Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think a bit of skepticism/questioning is out of order with regards to Harman’s test methods and results. Harman builds speakers that give excellent anechoic measurements. Harman trains listeners on what to listen for and Harman says that one trained listener is worth 7 untrained listeners (and professional reviewers are viewed by Harman as untrained listeners). The trained listeners get the sweet spot seats in every session and the unwashed masses fend for themselves. It sounds like between the sessions that people talk and compare notes which doesn’t sound right as it could influence the next round of testing.
You crack me up Mark.
Masses fending for themselves? In these tests, there is one chair where everyone sits. So it is not possible to get pushed to the back of the bus so to speak.
As I have repeated said, Dr. Toole and Olive start this work while working for National Research Council of Canada. They were hired years later by Harman which they then proceeded to transform against countless people thinking otherwise. So they repeated all of their tests with Harman employees and normal listeners. At the end of the day, folks had no choice but to be convinced of the soundness of the science.
Near as I can tell, Harman speakers win every shootout against the competition. I asked the question numerous times: “Does any non-Harman speaker ever win a shootout.” I never got an answer.
We are not accountable for your questions Mark
. You need to do your own research. Nor do any of us work for Harman and can represent sum total of all the research they have done. I did comment that they have no issues at all with a non-Harman speaker being voted better in the group tests I have been part of and usually there is someone who votes for non-Harman speakers.
The closest I came was when Amir said that one person picked a non-Harman speaker. If I read that correctly, that would be statistically insignificant and would mean that the Harman speaker still ‘won.’
Again, this is not a competition or shoot out. They have tested 70 different speakers with many different listener groups. The data at the end of the day supports a collection of measurements which shockingly is the standard of truth in audio: well behaved frequency response (on axis and off). That they practice what they preach is beside the point. The point is that we as listeners can tell when speakers are colored. We can tell when the off axis has different response and mixes with the direct signal when we hear it. And further, we tend to agree with each other on these defects.
What you want to walk away with is knowledge of what makes a good speaker. There is a reason I use the name "Harman" and not Revel or JBL. I don't want you to be biased thinking this is about their products. Yes, there is implicit connection. I can't eliminate it. And frankly, they deserve some commercial credit for sharing the results of their research.
In summary, Harman designs their speakers to measure and sound a certain way. Listeners are trained on what to listen for so they can pick out the obviously superior Harman designs.
There is no such summary Mark. Their testing includes both trained and untrained. They include speaker designers, audiophiles, magazine reviewers, etc.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html
So yes, they do use trained listeners because they can tell these artifacts much better than average Joe. But that doesn't mean they like tea and you like coffee. Just like anything else, they made sure of that with research too. One thing about them: they don't drink water without testing assumptions. While folks make assumptions, they are there in the lab testing them. And wouldn't you know it, often they find the assumptions to be wrong. Importantly, they are able to explain why.
Listening tests are conducted in mono, but I didn’t read anywhere if the speaker is fed a L+R signal or a true mono signal.
I will quote Dr. Toole on this:
'In situations where the special advantages of monophonic listening are utilized,
the programme must undergo a further selection process. In particular, it is important
to avoid stereo recordings that significantly alter sound quality when the channels
are summed, indicating severe interference between left- and right-channel signals. It
may be safer to use only a carefully-chosen single channel for such listening.'
Harman speakers, Harman controlled testing, Harman trained listeners, and Harman speakers win every time. Hmm. It appears the deck is a little stacked is all I’m saying even though some people want to ascribe nothing but pure motives on Harman’s part.
Well, you would do well writing novels Mark
. Here is a paper published by AES in *1981*
"LISTENING TESTS - TURNING OPINION INTO FACT
by
Floyd E. Toole
National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, K1A OR6."
There is no mention of Harman. No connection to Harman. No nothing. Kind of blows away your theory
.
Now here is a telling question: How many people on this forum personally own speakers that fall under the Harman brand? And if you have an old pair of pre-Harmon JBLs or any other brand they sucked up before they were actually built under Harman’s umbrella, they don’t count. Inquiring minds want to know the answer.
Are you not the least bit curious about the science here? Do you really want the world of speaker design be a random one with folks throwing darts at the wall and see what sticks? You enjoy more hearing more about this esoteric driver material and that, rather than *what sounds good*? Do you enjoy reading marketing brochure with buzzwords that don't ever include one unbiased test of whether the product really performs?
I am not asking you to buy into Harman as a company at all. Just asking you why you would want to connection between good listening results and measurements to not exist. What harm comes out accepting that? It is fine if you bought a speaker that doesn't comply with this. There is always your next purchase
.
Remember, the fundamentals here are very simple: your speaker sends sound in all directions. yet measurements are only reported for on-axis direct response. If you have a speaker that has good of-axis/angled response, that means you can actually leave the walls to reflect them and still have great sound. You need not "treat" your room with all kinds of products to block such reflections.
On what basis would we want to accept that reflected sound energy should be colored? Why would I want that? Where are some listening tests to say that is good? AES papers? ASA Journal?
Look, there are other schools of speaker design thoughts. It is fine if you follow them. I just ask this: explain to me what their school is and prove that it hangs together as well as this one. I have not found it despite searching for it.
