Why the Harman mono speaker test was wrong for dipole planers

TitaniumTroy

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2011
136
6
925
South Bend IN
I would like to see what the guru's response is to this, from a PM on another forum?

"You can't just take a dipole and plunk it down in the middle of the room, it will sound terrible. All speakers suffer if you do that, but dipoles are designed to be a certain distance from the wall and hybrids like the Logans are designed to be a certain distance from the listener. So without judging the Logans pro or con, I'd say that this was a completely invalid test."

"Another thing that wasn't mentioned is that a mono test removes one of the great advantages of dipoles, its superior imaging. In fact, a box speaker will probably sound better in mono because it bounces sound off the side walls. There's a section in Floyd Toole's book on why the Quads sound terrible in mono, which makes it all the more surprising to me that Harman would ignore that."

Most of us die hard planer fans, know you you can't even place a pair of full range planers too far apart, as the midbass will fall apart. So imagine taking one half of the speaker system out of the equation.

I would also like to add, I am not a Harmon Hater. I appreciate the scientific method they are trying to introduce in the pursuit of better sound. I just think in the case of planer's the testing went kind awry. I'm also aware planers have their faults, but to me, they do more right than they do wrong. Especially True Ribbon Tweeters like Raal and Magnepan, compared to conventional tweets.
 

TitaniumTroy

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2011
136
6
925
South Bend IN
While not scientific, the reaction of my dad when he heard a pair of ML at a Best Buy was the same as my stepfather when he heard my Magnepan 3.6's. Wow it doesn't sound like it's coming out of a box.

Would like to see Harman do another test, with different planer's with optimum room placement against, some "monkey coffin's" ;) also set up for maximum performance. I know that's not practical for their automated speaker selector but would like to see just the same.
 

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
289
2
0
Tampa
The last time I looked, harman doesn't sell planars.

If they did, I suspect the test methodology might have been different.

---

I'm 18 years on my MartinLogan reQuests. I play them at moderate volume (80dBz Leq with 105dBz peak on a digital SPL) in my 19x14x9 room.

I've set up a pair of Infinity P-363 (an entry level Harman 3-way) and confirmed (to my satisfaction) the major aberrations in the uncorrected response are dominated by the room.

---

Maybe someday they will be replaced. Maybe not.

For now, for me, they're just fine.

In-room, left speaker, at the sweet spot, a little warmth left in the bass (as opposed to flattened):

2015-12-24_2310.png
 

Speedskater

Well-Known Member
Sep 30, 2010
941
15
368
Cleveland Ohio
The Harman listening test is based on lowest common denominator:
a] All types of music.
b] All types of recording techniques.
c] All types of rooms.
d] All types of listener expectations.

Most of the listeners were most familiar with multi-miced pan-potted music.

************************************
[h=1]The Magic in 2-Channel Sound Reproduction
Why is it so rarely heard?[/h]http://www.linkwitzlab.com/The_Magic/The_Magic.htm
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
I gather from this thread that there must have been a test by the saintly Harman organisation that showed planar speakers as unpopular in a double blind listening test. To me, it just confirms what I have always thought: that audiophile 'science' based on listening tests is just naive.

If planar speakers need careful placement, then by mixing non-planar and planar speakers in the same listening test we have changed more than one variable.

Ultimately, listening to planar speakers may be no different from listening to headphones as long as the listener sits in one precisely-located armchair. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage? It could be either, depending on the listener's listening habits and preferences.
 
