Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound (Read 76323 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #25 –
Multichannel vs. mono was explored in separate research. Listener sensitivity increased as the number of speakers was reduced.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Notat on
Multichannel vs. mono was explored in separate research. Listener sensitivity increased as the number of speakers was reduced.

Sean provided me that link on another forum.
Quote
The differences in preference ratings increased as the number of playback channels was reduced

That would seem to support my contention. I don't see how the current test set up - mono with the speakers polar field placed in the middle of room directly in front of listener (s!), can be extrapolated to predict preferences in stereo, with 2 speakers placed closer to reverberant room corners and the listener between.
It's certainly an excellent way to focus on certain aspects - on axis linearity, resonances, etc....but the whole picture??

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #27 –
You probably should let Sean straighten you out on this. But as I understand it, they asked listeners to compare speakers. They tried various configurations for the comparisons. The configuration in which listeners were most able to distinguish one speaker from another was mono. In a stereo configuration, different speakers sounded more similar presumably because of what you've said, you're listening more to the room in that scenario and the room doesn't change when you swap out the speakers.

I think it may be fair to say that mono listening may unduly exaggerate differences between speakers but it does appear to be valid to apply findings in mono testing to stereo.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Notat on
The configuration in which listeners were most able to distinguish one speaker from another was mono.
That's interesting. I read it the opposite way but I can now see yours as well.
Quote
The differences in preference ratings increased as the number of playback channels was reduced
To me that means that the listeners agreed less on their preference ratings (= more variety) when less speakers were used. IOW, listeners quite agreed about best and worst speakers in a multi-channel setup, but agreed less (=more confusion) in a mono setup.
Hopefully Sean can tell us if the "differences in preference ratings" are those between subjects or between speakers.
[I posted too soon. Reading the paper's abstract clears it up ]

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Axon on
Also, anybody who frames a debate with a character named "Simplicio" is an enormous douche who deserves to be cockpunched.

Hah, I always thought I was the only one who found that an act of monumental arrogance (to the point of being admirable!). You have to give it to him: he really was confident!

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #30 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
I have some doubts about concluding that because a speaker was preferred under very unusual circumstances - listened to by a cluster of people, with a single speaker in the middle of a large room, directly in front of the cluster, playing a mono signal - that an accurate prediction for stereo performance in a real room can be made.
Perhaps if the tests were repeated in stereo, with the speakers positioned as the would be in a real, reverberant, typically sized/furnished room and the same preferences remained, then I suppose such conclusions could be drawn.

cheers,

AJ

p.s. I don't own, nor would I own any ML speakers



Let me address your points:

1) Listening to a single speaker the middle of the room pretty well approximates a center channel setup. If you analyze most surround recordings/movies/TV broadcasts there is a substantial mono component coming out of the front channels, with maybe 80-90% coming from the center channel speaker. We can argue what the percentages are but hopefully you get my point.

2) A "cluster of people" around the reference axis of a loudspeaker is not too uncommon in my home when our family watches movies/TV/ plays Wii games. While we are a close family, we don't sit on each others' laps on the sweet spot. When listening to music, we are seldom on the reference axis of the loudspeakers but rather walking around the room doing other things. Are you arguing that electrostatic loudspeaker owners are a lonely, anti-social, solitary demographic who have no friends or family, and only listen to stereo reproductions on the tiny  sweet spot they produce?

3) While the students were tested in small cluster around the sweet spot of the electrostatic speaker (within +- 30 degrees of the reference axis),  the trained listeners all sat in the same seat directly on the reference axis. The trained listeners actually rated the electrostatic loudspeaker significantly lower when sitting in the optimal reference axis.

4) Our listening room in terms of reverberation is not atypical of a domestic listening rooms. The walls are all reflective with some diffusion, there is furniture, and the floor is carpeted. Most of the speakers that perform well in this room generally get good reviews and do well in the real world based on feedback I hear.

5) If you read our recent paper on mono/stereo/surround equalization comparisons and Floyd Toole's recent book, there is good correlation between loudspeaker preference ratings in mono and stereo. When you move from mono to stereo to surround,  there is more noise in the ratings, as listeners seem to be less able to formulate reliable and discriminating preference ratings.  The best explanation I have so far, is that the off-axis reflected sound of the loudspeaker may  play a perceptually less important role as you add more speakers because the direct (and mostly on-axis) sound coming from the multiple sources tends to dominate (mask) the reflected sounds. Of course, you can't ignore the off-axis performance of the loudspeaker because there are many programs where you go from multiple channels being active to just a single channel (vocal or dialog).

My last point, should be viewed as good news for manufacturers who make crappy loudspeakers with poor off-axis performance: the solution for the customer is to simply buy more of them. If you fill the room with enough of them,  you may not be might not be able to tell how truly bad they are -- at least until the solo instrument or dialog appears in the center channel -

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #31 –
While I understand the rationale for using CBR 128 encoding - more-or-less equivalence with Berger's undocumented test - the almost complete lack of any mention (let alone discussion) of the importance of bitrate ultimately leaves us with yet another "MP3 is worse than CD" Internet article (that "Now versus Then" slide touches on the subject, but then you never revisit it).

MP3 @ CBR 128 is not exactly robust - simply changing to VBR encoding at that same target bitrate improves things dramatically, to say nothing of raising the target bitrate to present-day "industry standards", i.e. ~256 kb.

You do say in your conclusion that this study is in an "early phase", and you note in a couple places that Berger's findings are perhaps outdated - as well as "name-checking" the iTunes AAC encoder @ 256 kb - but with statements such as "the high school students preferred the most accurate option, preferring CD over MP3", you seem to simply be providing yet more fuel to the "other fire", i.e. lossy encoding inherently "sounds bad".

I can only hope that you'll be doing a study in the not-too-distant future where you repeat this test - or one very similar to it - utilizing more "modern" bitrates and encoders.

Perhaps releasing the results of your current study without having the results of a higher-bitrate test to compare them to was a bit premature?
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Kees de Visser on
Quote from: Notat on
The configuration in which listeners were most able to distinguish one speaker from another was mono.
That's interesting. I read it the opposite way but I can now see yours as well.
Quote
The differences in preference ratings increased as the number of playback channels was reduced
To me that means that the listeners agreed less on their preference ratings (= more variety) when less speakers were used. IOW, listeners quite agreed about best and worst speakers in a multi-channel setup, but agreed less (=more confusion) in a mono setup.
Hopefully Sean can tell us if the "differences in preference ratings" are those between subjects or between speakers.
[I posted too soon. Reading the paper's abstract clears it up ]


No, it was the opposite effect of what your describe: in that study  we found that in stereo and surround (5.1) playback conditions, the differences in listener preferences among the loudspeaker equalizations were smaller than in mono playback condition.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #33 –
Quote from: mixminus1 on
While I understand the rationale for using CBR 128 encoding - more-or-less equivalence with Berger's undocumented test - the almost complete lack of any mention (let alone discussion) of the importance of bitrate ultimately leaves us with yet another "MP3 is worse than CD" Internet article (that "Now versus Then" slide touches on the subject, but then you never revisit it).

MP3 @ CBR 128 is not exactly robust - simply changing to VBR encoding at that same target bitrate improves things dramatically, to say nothing of raising the target bitrate to present-day "industry standards", i.e. ~256 kb.

You do say in your conclusion that this study is in an "early phase", and you note in a couple places that Berger's findings are perhaps outdated - as well as "name-checking" the iTunes AAC encoder @ 256 kb - but with statements such as "the high school students preferred the most accurate option, preferring CD over MP3", you seem to simply be providing yet more fuel to the "other fire", i.e. lossy encoding inherently "sounds bad".

I can only hope that you'll be doing a study in the not-too-distant future where you repeat this test - or one very similar to it - utilizing more "modern" bitrates and encoders.

Perhaps releasing the results of your current study without having the results of a higher-bitrate test to compare them to was a bit premature?


I would be the first person to admit that increasing the bit-rate, moving to VBR or using a more transparent CODEC will produce different results, and I will certainly correct any misconception that a  good lossy codec is not capable of producing a near transparent reproduction: there is already substantial scientific data from prior listening tests to prove that point.

