Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
73.209.29.251
I don't know that his test method is appropriate for a dipole speaker that is a line source, I think some changes in protocol would need to made from his normal procedure which works well for box speakers but a panel speaker is a rather different animal.
Some useful info comes from the test- but I think overall the test method needs to be redesigned when used with a line source dipole. I don't know what, exactly, should be changed but clearly his results are not consistent with what people hear from the LRS. His method uses math to derive an anechoic response from the many many measurements made by his Klippel measurement robot, but I don't think anechoic response tells you much about a speaker that interacts so with the listening space the way a dipole does.
Science doesn't care what you believe.
Follow Ups:
I also follow the Audio Science Review website. They pursue a finely crafted objective analysis of equipment. And objective is where their approach runs into problems.
For example, I own a Topping D50s DAC that tested excellent on their scale and is strongly recommended. Closely comparing it to my other DAC, which is a bit more expensive, the sound is thin, shallow and much less detailed.
Sad I was always skeptical of that site because it seems that every dac review came down to THD measurements.
There was a thread on how to measure dipoles and it seems at a cursory reading that the foibles were discussed and the "review" was posted anyhow.
But now I know that site is a silly waste of time...
Cut to razor sounding violins
Wow, lots of pretty graphs. Good to know all other 'expert reviewers' got it so wrong. Now I have to make a change, anybody interested in a pair of gunned 1.6s.
I've been thinking about getting some DRC going for my system. I have Home Audio Fidelity filters running via Roon but I want something that lives on any source, maybe the MiniDSP SHD Studio. Anyway last night I was plowing through DSP threads and I found something interesting on ASR. In the thread, Amir links to something that basically said, and he agreed with, that you can't measure what happens in your head regarding sound. I'm going to try to find the link. So yeah, he knows better. Or should I say he knows you can't measure perception. @mitchco on AudiophileStyle has some good stuff on what happens with response curves vs what we perceive. Anyway, I like Amir's work when it comes to measuring hardware. He's very good at rooting out bad designs and finding faulty equipment. It's scary how much faulty stuff is out there. He's also a believer in Dirac DRC. And I'm sorry but that means he knows speakers interact with rooms. Maggies need walls and floors to work. Those same walls and floors can cause problems if you don't have the setup correct. Some may choose their spouse by measurements alone but it rarely works out.
Edits: 09/30/20
I've used Dirac for over two years with my 3.7s and as my system has evolved to 7.1.4 with 9 planar speakers. I really like Dirac! It measures great, and it sounds great!
Agilist, Musician, Photographer, Audiophile
Magneplanar: 3.7, CC5, MC1, DWM; Outlaw: UltraX12, LFM-1C; Emotiva: XMC-1, PA-1; Nord: Nord One NC500DM; Outlaw: Model 7500; OPPO 205
Agree completely -- the test methods were flawed -- and I and some others raised objections in that thread.
Davey pointed out that he measured the bass response *with the speakers lifted off the floor*, a fatal measurement error -- the bass response of a dipole will be seriousy screwed if you do that, owing to an acoustic short circuit around the bottom.
There are other egregious errors as well, not the least of which is that Amir did his listening tests with *one* speaker (sigh).
Fortunately, there was a lot of pushback from people who have actually *heard* Maggies! The negatives seemed to come mostly from people who hadn't, but felt themselves experts because they'd read the review.
I'm very wary of all the short-time burst FFTs and other reconstruction techniques to attempt to estimate 'quasi-anechoic' measurements when they are applied to speakers, planars, with driver dimensions which can be significantly longer than the wavelength being emitted. The Klippel system tries to do something with 'spherical harmonics' which is a decomposition for the wave/diffusion equation suitable for systems with certain spherical symmetries, more specifically, the finite-mode truncations (as always used) will work better for quasi point sources vs long line sources. (By the way the spherical harmonic structure & radial modes are the basis of decomposition of Schroedinger equation solutions as the electron wave function orbitals that help govern chemistry)The algorithms & measurements almost surely were NOT calibrated or designed for that situation, i.e. calibrated and validated for planars against results in full, large, expensive real anechoic chambers (which have to be big enough even there so that the long axis of the speaker is still 'small'!) with AES-paper level science.
I'm a hard core 'objectivist' but further we need to be skeptical of the conditions of the measurements and applicability.
Furthermore, these tests, *like all the Harman preference tests*, in single speaker mono. Alone, Magnepans are nothing special. The perceptual psychoacoustic magic happens to me only in stereo, with a difference stronger than conventional speakers, perhaps with spectral balance perceived changes more than box speakers.
Edits: 09/30/20
Thanks, interesting and informative.
So my opinion.
This ASR site is one of these 'let's create controversy' sites so people will talk about us and notice us. The easiest way to gain attention is to take a stance opposite of the majority. I'm going to listen to one speaker and give an opinion. Riiiight. It's a clown show and I wish people would stop bringing it up.
Pass Labs amps suck
Magnepans suck
Psaudio directstream sucks.
Not really sure how they rated any of the above but....Whatever.
...and they rated the Denafrips Ares 2 DAC as mediocre. It is more musical, less digital than their top rated (based on measurements) Topping DAC which every member of the ASR forum seems to own.
BEEEEHHHHH...
Amir insists that all DAC's sound the same, but likes to measure them anyway. Most of the measurements he makes are of things that would be inaudible to a dog.
If they do all sound the same, he should just suggest that people buy the cheapest.
Of course they don't all sound the same, but try to mention the obvious and they'll throw bottles and tin cans at you.
I did a careful and painstaking series of level-matched A/B tests and they did not sound the same; the Sabre DAC's have the infamous "Sabre glare."
I'm not even sure that this is much of a mystery. I'm guessing it's the infamous harmonic distortion bump, although the overpeaked filters may contribute as well; ESS says they aren't correct, but sound good.
Amir doesn't think that ESS is correct about their own DAC's.
But kind of unfair to argue with somebody who isn't here.
Josh -
I read/skimmed all 700+ posts on that yesterday (yeah, I have no life). I thought your replies were cogent, well thought out, and relevant to the reality of listening to the LRS, properly setup, as a pair, in a typical listening room. Obviously the speaker has limitations both as a function of size, design, and price point, but measurements do not always tell the story on what speakers sound like. More likely they do somewhat with a standard box monopole but not on a dipole panel.
I found it interesting that none of the posts referencing other panels, varying Maggies and the laundry list of ESL, touched at all on my beloved LFT8. I always feel like such a dark horse but I still think they are a solution that overcomes a lot of issues and combines the best of planar, ESL, and piston. The dual magnet vapor deposited voice coils are fast, the xvr transition from mid to tweeter at 10K is seamless, the xvr transition to the 8" woofer at 180Hz is the only hybrid I have heard that doesn't have a hump that I can hear and it has usable response below 30Hz in my room. Ah well, better to go unnoticed.
I have gotten a lot of useful information from ASR but there is a certain mindset over there from many that makes me wonder if they actually listen to music? Of course there are forums that are the antithesis of ASR and keep the snake oil industry alive and well. Between measurement and observation somewhere in the middle lies truth.
These arguments always remind me of an interview I read with Dave Brubeck many years ago. I think it was back in the 80's in either TAS or Stereophile, when they were both still little trade journal sized books. Dave was going on and on about the music they were listening to and the interviewer just couldn't get past his frustration over Dave's system consisting of a stack of mid-fi gear piled on top of one another and the asymmetry of the speaker positions, one with a chair covered in laundry set in front of it. I know plenty of musicians who care about good audio reproduction but given a choice I'd rather have ability to "hear" music like Dave Brubeck, regardless what it is coming from.
Heh, yes, in-between is where the truth lies, but some of those guys are fanatics who wouldn't believe that the sky is blue unless it had been demonstrated in a double-blind peer-reviewed study.
OTOH, there are some excellent and knowledgeable people on the site -- and they aren't the same as the true believers.
The LFT8's are a curious case -- widely respected, but they don't get much attention, perhaps because they've been the same for longer than most of us have been alive!
sbrook, there are a few of us ET LFT-8b owners around. For some reason, most Maggie owners are just not interested in the ET's. I have both (LFT-8b and LFT-4, and Tympani T-IVa), along with the QUAD ESL.
I could have been a Maggie owner but for footprint. My first exposure to actually listening to them was an extended session at Lyric hi-fi in NYC with a set of 1.6's and I found them utterly rapturous. I subsequently auditioned a set of MMGs in home back in Florida. While a sub would have been desirable and better mounts, I loved the sound.
I hemmed and hawed between 1.6 and MG12 but I just couldn't handle the visual footprint in my living room. The MMGs had established that the room could support it (the wall behind them encompassed 8 linear feet of sliding glass)but the bigger panels would really block the view. Surprisingly my wife was okay with either but I was the one who couldn't commit.
The 13" width of the ET made them ideal. Bought unheard strictly on reading was a bit of a leap of faith but I have never been sorry. $1350 at the time for the 8A with the Sound Anchor stands was an obscene bargain and the additional $400 for the 8B tweeters was well worth it.
I still feel in the right room a set of MMGs with a small fast sub could have been all the speaker I needed.
It's interesting that on a forum that eschews subjective evaluation he uses (for speakers) subjective evaluation to confirm what he's not measuring. :)
Anyways, I don't think the measurement results are so much about dipole short-circuiting, but rather lack of boundary reinforcement. Even a typical box speaker measured well above the floor would measure differently when sitting on the floor. This is a simple 2pi/4pi environment effect that would manifest with all speakers.
However, typical box speakers are usually designed for above floor usage, whereas the Magnepan speakers are designed to sit on the floor. This is the essential "issue" with the PIR noted. The NFS claims to encompass that discontinuity as result of the measuring scheme......but I'm not convinced it's effective for all types of speakers. After Amir has tested another half dozen (or so) floor-standing dipole speakers then maybe the issues will become clearer.
Now, nobody is going to accuse the MMG/LRS of having room-filling bottom two octaves bass. They are NOT legitimate full range speakers and do need a sub-woofer to be considered such in a typical domestic situation. But, to characterize them as having "no bass below 300Hz" is not correct.
Dave.
.
if their feet aren't tapping within 5 seconds I give up!
A major reviewer for a mag talked greatly about a new amp. In the review they included test results and other evals. I bought a pair of these mono blocks new and tried them out at home since hi end stores had become almost non existent for any sampling.
I was pissed off that they sounded like the reviewer had too much wax in his ears and promptly sold them. It was the very last time I did anything stupid like that.
"Bass is the place..the rest is filigree and lace" Doug Sax
It's important to understand how human hearing works. Most people think their ears work like microphones, and overestimate the accuracy of their golden ear discernment.-------------------------
Science doesn't care what you believe.
Edits: 09/27/20
This is why I listen to 'many' reviews. I listen to you , professional reviews, comparisons of someone that has similar product or to product I have heard . I never 'listen' to specs as they make no sound. Lol. But when I start to see consistent reviews and interpretations of a particular piece of kit - well that speaks volumes to me. Specs like frequency response seem to hold meaning for me. But, I certainly couldn't tell you if I would like them or not based solely on it.
Of course I FULLY understand it ever since I was a wee laddy and protected my ears when doing ANYTHING loud like vacuums, saws, drills, yelling wife or whatever. I have and use all kinds of earplugs and ear protection every day.
And I rarely if ever "overestimate" so I am not grasping your comment. My comment was just a statement for consideration, not any criticism.
The point was from my example that you can't trust a 'highly respected reviewer' or magazine - just listen for yourself if you can with known source equipment. It's inevitable nowadays to turn to places like AA when considering a new purchase.
And if it ain't any good for you, just try to sell it off here before it becomes outdated.
"Bass is the place..the rest is filigree and lace" Doug Sax
...not everything that can be counted counts.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
that was actually both somewhat profound and in my prenuptial agreement
regards,
Measuring everything they see and hear, never once looking or listening.
Edits: 09/25/20
Amir's subject review of the speakers was negative. I think if he actually liked them during the listening phase, that would present a conundrum because he'd essentially be contradicting the measurements. And since that is a site that puts so much emphasis on measurements, to then say he liked the way they sounded would act to invalidate the philosophy of the site. So I wonder how much the measurements influence what his "subjective" opinion is? He should have listened to the speakers first, gave his subjective listening impressions, then measured them.
Well, that's a rather conclusive conclusion then..
One thing I noticed from looking at the comments to that review was that it is like a cult. His followers are like zombies. One guy who had the 1.7's on order was instantly regretting and bemoaning his decision, even though he hadn't listened to them himself. That seemed to be the character of the comments, that whatever Amir believes, that sets their beliefs as well.
Most Magnepan admirers soon realize that they must adjust the speaker to the room, very much like a live concert hall to get the joy and the musicality out of them. Because you have the possibility of sculpting the sound and creating a living musical signature, you should not be able to get consistent measurement 'success' out of them, instead you have become an architect of sorts(hence an 'unfinished consumer product', a sound artist. Not a speaker that you just throw in a room and play no more than the rest of the line.
Without being critical of Amir , I wonder how he measures electrostatics?
to reach the middle, I suppose.
Having been in this hobby for a very long time, I do admit that subjectivism, often very unfounded or interest-driven, has dominated the scene for an eternity.
A bit of measurement-first movement is not the end of the world..
Strange cult like following almost. Was very surprised to see that regret...
The spherical wave expansion metric is an interesting approach....with point-source (or nearly) speakers, but I'm not sure all the NFS processing and extrapolation are translating to a correct depiction of non-point-source speakers.
One thing I've noticed about Amir though...-...-.once his mind is made up, he NEVER changes his conclusion on a product/test. :)
Dave.
Rush Limbaugh, who in a sense is the father of modern social media, gave the following advice about how to succeed, where success = simple market share ("followers," clicks, etc.):
1. If you take a position, insist it is %100 percent true, obvious to anyone with common sense, and nothing but purely good and wonderful that it is true.
2. Anyone who questions you must be attacked as an idiot, or a hater, a person not to be listened to, worthless, of completely devious and dishonest motives, and listening to them will surely lead to misery and failure in life.
It works! But this is just what the sophists taught as their "secret" back in the days of Socrates. It's an old trick to maximumize your gull rate while trawling marks for $$.
Amir sounds like a classic sophist. Sophistry is predictable, and boring, and a trick that once you see how it works, you rapidly lose patience with.
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
ASR claims a single speaker images.
If so, why record in stereo, why buy 2 speakers, why buy 2 amps, why buy 2 sets of cables ??? I have been doing it all wrong.
I also follow the Audio Science Review website. They pursue a finely crafted objective analysis of equipment. And objective is where their approach runs into problems.
For example, I own a Topping D50s DAC that tested excellent on their scale and is strongly recommended. Closely comparing it to my other DAC, which is a bit more expensive, the sound is thin, shallow and much less detailed.
Pure measurement does not present the whole story in audio.
This.
They rate a lot of stuff well that sounds like crap, thin and ughhhhh.
SINAD is not the end all, be all.
Yes Tubes add noise, and this noise is simply beautiful as one example.
> > For example, I own a Topping D50s DAC that tested excellent on their scale and is strongly recommended. Closely comparing it to my other DAC, which is a bit more expensive, the sound is thin, shallow and much less detailed. < <
Did you do your listening tests of the D50 in a controlled, double-blind experiment?
Science doesn't care what you believe.
"pure measurement does not present the whole story in audio"
Where have I heard that before.............?
Because the tests must be wrong! Test methodology is always debatable but the subjective review is not great either.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: