Electrostatic speakers?

[Duke]

I believe the typical ASR adherent would prefer the JBL as it's a far more accurate speaker overall. The KRK timbre is also slightly artificial... I just find they're not convincing on voice and this relegates them to also-rans from my perspective.

I think I can see "not convincing on voice" in the off-axis curves of the KRK. Of course the direct sound is probably dominant in your setup, given your listening distance and the speakers' distances from nearby walls.

My problem with equating timbre with directivity is that I haven't found any correlation between the two. For example, the Apogee Stage is fairly beamy yet I've found it one of the best I've heard in reproducing timbre.

Imo the Apogee is doing something very much right when it comes to directivity! Its rear-firing energy has the exact same spectral balance as the front-firing energy.

I think there is often a correlation between timbre (and sweetness) and the spectral balance of the reverberant sound. In general (and all else being equal) the closer the spectral match between the direct and reflected sound, the better the net result.

In other words imo the "correct" directivity is arguably a complicated topic, but the end goal includes a good spectral match between the direct and reflected sound, and imo THAT is a cat which can in more ways than one be skinned.

As is often the case in discussions of this nature, we have someone conducting an uncontrolled "experiment" in which every variable is cast to the flames, then in the course of the discussion someone else offers speculation as to which variables may correlate with perceived differences in sound, then the experimenter replies with...

Imo @T.J. McKenna posted his casual observations, and yes I am interested in trying to find correlation between his observations and what few measurements we have of the speakers in question.

Imo he also paints ASR forum members with a broad brush, but I'm not interested in squabbling with him about that.

I see T.J. as an expert in the unamplified sound of (at least some) instruments, just as a Harman-trained listener is an expert in the sound of loudspeakers. I choose to be open to learning from the observations of both, even if they use very different terminology. I think it would be a mistake for me to dismiss observations which do not fit my paradigm if I find the observer to be credible.

And if I judge the credibility of the observer by whether or not his observations fit my paradigm, that would be a "circle of confusion".

 

[Duke]

Pedant here...
In a room where there are 3 principle modes based on length, width and height which interact with each other and their excitation and that of their harmonics depends on the location of the speaker doing the excitation of any frequency or harmonic of these multiple modes.

Fellow pedant here...

Often overlooked are the oblique modes, which are the 3-D diagonal modes between maximally-opposite corners. These are the lowest frequency room modes.

I'm not sure that they are typically as strong as the three principle modes you cite, so maybe the obliques don't really qualify as principle modes.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

More overly verbose flowery fluff. I was waiting to see you pick one topic and examine it as an example.

No, not the size of the words. Rather the shear volume. The style is flowery. For such precision you claim I find your long paragraphs connote a paucity of information.

That's interesting because I encapsulated the entire Philosophy of Symbolic Form in about fifty words. My guess is that you don't actually have a clue about what I'm saying. The fact that you used "connote" completely erroneously indicates this (or did you mean to write "convey"?) And I'll just mention the misspelling of "sheer". I like to keep discussion to substantive issues but you seem determined just to make snide comments.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Well, directivity is a plausible aspect of the explanation, but as I already mentioned, the direct sound of each loudspeaker is very different here in the first place.

As is often the case in discussions of this nature, we have someone conducting an uncontrolled "experiment" in which every variable is cast to the flames, then in the course of the discussion someone else offers speculation as to which variables may correlate with perceived differences in sound, then the experimenter replies with (sorry to paraphrase): "Oh I don't it could be that. If it were, that wouldn't explain these other listening experiments I've done (in which, again, literally every variable was similarly uncontrolled)."

And on it goes...

Also, FYI, a ring radiator has narrower radiation than a dome of equivalent diameter.

The problem with audio is that discussions of this nature are almost unavoidable because controlled experiments are extremely difficult to set up. Besides, the validity of these experiments is another bone of contention. So speculation and conjecture is likely to be the currency of the realm despite all the huffing and puffing about "science".

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Honestly, just waaaaay too many of them. You do seem to enjoy the sound of your own prose... Maybe cut back on...all of it. You're basically trolling at this point.

Could you point out any unnecessary words in any of my posts? Please, I'm interested in your analysis. As for "trolling", when accusations of some miscreant "troll" are made, I've always noticed that it's because somebody's asking awkward questions likely to disturb the complacency of the "Club".

 

[T.J. McKenna]

For myself I resolved the exasperation by adding another hard of understanding member to my ignore list.
I know it is lazy, but if somebody is determinedly obtuse, and/or clearly does not have the aptitude of understanding scientific subjects, however simple the explanation, it is eventually the most relaxing solution for me personally.

Well you won't be reading this but I'll continue to read your submissions with interest.

 

[SIY]

As for "trolling", when accusations of some miscreant "troll" are made, I've always noticed that it's because somebody's asking awkward questions likely to disturb the complacency of the "Club".

Uh huh.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

I think I can see "not convincing on voice" in the off-axis curves of the KRK. Of course the direct sound is probably dominant in your setup, given your listening distance and the speakers' distances from nearby walls.



Imo the Apogee is doing something very much right when it comes to directivity! Its rear-firing energy has the exact same spectral balance as the front-firing energy.

I think there is often a correlation between timbre (and sweetness) and the spectral balance of the reverberant sound. In general (and all else being equal) the closer the spectral match between the direct and reflected sound, the better the net result.

In other words imo the "correct" directivity is arguably a complicated topic, but the end goal includes a good spectral match between the direct and reflected sound, and imo THAT is a cat which can in more ways than one be skinned.



Imo @T.J. McKenna posted his casual observations, and yes I am interested in trying to find correlation between his observations and what few measurements we have of the speakers in question.

Imo he also paints ASR forum members with a broad brush, but I'm not interested in squabbling with him about that.

I see T.J. as an expert in the unamplified sound of (at least some) instruments, just as a Harman-trained listener is an expert in the sound of loudspeakers. I choose to be open to learning from the observations of both, even if they use very different terminology. I think it would be a mistake for me to dismiss observations which do not fit my paradigm if I find the observer to be credible.

And if I judge the credibility of the observer by whether or not his observations fit my paradigm, that would be a "circle of confusion".

Well, thank you for not condemning me to the flames, and, believe me, I never included you and many other ASR contributors in my critique. I was fully on board with the ASR goal of attempting to evaluate home audio on a scientific basis. However, I was struck at what I considered to be an overly restricted application of scientific methodology on many of the threads. So I went in to bat for the defence. Consider me a "gadfly", but one with everybody's best interests at heart.

One substantive quibble: you say Harman-trained listeners are "experts" in evaluating the sound of loudspeakers. My view is that they're only experts in evaluating the factors that they've been trained to evaluate. Stereophile-trained listeners (if any existed) would no doubt be trained to listen to concentrate on a largely different set of factors - and consequently their evaluations would be quite different.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Uh huh.

More substantive discussion, I see.

 

[Blumlein 88]

That's interesting because I encapsulated the entire Philosophy of Symbolic Form in about fifty words. My guess is that you don't actually have a clue about what I'm saying. The fact that you used "connote" completely erroneously indicates this (or did you mean to write "convey"?) And I'll just mention the misspelling of "sheer". I like to keep discussion to substantive issues but you seem determined just to make snide comments.

Sheer vs shear is a result of phone posting where the phone changed it on me which I didn't notice.

Connote was used intentionally this way, and you didn't catch on to why I did that. It is okay, poor communication on my part.

 

[SIY]

Stereophile-trained listeners (if any existed)

They do not. And if they did, the training would be similar. BTW, the Harman ear training is available free on line. Very worthwhile for people who have intellectual curiosity.

 

[Duke]

One substantive quibble: you say Harman-trained listeners are "experts" in evaluating the sound of loudspeakers. My view is that they're only experts in evaluating the factors that they've been trained to evaluate.

Based on my limited direct experience with professional Harman-trained Harman-employed listeners wherein we both heard the same speakers, I think they are evaluating factors which do matter, and are able to identify and describe what they hear with much greater precision than I can.

[Dons flame-proof attire] Which hasn't stopped me from coming to my own conclusions in some areas.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

"Science is the attempt to conceive of the world under the category of quantity. From the standpoint of observation, science is never satisfied with mere observation. Scientific observation is designed expressly to replace observations in terms of personal feelings by observations of an absolute stability, by quantitative measurements. All scientific observation whatever is measurement of one kind or another. The scientific method is a method of measurement; and in scientific observation measurement is anterior even to enumeration. When we say that scientific observation is 'exact', we mean no more than that it is conceived in terms of quantitative measurement. Similarly, from the standpoint of explanation, the scientific method is dominated by quantitative categories. Scientific explanation is always in terms of quantitative concepts. The scientific method offers us an escape from the world of merely personal explanations and descriptions in terms of the unstable categories of personal experience as such, by substituting for these an explanation in terms of categories which are absolutely stable, common and communicable, in terms of purely quantitative concepts".

Poll: "overly verbose" or "dry and succinct"?

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Despite no longer owning them, I do not regret my time with electrostats.

You have to own panel speakers at least once in your life to earn all the audiophile merit badges.

Agreed. They offer a critique of conventional box speakers and broaden your audio perspective.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Sheer vs shear is a result of phone posting where the phone changed it on me which I didn't notice.

Connote was used intentionally this way, and you didn't catch on to why I did that. It is okay, poor communication on my part.

Actually, I did consider irony on your part for "connote" and I apologize for my snide criticism.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

They do not. And if they did, the training would be similar. BTW, the Harman ear training is available free on line. Very worthwhile for people who have intellectual curiosity.

Well, I'm not sure if the training would be similar. My guess is that they might be concentrating on things which Harman might consider to be irrelevant.

 

[T.J. McKenna]

Based on my limited direct experience with professional Harman-trained Harman-employed listeners wherein we both heard the same speakers, I think they are evaluating factors which do matter, and are able to identify and describe what they hear with much greater precision than I can.

[Dons flame-proof attire] Which hasn't stopped me from coming to my own conclusions in some areas.

I agree that they're evaluating factors that do matter. It's just that they're not evaluating ALL the factors.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, I'm not sure if the training would be similar. My guess is that they might be concentrating on things which Harman might consider to be irrelevant.

Philips had an online listener training program at one time. I believe it isn't available anymore. While the approach was different it was training listeners to be consistent about similar things to what Harman does. There were some differences of course, but it wasn't an altogether different direction than Harman training.

 

[Duke]

I agree that they're evaluating factors that do matter. It's just that they're not evaluating ALL the factors.

Let's just say that I think there are unconventional but valid approaches to loudspeaker design which underperform in Harman's test conditions... electrostats being one of them (RIGHT BACK on TOPIC! Cha-CHING!!).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Let's just say that I think there are unconventional but valid approaches to loudspeaker design which underperform in Harman's test conditions... electrostats being one of them (RIGHT BACK on TOPIC! Cha-CHING!!).

Having some Harman speakers and ESL's in the same room can be somewhat enlightening. The Harman designs do seem to be more transparent and get out of the way of the music more than the ESL. It primarily comes through as a perceived FR difference. This seems so on things I've recorded and know what the sound was like.

It is worth noting that a speaker meeting the guidelines from Harman avoid any significant resonance. So the boxiness often perceived in box speakers is low in level if not absent.

In a position to switch between them pretty quickly the valued qualities of the ESL don't seem much in evidence though a coloration does.

None of this has been rigorously pursued much less probed with extensive measurements about how the dipolar radiation interacts with everything else.

Yet, put the ESL's in a room, listen to them, and you'll be enjoying them. Of course I also enjoy the Harman box speakers too. Enough that it makes me question if putting up with the care and feeding of big panel ESL's is worth it anymore.