Objectivists, Harman Testing, Reviewers, and Reality

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
So while on the topic of the meaning of life errr... measurements, why did respondees to your recent poll choose the sound of analog over digital by a 2:1 margin? After all, there's no question that digital measures better in many, if not every important area?
This is not an argument of measuring versus not. It actually is not even about measuring. It is about what we have discovered over three decades of research what design decisions correlate with preference of listeners, analog and digital lovers, in bias-controlled listening tests. The incredible message is an intuitive one: that having a smooth frequency response on and off-axis is what is prefered in test after test. Not one or two. But every test run. Not one research paper has been written to dispute that in those 30+ years. As I keep saying, the designer of your loudspeaker may very well be using it.

The problem is that loudspeaker business is all about well, business. Manufacturers spend far more energy and resources on the box often than how the thing sounds. Equal extensive efforts are made in marketing and selling the loudspeakers. Many get into the business because that is what they are good at, not designing of the loudspeakers. Unfortunately as consumers we are very much swayed by this. I have a black car and I had not had it washed for weeks. Took it to the dealer, and they washed and wouldn't you know it, the proverbial, "it runs better" emotion set it. The car felt better even though nothing had changed in it other that being washed. You can be as logical as you want to be but certain things are hard to control.

Take the B&W 802. You all not that much into but it is probably the highest volume high-end loudspeaker out there. They sell more of them than probably every high-brand you all own combined. Yet when we test it without letting people look at its iconic design, it doesn't perform as well as a loudspeaker half its cost. Fortunately the reason it does not perform shows up in simple frequency response measurements. Something that is easy for us all to understand as opposed to say, jitter or IMD. The purpose of asking reviewers to measure is to find these non-performant designs.

Now the reason I say ultimately we don't need such measurements is that it is the job of the manufacturer to perform these measurements and follow the research. If they do, then we don't need to measure them. Indeed, if you reviewed a Harman loudspeaker, I am assured that this is the path they follow and hence, no need for measurements other than say, knowing the bass extension or characterization of your listening room. On the other hand, I have asked countless manufacturers for this data and the rep says he is confident they have it, only to come back and say, "our design engineer says they don't make these measurements."

BTW, I am OK if someone has a different loudspeaker design philosophy. I just don't want to hear it unless it a) comes with some bias controlled preference test and b) has peer-reviewed published research that says it has merit. So far I have not found a consistent theme like I have with Dr. Toole's work. They may exist but no one has performed such comprehensive research to demonstrate the path we need to take through the jungle.

So as you see, it is not about give me measurements. It is about "give me good design." A design that has been verified in listening tests to have efficacy. Need to cut through so much marketing, so many manufacturers setting up shop to build loudspeakers that easily lose in proper comparisons to other designs at same or lower cost. I look to reviewers to help us do. Not be victim of marketing and bias piled on by the need to say something nice about an expensive loudspeaker loaned to them.

Must be those damn reviewers again doing sighted tests misleading everybody again.
Well, they certainly play a strong role there too. :D
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.
Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win. Be civil, Win.

I hope writing it a hundred times works! ;)
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
This is not an argument of measuring versus not. It actually is not even about measuring. It is about what we have discovered over three decades of research what design decisions correlate with preference of listeners, analog and digital lovers, in bias-controlled listening tests. The incredible message is an intuitive one: that having a smooth frequency response on and off-axis is what is prefered in test after test. Not one or two. But every test run. Not one research paper has been written to dispute that in those 30+ years. As I keep saying, the designer of your loudspeaker may very well be using it.

The problem is that loudspeaker business is all about well, business. Manufacturers spend far more energy and resources on the box often than how the thing sounds. Equal extensive efforts are made in marketing and selling the loudspeakers. Many get into the business because that is what they are good at, not designing of the loudspeakers. Unfortunately as consumers we are very much swayed by this. I have a black car and I had not had it washed for weeks. Took it to the dealer, and they washed and wouldn't you know it, the proverbial, "it runs better" emotion set it. The car felt better even though nothing had changed in it other that being washed. You can be as logical as you want to be but certain things are hard to control.

