Toole makes a grown man (who likes ESLs) cry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#101
Calvin said:
Hi,

we´re into thread nr. 96 already and still nobody has given a summary of the parameters of this ´test´. Apart from the authors name Toole and some infos about a listening room -which btw. differs much from the typical listeners room- nothing to bite your teeth in.[snip]
So could anybody throw some light on the test conditions??

jauu
Calvin
Click to expand...
Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Some New Evidence That Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction
Do High School Students Prefer Neutral/Accurate Loudspeakers?
Given that the high school students preferred the higher quality music format (CD over MP3), would their taste for accurate sound reproduction hold true when evaluating different loudspeakers? To test this question, the students participated in a double-blind loudspeaker test where they rated four different loudspeakers on an 11-point preference scale. The preference scale had semantic differentials at every second interval defined as: 1 (really dislike), 3 (dislike), 5 (neutral), 7 (like) and 9 (really like). The relative distances in ratings between pairs of loudspeakers indicated the magnitude of preference: ≥ 2 points represent a strong preference, 1 point a moderate preference and ≤ 0.5 point a slight preference.
The four loudspeakers were floor-standing the models (slide 22): Infinity Primus 362 ($500 a pair), Polk Rti10 ($800), Klipsch RF35 ($600), and Martin Logan Vista ($3800). Each loudspeaker was installed on the automated speaker shuffler in Harman International’s Multichannel Listening Lab, which positions each loudspeaker in same the location when the loudspeaker is active. In this way, the loudspeaker positional biases are removed from the test. * Each loudspeaker was level-matched to within 0.1 dB at the primary listening location.
Listeners completed a series of four trials where they could compare each of the four loudspeakers reproducing a number of times before rating each loudspeaker on an 11-point preference scale. Two different music programs were used with two observations. At the beginning of each trial, the computer randomly assigned four letters (A,B,C,D) to the loudspeakers. This meant that the loudspeaker ratings in consecutive trials were more or less independent (slide 23).
Click to expand...

* this makes the assumption that every speaker will have the same exact 'best' location. Now, I am no expert...and I could be interpreting that statement incorrectly...but I know that different speakers perform differently in the same location.

As for the room itself:
http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurComp...te Papers/HarmanWhitePaperMLLListeningLab.pdf
The design criteria, features and acoustic measurements of a new listening laboratory designed specifically for listening tests on multichannel loudspeakers and components are described. Among its features is a novel automated speaker shuffler that eliminates loudspeaker position effects or allows the variable to be efficiently tested. Other features include complete computer control of experimental design, control and collection of listener data, making listening tests more reliable and efficient.
Click to expand...

In summary, we have described a new facility designed to test multichannel components efficiently and as bias-free as possible. The facility includes acoustically transparent listening screens that hide the identities of all multichannel loudspeakers and equipment within the audio path. Particular attention has been taken to address the two of the most problematic variables in listening tests: the listening room and the position(s) of the loudspeaker. Through the use of a computer automated speaker shuffler, we have greatly reduced the amount of time and effort required to set up and test multiple comparisons between loudspeakers by reducing the factor position to a one-dimension or level variable. Typical loudspeaker evaluations should be reduced in length by a factor of 24:1.
The listening room itself is capable of testing up to three different 5.1 or 7.1 channel systems and accommodate 1-6 listeners at a time. The measurements we have shown in this paper indicate its performance in its current form meets the very highest standards set out by the ITU and EBU recommendations, in terms of volume, geometry, reverberation time, and the control of early reflections. The acoustics of the room can be easily altered from hemi-anechoic to more typical domestic room conditions by adding reflective panels to the room’s boundaries
Click to expand...
 
#103
Toole retired from Harman and Olive took his place. Olive has a very engaging blog. If you look at the Harman website, you'll find the staff of their acoustics lab. If you read closer, you just might conclude that for a company with the king-sized share of the market, this is a really shoddy poorly educated assemblage of cheap in-house talent and extramural consultants. Dr. Olive, who has all kinds of very relevant background (like degrees in music and psych, eh) clearly excepted.

Toole frequently bemoaned the lack of research or even R&D depth in the music reproduction business. I'd say that applies to Harman today.

As far as I can tell from the scanty write-ups (psychologists like to know all the details of tests), their work is very sanitary, unless you think they are willfully faking. I do not believe they are.

Harman died recently at an old age, honored as a generous philanthropist. I can't say how long it has been since he actively controlled the business or what his stake was but I suspect he was the empire builder. Harman-Kardon goes back a long, long, way. A book on the pioneers of audio (perhaps they resemble the pioneers of movie making and other entrepreneurial spirits in certain unsurprising ways familiar to readers of Malcolm Gladwell) might be interesting reading - esp. to me since I lived through a lot of it and in New York City in the 50-60s.
 
#104
Hi,

thanks JRace, Your citation clears things up and prooves the invalidity of this test and how to fudge results after a fashion.
"In this way, the loudspeaker positional biases are removed from the test.", tells us everything we need to know.
While this is factually true in a geometric point of view, the equal positioning is of course a positional biasing which means a disadvantage for every speaker which´s distribution character is not optimized for the chosen positioning. Sweet little lies that sound so true and revealing at first glimpse. The Q remains if this hidden biasing happened on purpose for say reasons of marketing or if it happened because of a lack of knowhow?
Anyway, its not a sensible test method to evaluate different speakers with grossly differing distribution patterns under conditions of equal levels of fairness.

jauu
Calvin
 
#105
I'm not convinced the set-up was esp. biased against ESLs - actually seems a pretty OK room/location environment or biased towards anything else. I think the speakers sort of jutted out on a little stage into the room space and so OK for ESLs but bad for box speakers that are tweaked to sit against walls.

But another factor comes into play. The listeners were arranged like a home theater and covering a group well may be a weakness of some ESLs. If so, you can take your pick: either that is a weakness of ESLs that deserves low ratings or that is a factor which means nothing to you and so the test is unfair vis a vis your interests.

But seems to me this whole line of discussion is picky and not in proportion to explaining the findings.
 
#106
Hi,

it looks as if the room basically is acoustically divided into a dead end/live end system which is often chosen for direct radiators, which btw. most often need some distance to neighbouring walls too. So there is quite a lot of damping to find in close proximity to the speakers, especially in behind. A situation which can be fatal to the sound of dipolar speakers, that rely on a certain degree of reflectivity of the backside walls.

jauu
Calvin
 
#107
Calvin said:
Hi,

it looks as if the room basically is acoustically divided into a dead end/live end system which is often chosen for direct radiators, which btw. most often need some distance to neighbouring walls too. So there is quite a lot of damping to find in close proximity to the speakers, especially in behind. A situation which can be fatal to the sound of dipolar speakers, that rely on a certain degree of reflectivity of the backside walls.

jauu
Calvin
Click to expand...

Hard to tell but I don't think that so, or not much. There are lots of curtains around to block sight.
 
#109
Oh dear... I seem to have equated buying Newsweek at age 92 (plus two weeks) as death - maybe some wit compared the two in the newspaper. Sorry Harman family.

As I said clearly enough, I base my opinion on a close look at the qualifications posted by the staff under Olive including but not overwhelmingly their earned degrees (and 35 years of close attention to people's professional resumes that come across my desk looking for work with my company).

I seem to have touched a raw nerve of yours.
 
#110
Calvin said:
Hi,

it looks as if the room basically is acoustically divided into a dead end/live end system which is often chosen for direct radiators, which btw. most often need some distance to neighbouring walls too. So there is quite a lot of damping to find in close proximity to the speakers, especially in behind. A situation which can be fatal to the sound of dipolar speakers, that rely on a certain degree of reflectivity of the backside walls.

jauu
Calvin
Click to expand...

+10
 
#117
and the issue about the vertical dispersion energy vs. "the room"...
Click to expand...

Hello Bear

Did you mean horizontal?? Let's face it none of us were there and none of the participants have been in the thread. It's all conjecture from the written/published accounts. From that point of view looking for a definitive answer about the exact test conditions. asside from what we can get from the published accounts, seems to be a dead end. Unless of course someone who was there decides to step up and answer any direct questions about the set-up.

Rob🙂
 
#118
Knowledge is a collective enterprise, despite the implications of those remarks.

I trust Toole not to have thrown a blanket over the ESL loudspeakers during the testing and otherwise to have acted in good faith and to have described relevant test conditions as fully as he felt, in his vast professional expertise, was needed.

I started this thread with a professional or scientific perspective: given the public description Toole and Olive offer, what alternative interpretations are possible or what further information about the tests and results might clarify issues.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom