Speaker Shootout - two of the most accurate and well reviewed speakers ever made - Page 54 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1872Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1591 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 04:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,129
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2756 Post(s)
Liked: 2675
I was at TAVES and saw the Revel room with the Revel Salon2 and the JBL M2s. They were very late in setting up and I waited an hour outside the room as I was quite excited to finally have a chance to hear those speakers.

Unfortunately they insisted on demoing the sound at ear-bleeding levels so loud I had to bolt from the room (I have sensitive ears and a case of tinnitus I have to protect). Very disappointing, though crazy sound level are pretty common in audio shows. (I'm always amazed by how many demonstrations crank large speakers to the point of overloading a room, making them sound worse than they actually can perform. Though in this case the room was plenty big).

Ah well, maybe some other day.
R Harkness is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1592 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 05:15 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 794 Post(s)
Liked: 2864
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post
It’s official, I’m the first time traveler ....
I came from the future, 2018, to share this book on acoustics



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I saw that and I have two interpretations, neither of which requires time travel. First: they decided that the content is ahead of its time, but I would have been more impressed if it had been more than one year. Second: they won't start paying royalties until next year.

I'll let you know which is right
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1593 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 07:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,171
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3183 Post(s)
Liked: 3186
Wow, I skipped right past that to get to the good stuff. Since the copyright is not until next year, I'm going to go to the local office supply store and have them run off a few thousand copies I can sell on eBay and retire...

Not.

I'm going with "Wow, they weren't going to publish until next year, I'm one lucky guy to get mine so early!"

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1594 of 1751 Old 10-17-2017, 11:29 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,768
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5646 Post(s)
Liked: 2670
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
Not "just like"
Please elaborate.

If it is true that the aurally most spacious speaker wins then put something like Ken Kantor's Magic Speaker in the mix and it should come out on top. That would question the whole concept of "the most preferred speaker in a single speaker, blind listening test is best".
IgorZep likes this.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #1595 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 09:44 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Please elaborate.

If it is true that the aurally most spacious speaker wins then put something like Ken Kantor's Magic Speaker in the mix and it should come out on top. That would question the whole concept of "the most preferred speaker in a single speaker, blind listening test is best".
Equating change in radiation pattern with change in level seemed to me to be trying to compare apples and butter.

In any case, one such change is absolutely to be avoided, while the other is what is being preference-tested for. Hence my objection to 'just like'.

No one has ever conceived of a better way to honestly and fairly preference-test (or test for efficacy) other than blindly. If you come up with one, you can make your name in the history of ideas.

Lots of speakers sound more spacious than the clever MGC1.

There may be limits to presentation spaciousness preference as a function of taste. Many like (or feel they like, without having blind-tested for it) the immediacy of beamy (at least treble-beamy) speakers in dry rooms. Some of us otoh like as much treble in the reverberant field as feasible, at least a distribution of treble similar to that of the other, nontreble frequencies. I myself could not live happily without something like Allison or dbx speakers, and working orchestral musicians regularly agree after auditioning my rigs. Others simply demur with 'That's great but I would not be able to live with that scale of airiness; I feel it lacks enough focus' etc.

Gustibus, in other words.

One thing that is clear is that uniformity and constancy of horizontal radiation pattern sure is crucially important --- why the BL90 (Wide mode, for fairness) is likely to be blind-preferred by most to the Bose 901, or the Allison Nine to the One. (Sticking with comparatively spacious presentation, obviously.)

I do not know of any good blind testing of preference for horizontal radiation pattern type, and that would be a next step if I ran things (it would've been the first step). The extremely important Harman work showed how uniformity / constancy (good xover seams and stitching) of hor radpat is blind-preferred.

But as you note, to circle back to the start point, this particular blind test under discussion here is utterly fascinating given the radpat excellence of both designs, and the next step for now would be to test the Revel against something with even wider (of course not slopped) horizontal radiation.

Last edited by davidrmoran; 10-18-2017 at 09:49 AM. Reason: clarity
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1596 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:03 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,768
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5646 Post(s)
Liked: 2670
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
Equating change in radiation pattern with change in level
That's not what I did. I just made a comparison to a variable (loudness in this case) that would render any listening test moot if not controlled properly. I was asking whether a difference in spaciousness could have a similar effect. As you're certainly aware there have been blind listening tests where a rather simple quasi-omnidirectional speaker won. I think it was discussed on diyaudio.com.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #1597 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:15 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
That's not what I did. I just made a comparison to a variable (loudness in this case) that would render any listening test moot if not controlled properly. I was asking whether a difference in spaciousness could have a similar effect. As you're certainly aware there have been blind listening tests where a rather simple quasi-omnidirectional speaker won. I think it was discussed on diyaudio.com.
We are probably in what's called violent agreement. I take 'just like' as a kind of equating.
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1598 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bigguyca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Turkestan
Posts: 1,608
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 990 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
That's not what I did. I just made a comparison to a variable (loudness in this case) that would render any listening test moot if not controlled properly. I was asking whether a difference in spaciousness could have a similar effect. As you're certainly aware there have been blind listening tests where a rather simple quasi-omnidirectional speaker won. I think it was discussed on diyaudio.com.
Loudness is subjective. Perception of loudness varies by individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness

Why would you try to control a subjective variable? All listening tests will be moot according to your text because controlling loudness is an invalid condition.

I will be better if you control sound press level (SPL). SPL can be measured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_...pressure_level
bigguyca is offline  
post #1599 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:46 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
I took it to mean SP level
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1600 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,768
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5646 Post(s)
Liked: 2670
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
We are probably in what's called violent agreement. I take 'just like' as a kind of equating.
Thanks for the clarification.

Maybe testing preference is the best we can do in the light of audio’s circle of confusion. But, at the same time it might just act as a red herring. It's like asking "do you like pizza A better than pizza B?" when the actual question should be "does pizza A or B taste similar to pizza C?".

There are fundamental questions that are still unanswered even after nearly 90 years of (stereo) sound reproduction: To what extend is stereo and multichannel even capable of presenting an aural space that is different from the one the listener is in? What kind of aural spaces can be delivered? To how many seats simultaneously? How do visual cues (that are always present, even in light controlled spaces) influence the outcome? What are meaningful requirements/performance metrics regarding room acoustics, recording/mixing techniques and speaker properties for delivering repeatable results?
There’s virtually no research trying to answer these fundamental questions. The only papers I know that touch on that topic were done by Naqvi/Rumsey (“The Active Listening Room”).

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 10-18-2017 at 10:53 AM.
markus767 is offline  
post #1601 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:51 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,768
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5646 Post(s)
Liked: 2670
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguyca View Post
Loudness is subjective. Perception of loudness varies by individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness

Why would you try to control a subjective variable? All listening tests will be moot according to your text because controlling loudness is an invalid condition.

I will be better if you control sound press level (SPL). SPL can be measured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_...pressure_level
I'm well aware of the difference (perceptual vs. physical). But, maybe you're right and the tests are flawed because all our hearing cares about is loudness, not SPL.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #1602 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bigguyca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Turkestan
Posts: 1,608
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 990 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
That's not what I did. I just made a comparison to a variable (loudness in this case) that would render any listening test moot if not controlled properly. I was asking whether a difference in spaciousness could have a similar effect. As you're certainly aware there have been blind listening tests where a rather simple quasi-omnidirectional speaker won. I think it was discussed on diyaudio.com.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguyca View Post
Loudness is subjective. Perception of loudness varies by individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness

Why would you try to control a subjective variable? All listening tests will be moot according to your text because controlling loudness is an invalid condition.

I will be better if you control sound press level (SPL). SPL can be measured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_...pressure_level
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
I'm well aware of the difference (perceptual vs. physical). But, maybe you're right and the tests are flawed because all our hearing cares about is loudness, not SPL.
It is your claim.
bigguyca is offline  
post #1603 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 11:21 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,768
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5646 Post(s)
Liked: 2670
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigguyca View Post
It is your claim.
Guess you've misread my initial post. Loudness needs to be controlled (it's not "an invalid condition") in meaningful blind listening tests or they are invalid. Can be quite hard to do because loudness is influenced by quite a few factors.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #1604 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 11:27 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
[markus767]
>> Maybe testing preference is the best we can do in the light of audio’s circle of confusion. But, at the same time it might just act as a red herring. It's like asking "do you like pizza A better than pizza B?" when the actual question should be "does pizza A or B taste similar to pizza C?".
>> There are fundamental questions that are still unanswered even after nearly 90 years of (stereo) sound reproduction: To what extend is stereo and multichannel even capable of presenting an aural space that is different from the one the listener is in? What kind of aural spaces can be delivered? To how many seats simultaneously? How do visual cues (that are always present, even in light controlled spaces) influence the outcome? What are meaningful requirements/performance metrics regarding room acoustics, recording/mixing techniques and speaker properties for delivering repeatable results?

Not really seeing how the circle of confusion enters into this; the program material for the Harman testing has been various, but over time (I think I am recalling this correctly) garden-variety broadband pop music gave equally solid results.

Your fundamental questions remain fundamental but not what was being tested for. Not sure there's an answer, with so much variability of mike pickup patterns and deployments and distance / height, venue attributes, balances, not to mention style of music, taste in seating distance, blah blah.

What remains essential are proper driver diameter, bandwidth usage, baffle choice, crossover savvy, system test, all following the decision about the horizontal radpat goal. More and more are getting it, but not enough, I'd wager (I have not done any speaker measuring for a few years).

Last edited by davidrmoran; 10-18-2017 at 11:29 AM. Reason: forgot op
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1605 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 11:35 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,768
Mentioned: 187 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5646 Post(s)
Liked: 2670
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
Not really seeing how the circle of confusion enters into this; the program material for the Harman testing has been various, but over time (I think I am recalling this correctly) garden-variety broadband pop music gave equally solid results.
Exactly. Only preference was and could be tested. It's not the same as testing how well something compares to a reference because the reference doesn't exist or can't be tested against (due to the circle of confusion).
Under such testing conditions it doesn't matter whether the experimenter asks for preference, fidelity, accuracy, realism, etc. The terms become the same thing because the point of reference is missing.
SouthernCA likes this.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 10-18-2017 at 11:41 AM.
markus767 is offline  
post #1606 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 12:14 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Exactly. Only preference was and could be tested. It's not the same as testing how well something compares to a reference because the reference doesn't exist or can't be tested against (due to the circle of confusion).
Under such testing conditions it doesn't matter whether the experimenter asks for preference, fidelity, accuracy, realism, etc. The terms become the same thing because the point of reference is missing.
Right, it's blind preference testing, as with butter or wine or chocolate. Not the usual ABX 'does this differ from the original?' testing.

Last edited by davidrmoran; 10-18-2017 at 12:15 PM. Reason: typo fix
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1607 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 01:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
filecat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cal Central Coast
Posts: 4,604
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
Right, it's blind preference testing, as with butter or wine or chocolate. Not the usual ABX 'does this differ from the original?' testing.
Now we're getting close!

What I can afford, when I can afford it...
filecat13 is offline  
post #1608 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 02:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,129
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2756 Post(s)
Liked: 2675
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
[markus767]
>> Maybe testing preference is the best we can do in the light of audio’s circle of confusion. But, at the same time it might just act as a red herring. It's like asking "do you like pizza A better than pizza B?" when the actual question should be "does pizza A or B taste similar to pizza C?".
>> There are fundamental questions that are still unanswered even after nearly 90 years of (stereo) sound reproduction: To what extend is stereo and multichannel even capable of presenting an aural space that is different from the one the listener is in? What kind of aural spaces can be delivered? To how many seats simultaneously? How do visual cues (that are always present, even in light controlled spaces) influence the outcome? What are meaningful requirements/performance metrics regarding room acoustics, recording/mixing techniques and speaker properties for delivering repeatable results?

Not really seeing how the circle of confusion enters into this; the program material for the Harman testing has been various, but over time (I think I am recalling this correctly) garden-variety broadband pop music gave equally solid results.

Your fundamental questions remain fundamental but not what was being tested for. Not sure there's an answer, with so much variability of mike pickup patterns and deployments and distance / height, venue attributes, balances, not to mention style of music, taste in seating distance, blah blah.

What remains essential are proper driver diameter, bandwidth usage, baffle choice, crossover savvy, system test, all following the decision about the horizontal radpat goal. More and more are getting it, but not enough, I'd wager (I have not done any speaker measuring for a few years).
david,

As you know panel speakers, e.g. electrostatics, have had fervent devotees over the years. Some find that after trying many other designs, they come back to ESLs as the ones they prefer to live with.

Do you know how ESLs fare in blind tests?
Scotth3886 likes this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1609 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 03:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,960
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3853 Post(s)
Liked: 2358
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
david,

As you know panel speakers, e.g. electrostatics, have had fervent devotees over the years. Some find that after trying many other designs, they come back to ESLs as the ones they prefer to live with.

Do you know how ESLs fare in blind tests?

One speaker at a time as in the Harmon tests, I would think very badly.

And yep, for 60 years, I keep coming back
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1610 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 03:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,885
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3427 Post(s)
Liked: 1905
whats the standard volume/spl level and seating distance for said tests? I probably would want 12 feet and 90 db if I tested some speakers.

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc900, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5, Magnepan LRS
Subs: Rythmik FV25HP, Rythmik FV15HP
torii is offline  
post #1611 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 08:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
One speaker at a time as in the Harmon tests, I would think very badly.

And yep, for 60 years, I keep coming back
I do not know the answers re ESLs but I bet FT can give insights.

I believe a Maggie did not do well in the Harman set (just google it), maybe not at all, and I was a little surprised. Maybe it was ML, Martin-Logan, sorry. Yes, I think I just libeled Magnepan.

Big (or Quad-sized) ESLs likewise might be oversized in a comparison, but that is speculation. I tire of the scale, but again, that's me, meaning I love them and then not. My experienced opinion does not matter, really, believe me.

I have not tested or measured ESLs outdoors except for the Carver Amazing, wait, sorry, not an ESL, right? --- which I did twice, years apart, since the owner did not believe my radpat results; a long story having to do with how a thin ribbon hor radpat is not really much like a cardioid at all, as claimed.

My KLH 9 and Acoustat exposure, at some length, was wonderful and impressive, but I do not think I would want to live with it. (Like some friends with my dbx Soundfields )

Otoh, I have never lived with it, and many who have, like the 60y quote above, wish for nothing other.

I myself think 12' is a bit far for listening distance, and 90dBspl is too loud. I think what you want, choosing among Haydn string quartets, big band jazz, big orchestral, and lots of medium pop-rock, is 70 and the loud passages into the 80s and maybe hitting 90. Once you are rocking along and happy, then sure, 100, live rock and big orchestral.
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1612 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 09:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,960
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3853 Post(s)
Liked: 2358
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
I do not know the answers re ESLs but I bet FT can give insights.

I believe a Maggie did not do well in the Harman set (just google it), maybe not at all, and I was a little surprised. Maybe it was ML, Martin-Logan, sorry. Yes, I think I just libeled Magnepan.

Big (or Quad-sized) ESLs likewise might be oversized in a comparison, but that is speculation. I tire of the scale, but again, that's me, meaning I love them and then not. My experienced opinion does not matter, really, believe me.

I have not tested or measured ESLs outdoors except for the Carver Amazing, wait, sorry, not an ESL, right? --- which I did twice, years apart, since the owner did not believe my radpat results; a long story having to do with how a thin ribbon hor radpat is not really much like a cardioid at all, as claimed.

My KLH 9 and Acoustat exposure, at some length, was wonderful and impressive, but I do not think I would want to live with it. (Like some friends with my dbx Soundfields )

Otoh, I have never lived with it, and many who have, like the 60y quote above, wish for nothing other.

I myself think 12' is a bit far for listening distance, and 90dBspl is too loud. I think what you want, choosing among Haydn string quartets, big band jazz, big orchestral, and lots of medium pop-rock, is 70 and the loud passages into the 80s and maybe hitting 90. Once you are rocking along and happy, then sure, 100, live rock and big orchestral.

It was an older hybrid ML from the 90s. Maybe the Quests, but I can't recall. The Carver Amazing was a line source ribbon, and if I recall correctly, not well reviewed.

I searched https://www.stereophile.com/content/...edition-page-4

I've owned ESLs and planar magnetics for most of 60 years starting with ESL57s in 1959. However, I've almost always had other systems in the house using something a little more conventional. I even (gawd help me) went through a period of JBLs after the Quads because damnit I wanted loud so I got loud with L100s then L45s and L300s. Took me a few years to come to terms with everything else I was missing for the tradeoff of 'loud'. So then back to at that time the new Magneplanar Tympani 1-Us followed by 1-Cs then Dayton Wright XG8 Mk2s and the Tympani 1-Ds. Somewhere in that period I had also KLH-9s, and hell if I remember what all else, Yamaha NS 670s, 690S and 1000s, Mirage M1s, DQ10s, DCM Time Windows, Sequerra Met 7 Mk2s. There were others, but can't remember now. Very late 70s and well into the 80s, then it was MG 3a, ML CLSs, ML Statements, all 1,900lb of them, Soundlab A-1s A-3s (and I still have M-1s). So anyway, I've had plenty of both, but still keep coming back to ESLs. Lots of reasons that have to be heard/experienced to understand. I was raised on unamplified classical and big band, and dipoles, especially ESLs, just come the closest to that experience. Now ESLs are reliable and go much louder than I care to listen. Though, I rarely see them set up the way they need to be, and generally, WAF is a primary reason ..... sure got me two divorces.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1613 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:33 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
It was an older hybrid ML from the 90s. Maybe the Quests, but I can't recall. The Carver Amazing was a line source ribbon, and if I recall correctly, not well reviewed.

I searched https://www.stereophile.com/content/...edition-page-4

I've owned ESLs and planar magnetics for most of 60 years starting with ESL57s in 1959. However, I've almost always had other systems in the house using something a little more conventional. I even (gawd help me) went through a period of JBLs after the Quads because damnit I wanted loud so I got loud with L100s then L45s and L300s. Took me a few years to come to terms with everything else I was missing for the tradeoff of 'loud'. So then back to at that time the new Magneplanar Tympani 1-Us followed by 1-Cs then Dayton Wright XG8 Mk2s and the Tympani 1-Ds. Somewhere in that period I had also KLH-9s, and hell if I remember what all else, Yamaha NS 670s, 690S and 1000s, Mirage M1s, DQ10s, DCM Time Windows, Sequerra Met 7 Mk2s. There were others, but can't remember now. Very late 70s and well into the 80s, then it was MG 3a, ML CLSs, ML Statements, all 1,900lb of them, Soundlab A-1s A-3s (and I still have M-1s). So anyway, I've had plenty of both, but still keep coming back to ESLs. Lots of reasons that have to be heard/experienced to understand. I was raised on unamplified classical and big band, and dipoles, especially ESLs, just come the closest to that experience. Now ESLs are reliable and go much louder than I care to listen. Though, I rarely see them set up the way they need to be, and generally, WAF is a primary reason ..... sure got me two divorces.
Amazing was well-reviewed elsewhere.

I sharply discount all Atkinson measurements except for room response, though here it was crappy AudioControl stuff, which is from a toy.

Except for the tizz at the top (6k?) the room response shown may be pretty respectably euphonious, to my eye. Certainly the Amazings sounded good and nicely balanced in my exposures to them. But their hor radpat is quite as wide as you would expect from a narrow ribbon, with no 'nulls' worth discussing or even noting, though that is all anyone does.

Your life saga means you (imo) should be included in all speaker comparison listening. Without question, OCD judgments aside .

>> ESLs are reliable and go much louder than I care to listen.

is this what you meant to type? Much louder?
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1614 of 1751 Old 10-18-2017, 10:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,960
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3853 Post(s)
Liked: 2358
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
Amazing was well-reviewed elsewhere.

I sharply discount all Atkinson measurements except for room response, though here it was crappy AudioControl stuff, which is from a toy.

Except for the tizz at the top (6k?) the room response shown may be pretty respectably euphonious, to my eye. Certainly the Amazings sounded good and nicely balanced in my exposures to them. But their hor radpat is quite as wide as you would expect from a narrow ribbon, with no 'nulls' worth discussing or even noting, though that is all anyone does.

Your life saga means you (imo) should be included in all speaker comparison listening. Without question, OCD judgments aside .

>> ESLs are reliable and go much louder than I care to listen.

is this what you meant to type? Much louder?

Dick Olsher wrote the Bob Carver review. The measurements ..... well ..... I couldn't care less for the most part so I didn't look at that part. I've listened to them before, but at a show, and don't recall much about them one way or the other.

"is this what you meant to type? Much louder"

Yes, even the small hybrids, the $2,500 ML Electomotion ESLs will go way louder than I care to listen, which is in the range of 70 -75 db in a room with a noise floor of 18db. They will really bump away to electronica at 100+db if that's what one desires. So ESLs have come a very long way in the 60 years they've been on the commercial market (starting with Peter Walker), but are no easier to position to get the best out of them. And the best is way way far better than the average that most folks are satisfied with who own them or you hear in most stores.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1615 of 1751 Old 10-19-2017, 06:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DonH50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Monument CO
Posts: 12,171
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3183 Post(s)
Liked: 3186
The Amazing was a ribbon hybrid with conventional (sub)woofers. Apogee was the only full-range ribbon I have have heard but it was a bear to drive. You'd have to ask Harman how the ML ESL was set up in their test; I historically dampen the back wave to reduce comb filtering (etc.) that can really mess with the results. I have in the primordial past tested/compared speakers in mono and opinions were mixed on panels; some liked, some didn't, even listening to just one. No real surprise there... Their directivity changing with frequency doesn't always let them play well when off-axis response is included, not that conventional designs all do well in that regard either. As I've mentioned before the audible change in sound going from a panel to a conventional woofer always bugged me a bit since it was too often too audible. For that matter, the big HQD systems I heard, while impressive, were not quite my cup of tea and were a royal pain to dial in for anything close to seamless sound and image from top to bottom. About as large a mismatch as one could expect...

I still have my old Maggies in storage but am happy with my new Salon 2's.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley
DonH50 is offline  
post #1616 of 1751 Old 10-19-2017, 10:54 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,129
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2756 Post(s)
Liked: 2675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
I've owned ESLs and planar magnetics for most of 60 years starting with ESL57s in 1959. However, I've almost always had other systems in the house using something a little more conventional. I even (gawd help me) went through a period of JBLs after the Quads because damnit I wanted loud so I got loud with L100s then L45s and L300s. Took me a few years to come to terms with everything else I was missing for the tradeoff of 'loud'. So then back to at that time the new Magneplanar Tympani 1-Us followed by 1-Cs then Dayton Wright XG8 Mk2s and the Tympani 1-Ds. Somewhere in that period I had also KLH-9s, and hell if I remember what all else, Yamaha NS 670s, 690S and 1000s, Mirage M1s, DQ10s, DCM Time Windows, Sequerra Met 7 Mk2s. There were others, but can't remember now. Very late 70s and well into the 80s, then it was MG 3a, ML CLSs, ML Statements, all 1,900lb of them, Soundlab A-1s A-3s (and I still have M-1s). So anyway, I've had plenty of both, but still keep coming back to ESLs. Lots of reasons that have to be heard/experienced to understand. I was raised on unamplified classical and big band, and dipoles, especially ESLs, just come the closest to that experience. Now ESLs are reliable and go much louder than I care to listen. Though, I rarely see them set up the way they need to be, and generally, WAF is a primary reason ..... sure got me two divorces.
Boy, you've got a history with panels!

My dad was into great audio and put the bug in me when he brought home robot-looking Kef 105 II speakers, with the 400W Carver "magnetic field" cube amplifier and Carver Preamp with "sonic holography" settings. Boy did that system sound incredible and spinning Earth Wind And Fire on those speakers made me the envy of all my friends. (My brother still has those speakers).

I remember being very young and going with my dad to a stereo store and hearing these "special" kind of speakers that were flat, and as I remember they were Quad ESL 63s (if the picture in my memory is correct). It was a startling sort of sound.

The next time I encountered a panel was the early 90's in a large book store. For whatever reason they had Martin Logan speakers set up playing some jazz (I think it was the Aerius or maybe the Quest). I was just stopped in my tracks hearing, across the book store, the most eerily real and transparent sound of a trumpet playing I've ever heard from a sound system.

Eventually I ended up with Quad ESL 63s in my first high end system, and later added the dipole Gradient subwoofers, specially made for the Quads. That sound set a bar so high that it was very difficult to improve upon. Ultimately, as much as I loved the boxless sound, transparency and realism of the Quads (and other ESLs), I grew restless with the lack of body to the sound. It sort of reminded me of looking through a portal or window and on the other side musicians were playing in another room. I could "see" the musicians, but couldn't feel the music, the moving of air, which left a detached quality to the presentation. This ultimately led me to dynamic speakers (as many ESL proponents try out after a while of experiencing the same issue with panels...even if they go back to panels).

I haven't really ever looked back. Fortunately there are dynamic box speakers that sound stunningly "box-free" but have the weight and density to the sound I personally desire. ESLs are always a great place to visit and I love hearing them, but it's not a place I can stay.

That said, I'm a speaker-whore (currently have two large floorstanders and 4 sets of stand mounted speakers, gawd help me...), and I have schemed about how to fit a pair of Quad ESL 57s into my home - my favorite panel speaker, and in fact I was offered a pair for free - but they just won't fit. Bummer.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1617 of 1751 Old 10-19-2017, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,960
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3853 Post(s)
Liked: 2358
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Boy, you've got a history with panels!

My dad was into great audio and put the bug in me when he brought home robot-looking Kef 105 II speakers, with the 400W Carver "magnetic field" cube amplifier and Carver Preamp with "sonic holography" settings. Boy did that system sound incredible and spinning Earth Wind And Fire on those speakers made me the envy of all my friends. (My brother still has those speakers).

I remember being very young and going with my dad to a stereo store and hearing these "special" kind of speakers that were flat, and as I remember they were Quad ESL 63s (if the picture in my memory is correct). It was a startling sort of sound.

The next time I encountered a panel was the early 90's in a large book store. For whatever reason they had Martin Logan speakers set up playing some jazz (I think it was the Aerius or maybe the Quest). I was just stopped in my tracks hearing, across the book store, the most eerily real and transparent sound of a trumpet playing I've ever heard from a sound system.

Eventually I ended up with Quad ESL 63s in my first high end system, and later added the dipole Gradient subwoofers, specially made for the Quads. That sound set a bar so high that it was very difficult to improve upon. Ultimately, as much as I loved the boxless sound, transparency and realism of the Quads (and other ESLs), I grew restless with the lack of body to the sound. It sort of reminded me of looking through a portal or window and on the other side musicians were playing in another room. I could "see" the musicians, but couldn't feel the music, the moving of air, which left a detached quality to the presentation. This ultimately led me to dynamic speakers (as many ESL proponents try out after a while of experiencing the same issue with panels...even if they go back to panels).

I haven't really ever looked back. Fortunately there are dynamic box speakers that sound stunningly "box-free" but have the weight and density to the sound I personally desire. ESLs are always a great place to visit and I love hearing them, but it's not a place I can stay.

That said, I'm a speaker-whore (currently have two large floorstanders and 4 sets of stand mounted speakers, gawd help me...), and I have schemed about how to fit a pair of Quad ESL 57s into my home - my favorite panel speaker, and in fact I was offered a pair for free - but they just won't fit. Bummer.

"I loved the boxless sound, transparency and realism of the Quads (and other ESLs), I grew restless with the lack of body to the sound. It sort of reminded me of looking through a portal or window and on the other side musicians were playing in another room. I could "see" the musicians, but couldn't feel the music, the moving of air"


This can mostly be addressed by placement. True, I'm in a vastly different room, house, etc., than when I had the big bois, (the ML Statements concurrent with the SoundLab A-1s and also the MG3s plus a few sets of cones and dooms). However, I now have the cheapest ESLs I've ever had, but yet the best presentation and by far the best soundstage to the best of my memory (we all know the caveats with this statement). My positioning is much more radical than I've ever tried before and now finally got the bass fixed. I know exactly what you're talking about, but I now have a rich lush density to the soundstage. Lot of work getting it there.

I will say that those days in Palos Verdes were my best. The ML CLSs are in this pics because they didn't block the view. This was 20 to 27 years ago so one of these days, I need to go through my giant box of print pics because I know I have pics with the ML Statements and Soundlab A-1s in the room and the VTL 300s and ARC Classic 150s. Divorce followed shortly thereafter.




Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1618 of 1751 Old 10-19-2017, 12:31 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 54
3:29 here


I think ML is D

oh, this may be better

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97...?ddrp=1&hl=en#

slides 22 and 28
davidrmoran is offline  
post #1619 of 1751 Old 10-19-2017, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,129
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2756 Post(s)
Liked: 2675
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
3:29 here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsVO2PAp8M8

I think ML is D

oh, this may be better

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97...?ddrp=1&hl=en#

slides 22 and 28
I find it just as interesting that there were preferences for the "lower quality" sound as well (even though not a majority). I wonder if these preferences are consistent among an individual - e.g. whether that preference holds over multiple trials.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1620 of 1751 Old 10-19-2017, 02:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,960
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3853 Post(s)
Liked: 2358
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrmoran View Post
3:29 here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsVO2PAp8M8

I think ML is D

oh, this may be better

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97...?ddrp=1&hl=en#

slides 22 and 28

I cringe at the thought of listening to any dipole, one speaker at a time.

Of course, my thoughts of the $80k PAIR of JBL Everests were pretty clear in the review I did of Axpona 2017. My thoughts were also consistent in previous years.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-...017-recap.html

Maybe they would be the winner one speaker at a time, but they sure didn't improve much using two.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 10-19-2017 at 02:27 PM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off