Take the B&W 802. You all not that much into but it is probably the highest volume high-end loudspeaker out there. They sell more of them than probably every high-brand you all own combined. Yet when we test it without letting people look at its iconic design, it doesn't perform as well as a loudspeaker half its cost. Fortunately the reason it does not perform shows up in simple frequency response measurements. Something that is easy for us all to understand as opposed to say, jitter or IMD. The purpose of asking reviewers to measure is to find these non-performant designs.

Now the reason I say ultimately we don't need such measurements is that it is the job of the manufacturer to perform these measurements and follow the research. If they do, then we don't need to measure them. Indeed, if you reviewed a Harman loudspeaker, I am assured that this is the path they follow and hence, no need for measurements other than say, knowing the bass extension or characterization of your listening room. On the other hand, I have asked countless manufacturers for this data and the rep says he is confident they have it, only to come back and say, "our design engineer says they don't make these measurements."

BTW, I am OK if someone has a different loudspeaker design philosophy. I just don't want to hear it unless it a) comes with some bias controlled preference test and b) has peer-reviewed published research that says it has merit. So far I have not found a consistent theme like I have with Dr. Toole's work. They may exist but no one has performed such comprehensive research to demonstrate the path we need to take through the jungle.

So as you see, it is not about give me measurements. It is about "give me good design." A design that has been verified in listening tests to have efficacy. Need to cut through so much marketing, so many manufacturers setting up shop to build loudspeakers that easily lose in proper comparisons to other designs at same or lower cost. I look to reviewers to help us do. Not be victim of marketing and bias piled on by the need to say something nice about an expensive loudspeaker loaned to them.


Well, they certainly play a strong role there too. :D

Nice try switching topics again. You can't be parochial about defending your hypothesis.

No it's simply a question that we know a whole lot less than we think we know. Point is that measurements are only good to a certain point. Albert Porter specs for two amplifiers that were identical; one was from a car radio and the other was from a reputable and respected high-end audio amplifier company. Surely you can't be telling us they sound the same.

There's equipment that plays notes and there's equipment that makes music. It's the latter that differentiates high-end audio from audio equipment.
 
Last edited:

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Nice try switching topics again.
Huh? I am trying to stay on loudspeaker topic. You are trying to pull us into other debates. How is me switching topics???

No it's simply a question that we know a whole lot less than we think we know.
Not in this field. We do know because we have tested the theory every which way over 30 years. Every argument has been addressed. Different groups of people tested. Different rooms tested. Different room locations tested. Different loudspeakers tested. Large scale tests performed. Small trained listeners tests performed.

No other subjective area of audio fidelity has been studied as well as this one. The level of rigor is tremendous. Qualifications of people who performed, superlative. Research rooted in non-profit organization so accusations of commercial interest doesn't stick either. We are talking about work of luminaries in the industry. It strains credibility by any measure to say we throw all of that out and believe our own made up notions here.

What we are dealing with is disbelief. Unfortunately for many people this is their first exposure to this science so they are having a hard time accepting it. But accept they must. Or as a minimum criticize when they have learned it all. I went through the same thing. I still remember listening to Dr. Toole presentation saying, "if a reflection from loudspeaker comes from this angle, it is considered a good thing, if it comes from another angle, it is not." What the heck? How could identical ray of sound reflecting in one direction sound good but not from another angle? Hundreds of research papers later and what I just said is absolutely true. Huge number of experiments demonstrate it. It doesn't matter that it is not intuitive. Science doesn't owe you that.

This is literally like the Matrix movie. It is uncanny to how you either live in a made up world, or decide to get educated and forever change your views about sound reproduction in rooms. You can live within your own biases which present non-durable results, or learn the science and have your recommendations have resilience and high chance of being correct. What is wonderful is that as you have seen, every opinion can be backed by proper research. It is a powerful position to be in, and much more satisfying than drowning in one's own biased, gut feelings.
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Do you have any measurements of them?

Yes, I've been posting such on my system thread for years, last about two weeks ago. The Harman measurements are nonsense to me, as is the rest of their "research" - they show a 10dB variation within narrow frequency bands, and no panel I have ever heard or owned sounds like this, pure and simple; so STUFF THE MEASUREMENTS, for being unrepresentative of reality.

And Amir's subsequent response to me is not worth my time - he said 'Until such time that you can bring data that shows loudspeaker preferences change with amplifiers', and I consider that: a) a cop out, and I am sure people know better than this; b) confirms for me that we simply disagree about speaker/amplifier matching, we do not appear to share the same amount of audio listening experience, and we will leave it at that.

I left the thread on page 12 and just came to find it at page 23, so haven't read much since #13, and will likely skip most of it. The context is very clear for me, and once again, I remain unimpressed and unmoved. If nothing else, the last thing I want to hear is how good Proceed amplifiers supposedly are (Amir claimed that the Proceed would drive the Q5, w/o obviously having heard it, and then he is asking me to "bring data" as per above quote - no further comment)... So let me ask everyone this: what would you think if a reviewer, today, based all his evaluations using his Proceed amps? I would laugh, but what about you - hence my suggestion that it's perhaps time for Harman update their tests with current hardware, in a proper room this time.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Yes, I've been posting such on my system thread for years, last about two weeks ago. The Harman measurements are nonsense to me, as is the rest of their "research" - they show a 10dB variation within narrow frequency bands, and no panel I have ever heard or owned sounds like this, pure and simple; so STUFF THE MEASUREMENTS, for being unrepresentative of reality.

And Amir's subsequent response to me is not worth my time - he said 'Until such time that you can bring data that shows loudspeaker preferences change with amplifiers', and I consider that: a) a cop out, and I am sure people know better than this; b) confirms for me that we simply disagree about speaker/amplifier matching, we do not appear to share the same amount of audio listening experience, and we will leave it at that.

I left the thread on page 12 and just came to find it at page 23, so haven't read much since #13, and will likely skip most of it. The context is very clear for me, and once again, I remain unimpressed and unmoved. If nothing else, the last thing I want to hear is how good Proceed amplifiers supposedly are (Amir claimed that the Proceed would drive the Q5, w/o obviously having heard it, and then he is asking me to "bring data" as per above quote - no further comment)... So let me ask everyone this: what would you think if a reviewer, today, based all his evaluations using his Proceed amps? I would laugh, but what about you - hence my suggestion that it's perhaps time for Harman update their tests with current hardware, in a proper room this time.


My brain is hurting. Heads I win, tails you lose.
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
Yes, those who understand that both measurements and subjective reviews have intrinsic limitations, that both need a lot of knowledge, understanding, familiarization and experience from the reader. That most of the consumers (either those who support the measurements or the subjective reviews ) are not interested in spending their time to achieve proficiency in reading any type of review, but enjoy their preferred type.

Real life is never simple. The high-end stereo reproduction creates a form of culture, centered around a characteristic way of listening to sound reproduction that deeply involves the listener. It evolves around brilliant designers, manufacturers and dealers that create and sell products that their owners appreciate and enjoy. A few fail this objective, we must accept it. Subjective reviews and reviewers are part of it. Measurements can be part of it if they can be correlated with the nuances of the high-end. Until they are not, we must avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water.

As Nelson Pass wrote:

If you are concerned that your power amplifier (or anything else
for that matter) is as objectively and technically accurate as possible,
that is a perfectly legitimate criterion. You will certainly find many
products in the marketplace that excel at conventional objective
performance, and most of them are much cheaper.
Our real customers care most about the experience they get when
they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we
like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste.
We want our products to invite you to listen. We want you to enjoy
the experience so much that you go through your entire record
collection - again and again. This, by the way, is a very strong
indicator.

Exactly, and if everything was as simple as hitting measurements, it would all sound the same. How boring would that be?

I'm reminded of something Einstein said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Albert was a very smart guy.

The best a maker can do is pretty much the same as the best a recording engineer can do, and that is give the music his interpretation with the hopes that it will be accepted. It ain't live, guys. It is a representation.

Still, a common sense approach is expected. No one wants equipment that violates the basic doctrines of good design.
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
..... and that reminds me of the little old country girl, when asked, what kinds of music do you like, she replied, I like both kinds, country AND western:D

Is that the same little girl who said, "I may have been born yesterday, but I've been in town all day long." :D
 

esldude

New Member
Yes, I've been posting such on my system thread for years, last about two weeks ago. The Harman measurements are nonsense to me, as is the rest of their "research" - they show a 10dB variation within narrow frequency bands, and no panel I have ever heard or owned sounds like this, pure and simple; so STUFF THE MEASUREMENTS, for being unrepresentative of reality.

And Amir's subsequent response to me is not worth my time - he said 'Until such time that you can bring data that shows loudspeaker preferences change with amplifiers', and I consider that: a) a cop out, and I am sure people know better than this; b) confirms for me that we simply disagree about speaker/amplifier matching, we do not appear to share the same amount of audio listening experience, and we will leave it at that.

I left the thread on page 12 and just came to find it at page 23, so haven't read much since #13, and will likely skip most of it. The context is very clear for me, and once again, I remain unimpressed and unmoved. If nothing else, the last thing I want to hear is how good Proceed amplifiers supposedly are (Amir claimed that the Proceed would drive the Q5, w/o obviously having heard it, and then he is asking me to "bring data" as per above quote - no further comment)... So let me ask everyone this: what would you think if a reviewer, today, based all his evaluations using his Proceed amps? I would laugh, but what about you - hence my suggestion that it's perhaps time for Harman update their tests with current hardware, in a proper room this time.

So where is your blog with these measurements?

Regardless of what they sound like, most panels I have measured have shown those 10 db variations in narrow frequency bands. That might not matter as much. Narrow enough bands don't get noticed so much in some contexts. Though a reference directly next to a speaker that doesn't have them may show them up when they aren't noticed in isolation. IRRC Harman response plots are 1/20 octave. Most panels have those, and plenty of conventional speakers aren't far behind when looked at that way.

Now, as you might guess from my username, I use and like panels. So no panel basher here. But physical measurements are what they are. It has seemed to me that curved panels, like your M-Ls and my Soundlabs show this rapid variation more than flat panels like Acoustats.

As to amplifiers, bypass testing and blind testing shows a much reduced difference in auditioning. Much like sighted vs blinded Harman tests show a similar result. At the not high levels that Harman apparently uses I doubt Proceed amps would alter the sound tremendously. Likely not enough to alter a given speakers ranking in preference.

You might have read where I have in the past loaded the output of a Spectral amp, dropped it so it was unity gain and fed it to another amp. I haven't tested hundreds, but of the handful I have tested the Spectral is the only amp to pass that with complete transparency as far as I could tell. I notice you have Spectrals and they have performance not many amps can match. But I would think most competent amps of enough power (which the Proceed likely is) would cause less audible issues than the difference in speakers. Not saying there is no audible difference in amps, but I think it not enough to change speaker preference ratings. It makes sense when doing such testing to take care of bigger issues before tackling smaller issues. Those smaller issues may be real and worthwhile, but bigger issues are simply more noticeable and can make the most difference.
 

esldude

New Member
Exactly, and if everything was as simple as hitting measurements, it would all sound the same. How boring would that be?

I'm reminded of something Einstein said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Albert was a very smart guy.

The best a maker can do is pretty much the same as the best a recording engineer can do, and that is give the music his interpretation with the hopes that it will be accepted. It ain't live, guys. It is a representation.

Still, a common sense approach is expected. No one wants equipment that violates the basic doctrines of good design.

This is not a bashing of you. But would you really consider it a boring result if we did know what mattered about sound, and could replicate it for everyone? If we could know what parameters would give you what was in the recording itself even when it is a manipulated recording. So you could hear what the mastering and mixing guys heard.

I mean audiophiles are they really chasing after the ultimate sound, the absolute sound, high fidelity or is high end just a way to play with whatever colored marbles are your preference?

Most claim to be music lovers. If you could offer up an accurate system, buy it and know it was right, then it would leave you fully free to be a music lover and nothing more. Is that a bad outcome?
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
So while on the topic of the meaning of life errr... measurements, why did respondees to your recent poll choose the sound of analog over digital by a 2:1 margin? After all, there's no question that digital measures better in many, if not every important area? Must be those damn reviewers again doing sighted tests misleading everybody again.