Last edited:

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
We don't seem to have the stomach in this forum to have this discussion. So I will be brief: after taking the blind test, I hear all the same issues I heard with them in other venues including shows where the manufacturer presumably has carefully placed them. BTW, I took the test in one room. The latest version of the test repeated it in another room at Harman with the same result. Here is the room I was in:



And the latest tests in this one:



And here is my picture of it where I and a number of others were taking a blind test of Harman training program:



Harman has a third room for multi-channel testing where each loudspeaker takes its own normal position:


Not sure if the above room was used with ML testing or not (too lazy to go and search :) ). Here is another shot of it:




My advice is this: next time in you are in LA area, drop Sean Olive a note and see if he will bring you in to listen to the same tests. Until you have, nothing, no reading of any posts from anyone who has not been there, will tell you what the experience will be like. It forever changed my outlook on sound reproduction in rooms, causing me to do a full reset and forget about anything I thought I knew. The ears said that then. And years of research and verifying the same boldened it.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't like the ML loudspeakers. Doesn't mean a lot of people don't love them.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
...after taking the blind test, I hear all the same issues I heard with them in other venues including shows where the manufacturer presumably has carefully placed them

Just out of interest, what are those issues (in summary)?
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Perhaps I'm mistaken but I seem to remember Amir that you said you liked the ML speaker and it wasn't until after you were told about its shortcomings that you listened again and agreed with them or is this a dream I had :confused:

I also seem to remember that there were many negative comments about the amp used with the ML speaker
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation on why panel speakers are so much worse in mono vs stereo. I also do not believe they have "superior imaging", imo a speaker that approximates a point source images better.

While lots of "flaws" can be found in all sorts of testing, the question is whether or not it matters, whether it would change the outcome of the testing?
 

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,126
651
1,200
Alto, NM
I am sorry. Not interested in discussing it. Let's go and listen to music instead.

That's fine but I think very unfortunate and somewhat disingenuous.

On another thread, you recently said words to effect of:

ML speakers measure poorly and in controlled listening tests, they sounded poorly.

Certain folks, including myself, took great exception to that "absolutist" statement.

And now when someone asks you to articulate the reasons for your dogmatic statement, you decline to comment. You throw out disparaging remarks about a product and then you are not willing to defend them?

And the tone of your previous statement cited above is certainly not conducive for constructive, informed, civil discussion and invites confrontational discourse which, I assume you know and believe, is inconsistent with the published posting forum etiquette rules of WBF.

With all due respect, I'm very confused.

PS: And to you and all other members, have a great holiday.
 
Last edited:

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
We don't seem to have the stomach in this forum to have this discussion. (...)

Amir,

I fully agree with you. Why the comments and pictures to add fuel to the starting fire after the wise words? Just to be sure soon or later you will need to play the fireman?
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
And now when someone asks you to articulate the reasons for your dogmatic statement, you decline to comment.
Multiple people have declared that they do not want to see a mention of this research in this forum. That if they see words like Harman, blind tests, etc., they will quit the forum, etc. I love discussing this topic but have zero appetite for hearing the protests, etc. I rather listen to music than field all of these complaints. So think what you will but those are my reasons for not responding.

PS: And to you and all other members, have a great holiday.
Same to you.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
While Amir and I sit on different sides of the fence, I ubderstand his position. One of the reaasons i took a hiatus form this forum is my inabilty to demonstrate sonically what was being argued by the written word. Just as he invites us to visit Harmon, I invite you yo visit Steve Williams or Mike Lavigne, et al I have been to Steves' and have a visit to Mike, should he be so kind, on my bucket list.
 

TitaniumTroy

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2011
136
6
925
South Bend IN
Amir, could you comment on what you believe planer fans are listening too? That makes us prefer the planer sound, right or wrong? I would love to visit Harmon and their listening rooms some day.

Thanks for the pics, btw. Sorry that is a touchy subject. I love listening and reading about different speakers and room acoustics, but I don't get so worked up I go off the rails about it.

If I remember correctly, Amir did not like the resonances of planer speakers. Not just ML, I think he used to sell Wisdom Audio and found the same type resonances. Hence he does not carry that line anymore.
 
Last edited:

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,126
651
1,200
Alto, NM
amirm;362892 I love discussing this topic but have zero appetite for hearing the protests said:
Then you should have said "NOTHING" to fuel the debate or simply said this topic is "out of bounds" on this forum versus making disparaging, confrontational comments on a product you apparently don't like.

Best
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Then you should have said "NOTHING" to fuel the debate or simply said this topic is "out of bounds" on this forum versus making disparaging, confrontational comments on a product you apparently don't like.

Best
The topic is not out of bounds for the forum. Folks should be free to discuss it. My choice to enjoy music on this holiday rather than deal with likes of your comment is just that: my choice. Not a forum policy.

Now, if you have nothing to share on the topic of the thread, please stay out of it. Hate to hand out sanctions on such an occasion....
 

esldude

New Member
As you will notice from my moniker, big planar fan here. Have owned Maggies, Maggies with ribbons, Acoustats, old and newer Quads, and currently using Soundlabs.

The obvious reason the ML's used at Harman did so poorly is poke you in the eye obvious. They had a very poor frequency response. That is something of a first order effect and they were poor. FWIW, when I have heard that ML I have not cared for it much at all. Felt after hearing it at three different locations the woofer didn't match the panel. I do in general prefer full range panels not matched to box woofers though I have heard this done successfully. The ML was not in my opinion a successful hybrid. And being a hybrid the panel needs to be out from the wall, but not necessarily as far out as a full range panel due to it handing off low frequencies to the woofer. The distance in the pictures while perhaps not optimum was not unreasonable.

Harman's research among other things claims to know how to analyze the spin-o-rama response results and with good accuracy predict which among speakers a listening panel will prefer. The ML spin-o-rama results predicted a poor performance and listening results appear to confirm that. It would be nice if Harman could test some other panel speakers and see how they fair. See if they confirm the spin-o-rama predictions.

I also hold reservations about the dipole vs monopole comparisons. I believe one of the members here has the same ML or similar ML models and has shown in room response that was quite good looking. So even if panels need more care with room placement, the Harman info could guide one in finding that optimum placement.

I also don't know that Harman has slandered the panel in general. They have shown that sight effects perception, that this ML has gotten excellent reviews, and its measured results are nothing of which one should be proud. Then in tests against lesser priced excellent speakers this ML performed the way the response graph indicates it would. While the exotic panel vs those same pedestrian speakers sighted gives a reverse evaluation.

I would really like to see Harman test a Quad ESL63. It was quasi-point source, it had something like the controlled dispersion, and it had pretty nice measured frequency response over the range it could handle. I especially would like for someone to use the delayed rings and shaped dispersion approach applied by Quad with an eye toward optimizing what Harman testing shows as desirable on and off axis response. You might develop an awfully wonderful speaker using such an approach. Or even better, once you have done the prototype if you can build the audibly equivalent version with cones for less money so much better still.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
You might develop an awfully wonderful speaker using such an approach. Or even better, once you have done the prototype if you can build the audibly equivalent version with cones for less money so much better still.
Hi elsdude.

Is this not being done already? Aren't designers like Bruno Putzeys fully aware of the issues of controlled dispersion, and are either choosing driver and baffle dimensions to achieve it, or now actively achieving it with multiple drivers? Also the new Beolab 90.

DSP is core to these speakers. It seems to me that if panel speakers once had the monopoly on 'coherency', this being their raison d'etre, that no longer applies. But if DSP is a no-no for the audiophile, their search must continue...
 

esldude

New Member
Hi elsdude.

Is this not being done already? Aren't designers like Bruno Putzeys fully aware of the issues of controlled dispersion, and are either choosing driver and baffle dimensions to achieve it, or now actively achieving it with multiple drivers? Also the new Beolab 90.

DSP is core to these speakers. It seems to me that if panel speakers once had the monopoly on 'coherency', this being their raison d'etre, that no longer applies. But if DSP is a no-no for the audiophile, their search must continue...

I don't fear DSP, I use digital room correction in my system. There are people other than Harman doing similar work. Genelec and Focal pay attention to this. As well as those you mentioned. Harman may have a better target to shoot for as they seem the only people who have done testing with hundreds of listeners judging the results. No reason others cannot pursue that as well.

I do think manufacturing coherency from incoherent sources is difficult though possible. I also think making a physically coherent source as a benchmark is worthwhile. Along with their being a market for such speakers even if they are rather expensive. I am all for clever use of DSP allowing the same result without such extreme expense.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing