, irritating in the long term.
 
I stand to be corrected but I believe the main thrust of Toole/Olives research points to listeners preference for loudspeakers with a flat on axis response and an off axis response which is flat, even and mirrors the on axis response.
A ragged off-axis response being one of the main contributors to colouration.
Keith

And I agree with him on this important point. However he uses the line "when we see all the curves" and goes on to describe the "perfect" speaker, the K2, but I think there are more curves that might help us to determine how perfect the K2 is:
What about distortion curves (admittedly it's unlikely the K2 suffers too much at domestic replay levels)?
Vertical off axis response?
Cumulative spectral decay (which do appear to show resonances that don't show up in on/off axis response curves)
Step response (although it's debatable how useful this is)

Also, my own experiments demonstrate that a 2nd order rolloff from 40Hz is audible.

I'm sure the K2 is a damn good speaker. But perfect???
 
Where does Toole state the K2 is a perfect speaker, that was I believe one of Greg Timbers designs, who has now been replaced of course.
Perhaps you are thinking of the M2?
Keith
 
No, Gregs last projects were the Array and (K2) 9800. The M2 was developed by JBL Pro-all new LF and 2-way HF driver/horn tech.
Attention to detail re step response includes the contouring /raised lip near the ports on baffle. The lowest octave, such is the headroom in the bass drivers, is eq'd-if you want it. The waveguide looks symmetrical but isn't re -vertical dispersion AFAIK.
 
I wonder why they chose a 2 way topology for the M2. Such a large speaker could have been a proper full range of it had a couple more ways.
 
It’s a 3-way just like the K2 and the rest of the synthesis range really. Some are augmented 2- ways really with the main comp good to 20k-the D2 out to 30k.
 
Last edited:
They call it a Dual Diaphragm, Dual Voice-Coil Compression Driver but there's a single crossover frequency at 800Hz (an odd choice as it hits the fundamentals range of most acoustic instruments).
I think we've discussed this before.

It looks like it's designed to produce nice frequency response measurements.
 
Where does Toole state the K2 is a perfect speaker, that was I believe one of Greg Timbers designs, who has now been replaced of course.
Perhaps you are thinking of the M2?
Keith
You obviously have not watched the video linked to on the 1st page of this thread.
 
They call it a Dual Diaphragm, Dual Voice-Coil Compression Driver but there's a single crossover frequency at 800Hz (an odd choice as it hits the fundamentals range of most acoustic instruments).
I think we've discussed this before.

It looks like it's designed to produce nice frequency response measurements.

Well yes the D2 is a dual annular diaphragm comp but its the nature of that fact(2 lighter separately driven dias) that allows the extra extension in HF. Many prefer the 4" Be comp sound to the D2(but the D2 is 20% the cost) The Array 1400/9800/9900/66000 are all 3 ways though the 66000 has 2 1501al bass drivers, one only cover up to 150hz and its super tweeter kicks in at 20Khz, so is augmented at both ends of the frequency range.
JBL, TAD and Tannoy seem to produce excellent speakers with that circa 800hz xover point-myths and hifi fora rules eh? Incidentally those who've heard my 9800 clones comment on how nice their mid range sounds-female vocals are handled exceptionally well, they have scale, clarity and immediacy/real presentation-something merlin has waxed lyrical about in other threads so I really wouldn't base '2 way with horn loaded HF' opinions on those Chinese knock offs you had-their comp drivers retail for $200 Australian a pop-that's budget PA territory and I'm not surprised you got rid.
 
You obviously have not watched the video linked to on the 1st page of this thread.
Nowhere does he say the M2 is the perfect loudspeaker, he says it's "arguably as good as a speaker gets these days", that they represent pretty much where we(Harman)are, that they are "super good" but even so it doesn't guarantee what you play through them will sound great and if 'someone somewhere makes the perfect loudspeaker' that fact wont change.
 
Adding to Cooky's post - 800hz isn't anywhere near 'the fundamentals range of most acoustic instruments.'
It is however a great compromise. Other than those listed above, I've heard others, even own another make with a horn crossed in this range: it remains a happy source of musical pleasure and delivers unforced clarity.
 


advertisement


Back
Top