Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Yes, Quad absolutely groundbreaking in their time as were ATC, low colouration and plenty of headroom.
Keith
Keith
I have a great deal of respect for Toole in general but Martin Logan’s are sufficiently different in the way they operate to make comparisons invalid when treated in the same way as speakers that do meet his definition of a good speaker. It seems reasonable to me that if making subjective comparisons of speakers than each speaker should be set up as the designer intended. If not then some speakers will have an unfair advantage and could lead to what some may see as a self fulfilling prophecy. In much the same way comparison of measurements of conventional and dipole sToole wasn't reviewing a bunch of loudspeakers he was attempting to establish a set of preferences for a particular set of measured parameters across many models. The endless audiophile carp about the 'wrong' positioning of the ML's misses the entire point of the research-in fact the indifferent positioning correlated with the poor showing in the listening panels and kind of helped make his point.... This discussion is highlighting the significant effect positioning has on sound quality/in room response at LP, every speaker(s) requires a bit of time spent to get the best out of it but the general trend toward the ideal FR/power response curves established Toole/Olive are clearly the best place to start under normal domestic situations ie its hard enough fighting the room without having to fight the speaker too..
When saying that opinions are equally valid as to the best of type of speaker for any individual I was assuming that such opinions are from people who have actually heard them and preferably properly set up. Opinions from people who haven’t heard them are totally worthless of course. Cherry picking certain audio gurus to dismiss speakers that people haven’t heard strikes me as, how can I put this politely, odd in the extreme.Anyone who considers opinions to be equally valid is going to get seriously mislead in this age of mass disinformation. A sensible person will accumulate as many relevant facts as possible and weight them strongly, gather some opinions to help fill in what is missing and weight them less strongly than the facts and on how likely they are to be honest and well informed. Given the audiophile industry relies on disinformation/a belief in magic as a fundamental part of doing business this is not necessarily straightforward because many with a high status within the industry either encourage or keep quiet about the disinformation that is serving their interests.
So what are the facts about the sound of panel speakers? Why don't they perform well in reasonably well conducted listening studies against well designed conventional speakers? Why don't the pros in studios use them in any significant numbers? Why are they popular with DIYers and some audiophiles?
And in a nutshell, therein lies the problem. Looking at the video of Logan’s on his speaker swapping contraption it doesn’t look as though anyone paid any attention to either.I'm curious, when placing speakers for test, did Floyd simply place them for best measured response, or most preferred listener position? The two may not correlate.
If you look at the photographs of the Harman room the speakers are placed at a distance from the rear wall, similar to recommendations by Linkwitz, I have heard many dipoles I remain unconvinced, good in their day perhaps.I'm curious, when placing speakers for test, did Floyd simply place them for best measured response, or most preferred listener position? The two may not correlate.
Oh double dear! Patronising? Fair enough, another of your opinions but you might want to look inward first.
You and Keith will get on well together. You are the one expressing an opinion in what you haven’t heard and presumably not measured. If you are going to quote an audio guru you might want to spell his name correctly!
Martin Logan’s are a bit of a high wire act but get them right and the results are an exceptionally good way to listen to music. It is true that some speaker types can sound decent regardless of careful positioning but in my view that is not necessarily a virtue if, at their best, they don’t sound so good to me. For more than one listener in a room that has to have other uses they may be the best compromise of course. By comparison with ‘box speakers’ I am referring to Meridian dsp5500, Kef LS50, PMC FB1, BKS107 not to mention various Monitor Audio and B&W speakers from personal experience of listening and measuring. All decent sounding in their own ways and much easier to install and maintain but sadly they don’t provide such a convincing illusion of the original sound to my ears as Logan’s, Quads or MBLs. Other opinions are equally valid but people here may be forgiven for being cautious of the opinions of traders - that is why traders have their own discussion forum. Having said that factual help from traders is, as far as I am concerned, very welcome although some may have as much difficulty defining fact and opinion as they do hif!
When saying that opinions are equally valid as to the best of type of speaker for any individual I was assuming that such opinions are from people who have actually heard them and preferably properly set up. Opinions from people who haven’t heard them are totally worthless of course. Cherry picking certain audio gurus to dismiss speakers that people haven’t heard strikes me as, how can I put this politely, odd in the extreme.
Oh well, such speakers work very well for me but I can quite understand why they are not for everyone and why their positional requirements would make them not worthwhile auditioning. If not listened to, however, opinions on how they sound are pointless! On my list of speakers to try are full blown apogees (if any still exist), Shahinian, Magnepans and MBL101e. I’ll try to refrain on commenting on how they sound to me until I have heard them - I may be daft but I’m not stupid; and that isn’t open for public debate !!!
I think you also need to be careful what you conclude from Tooles work. He used trained subjects - a cynic might argue they were trained to prefer speakers designed by Tooles parent company - and he investigates their preferences. This is relevant if you are interested in marketing loudspeakers, but less relevant if you are interested in the accuracy of a transducer. The BBC for example would use natural, coloration free speech reproduction and intelligibility as a prime criteria for evaluating a loudspeaker, which would quite likely produce a completely different preferred loudspeaker from the kind preferred by Tooles listeners. I don’t think Toole even used speech reproduction in his tests. Tooles tests are more like the taste panels that Marks and Spencer’s use, and have the same weaknesses. If you really think Marks and Spencer’s lasagne is any good, or even food, well.. what more can I say.
No they were trained to distinguish audio differences. Not to like specific traits.
This conversation has been very simple. I expressed concerns about speakers performance.March audio. Try reading all of what I post and not just picking bits for you to have an argument with. Things aren’t black and white.
Do excuse me if I can longer be bothered with trying to discuss something with you. I think that is the first time I’ve said that; congratulations!
What differences? What vocabulary did they have to describe speech reproduction for example? Over and over again Tooles work is being used on this thread and forum as some kind of authority for listener preferences, but it’s a Marks and Sparks taste test at the end of the day. Did they even test for accurate stereo imagery, like the BBC used to, a test that is quite simple, repeatable and objective?
According to audioscience review these are typical of the tracks Toole uses
· Tracy Chapman, "Fast Car", Tracy Chapman
· Jennifer Warnes, "Bird on a Wire", Famous Blue Rain Coat
· James Taylor "That's Why I'm Here", “That’s Why I’m Here”
· Steely Dan “Cousin Dupree”, “ Two Against Nature”
· Paula Cole, “Tiger”,” This Fire”
· “Toy Soldier March”, Reference Recording
· Pink Noise (uncorrelated)
Mostly heavily “produced” and processed music with no objective reference - No speech, no opera, one classical piece, no choral music, the only acoustic piece - James Taylor - is most likely processed.. choose your colouration.
Toole used a complete cross section of the population as subjects, some were trained, groups included, journalists, students and even retailers.I think you also need to be careful what you conclude from Tooles work. He used trained subjects - a cynic might argue they were trained to prefer speakers designed by Tooles parent company - and he investigates their preferences. This is relevant if you are interested in marketing loudspeakers, but less relevant if you are interested in the accuracy of a transducer. The BBC for example would use natural, coloration free speech reproduction and intelligibility as a prime criteria for evaluating a loudspeaker, which would quite likely produce a completely different preferred loudspeaker from the kind preferred by Tooles listeners. I don’t think Toole even used speech reproduction in his tests. Tooles tests are more like the taste panels that Marks and Spencer’s use, and have the same weaknesses. If you really think Marks and Spencer’s lasagne is any good, or even food, well.. what more can I say.
Take the training and test for yourself. Let's see how discriminating you are and what your listening capabilities are.
Was the test for accuracy or preference?
Are the two mutually exclusive?
Why are classical or choral recordings indicators of accuracy? They certainly aren't an objective reference.
If you read the research it was established that listeners were more sensitive to speaker colouration when only one speaker was used.
The conclusions of the research were that people preferred speakers that had a flat and smooth on axis anechoic response with smooth off axis response.
Do you find that position in any way contradictory of the goal of speaker accuracy? Or in any way contentious?
Or do you hold the view that speakers that have lumpy varying on and off axis response to be more likely to be accurate and preferred?
It sure would be an interesting position to hold if the case.
Peter Walker's time largely predates the creation of the mainstream audiophile industry after the stereo boom. I don't think there is much doubt what he would think of the current company with it's valve amps and other audiophile products. The fact I now side with the technical view of panel speakers rather than an enthusiasts one doesn't mean that was always the case. I have owned panel speakers, been involved with the DIY efforts of others to build theirs and heard a reasonably wide range of them over the decades. But I got older, learned more about sound and sound perception and steadily became more aligned with evidence rather than enthusiasms. A bit boring but there it is.You should listen to a decent pair of Quads playing, say, some solo guitar, or a soprano voice and make your own judgement. These qualities may not be important to you, but if you can't appreciate them or perceive them then I would treat any other judgements you might make about loudspeakers with some scepticism. And fwiw I think your insinuation that a company like Quad relies on "disinformation/a belief in magic" is utterly insulting. Quad were absolutely dedicated to basic, sound engineering - they fought hard against many of the audiophile nonsenses. Quite probably why they are no longer here.