Objectivists, Harman Testing, Reviewers, and Reality

[Phelonious Ponk]

jkenny -

OK, the research came from Toole & Olive but Harman did differentiate themselves as a speaker company by adopting this research - making them unique - a marketing advantage, I believe?

But they don't market it. The only marketing advantage is it helps them produce better-sounding speakers, sometimes for dramatically less than products that perform much worse. No doubt that is a marketing advantage...though probably not in the "high-end" market.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

jkenny -



But they don't market it. The only marketing advantage is it helps they produce better-sounding speakers, sometimes for dramatically less than products that perform much worse. No doubt that is a marketing advantage...though probably not in the "high-end" market.

Tim

I don't know, Tim - marketing is about perception - are we the only group of people that know about Harmon's use of their speaker test facilities? I don't think so. The fact that they have a number of Youtube videos strikes me that they are marketing this perception of them being guided by measurements. Is the push to have the SPIN measurement system adopted by the industry coming from Harmon or Olive et al - I don't know?

 

[Rodney Gold]

You are right , if the looks belied the sound , I would have looked at something else....

Your senses can be fooled .. I have experienced it myself.. I was using some parametric eq and could SWEAR I heard the changes I was implementing (small ones) and then I found out the parametric wasnt connected.

Further to that , I had 4 golden ear pals around , I asked them which setting they preferred with respect to tonal tuning , one neutral , 1 more bass and 1 more treble.
I told them which was which when switching , they all commented on the differences they heard , but I had set up the same setting for all 3 so called "different" settings..they were all the same...they heard what they wanted to hear..and what I wanted them to hear..

But that is all irrelevant as the sound that hits your ears is all that counts , if it is influenced by bias or perception , so be it.. the difference or change will be a trusim for *you*.

I know a lot of audiophiles that deliberately fool themselves or use a sound modifying substance when listening (some smoke a little dope , others pour themselves a scotch or some wine) .. these "devices" improve the sound but in real life , the sound is no different. its certainly better for them tho.

So in reality , there are far more factors than just measurements that define the listening experience..you have to take cognizance of the other factors.
You cannot put a measurement on aesthetics , pride of ownership , bragging rights and so on.

I have heard many high end systems , they all sound good , but different to me.. and I have NEVER heard any one setup sounding like another in any of the systems I have heard.

There is no universal truth out there in hifi land and there is no real measurement that can predict how the *system* sounds in a particular space - its all about synergy , user expectations and so on...

As to objectivist/subjectivist battles.. neither side is 100% right , neither side will all of a sardine embrace the others POV.. this debate is as old as the hills and is like flogging a dead horse.. no one is going to change their POV no matter how you slice and dice it.

 

[mep]

Sorry, I misunderstood .


It is a small part of their consumer messaging although a larger one in private communications to dealers.


It is the so called "spin data." It is a 72 point measurement system where they capture the radiation of the loudspeaker in 3-D space in anechoic chamber. They then take all of those measurements and combine them into three graphs that based on special weighting can to good degree predict user preference. Here is an example of them providing it for the JBL M2:

They have this data for loudspeakers from $150 in-wall to $60,000+ JBL. But with some exceptions, they are not put out in public. They are shown in private dealer training though.

Interesting that while you are saying we need to have a 'revolution' and demand better data/measurements from companies, your favorite conglomerate has the data and doesn't release it except in private dealer training. Why don't you start the revolution by asking your friends at Harman why that is so and ask them to release all of the measured data for their products? Also, is that graph saying that when you are sitting in the "listening window" the JBL M2 measures basically ruler flat from 40Hz to 20kHz?

 

[microstrip]

I don't know, Tim - marketing is about perception - are we the only group of people that know about Harmon's use of their speaker test facilities? I don't think so. The fact that they have a number of Youtube videos strikes me that they are marketing this perception of them being guided by measurements. Is the push to have the SPIN measurement system adopted by the industry coming from Harmon or Olive et al - I don't know?

Surely. Although our small group love forum debates and learning new things, Harman main objectives in this affair are development and marketing, not educating the masses. Any one having doubts can confirm it in their websites. Marketing articles having selected parts of their research are free, but the original scientific papers are only accessible by payment.

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Pages/ScientificPublications.aspx?CategoryID=Scientific%20Publications

The real and meaningful debates are reserved to those who want to pay AES subcriptions. I bought the "Sound Reproduction" and I have been able to get a few articles, but how can we debate facts if 99% of the readers do not have access to the sources?

In the end, eloquence and persistence will win. And surely, I am not an eloquent person in audio, but I and others persist ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Exactly what due diligence are reviewers supposed to bring to the table? We don't have any more information about the products we review than you do. All we have to go on is the same spec sheets everybody can see from the websites of the manufacturers. What reviewers try and do is tell you how a given component or speaker sounds in the context of their system and their room. Based on comments by people on this very forum who admitted they have bought products based on reviews and were quite happy with their purchase, you have to surmise there is merit to the method.




If they truly have them, beyond the information they print on their spec sheets, they are not sharing them with you either-never mind the reviewers.

I don't know, Tim - marketing is about perception - are we the only group of people that know about Harmon's use of their speaker test facilities? I don't think so. The fact that they have a number of Youtube videos strikes me that they are marketing this perception of them being guided by measurements. Is the push to have the SPIN measurement system adopted by the industry coming from Harmon or Olive et al - I don't know?

Marketing is about perception, but for that perception to have any serious impact, it also has to be about the reach and frequency of the message. The message about their speaker testing is reaching few, with very little frequency; it's not in their marketing communications (or at least not on their web sites) at all. But marketing is most effective when it has a singular core message, in this case that would be something like better sound, through better science, backed up by supporting messages, i.e.; spin testing, the overwhelming majority of people prefer accurate sound, speakers measured on all axis to give the listener much smoother integration of direct and reflected sound in-room, etc. Harman is not actively selling this stuff, and they're not dumb people, so I can only conclude that it's a strategic decision. I could guess at their reasons, but there's more than enough guessing going on here already.

I don't know what the push is, but if the industry and the audio press adopted carefully designed and executed unsighted listening tests as a standard of product development and evaluation, I believe the industry as a whole would take a huge leap forward, while a ton of products, from entry level to extremely expensive, would be pushed out of the market. Of course Harman would lose a competitive advantage, too, so I doubt they have any interest in pushing it. That they allow Toole and Olive share to their methodology so freely is surprising, and refreshing -- an international corporation allowing their scientists to behave like scientists. Go figure. They must understand that few are listening, even fewer understand, and that most will me more motivated by the simpler message; better sound through better science.

Tim

 

[Rodney Gold]

All you have to do with the finest system , is take a measurement at listening position and actually see the unsmoothed response to see how the room mangles the sound , and even then , an ideal corrected "target" curve is merely taste based anyway.. if anyone thinks flat at listening position is the ideal..they will be sorely disappointed as it sound like doo doo - thin reedy , bass shy..

 

[mep]

Agree but we should at least start with a flat on axis response , smooth off axis .....
keith.

Game over. Go buy the JBL M2.

 

[JackD201]

Has the Grimm been spinorama-ed?

 

[mep]

Has the Grimm been spinorama-ed?

And does it measure as flat as the JBL?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I already use Grimm Audio's LS1 , one of the finest if not the best measuring loudspeakers available.
Already a convert.
Keith.

I just took a look at these online - active 2-ways with integrated DAC. Feels like home. Well, an upgraded, glamorized version of home, anyway. My only question is - "Unidirectional down to 250z...well-behaved off-axis." How's that work?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Grimm's design white paper can be found here, they have designed the loudspeaker to interact with the room as little as possible,
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/speakers.pdf

Keith.

That makes sense. I assume then, that the sweet spot is a bit narrow? Not a criticism, mind you, I listened in near field for several years and enjoyed it.

Tim

 

[amirm]

Interesting that while you are saying we need to have a 'revolution' and demand better data/measurements from companies, your favorite conglomerate has the data and doesn't release it except in private dealer training. Why don't you start the revolution by asking your friends at Harman why that is so and ask them to release all of the measured data for their products?

There seems to be continued confusion here. I am not advocating a company but rather audio science. What Harman does as a company which involves more than research strategy, is not something I am here to advocate or explain. I am here to defend the audio research. Therefore I was quick, unprompted actually, to pile on Tim's message that even Harman itself doesn't release this data to the general public. Employees in companies often act as researchers and in publishing their trade secrets and in general, not acting on behalf of the corporation. Such is the case of Dr. Toole lamenting lack of measurement data such as provided on tires.

What I really want is for Harman to not only release their own spin data but the incredible library of spin data they have for other loudspeakers!!! And with it, large library of double blind test data with actual identity of loudspeakers. As I quoted in another thread, at the time of one published AES report a few years back, they had tested 70 loudspeakers with some 250 listeners involved (this is from memory).

They don't do this because they think it may come across negatively in the marketplace. You know, "they are bashing the competitors." As a consumer of course, I could care less about any manufacturer feeling bashed. If they don't like the measurements they can produce better products. And if they don't agree with blind listening tests results, they can run their own. But the reality is what it is. When the identity of the loudspeakers in their AES report for example came out, there were all these people who blamed it for lack of integrity and therefore commercial bias to have let that information get out. Shocking to me because we appreciate a heck of a lot more about the test once we know which graph and listening test results go with which loudspeaker. The people who scuff at this research, which by the way were objectivists on AVS, just looking for anything to put this work in bad light, interest of us as consumers be damned.

The disclosure may still happen but it takes a catalyst. And that would be changed mindset of buyers of loudspeakers to value such data. Again Tim was right that putting all of this technical data in marketing material at this point, is liable to create "too much data" and not help sales. Look at how much it has taken me to explain what it is to you all.

But yes, I have asked and there are some strong advocates of the same in the company. But so far, it has not happened. I do have the data though for a class of products and plan to write an article on them. They are for in-wall speakers though so it won't serve this group and also, less of a risk in the marketing department. Hopefully over time we can get access to more of this data.

Also, is that graph saying that when you are sitting in the "listening window" the JBL M2 measures basically ruler flat from 40Hz to 20kHz?

Yes. Note that this is not the same as what you hear because you also hear the reflections represented by the other curves. In other words, you hear a blended version of those graphs and it is that specific blend that has been found to be a good predictor of preferences in blind tests.

 

[mep]

Amir-if you can't get companies like Harman to release their measurement data, what chance do you possibly have to start the demand for better data? And never mind if they won't release other companies data, they can start with their own.

 

[TBone]

Yes. Note that this is not the same as what you hear because you also hear the reflections represented by the other curves. In other words, you hear a blended version of those graphs and it is that specific blend that has been found to be a good predictor of preferences in blind tests.

based on recent logistical reliance's; my system (which has basically remained static) has had to cope with 4 different rooms within the last few years. This coming 20 years of having my own dedicated stereo -no wife, child, or animals allowed- room, with dedicated everything. In every room since, my system has sounded completely different, this recent journey has been quite the challenge. If my "reference" sound was based solely on that old precious room's acoustics, it's but as useful as chasing a ghost now ... I'll never hear that again.

 

[microstrip]

(...) They don't do this because they think it may come across negatively in the marketplace. You know, "they are bashing the competitors." As a consumer of course, I could care less about any manufacturer feeling bashed. If they don't like the measurements they can produce better products. And if they don't agree with blind listening tests results, they can run their own. But the reality is what it is. When the identity of the loudspeakers in their AES report for example came out, there were all these people who blamed it for lack of integrity and therefore commercial bias to have let that information get out. Shocking to me because we appreciate a heck of a lot more about the test once we know which graph and listening test results go with which loudspeaker. The people who scuff at this research, which by the way were objectivists on AVS, just looking for anything to put this work in bad light, interest of us as consumers be damned. (...)

Can you imagine what would have happened if the chosen dipole speaker was a Magnepan? Audiophile riots at Harman retailers?
Yes, I sometimes read the Audioasylum MUG!

 

[BlueFox]

Yes. Note that this is not the same as what you hear because you also hear the reflections represented by the other curves. In other words, you hear a blended version of those graphs and it is that specific blend that has been found to be a good predictor of preferences in blind tests.

That seems to coincide with a Magico S5 review and measurements. More importantly, it reflects a general opinion from reviewers, and others, that the S5 sounds good, even without measuring it.

On/Off axis:



Top curve: on-axis response
Middle curve: 15 degrees off-axis response
Bottom curve: 30 degrees off-axis response

Listening window (as they describe the on/off axis average):



Response curve is an average of five measurements: on-axis, 15 degrees left and right off-axis, 15 degrees up and down off-axis

Additional measurement: measured at midpoint of two woofers
(done for most accurate measurement of bass response due to large distance between tweeter and woofers)






Review:
http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/657-magico-s5-loudspeakers

Measurements:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/in...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

 

[ack]

While being an objectivist that finds the Harman speaker tests to be of great value, it does have its limitations. It really only works for monopole speakers, yet they put in one dipole ESL in a group and of course it got ranked really low. Not surprising as the rear wave of the dipole was completely unmanaged in the test rig. So testing methodology needs to align with product topology.

I would agree with that; when I first saw that picture of the three speakers under evaluation (including the Logan Prodigy), posted on WBF a number of times, my first reaction was: you call this a room? And a room to evaluate speakers?

 

[mep]

I would agree with that; when I first saw that picture of the three speakers under evaluation (including the Logan Prodigy), posted on WBF a number of times, my first reaction was: you call this a room? And a room to evaluate speakers?

Hey, if the speakers don't fit Harman's test conditions, it's the speaker's fault!

 

[ack]

Hey, if the speakers don't fit Harman's test conditions, it's the speaker's fault!

Then there is the subsequent frequency response of the Logan posted again a number of times, and it's up and down all over the panel's operating range. That DOES NOT RAISE any eyebrows at Harman or anywhere else? Are we really serious? And is that part of the "research" to be taken seriously? I put "research" in quotes because to me it's just investigation, and a poor one at that, in a poor "room". No wonder it's been suggested we won't be able to tell our favorite speaker sitting in a corner opposite another, with the listener in the middle - who evaluates speakers like that, and what value does it add anyway. But then we all agree that the ROOM is of utmost importance Need some ice cream.