Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Yes, Quad absolutely groundbreaking in their time as were ATC, low colouration and plenty of headroom.
Keith
Keith
Speaker/Room Measurement Witchcraftery
- Thread starter S-Man
- Start date
camverton
pfm Member
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 s
camverton
pfm Member
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
!!!
camverton
pfm Member
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.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
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.
Keith
camverton
pfm Member
Indeed, just as the Dutch & Dutch 8Cs, superb as they of their type were, didn’t convince me personally I can understand why others might be unconvinced by dipoles. Just out of interest, Keith, what is your favourite genre of music for personal listening; I’m guessing that you get to hear a wide range of stuff in your profession.
March Audio
Trade: March Audio
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.
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!
You have said that these speakers can be poor and are position dependant. Your experience, not mine. This entirely supports the views I have expressed based on how I know they might behave in a room, and confirming the view of professional research.
So to be blunt, what on earth are you banging on about?
I'm confused because you are agreeing with what I said, then attacking my opinions.
Truly bizarre.
You said
They have disadvantages, of course, and a change of frequency response as you move away from the prime listening position is one of them, particularly with Logan’s
they can be made to sound anything from poor to exceptional depending on how they are positioned
I said
The Logans I suspect will be quite unpredictable in this respect. They will work poorly in many if not most situations
I am very wary of a speaker that requires very specific positioning, and that of the listener, and very specific room conditions to make it work.
So I am not sure what you think you are arguing about. You have completely confirmed my views.
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.
March Audio
Trade: March Audio
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
Why are your subjective opinions worthy?
All I said is that I would be wary of a speaker that requires such specific listening conditions to make them work. Conditions and problems you confirmed.
I haven't heard them. My opinions concur with yours. So you are saying your opinions are worthless.
Fascinating, also highly amusing, but as you say, odd in the extreme.
March Audio
Trade: March Audio
No they were trained to distinguish audio differences. Not to like specific traits.
Perhaps you would like to see how well you do?
http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com
And the bit about does training bias listeners
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html
Btw the question raised was specifically about listener preferences not about accuracy.
camverton
pfm Member
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!
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.
March Audio
Trade: March Audio
This conversation has been very simple. I expressed concerns about speakers performance.
You confirmed those views and then went off on one attacking my views for no good reason. It is pretty black and white, which is why you are now bailing.
Perhaps the rest of us can now get on with some sensible worth while discussion.
March Audio
Trade: March Audio
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.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Toole used a complete cross section of the population as subjects, some were trained, groups included, journalists, students and even retailers.
Interestingly all the groups greed as to the neutral thus more enjoyable loudspeakers.
Have you heard Quad electrostatics, or any other electrostatics?
I’ve been involved with HiFi for 40 years. I still can’t think of a speaker that would do better in a live vs recorded test of human speech.
As I said before, there are many speaker designers - typically those with a British/BBC/classical music bias and background - that still regard them as a reference. Other people like JBLs.
March Audio
Trade: March Audio
As I mentioned above yes I have heard quads a long while back and was underwhelmed. To be fair though perhaps they weren't positioned perfectly
Just to be clear I haven't actually said that panel speakers are crap. I just expressed a view that their performance could be very variable and that was not a virtue.
Just to be clear I haven't actually said that panel speakers are crap. I just expressed a view that their performance could be very variable and that was not a virtue.
John Phillips
pfm Member
I don't mean to be rude but I wonder if people are over-interpreting some of Floyd Toole's results.
As he says in the latest edition of his book you have to address the "10 dB problems" first before the "5 dB problems" etc. I doubt he would claim to have addressed all of the 10 dB problems let alone made significant progress into the 5 dB problems. I guess it's a matter of individual opinion about whether any particular problem is or is not important. I can't comment on that but one should not believe, either in promoting or criticizing his work, that it addresses all problems nor addresses any down to the finest level.
Choices made around some of the specific issues raised in this thread are explained in the book: listener opinions addressing "fidelity" versus "preference"; mono versus stereo versus multi-channel testing; the usefulness of training (and other types of experience); the arrangements in the listening room; etc. I have no doubt that criticisms of the choices made will remain, but choices are an essential part of getting useful results without having to "boil the ocean" and take near-infinite amounts of research time to reach any conclusion.
I have read Toole's book entirely twice. Even so I would not dare to try reproducing detail in the areas I mention above, for fear of my insufficient understanding and for fear of having to reproduce an entire chapter.
If you accept his broad conclusions about what loudspeaker measurements are useful and the results that are preferred, to satisfy a population of listeners (statistically - so not any one listener in particular whose preference may be different to the average) then there has been much progress. That certainly does not mean that all of the problems are yet solved.
As he says in the latest edition of his book you have to address the "10 dB problems" first before the "5 dB problems" etc. I doubt he would claim to have addressed all of the 10 dB problems let alone made significant progress into the 5 dB problems. I guess it's a matter of individual opinion about whether any particular problem is or is not important. I can't comment on that but one should not believe, either in promoting or criticizing his work, that it addresses all problems nor addresses any down to the finest level.
Choices made around some of the specific issues raised in this thread are explained in the book: listener opinions addressing "fidelity" versus "preference"; mono versus stereo versus multi-channel testing; the usefulness of training (and other types of experience); the arrangements in the listening room; etc. I have no doubt that criticisms of the choices made will remain, but choices are an essential part of getting useful results without having to "boil the ocean" and take near-infinite amounts of research time to reach any conclusion.
I have read Toole's book entirely twice. Even so I would not dare to try reproducing detail in the areas I mention above, for fear of my insufficient understanding and for fear of having to reproduce an entire chapter.
If you accept his broad conclusions about what loudspeaker measurements are useful and the results that are preferred, to satisfy a population of listeners (statistically - so not any one listener in particular whose preference may be different to the average) then there has been much progress. That certainly does not mean that all of the problems are yet solved.
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.