Electrostatic speakers?

[tengiz]

My experience with electrostatic speakers has been mostly great. I first got hooked around 2005, when I stumbled into a demo of the Martin Logan Summit in a huge, warehouse-sized room with no nearby walls. The imaging was so clear and precise, it completely changed my idea of what speakers could do. Before that, I thought electrostatics were just a gimmick - interesting, but nothing special.

Naturally, I wanted a pair. So I went back to the store, only to be totally let down. After the big event, they’d moved the speakers into small demo rooms with barely any acoustic treatment. I spent hours with a very patient salesperson trying different models and placements - but the magic was gone.

Eventually, I found it with the Vista. It seemed that it just worked better in a smaller space.

I used the Vistas for about ten years - despite serious abuse from my twin toddlers, who stuck candy and toys in places they didn’t belong, and even punched holes in the membranes. I had to open up the ported woofer cabinets more than once to fish out foreign objects - but they kept working.

Later, I moved to a bigger house with a dedicated media room, added proper acoustic treatment, and upgraded to the Ethos. Even better sound. I really enjoyed them - until age started catching up with them and the performance slowly declined.

So I figured it was time to try something new. I'd been reading about KEF and the newer wave of high-end-for-the-masses designs, and decided to give the R5 Meta a shot.

Now that I’ve lived with them for a month or so, I honestly can’t say I prefer the Ethos. The KEFs are way easier to set up, much less picky about placement, and they measure better out of the box - not that that’s everything, but still.

And with the right recording, the soundstage is just as clear and immersive. So yeah, I think my electrostatic phase might be wrapping up.

 

[Selkirks]

So yeah, I think my electrostatic phase might be wrapping up.

After decades of electrostatic speakers I moved on as well. There are some older classic models I'd like to try if something came up in classifieds.

 

[Jazzman53]

This is so awesome!

My understanding is that the frequency-dependent phase differences across the segmented stators cause the diaphragm to move in a non-rigid fashion. Could this introduce any unintended modal behavior or similar effects, given how different it is from the motion of a uniformly driven, non-segmented diaphragm that simply oscillates between the stators?

Also, would it be viable to replace the discrete resistor network with a continuous resistive strip of appropriate linear resistance?

Glad you liked my post!

Certainly the diaphragm in a segmented panel is not driven uniformly across it's surface but I'm not confident enough in my understanding of vibration modes on a flat sheet to answer your questions.

The front page of my website (https://jazzman-esl-page.blogspot.com/) gives a more in-depth description of how the segmentation scheme works, as well as schematics depicting the wire group layouts and RC segmentation network.

Hopefully, this additional information will shed some light on your questions.

Jazz

 

[dlaloum]

By "work well" I hope you don't mean it's an audible advantage, because the science seems to say that the opposite is true for stereo.

The reflections are audible - if not handled, they audibly and measurably degrade the result at the listening point (MLP).

Eradicating one cause of reflections has simple and immediately measurable impact at the MLP.

So, yes, an audible advantage supported by measurements & science.

 

[Arindal]

Have you studied any of his books in detail?

Yes, a previous edition was available to me, but did not find much detailed answers.

Jumping to his conclusion:

Would have to know more details about the setup, but I seriously doubt one can conclude from one experiment that side-wall reflections and comb-filtering effects are in all cases negligible. They are certainly not, even if not resulting in audible tonal imbalances, they definitely do something with imaging and localization if strong enough.

I’ve always wondered whether better horizontal directivity could also be achieved by using a diaphragm with variable horizontal “sensitivity” - highest at the center and gradually reduced toward the edges, like applying a weighting window. I think it might be possible to control this by varying the electrical resistivity of the membrane material.

It is difficult to imagine such solution working solely for a limited frequency band like the treble. I mean, there is a reason for choosing a broad diaphragm which is usually the need for bigger diaphragm area in the midrange or bass which you also reduce sensivitiy for in your scenario.

SoundLabs use a segmented horizontal curve which gives a relatively wide and uniform radiation pattern,

My experience with such transducers is very limited, but the general approach seems to be similar to what ML is doing, just with a lot more of diaphragm area and segmentation in both dimensions which makes a lot of sense for very big diaphragms.

Am i understanding it correctly that the foil is really fixed by the visible grid horizontally and vertically, so it is basically segmented into little squares of partial diaphragms acting separately from each other but getting the same signal?

SoundLab offers two radiation pattern widths: 90 degrees, and 45 degrees. The photo above is of a 45-degree panel.

This is very interesting and in theory this concept can work well at a very large listening distance for a narrow listening window without the risk of collapsing imaging once the listener´s head is moved slightly.

I think there may be some confusion about usage of the term "segmented" (or "segmentation") in this thread-- as it's being appled to two completely different concepts in several posts. Specifically; I feel the need to differentiate between what I would call physical segmentation and electrical segmentation.

Thanks for pointing this out. You are right, I tried to distinguish the two concepts by clearly labelling them either stator or motor segmentation (Quad, Bolser) or diaphragm separation (Martin Logan, SoundLab).

Certainly the diaphragm in a segmented panel is not driven uniformly across it's surface but I'm not confident enough in my understanding of vibration modes on a flat sheet to answer your questions.

Even if the diaphragm is uniformly excited, the motor force per diaphragm area, control and stiffness are very low, so the risk of parts of the foil moving out of phase, breaking up, causing resonances and reflecting waves at the suspension/edges is not negligible. A manufacturer or DIYer has to address all these problems which is really tough to do. Otherwise the diaphragm behaves like a bending wave transducer unintentionally for some frequencies (or intentionally in case it is an NXT panel or alike).

The problem is even more severe with concepts having segmented stators/motor, as the borders between zones getting a different signal are usually far from the suspension or edge of the diaphragm area while the signal differences in terms of frequencies are exactly in bands where resonances usually occur, so really unpredictable things can happen in terms of resonances and break-up.

Although I know a lot about the technology behind speakers and have vast experience in comparing measurements and listening test results, the behavior and sound quality of planar transducers is a thing I would never try to predict just from understanding how they work and how they measure. They are always up for a surprise. So everyone please have fun with the type of transducer one personally likes the most!

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

SoundLab electrostats offer an arguably well thought-out combination of attributes. Disclaimer - I'm a dealer. And in sighted listening I think they sound good. So please everyone, discount my opinion accordingly.

SoundLabs use a segmented horizontal curve which gives a relatively wide and uniform radiation pattern, the horizontal angle between the panels being small enough that there is no "picket fence" effect at audible frequencies.

Each vertical facet is divided into "cells" which vary in size such that their drum-head resonances are spread out in frequency in a way that helps to offset dipole cancellation. I've measured SoundLabs in-room and they have low-end extension down into the low 20's. Of course their large size helps with that.

Here is a photo of the back of a SoundLab panel. You can see that the horizontally-segmented curve is arranged to converge to the rear and diverge forward. You can also see the gradation in the vertical size of the individual cells. The entire diaphragm is a single membrane (receiving a full-range signal), and is clamped by the frame, effectively dividing it into the many individual cells:
.

View attachment 462716

(The small vertical lines you see in the above photo are the insulated stator wires. There is also a hard plastic "waffle" in each cell for structural rigidity. The large rectangles - formed by the 7 horizontal divisions and the multiple vertical divisions which grow larger towards the top and bottom - are what I'm referring to as "cells".)

SoundLabs seek to approximate a line source, and the recommendation is that their height be a little bit less than the height of the room, such that the floor and ceiling reflections effectively extend the listening distance to which they approximate line source behavior.

SoundLab offers two radiation pattern widths: 90 degrees, and 45 degrees. The photo above is of a 45-degree panel. I started out with the 90 degree panels 25 years ago, as that was the only choice in the full-sized models. Comparing the two makes for a pretty close to "apples to apples" comparison of the different radiation pattern widths, though of course the line-source-approximating, dipole SoundLabs are not representative of different radiation pattern widths in "conventional" speakers. The pattern of course widens to the familiar dipole figure-8 at frequencies too low for the specific panel geometry to control the pattern width.

Roger West of SoundLab has an online white paper describing their technology, if anyone is interested. He is not particularly focused on the fact that his approach results in relatively little spectral discrepancy between the direct sound and the reflection field, but imo that is among their best attributes, and largely distinguishes them from their competition.

A very large speaker, suitable for only large domestic rooms, Duke?

 

[Newman]

Would have to know more details about the setup, but I seriously doubt one can conclude from one experiment that side-wall reflections and comb-filtering effects are in all cases negligible. They are certainly not, even if not resulting in audible tonal imbalances, they definitely do something with imaging and localization if strong enough.

Sorry, but in the above comment you are saying your conclusion that is not supported by the evidence is still true, because you want it to be.

 

[Newman]

The reflections are audible - if not handled, they audibly and measurably degrade the result at the listening point (MLP).

Eradicating one cause of reflections has simple and immediately measurable impact at the MLP.

So, yes, an audible advantage supported by measurements & science.

Well, show me the scientifically controlled listening test results in support of the above. Because Toole has examined it and it supports the opposite conclusion.

In the first 7 posts of this page we have three people 'blanking' the science. Not a good look. Why do it?

 

[Jazzman53]

Although I know a lot about the technology behind speakers and have vast experience in comparing measurements and listening test results, the behavior and sound quality of planar transducers is a thing I would never try to predict just from understanding how they work and how they measure. They are always up for a surprise. So everyone please have fun with the type of transducer one personally likes the most!

I feel the same way.

For me at least; there has been a significant gap between theory and reality, with respect to predicting what a certain configuration will sound like. Absent perfect knowledge, I let theory guide me, and then weigh the inevitable design compromises carefully. At some point I settle on a configuration and roll with it-- and hope the end result meets my expectations.

Surprisingly; every ESL I've every built sounded great (some were just more reliable that others)-- but I've concluded that my good results were due not so much to any talent on my part but to the fact that even poorly built ESLs are going to sound good as long as the transformers have adequate bandwidth, and the diaphragm isn't so loose that it's slapping the stators.

I've never heard a Soundlab panel or built a facet-curved panel but, conceptually, I like Soundlab's approach. That is; I've always thought that curving the panel with facets would have advantages over a continuously curved panel like ML uses. Specifically; a facet-curved panel consists of many small flat panels with symmetrical diapahram-to-stator spacing (d/s)-- that is; equal d/s on both sides of the diaphragm. Also, Soundlab's facet-curved diaphram isn't a hoop so it's forward excursions are not constrained by a hoop. Whereas, curved panels are typically not consructed with symmetrical d/s, and are constrained by the hoop effect.

On a curved panel like Martin Logan builds, the d/s is necessrily asymmetrical, with closer spacing to the front stator and greater spacing to the rear stator. This asymmetry is necessary because the curved diaphragm is a hoop which constrains the diaphragm's forward excursions but not the rearward excursions. Also, the asymmetric d/s is necessary to accommodate horizontal tension pulling the diaphragm into a "saddle" shape between the spars.

I once rebuilt a ML Theater Center channel speaker, and noted that the spacer-tapes that set the d/s were 0.025" on the front stator and 0.045" on the rear stator. Also, the diaphragm's contour between spars was "saddle" shaped; dipping much closer to the rear stator at the center of each cell, and farther away from the rear stator near the spars and edge supports. The d/s is all over the place on a curved panel but perhaps it sounds OK because it averages out globally.

I came to understand that the asymmetric d/s is a necesary compromise for a curved panel, and I marveled at how good the ML panel sounded. in spite of it's aymmetric construction.

I have to give a conceptual advantage to Soundlab's faceted curve with symmetric d/s; although some might conjecture that the dispersion from a facet-curved panel would be analogous to light passing through Venician blinds (I think Roger Sanders alluded to that).

I also like Soundlab's distributed resonance approach because, as I see it; the nasty-loud diaphragm resonance (drum-head resonance) cannot be avoided in a full-range ESL so you might as well use it to boost the bass output, as opposed to absorbing it with felt or other materials which can muffle the highs.

Detractors point out that the drum head resonance is by definition a distortion, and using it doesn't clean it up but only spreads it over a wider bandwidth. I can't argue with that but the resonance can'be eliminated, only accommodated, and Soundlab's compromise is smartly done in my opinion.

I've rambled on long enough

Jazz

 

[Arindal]

For me at least; there has been a significant gap between theory and reality,

In some cases, it absolutely looks like that. For me, however, that is not a reason to doubt measurements or believe in magic, but to simply accept the fact that the known and published psychoacoustic models are oversimplified and should not be used as a sufficient formula to predict sound quality. Usually there is a pretty solid explanation for all that.

every ESL I've every built sounded great (some were just more reliable that others)-- but I've concluded that my good results were due not so much to any talent on my part but to the fact that even poorly built ESLs are going sound good

I am a bit hesitating to outright agree, as I don't know your particular models and I have heard quite a few unsatisfying planar ESL. One thing I noticed they had in common was showing some really convincing aspects of sound quality, such as midrange clarity, tonally balanced yet minimal reverb, imaging stability, excellent transparency and alike, so that one might overlook other aspects which are not perfect, such as resonances in higher freq bands, tonal imbalance or undesired/overexaggerated/diffuse ambience. These factors are simply not annoying in the first go so you have to specifically identify them in an A/B comparison.

That said, I am afraid that planar ESLs are not for me personally, but please everyone else have fun with them!

 

[tengiz]

Glad you liked my post!

I really admire your work - both the technology aspect, and, of course, the finish! It all looks great! I wish I had the energy and patience and to do something like this...

I once rebuilt a ML Theater Center channel speaker, and noted that the spacer-tapes that set the d/s were 0.025" on the front stator and 0.045" on the rear stator. Also, the diaphragm's contour between spars was "saddle" shaped; dipping much closer to the rear stator at the center of each cell, and farther away from the rear stator near the spars and edge supports. The d/s is all over the place on a curved panel but perhaps it sounds OK because it averages out globally.

Yes, looks like in curved electrostatic panels, spacers must vary in thickness to compensate for the flat, tensioned diaphragm not conforming to the curved stator frame in each cell. Without this adjustment, the diaphragm-to-stator distance would vary more across the surface, causing uneven electrostatic force and additional nonlinear distortions. It won't perfectly compensate for it, but it's better than nothing.

 

[gnarly]

Heaps of sighted listening reports as if they are in the air waves, though. And did you notice how the radiation pattern realities are pegged to the sighted listening reports as explanations? The myth being that first they are hearing something real, then correctly identifying the radiation pattern as the cause. Whereas in truth it's more like they already know about the radiation pattern, then they start 'hearing' the presumed sonic attributes of such radiation patterns. Placebo effect.

Believe what you will.
For me, folks pulling the sited test copout over and over, gets really old.

(BTW 'line array' describes a string of separate drive units: a large/long stat panel is a line source.)

Pedantic. Especially so since I talked the near continuous inter-driver spacing advantage of stats and ribbons.

Hang on, Toole has shown that comb filtering via room surfaces is little to no concern. (Contrastingly he says that comb filtering within the direct sound itself is a very big concern.)

Add me to the camp that doesn't buy in to your opinion here re comb filtering from room surfaces, or Toole's if he puts it that strongly too.
I suggest you just try listening outdoors, and wake up both your ears and mind ! Find out just what all that comb filtering is doing.

I have argued before that a square wave test is a great investigative tool, but to perfect the square wave reproduction is not an appropriate audio goal .

No you have not argued a square wave is a great investigative tool.....you have argued earlier in this thread that " there is no need for a speaker to reproduce a square wave well. It's a false goal. Basically, showing off the square wave for a speaker is a showroom stunt. A myth."

I was the one saying it's a great investigative tool, saying it totally reflects what a transfer function shows, with a little finer detail really.

Your summary list of reasons why square waves don't work, is imo a bunch of techno babble about their capacity within the audio bandwidth.....and seems primarily for the sake of debate. Are they a great investigative tool or not????

Happy to be corrected where I 'kill facts' ie throw the baby out with the bath water. Not seeing that above...yet.

Hey, Hope the baby has a life jacket on !

 

[olieb]

For me, folks pulling the sited test copout over and over, gets really old.

Agree, it is not very creative to bring this up again and again. But it would not be necessary if people would not bring up uncontrolled sighted experiences over and over again and call it evidence or use it to jump to conclusions.
Sighted uncontrolled listening for audible effects is probably the biggest nonsense that is happening in audio.

 

[gnarly]

Agree, it is not very creative to bring this up again and again. But it would not be necessary if people would not bring up uncontrolled sighted experiences over and over again and call it evidence or use it to jump to conclusions.
Sighted uncontrolled listening for audible effects is probably the biggest nonsense that is happening in audio.

Fully agree. Neither helps us....the dogma of sighted claims, or the dogma that blind evidence is the only valid evidence.

For me, blind is surely the acid test that must be adhered to in the end.
For all my DIY work, I use sighted to get to the point I need to test blind. To say blind needs to be used from the gitgo for meaningful evaluations, is ludicrous imo.

That said, I don't immediately trust sighted even when it seems dead certain,...... knowing how my hearing, mood, music chosen, etc...vary and effect opinion.
That said again, by the time I get to the point I know I need to test blind....I don't care anymore, because as far as I'm concerned they are the same,
no matter whether I think I can hear minutia differences or not.

Nothing but minnows to catch, once blind is needed.
Not to mention I strongly think every system should have some form of tone control to begin with.

 

[tengiz]

It is difficult to imagine such solution working solely for a limited frequency band like the treble. I mean, there is a reason for choosing a broad diaphragm which is usually the need for bigger diaphragm area in the midrange or bass which you also reduce sensivitiy for in your scenario.

I’ve assumed that the improved directivity of curved panel designs comes from widening the main lobe and suppressing secondary lobes across as broad a frequency range as possible. Applying a horizontal weighting window to a flat panel achieves a similar effect, though not as effectively. But combining both approaches - a curved geometry with amplitude tapering - should improve things even further.

Sure, overall output will drop (and, depending on the implementation, the impedance magnitude might increase overall), but for those chasing the elusive perfect solution, a bit more amplifier voltage swing seems like a perfectly reasonable tradeoff. That’s the audiophile way, after all .

 

[MattHooper]

Fully agree. Neither helps us....the dogma of sighted claims, or the dogma that blind evidence is the only valid evidence.

Yup!

Virtually every longtime member here (including me ) seems to agree that blind testing would be the most reliable way of evaluating any number of audio claims.
And we all are quite aware of the amount of mischief and misinformation that has arisen from the golden eared sighted listening crowd.

The problem is when it becomes a sort of cudgel to try and knock down any position or report that is not done in blind conditions, or it becomes a sort of reflexive knee-jerk and somewhat lazy way of rejecting the same.

Some people get the impression that because they are appealing to that data
“ therefore obviously the position I hold is correct.”

But human beings are subject to bias in all sorts of ways, including of course how they appeal to data, and what type of inferences and arguments they draw from the data.
And I can often see a bias in the way some people wield blind testing which amounts to
portraying any informal listening report they don’t like as “ sighted bias” - even when they couldn’t possibly know that nor present a cogent explanation based on sighted bias.

This is most often aimed at the subjective reviewing community - essentially enemy number one around here, who often cannot be given any ground.

As somebody who has been in to scepticism since the 80s, fascinated by the debunking of pseudoscience and woo beliefs, it’s fascinating to observe how bias affects everyone (certainly including myself - i’m definitely not above doing what I described above).

Last night, I was listening to a conversation between a debunker and another guy soaked in conspiracy theories about flat earth, 911 etc. And it reminded me of what motivated reasoning looks like when it’s made so vivid. It’s the same with all conspiracy mongers: you ask them why they believe in the conspiracy, and they just start sighting “ little things that were obviously suspicious” and… that’s enough really. When you ask for a cogent hypothesis for their conspiracy theory, they always flail. It’s just not there. But for them…. It’s OK that they haven’t figured out all the details in a way that makes perfect sense. What matters most is that they believe they have some grounds for suspicion there is this alternative explanation, even though they can’t articulate a strong alternative explanation.

That’s what it occasionally feels like when I’m discussing where it can be reasonable to accept sighted listening impressions, or descriptions as informative at all.

Some people just default to “ I consider it all bullshit… give me measurements or do the blind tests.” The science of blind testing gives them all the suspicion they need to reject any sighted listening they want.

But when certain details of the sighted listening are presented, which suggests the person got sighted listening impressions right, if such a report is from “ the wrong person” then it’s still just going to be rejected.

I say “ OK if you’re going to ascribe this result to sighted bias, please give me a cogent hypothesis on how that would work in this scenario.”

And usually it’s either crickets, or facile
“ broken clock” type replies and a general
“ look I’m just not going to pay attention to that stuff.”

So it can seem more about “ having a suspicion” (because the conditions weren’t blinded and/or it’s from the dreaded subjective reviewers)… but not really having a cogent theory to explain the details in terms of sighted bias. It’s like it’s just used as an excuse to ignore whatever somebody wants to ignore.

There’s a lot of garbage in the subjective forums, but it’s not all garbage. Likewise, there’s a lot of great stuff on ASR, but not every outside critic is wrong in noting some dogmatism (often much exaggerated, but not without any reason at all).

Anyway, that’s just my thoughts, especially after listening to the debunker on that podcast, trying to deal with the conspiracy theorist, and noting how nobody really escapes bias…. (including myself)…even when they understand and have respect for the scientific method.

In regards to electrostatics, I would certainly agree that blind testing is the best way to establish the reliability of any impressions.
And we know that there have been blind tests that included electrostatics. Frankly, I am not remembering all of the data on that and so I do not know if some truly comprehensive conclusion can be drawn against the idea that electrostatics tend to have a certain sound signature or certain traits that stand out to many people.

But there sure is a hell of a lot of anecdotal data for electrostatics having certain equalities that many people seem to perceive and agree on, often arriving at the conclusions on their own.

 

[Gwreck]

That is common with all flat true-planar transducers as the sheer width causes the radiation angle to narrow down towards higher frequencies. If the panel is flat but not too broad (50cm max), this effect of ´you are suddenly leaving the zone of any available treble´ is restricted to the highest octave, live 8K+. It is very audible in terms of tonality (getting dull), but it does not necessarily mean a significant impact on localization and HRTF-induced diffraction. The latter is mainly happening in the 500 - 5,000Hz bands and in the latter band the listening zone is still okay, in the region of +-6deg, so interaural crosstalk should not be affected.



You are referring to the same phenomenon of significantly attenuated early reflections? That is certainly significant, I find the term ´impulse response´ a bit confusing, would rather call this reflectogram.



Sounds like we mean the same phenomenon.

That is common with all flat true-planar transducers as the sheer width causes the radiation angle to narrow down towards higher frequencies. If the panel is flat but not too broad (50cm max), this effect of ´you are suddenly leaving the zone of any available treble´ is restricted to the highest octave, live 8K+. It is very audible in terms of tonality (getting dull), but it does not necessarily mean a significant impact on localization and HRTF-induced diffraction. The latter is mainly happening in the 500 - 5,000Hz bands and in the latter band the listening zone is still okay, in the region of +-6deg, so interaural crosstalk should not be affected.



You are referring to the same phenomenon of significantly attenuated early reflections? That is certainly significant, I find the term ´impulse response´ a bit confusing, would rather call this reflectogram.



Sounds like we mean the same phenomenon.

Yup!

Virtually every longtime member here (including me ) seems to agree that blind testing would be the most reliable way of evaluating any number of audio claims.
And we all are quite aware of the amount of mischief and misinformation that has arisen from the golden eared sighted listening crowd.

The problem is when it becomes a sort of cudgel to try and knock down any position or report that is not done in blind conditions, or it becomes a sort of reflexive knee-jerk and somewhat lazy way of rejecting the same.

Some people get the impression that because they are appealing to that data
“ therefore obviously the position I hold is correct.”

But human beings are subject to bias in all sorts of ways, including of course how they appeal to data, and what type of inferences and arguments they draw from the data.
And I can often see a bias in the way some people wield blind testing which amounts to
portraying any informal listening report they don’t like as “ sighted bias” - even when they couldn’t possibly know that nor present a cogent explanation based on sighted bias.

This is most often aimed at the subjective reviewing community - essentially enemy number one around here, who often cannot be given any ground.

As somebody who has been in to scepticism since the 80s, fascinated by the debunking of pseudoscience and woo beliefs, it’s fascinating to observe how bias affects everyone (certainly including myself - i’m definitely not above doing what I described above).

Last night, I was listening to a conversation between a debunker and another guy soaked in conspiracy theories about flat earth, 911 etc. And it reminded me of what motivated reasoning looks like when it’s made so vivid. It’s the same with all conspiracy mongers: you ask them why they believe in the conspiracy, and they just start sighting “ little things that were obviously suspicious” and… that’s enough really. When you ask for a cogent hypothesis for their conspiracy theory, they always flail. It’s just not there. But for them…. It’s OK that they haven’t figured out all the details in a way that makes perfect sense. What matters most is that they believe they have some grounds for suspicion there is this alternative explanation, even though they can’t articulate a strong alternative explanation.

That’s what it occasionally feels like when I’m discussing where it can be reasonable to accept sighted listening impressions, or descriptions as informative at all.

Some people just default to “ I consider it all bullshit… give me measurements or do the blind tests.” The science of blind testing gives them all the suspicion they need to reject any sighted listening they want.

But when certain details of the sighted listening are presented, which suggests the person got sighted listening impressions right, if such a report is from “ the wrong person” then it’s still just going to be rejected.

I say “ OK if you’re going to ascribe this result to sighted bias, please give me a cogent hypothesis on how that would work in this scenario.”

And usually it’s either crickets, or facile
“ broken clock” type replies and a general
“ look I’m just not going to pay attention to that stuff.”

So it can seem more about “ having a suspicion” (because the conditions weren’t blinded)… but not really having a cogent theory to explain the details in terms of sighted bias. It’s like it’s just used as an excuse to ignore whatever somebody wants to ignore.

There’s a lot of garbage in the subjective forums, but it’s not all garbage. Likewise, there’s a lot of great stuff on ASR, but not every outside critic is wrong in noting some dogmatism (often much exaggerated, but not without any reason at all).

Anyway, that’s just my thoughts, especially after listening to the debunker on that podcast, trying to deal with the conspiracy theorist, and noting how nobody really escapes bias…. (including myself)…even when they understand and have respect for the scientific method.

In regards to electrostatics, I would certainly agree that blind testing is the best way to establish the reliability of any impressions.
And we know that there have been blind tests that included electrostatics. Frankly, I am not remembering all of the data on that and so I do not know if some truly comprehensive conclusion can be drawn against the idea that electrostatics tend to have a certain sound signature or certain traits that stand out to many people.

But there sure is a hell of a lot of anecdotal data for electrostatics having certain equalities that many people seem to perceive and agree on, often arriving at the conclusions on their own.

There are certain situations where blind testing is not needed IMHO. Such as listening to ESL’s vs regular speakers. The difference is quite obvious. I have my ESL’s set up immediately next to my ascend acoustic ELX towers and both are excellent speakers but their character is so different that one doesn’t need blind testing to see if subtle differences are statistically noticeable.

 

[MattHooper]

There are certain situations where blind testing is not needed IMHO. Such as listening to ESL’s vs regular speakers. The difference is quite obvious. I have my ESL’s set up immediately next to my ascend acoustic ELX towers and both are excellent speakers but their character is so different that one doesn’t need blind testing to see if subtle differences are statistically noticeable.

My view on that would be: yeah, given the different technical characteristics between such speakers, and the fact they at least undoubtedly sound different, it can be reasonable to form that impression.

But if we are going be a consistent “ objectivist” or ASR member, that would have to come with caveats about sighted listening - lower confidence levels. In other words, if you really want a more reliable evaluation, it would be done under blind conditions. Because we have to remember that even impressions that seem “ obvious” can be wrong. Basically, when you really want to make sure you’re getting the truth - or reliable results - you use more rigorous protocol.
Science applies rigorous protocols to prosaic assumptions and phenomena all the time, and often enough discovers errors in our everyday assumptions.

So my view is always trying to keep the big picture in view. We can’t just dismiss the problem of sighted bias. So any conclusion outside of scientific controls should be held with caveats. It’s no problem in our informal time we want to form strong beliefs based on our own experience with various gear. You don’t have to be thinking like a scientist every moment of your life. But if you’re going to make claims you think other people ought to accept, then you need to take the big picture in view, including the problem of sighted bias.

So do I think I have a every day pragmatic justification in thinking a number of my sighted listening impressions are not just all my imagination, but actually telling me something about the character of the speaker I’m listening to? Yes. But that’s held within the wide view that of course I could be wrong, and that if I wanted stronger justification I would want to involve measurements/blind testing or whatever would be suitable.

 

[Hayabusa]

There are certain situations where blind testing is not needed IMHO. Such as listening to ESL’s vs regular speakers. The difference is quite obvious. I have my ESL’s set up immediately next to my ascend acoustic ELX towers and both are excellent speakers but their character is so different that one doesn’t need blind testing to see if subtle differences are statistically noticeable.

I agree, and I think point vs line source and dipole are the biggest factors in that obvious difference.

 

[bmc0]

Only if you mean, by 'early', reflections off the speaker itself, eg diffraction etc. Not if you mean room surfaces. I mean, I just showed you the experimental outcome. What didn't you understand?

Toole does not claim that any and all reflections from room boundaries are always beneficial irrespective of their level, delay, and direction. I suggest you look at his statements and the cited experiments more carefully.