The main point here was to illustrate that when music is being coded or streamed at less-than-optimal quality rate, younger people may prefer the higher quality option, contrary to what a previous informal study found.

The results should be considered preliminary. More variables (test subjects, music samples, playback conditions,etc ) will be manipulated and tested in the upcoming months. 

Regarding your "premature release" comment, I wanted to talk about the study now so I can useful get feedback - like yours - to help improve the design of future experiments. I don't think talking about this study is any less "premature"  than many of the presentations and preprints given at Audio Engineering Society and other scientific conferences where the research discussed is often in the very early developmental stages.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #34 –
Hi Sean,

Thanks for your reply.
Quote from: solive on
1) Listening to a single speaker the middle of the room pretty well approximates a center channel setup. If you analyze....

But these are not center channel speakers. As a matter of fact, it is clear that all are intended to be LR "main" speakers. The only conceivable application as a center would be with some form of perforated screen, which has to be a (very) small percentage of the intended market. I would have no objection if your test were for center channels, it would be a reasonable one.

Quote from: solive on
2) A "cluster of people" around the reference axis of a loudspeaker is not too uncommon in my home when our family watches movies/TV/ plays Wii games. While we are a close family, we don't sit on each others' laps on the sweet spot. When listening to music, we are seldom on the reference axis of the loudspeakers but rather walking around the room doing other things.

But once again, the speaker under test is not being placed or listened to on it's intended "reference axis" relative to the cluster. It is not coupling to modes as it would be normally placed relative to the cluster. It's polar response is not reflecting of the room surfaces as it would be normally placed relative to the cluster. Yet you are judging it's perceived performance as if it were.

Quote from: solive on
Are you arguing that electrostatic loudspeaker owners are a lonely, anti-social, solitary demographic who have no friends or family, and only listen to stereo reproductions on the tiny  sweet spot they produce?

That could well be the situation in the case of "Audiophiles", but that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying judge the ML main LR's vs the 362 main LR's as they were intended...placed and listened to as LR's...in stereo (we'll save MCH for another day).

Quote from: solive on
4) Our listening room in terms of reverberation is not atypical of a domestic listening rooms.

Yet this is how the ML, with its dipolar radiation is being judged. Atypically, in the center of a less reverberant room.

Quote from: solive on
5) If you read our recent paper on mono/stereo/surround equalization comparisons and Floyd Toole's recent book, there is good correlation between loudspeaker preference ratings in mono and stereo. When you move from mono to stereo to surround,  there is more noise in the ratings, as listeners seem to be less able to formulate reliable and discriminating preference ratings.  The best explanation I have so far, is that the off-axis reflected sound of the loudspeaker may  play a perceptually less important role as you add more speakers because the direct (and mostly on-axis) sound coming from the multiple sources tends to dominate (mask) the reflected sounds.

Well, the sound field certainly becomes more complex as the number of sources increase. When you say good correlation, do you mean to speakers (placed) and tested in stereo?

Quote from: solive on
My last point, should be viewed as good news for manufacturers who make crappy loudspeakers with poor off-axis performance: the solution for the customer is to simply buy more of them. If you fill the room with enough of them,  you may not be might not be able to tell how truly bad they are -- at least until the solo instrument or dialog appears in the center channel -

Let me finish with this. Do you consider the performance of the Primus 360 to be similar enough to the 362, where the results would not have changed much?
The 360's measured very well by Stereophile and as the 362's predecessor, seems very similar, so I'm hoping your answer is yes.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #35 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Hi Sean,

Thanks for your reply.
Quote from: solive on
1) Listening to a single speaker the middle of the room pretty well approximates a center channel setup. If you analyze....

But these are not center channel speakers. As a matter of fact, it is clear that all are intended to be LR "main" speakers. The only conceivable application as a center would be with some form of perforated screen, which has to be a (very) small percentage of the intended market. I would have no objection if your test were for center channels, it would be a reasonable one.



My center channel speaker is identical to my L/R speaker.  And to my surround speakers. 

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #36 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
I would have no objection if your test were for center channels, it would be a reasonable one.