A function of the audience, and not the slightest bit surprising.

Tim
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Yes, I've been posting such on my system thread for years, last about two weeks ago. The Harman measurements are nonsense to me, as is the rest of their "research" - they show a 10dB variation within narrow frequency bands, and no panel I have ever heard or owned sounds like this, pure and simple; so STUFF THE MEASUREMENTS, for being unrepresentative of reality.
Whose reality? How about the rest of us? Here is another snapshot of the study from a private Harman presentation:



And the zoomed in measurements of the Martin Logan:



How do you represent this as picture of high fidelity???

As I have said multiple times, I listened to the very loudspeaker in the same test setup. Here is my scoresheet again:



The "4" was my rating for the Martin Logan (which I did not know the identity of). I later gave it scores as low as 3. My results mirror that of 12 trained listeners who took the same test. You want me to trust your ears and not my own and that of a dozen listeners in controlled, published testing?

I appreciate that you don't want to accept the results. But please don't denigrate with comments like that. Bring some data to back your opinion. I don't just tell you guys are idiots. I provide references for everything I say. How do you expect to have a proper discussion when all you say is you think we are screwed up?
 

esldude

New Member
Whose reality? How about the rest of us? Here is another snapshot of the study from a private Harman presentation:







As I have said multiple times, I listened to the very loudspeaker in the same test setup. Here is my scoresheet again:



The "4" was my rating for the Martin Logan (which I did not know the identity of). I later gave it scores as low as 3. My results mirror that of 12 trained listeners who took the same test. You want me to trust your ears and not my own and that of a dozen listeners in controlled, published testing?

I appreciate that you don't want to accept the results. But please don't denigrate with comments like that. Bring some data to back your opinion. I don't just tell you guys are idiots. I provide references for everything I say. How do you expect to have a proper discussion when all you say is you think we are screwed up?

Looking at the measurements, one wonders why the Polk scored higher than the Klipsch. How did you score those two? The Klipsch would appear to have the more even, balanced response overall. And high school students preferred the M-L to Klipsch slightly? And am I reading the error bars correctly. All speaker's error bars overlap except for the Infinity.
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
This is not a bashing of you. But would you really consider it a boring result if we did know what mattered about sound, and could replicate it for everyone? If we could know what parameters would give you what was in the recording itself even when it is a manipulated recording. So you could hear what the mastering and mixing guys heard.

I mean audiophiles are they really chasing after the ultimate sound, the absolute sound, high fidelity or is high end just a way to play with whatever colored marbles are your preference?

Most claim to be music lovers. If you could offer up an accurate system, buy it and know it was right, then it would leave you fully free to be a music lover and nothing more. Is that a bad outcome?

No, it wouldn't be a bad outcome. I know that I try my very best to make my product as accurate as possible, and I can tell that some of my competitors are also determined to do that. But, tomelex was right, you guys just couldn't leave it alone. You would try to make perfect more perfect. :D

Still, I'm Hell-Bent on making a tweak-free turntable, assuming the end user wants a warranty. I may offer a radically different model in the future based on a price point, but getting it right at any cost is the driving reason why I currently make a single product.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Exactly, and if everything was as simple as hitting measurements, it would all sound the same. How boring would that be?
Somewhat. There is always music you can play to bring you out of boredom :).

I'm reminded of something Einstein said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Albert was a very smart guy.
Albert was a smart guy. Unfortunately just like the topic we are discussing, the attribution of that quote to him seems like folklore: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/26/everything-counts-einstein/

"Quote Investigator: QI suggests crediting William Bruce Cameron instead of Albert Einstein. Cameron’s 1963 text “Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking” contained the following passage, Boldface has been added to excerpts [WCIS]:

It would be nice if all of the data which sociologists require could be enumerated because then we could run them through IBM machines and draw charts as the economists do. However, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."


Pretty sure we don't want to ask a sociologist about matters related to audio equipment. Or do we? :D
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
Pretty sure we don't want to ask a sociologist about matters related to audio equipment. Or do we? :D

No, but we may want to ask one about audiophiles! :D

..."present company suspected" ...attributed to Curly Joe until challenged. ;)
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
Whose reality? How about the rest of us? Here is another snapshot of the study from a private Harman presentation:



And the zoomed in measurements of the Martin Logan:



How do you represent this as picture of high fidelity???

As I have said multiple times, I listened to the very loudspeaker in the same test setup. Here is my scoresheet again:



The "4" was my rating for the Martin Logan (which I did not know the identity of). I later gave it scores as low as 3. My results mirror that of 12 trained listeners who took the same test. You want me to trust your ears and not my own and that of a dozen listeners in controlled, published testing?

I appreciate that you don't want to accept the results. But please don't denigrate with comments like that. Bring some data to back your opinion. I don't just tell you guys are idiots. I provide references for everything I say. How do you expect to have a proper discussion when all you say is you think we are screwed up?

The reality I am referring to is nothing more than the LISTENING reality, and again, no panel I have ever heard or owned sounds like that. I also use (and post) my own measurements, but at the end of the day, reality to me is NOT graphs and measurements, and that is the basis of our differences; measurements help me figure out balance, they serve as the BASIS, and nothing more than that. The fact you rated the ML a '4' is simply telling of your preferences, and that is reality for you - nothing wrong with that.

I never denigrated anything or anyone - and certainly "screwed up" are your words not mine. Are we at polar opposites? Absolutely. Does anything you have written on this subject mean anything to me? Very little. You espouse "research" that comes across so thin, that no room for convergence exists between us, and we should leave it at that. But no, I don't think you are "screwed up", but I am indeed unimpressed and I do feel we hear completely differently, and feel free to do the same of me. I decided to use "intense" language, because of the fortitude of your positions, and I make no apologies.

I have spent 13 years now with my current MLs (and 6 more before them with other MLs, plus 20+ years with Magnepans in my second, lesser system), and many an amp have come and gone - and apart from the 400RS no other has been able to drive the MLs correctly, though the same amps have had no issues driving much lighter loads. I could go into details about those amps' sound driving difficult loads... I have also posted in the past that all these by-gone amps have also shut down when driving even more harsher loads like the ML Summit and Summit X (impedance drop to ~0.7 ohms), at moderately high levels. So do I think Proceed amps are unworthy of listening comparisons at Harman or elsewhere, if we are to call this "research", where all parameters are supposed to be optimized? Absolutely, and feel free to disagree; but I remain unimpressed with Harman and anything written about their work. I take their "research" as yet another data point, and I throw it out the window. I expect you to do the same of what I just said.

@esldude: Just click my system link on the bottom to see the current graphs (post #1); 1/3 octave, and I intend to get higher "resolution" at some point
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
The reality I am referring to is nothing more than the LISTENING reality (...)

We are not alone. I quote Siegfried Linkwitz, he is a much better writer than me:

When it comes to the practical requirements for accurate sound reproduction, then there are a surprising number of issues that are not fully understood. Sound reproduction is about creating illusions in our mind, in that amazing information processor between our two ears. Sound reproduction involves physical processes to generate air vibrations that move our eardrums and in turn stimulate mental processes, that have evolved over millions of years for the purpose of survival and for communication, processes that lead to perception of the sound source and its environment. While we can measure many different physical parameters involved in the generation and propagation of a sound field, it becomes exceedingly difficult to assess their relative importance to what we hear and how it helps or detracts from the illusion. The published scientific material on the psychology of hearing (psychoacoustics) is extensive and sometimes helpful in explaining phenomena in two-channel and surround sound reproduction.

In the following I describe what I see as frontiers, if not in yours, then at least in my understanding of what matters for accurate sound reproduction. While I strive as an engineer to find answers and explanations based on the physics of the situation, I try to be honest to my listening observations as ultimate arbiter. I use my memory of un-amplified sound as reference for judging accuracy of the illusion. What I see as frontiers may be settled areas to others, or clear separations between opposing camps, that hold on to cherished convictions. I would hope that the exposé stimulates a few readers to research a subject further and share their insights.


End of quote.
 

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