Well we agree on that much. While our speaker mover can accommodate testing of four sets of left, center or right channels, on what basis are you arguing that testing them in center locations somehow invalidates the results of the test, or prevents us from extrapolating to how they might perform as left/right, or surround channels for that matter. In all cases, the listener is hearing the exact same direct sound (albeit at different angles of incidence if they don't look at the speaker). So are you arguing that by moving the speaker into the left position the change in off-axis reflected sounds will significantly change the rank ordering of the loudspeakers?

Quote
But once again, the speaker under test is not being placed or listened to on it's intended "reference axis" relative to the cluster. It is not coupling to modes as it would be normally placed relative to the cluster. It's polar response is not reflecting of the room surfaces as it would be normally placed relative to the cluster. Yet you are judging it's perceived performance as if it were.


So you are arguing that the electrostatic loudspeaker can only accommodate 1 listener or 1 listening seat in the room? To me that is a gross admission of failure in the design of the loudspeaker. Nonetheless, the results from the trained listeners who were sitting on it's intended reference axis indicate the speaker is significantly flawed. Moreover,if you compare the results of the high school students sitting on versus off the reference axis there is no significant difference. No matter where you sit the speaker sounds imbalanced and colored. The anechoic measurements explain why this is so.

Quote
That could well be the situation in the case of "Audiophiles", but that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying judge the ML main LR's vs the 362 main LR's as they were intended...placed and listened to as LR's...in stereo (we'll save MCH for another day)
.

I've done enough mono versus stereo loudspeaker comparisons (as has Floyd Toole) over the past 20 years to convince myself that the results track each other. If a speaker has resonances,sounds colored and spectrally imbalanced in mono those characteristics will not magically disappear in stereo. Do you have an explanation why this would not be true?

Quote
Yet this is how the ML, with its dipolar radiation is being judged. Atypically, in the center of a less reverberant room


I didn't say our room was atypically less reverberant. I said it (acoustically) was not atypical [that means typical) of an average domestic listening room based on a study that John Bradley did of some 600 Canadian homes.

Quote
The 360's measured very well by Stereophile and as the 362's predecessor, seems very similar, so I'm hoping your answer is yes.


Yes, the only differences should be cosmetic ones.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #37 –
Quote from: solive on
While our speaker mover can accommodate testing of four sets of left, center or right channels, on what basis are you arguing that testing them in center locations somehow invalidates the results of the test

I am not contending that the results are invalid. I'm saying the conclusions from those results and the predictions about the speakers perceived performance, when placed closer to corners...and listened to in stereo...is debatable. Had you done such a (stereo) test and found the same/similar preferences as mono, I would not be typing right now.

Quote from: solive on
or prevents us from extrapolating to how they might perform as left/right

Quote
Comparison of Loudspeaker-Room Equalization Preferences for Multichannel, Stereo, and Mono Reproductions....
The differences in preference ratings increased as the number of playback channels was reduced

IOW, the increase in the number of channels possibly decreases the perceived problems in mono. And who buys an ML Vista, or a 362, to place them in the center of a room and listen in mono?

Quote from: solive on
So are you arguing that by moving the speaker into the left position the change in off-axis reflected sounds will significantly change the rank ordering of the loudspeakers?

Absolutely....especially when integrated into the fact that the complete stereophonic soundfield, with each of the two sources placed towards the corners, will be perceived completely differently by a centered, or center cluster of listeners. Your own paper seems to support this.

Quote from: solive on
I've done enough mono versus stereo loudspeaker comparisons (as has Floyd Toole) over the past 20 years to convince myself that the results track each other. If a speaker has resonances,sounds colored and spectrally imbalanced in mono those characteristics will not magically disappear in stereo. Do you have an explanation why this would not be true?

I have never said they would "magically" disappear. I question whether our perception of them is the same, under very different conditions - generating a stereophonic soundfield, placed near corners of a reverberant room. The exact same issues may be there, but will we perceive them the same way.
Did you measure a single ML (corner positioned) at the listening area and compare it to the anechoic measurement? Presented as an overlay would be beneficial. Thanks.

Quote from: solive on
I didn't say our room was atypically less reverberant. I said it (acoustically) was not atypical [that means typical) of an average domestic listening room based on a study that John Bradley did of some 600 Canadian homes.

I should read slower and more carefully late at work . My apologies.

Quote from: solive on
Yes, the only differences (360 vs 362) should be cosmetic ones.

No matter where you sit the (ML) speaker sounds imbalanced and colored. The anechoic measurements explain why this is so.

Thank you. I'll try my best to test the veracity of that prediction. 

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #38 –
Quote
Quote
The 360's measured very well by Stereophile and as the 362's predecessor, seems very similar, so I'm hoping your answer is yes.


Yes, the only differences should be cosmetic ones.


The 360s have one woofer per box, while the 362s have two.

I have a pair of 360s and they are very smooth.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #40 –
Quote from: solive on
Quote from: dv1989 on
Heh, and they're already questioning your methods and integrity . . . Oh well! Does their manufacturer of choice ever do controlled, non-commercial-purpose tests like this?


Not to my knowledge; if they did wouldn't they be publishing them in the J.AES, product brochures, or at least on their website?



Not neccessarily. Some research is just commercial proprietary research never shared with anyone outside the vault.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #41 –
Quote from: solive on
So you are arguing that the electrostatic loudspeaker can only accommodate 1 listener or 1 listening seat in the room? To me that is a gross admission of failure in the design of the loudspeaker.


As an owner of electrostatic speakers I would certainly say yes, they accomodate 1 listener and/or one listening seat in the room. How is that a gross admission of failure of the design oof the loudspeaker? That is like saying a formula one racing car is an example of a failed design of an automobile because it only seats one person. One can't judge success or failure of a design without considering the purpose for which it is designed.


Quote from: solive on
Nonetheless, the results from the trained listeners who were sitting on it's intended reference axis indicate the speaker is significantly flawed. Moreover,if you compare the results of the high school students sitting on versus off the reference axis there is no significant difference. No matter where you sit the speaker sounds imbalanced and colored. The anechoic measurements explain why this is so.



How about a comparison using the speakers as they were intended to be used? If I put black pepper in my mouth directly it tastes pretty awful. I think you would get a pretty solid concensus of that result were you to test a wide range of people. But what does that tell us about the taste of pepper on food? You won't get as much of a concensus on that test but at least it would be a test of the product as it is intended to be used. It seems to me that the fact that such comparisons leads to less agreement doesn't follow that it is an inferior test. How do you know your quest for greater consolidation of results simply isn't leading you to test under a woefully limited context, kind of like my pepper analogy? IMO it just isn't a fair test unless you use the competition's speakers as they were designed to be used in a room they were designed to be used in with a wide range of source material as they would used in the field.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #42 –
Quote from: analog scott on
As an owner of electrostatic speakers I would certainly say yes, they accomodate 1 listener and/or one listening seat in the room. How is that a gross admission of failure of the design oof the loudspeaker? That is like saying a formula one racing car is an example of a failed design of an automobile because it only seats one person. One can't judge success or failure of a design without considering the purpose for which it is designed.


When you purchased it, did the manufacturer of the speaker or dealer explicitly state this was how the speaker was designed to be used?  Did they talk to you about the sweet spot, ideal speaker positioning, ideal seating position, and state all of this was very particular and important to this particular speaker?  Did they tell you this behavior or design diverged quite a bit from the typical dynamic speaker, which most people are used to?

I've visited many audio dealers and NONE have ever made such statement when trying to sell me an electrostatic speaker.  I don't recall seeing any of this in the marketing literature either.

If they are assuming that the buyer will know or setup their room to use the speaker that way, that is a faulty assumption.  Many people do not have the luxury of changing the whole room for a pair of speakers.  Beyond that, even people will dedicated listening rooms may have multiple couches, chairs, seating surfaces, etc.  In my home I sometimes listen to music and read while lying down or sitting in a recliner that is not in the sweet spot.  I would certainly be irritated to learn that the manufacturer of an allegedly superior speaker designed them with the assumption that I would not perform the common activity of listening outside the sweet spot.

Other than consumers like Richard Branson or the CEO of Oracle, few people purchase formula one cars.  Many "average joes" with no knowledge outside of what their dealers and marketing literature has told them will buy electrostatics.

As for the formula car, it's pretty obvious from looking at the car that it only seats one person.  And everybody knows the cars are designed for a specific purpose and not one professional associated with Formula one would say otherwise.  The Formula one car is not advertised as a car for daily use.  Is it obvious from looking at an electrostatic that it's off axis performance is different from a dynamic speaker?  I think it's safe to assume speakers sold to consumers will be used as "daily use" items, meaning they have to accommodate to the different ways consumers use them and the differences between consumers.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #43 –
Quote from: odigg on
I've visited many audio dealers and NONE have ever made such statement when trying to sell me an electrostatic speaker.

Did these many audio dealers all have you listen in mono directly in front of a room centered electrostatic speaker, 3' off the front wall?
What was your impression of the sound?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #44 –
Quote from: analog scott on


Quote
That is like saying a formula one racing car is an example of a failed design of an automobile because it only seats one person. One can't judge success or failure of a design without considering the purpose for which it is designed.


But I would bet it says in the Formula One's operator's manual that only  person can sit in it, and it's probably clear when you see it.  The drivers manual probably warns you not to drive the car except on a professional racing track under optimal driving conditions; it's probably clearly understood by the owner that it's  not a practical car you can drive in rain, snow or  a wide range of real world driving conditions: otherwise the car will operate at 30% of its performance, and be unsafe and dangerous for the driver and people around the car.

There is no such warning in this electrostatic speaker's manual that says: "WARNING: This $3800 loudspeaker is only intended for 1 listener in one specific spot in one specific room of specific size and acoustic treatment. IF your listening room, speaker position and single listening spot DOES NOT meet these exact conditions DO NOT PURCHASE IT: OTHERWISE  its sound quality may fall into the lower 30 percentile of modern day loudspeakers ( and will sound significantly worst than a $500 loudspeaker that has no such specific requirements)



Quote
How about a comparison using the speakers as they were intended to be used?


I will send you the plans of our room, if you can provide me the exact locations where the speaker and listener should be located so that the test  meets the "purpose for which the speaker was designed". Do that and I would be happy to rerun the test.  Also, let me know the specific music tracks for which it was designed.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #45 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Did these many audio dealers all have you listen in mono directly in front of a room centered electrostatic speaker, 3' off the front wall?
What was your impression of the sound?


Believe me, some of the setups I've used at audio dealers are far worse than any claimed issues with Dr. Olive's test.  Perhaps that's why I've never been impressed with electrostatics when I listen at dealers.  Beyond that, my comments were not directed at the validity of Dr. Olive's testing methodology.  I was refuting analog scotts' claims that a speaker with terrible off axis performance is a sensible design and that the formula one car analogy is a valid one.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #46 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: analog scott on
As an owner of electrostatic speakers I would certainly say yes, they accomodate 1 listener and/or one listening seat in the room. How is that a gross admission of failure of the design oof the loudspeaker? That is like saying a formula one racing car is an example of a failed design of an automobile because it only seats one person. One can't judge success or failure of a design without considering the purpose for which it is designed.


When you purchased it, did the manufacturer of the speaker or dealer explicitly state this was how the speaker was designed to be used?  Did they talk to you about the sweet spot, ideal speaker positioning, ideal seating position, and state all of this was very particular and important to this particular speaker?  Did they tell you this behavior or design diverged quite a bit from the typical dynamic speaker, which most people are used to?

I've visited many audio dealers and NONE have ever made such statement when trying to sell me an electrostatic speaker.  I don't recall seeing any of this in the marketing literature either.

If they are assuming that the buyer will know or setup their room to use the speaker that way, that is a faulty assumption.  Many people do not have the luxury of changing the whole room for a pair of speakers.  Beyond that, even people will dedicated listening rooms may have multiple couches, chairs, seating surfaces, etc.  In my home I sometimes listen to music and read while lying down or sitting in a recliner that is not in the sweet spot.  I would certainly be irritated to learn that the manufacturer of an allegedly superior speaker designed them with the assumption that I would not perform the common activity of listening outside the sweet spot.

Other than consumers like Richard Branson or the CEO of Oracle, few people purchase formula one cars.  Many "average joes" with no knowledge outside of what their dealers and marketing literature has told them will buy electrostatics.

As for the formula car, it's pretty obvious from looking at the car that it only seats one person.  And everybody knows the cars are designed for a specific purpose and not one professional associated with Formula one would say otherwise.  The Formula one car is not advertised as a car for daily use.  Is it obvious from looking at an electrostatic that it's off axis performance is different from a dynamic speaker?  I think it's safe to assume speakers sold to consumers will be used as "daily use" items, meaning they have to accommodate to the different ways consumers use them and the differences between consumers.


Odigg,
I was writing my response as you were writing this response. We clearly think along the same lines. I like you

Cheers
Sean
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #47 –
Quote from: solive on
I will send you the plans of our room, if you can provide me the exact locations where the speaker and listener should be located so that the test  meets the "purpose for which the speaker was designed". Do that and I would be happy to rerun the test.  Also, let me know the specific music tracks for which it was designed.

Here ya go Sean


Try some classical or big band jazz...something with real acoustic instruments to compare against your stored memory. See if you get more spatial realism when switching from the boxes to the stats (hopefully the "trained" listeners will recognize this instantly  ).

Btw, hopefully the room isn't the smaller version diagrammed above, because the 362 monopoles placed 2' off the sidewalls, even toed in, could get a bit nasty with the early reflections (no side nulls like the dipoles)...and require some of those "acoustic treatment" bandaids that kill spaciousness and realism.
Let us know the results .

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #48 –
Quote from: odigg on
Believe me, some of the setups I've used at audio dealers are far worse than any claimed issues with Dr. Olive's test.

Can you explain that to me, I'm having trouble making sense of it - The dealer setups were "worse than any claimed issues with Dr. Olive's test"? TIA.
Were any of them in mono with the speaker centered on the front wall?

Quote from: odigg on
I was refuting analog scotts' claims that a speaker with terrible off axis performance is a sensible design

Where did he claim that?
What speaker has "terrible off axis performance"?

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #49 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Did these many audio dealers all have you listen in mono directly in front of a room centered electrostatic speaker, 3' off the front wall?
What was your impression of the sound?


Believe me, some of the setups I've used at audio dealers are far worse than any claimed issues with Dr. Olive's test.  Perhaps that's why I've never been impressed with electrostatics when I listen at dealers.  Beyond that, my comments were not directed at the validity of Dr. Olive's testing methodology.  I was refuting analog scotts' claims that a speaker with terrible off axis performance is a sensible design and that the formula one car analogy is a valid one.


According to the manual of this speaker it's supposed to be 3 ft from the front wall. On page 10 it states:

"By now your speakers should be placed approximately two to three feet from the front wall, the wall in front of the listening position, and about two feet from the side walls"

Is that a misprint? Or does this confirm I got the distance from the front wall correct in our testl

  A few paragraphs later it contradicts the recommendation for placement 2 ft from the side walls: 

"A good rule of thumb is to have the side walls as far away from the speaker sides as possible... An ideal side wall, however, is no side wall at all. "

This indicates that I also got the distance from the side walls perfect according to manufacturer's instructions! 2 out of 2

So according to the electrostatic owners' manual I set the speakers up perfectly as instructed in terms of distances to the front and side walls.


They recommend a 72 hour break-in period, which to me is always a Red Flag  for electrodynamic loudspeakers at least. It's more of a cognitive effect they hope for where listener adaptation to the speaker over several days will alleviate buyer remorse due to issues about its poor sound quality.

" Now that you have positioned your speaker system, spend time listening. Wait to make any major changes in your initial setup for the next few days as the speaker system itself will change subtly in its sound. Over the first 72 hours of play the actual tonal quality will change slightly with deeper bass and more spacious highs resulting. After a few days of listening you can begin to make refinements and hear the differences."

I'm not saying that's the case here but it would be interesting to see some physical and perceptual evidence that this break-in has measurable effects on its sound. I've actually done this with our own loudspeakers (motivated by a former marketing person who insisted on putting  "break-in labels on a model of our speakers). Both measurements and listening tests proved the break-in was a crock. The break-in stickers were removed, and the marketing person was fired shortly thereafter.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings