Electrostatic speakers?

[Mr. Widget]

Since apparently you didn't read Dr Olive's post I linked to, here it is:

Thanks, no I did not read it, while I have great respect for both Drs Toole and Olive, I have little interest in headphones so I did not follow the link. That said, in the years since Dr. Olive studied Beats for Harman, the market share for Beats has continued to sink... I find that interesting, but I understand that there are too many variables for it to be a meaningful data point.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Honestly?
I remember anecdotally hearing people say, they loved the bass heavy sound of Beats... not a study scientific or otherwise, but I have to wonder.

FWIW: I am not playing devil's advocate, or just being stubborn. I wonder to what extent what we consider to be "bad design" is actually preferred by others? I mean, using your Beats example, I think they have lost market share since being bought by Apple.

Simple:
People simply cannot hear accurately unless their hearing is isolated (by controlled, blind listening arrangements). Nobody's reports of sound preference are valid enough to attend to unless they were listening under blind, controlled conditions. If they were not, they may believe that they prefer a sound, but it is impossible to disentangle that belief from the confounding factors of bias, branding, looks, etc.

 

[goryu]

Given that listeners with normal hearing could recognize the preferred loudspeakers without resonances etc., do you have any hypotheses on how loudspeakers that are designed with resonances and significantly colored frequency response can be successful in the marketplace?

Given the vagaries of human tastes and keeping in mind the fact that personal preferences are by definition neither right nor wrong, how could it be possible that everyone would prefer the same thing? Why would it be unique to our aural sense? Why doesn't everyone agree on how to cook a steak? Why doesn't everyone agree on which bed sheets feel the same? Why doesn't everyone like expressionist painting? Regardless of what the research has indicated, the market shows us it isn't a solved problem.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Because the circumstances under which they listen introduce several opportunities for biasing factors having nothing to do with the sound. Listening blind is an obvious starting point. Many others are described in detail in my books, and in my first JAES paper 44 years ago - the title says it all: Toole, F. E. (1982). “Listening tests – turning opinion into fact”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 30, pp. 431-445. Much has been learned since, but it was a solid start.

The fact is that among other things human adapt to - normalize - many very significant flaws, not recognizing them until something better is heard in comparison. Most of us have enjoyed music through inferior sound systems at some points in our lives.

That adaptive quality explains how we can enjoy a favorite song on a transistor radio.

What baffles me is that at an audio show, you can walk into a room with a reasonably accurate system playing music and then walk into a room with a horn loaded Lowther... the sound is nothing like the previous room and it sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, but there is a cadre of followers who find that to be their idea of perfection.

 

[goryu]

We don't normally listen to music in our homes in a double blind fashion.

 

[bmc0]

What baffles me is that at an audio show, you can walk into a room with a reasonably accurate system playing music and then walk into a room with a horn loaded Lowther...

Some have already made up their minds before they hear the first note. Differences that may be heard are then not necessarily flaws, but proof of their preconceived belief that one-way speakers are fundamentally superior. Certain undeniable flaws (lack of bass extension, very narrow treble dispersion) are rationalized as acceptable compromises.

 

[tetragrammaton]

As much as I love the look of them, I have not heard Martin Logans I liked. Too resonant throughout the entire upper midrange to be enjoy for me

 

[Floyd Toole]

We don't normally listen to music in our homes in a double blind fashion.

So we adapt to whatever we are listening to. It becomes the "norm". In our tests there were instantly comparable different loudspeakers and preferences became very clear very quickly. It was an elaborate setup. It showed that listeners preferred neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers. So, how does that average person find such loudspeakers? If you follow ASR discussions, or know my research, it is now clear that the evidence is in comprehensive anechoic measurements - not room curves or subjective reviews. Accurate measurements like Amir's spinoramas contain the evidence of excellence . . . and problems.

 

[RetroStereo]

As much as I love the look of them, I have not heard Martin Logans I liked. Too resonant throughout the entire upper midrange to be enjoy for me

The problem with MartinLogan ESLs is two-fold: 1st, they are hybrids and that in itself causes problems, and, 2nd, they are dipoles and cannot escape that curse, either.

The early Monoliths were phenomenal in some ways; but their bass simply could not keep up with their midrange and treble. ML has gone through many iterations in an attempt to mitigate this problem, including incorporating DSP in their speakers. Given their price and how well they sell, at least some listeners are happy with the result.

The dipole problem is a different story all together. And, I think ML's curvilinear design both solves it and makes it worse. You need the right room, specific placement of the speakers and the ability to rearrange furniture and alter the walls to make it work.

In my own situation, I covered the entire front wall that includes two floor-to-ceiling windows and a half-glazed patio door with heavy linen curtains. The rear wall includes a large gap into another room. And I papered the 2/3rds of the rear wall that is there with cork. The monoliths are at quarter points along the front wall just shy of 3 feet out and towed in about 15 degrees. The room itself is a living room with a variety of mismatched furniture and things on the walls that serve to diffract sound. Not many spouses would be happy with two enormous black monoliths dominating their living rooms, but, sonically, it works.

 

[goryu]

It was an elaborate setup. It showed that listeners preferred neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers.

In your elaborate set up (room). What about in my room or any unique individual's room? Given the influence of any given individual room, for which it might be almost impossible to find two exactly alike, how does this translate? What about for those using a significant amount of room treatments and/or dsp? How accurate are the measurements for dipole speakers such as large electrostatics like Sound Lab, Acoustat, or the like, which use the room as part of their design?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

What about in my room or any unique individual's room?

In any room people are very likely to prefer a flat, neutral sound. This can be achieved with flat, neutral speakers and acoustic treatments and/or DSP/room correction.

 

[goryu]

The problem with MartinLogan ESLs is two-fold: 1st, they are hybrids and that in itself causes problems, and, 2nd, they are dipoles and cannot escape that curse, either.

Some of the most successful speaker manufactures have been those selling dipole speakers. Clearly what you call a curse many consider a blessing. How long has Magnepan been in business and how many sets of speakers do you think they have sold? Clearly there are legions of people who prefer open baffle/dipole speakers, regardless of whether or not their measurements agree with what the lab tests indicate.

 

[HalSF]

“Electrostatic Speakers”

 

[RetroStereo]

Some of the most successful speaker manufactures have been those selling dipole speakers. Clearly what you call a curse many consider a blessing. How long has Magnepan been in business and how many sets of speakers do you think they have sold? Clearly there are legions of people who prefer open baffle/dipole speakers, regardless of whether or not their measurements agree with what the lab tests indicate.

Obviously, I love my monoliths. And I am very familiar with a variety of dipole speakers, most of which are very popular. However, I think you will agree, they require a lot more work with respect to placement and rearranging the space in which they excel than most non-dipole speakers.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Clearly there are legions of people who prefer open baffle/dipole speakers, regardless of whether or not their measurements agree with what the lab tests indicate.

And there are even greater legions of people who willingly live with and enjoy significantly flawed conventional cone and dome and cone and horn loudspeakers. The inherent design of the loudspeaker is not the primary issue. The important factors are how they sound - that is the final criterion of excellence. The hundreds of loudspeakers and listeners that have been involved in decades of careful research indicate that, when non-auditory biasing influences are controlled or eliminated, most people most of the time prefer non-resonant, uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers. Such loudspeakers can be dipoles, forward-firing cone and dome/horn, bipolar or omnidirectional.

A flawed loudspeaker is just that. It colors everything that is played through it with the same monotonous timbral overlay. When given the opportunity to directly compare multiple loudspeakers, equal in loudness, and blind, the "preferred" sound is convincingly "neutral". Some people favor the stereo imaging and spaciousness that different directional patterns deliver and that is a separate issue. But timbral neutrality, technical accuracy, is a constant factor.

I have written books and many papers on the topic, and I don't expect you to spend money and time to get and read them. However, if you are truly curious to understand the fundamental factors underlying opinions formed under different listening situations, and their relationship to measurements I can suggest spending a little time viewing the following PowerPoint slide show downloadable from this ASR post.

Dr. Toole's 4th Edition Book is Coming! (Discount)

Your wife's suggestion would cause you to miss a bunch of useful stuff:(. Sorry about the problem. Only the publisher can help. Go to Routledge.com, scroll down to the very bottom - the dark blue area - and click on customer service. Good luck. Good news, I followed the same steps on my PC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

View it in slideshow mode to see the annimations. Enjoy.

 

[goryu]

In any room people are very likely to prefer a flat, neutral sound. This can be achieved with flat, neutral speakers and acoustic treatments and/or DSP/room correction.

And at any steak house, people are very likely to prefer a steak cooked medium rare. Yet there are always those who want it rare or well done as well. One needs to determine their own personal preferences.

Can a flat, neutral sound be achieved with a speaker that does not measure flat and neutral with room treatments and/or dsp?

 

[goryu]

And there are even greater legions of people who willingly live with and enjoy significantly flawed conventional cone and dome and cone and horn loudspeakers. The inherent design of the loudspeaker is not the primary issue. The important factors are how they sound - that is the final criterion of excellence. The hundreds of loudspeakers and listeners that have been involved in decades of careful research indicate that, when non-auditory biasing influences are controlled or eliminated, most people most of the time prefer non-resonant, uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers. Such loudspeakers can be dipoles, forward-firing cone and dome/horn, bipolar or omnidirectional.

A flawed loudspeaker is just that. It colors everything that is played through it with the same monotonous timbral overlay. When given the opportunity to directly compare multiple loudspeakers, equal in loudness, and blind, the "preferred" sound is convincingly "neutral". Some people favor the stereo imaging and spaciousness that different directional patterns deliver and that is a separate issue. But timbral neutrality, technical accuracy, is a constant factor.

I have written books and many papers on the topic, and I don't expect you to spend money and time to get and read them. However, if you are truly curious to understand the fundamental factors underlying opinions formed under different listening situations, and their relationship to measurements I can suggest spending a little time viewing the following PowerPoint slide show downloadable from this ASR post.

Dr. Toole's 4th Edition Book is Coming! (Discount)

Your wife's suggestion would cause you to miss a bunch of useful stuff:(. Sorry about the problem. Only the publisher can help. Go to Routledge.com, scroll down to the very bottom - the dark blue area - and click on customer service. Good luck. Good news, I followed the same steps on my PC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

View it in slideshow mode to see the annimations. Enjoy.

First, I have a few of your publications and am very thankful to you for taking the time to elaborate on your research.

I have no doubt your research has led to the conclusion that "most people most of the time prefer non-resonant, uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers. Such loudspeakers can be dipoles, forward-firing cone and dome/horn, bipolar or omnidirectional."

When we compare audio amplifiers, we find however that a large number of people prefer colored, non-neutral, less than accurate performance. It would be interesting to test a variety of speakers that meet this "criterion of excellence" against those that do not, using a variety of tube amplifiers and state of the art class d amplifiers like those made by Purifi. Perhaps you have already done this- my apologies if I have missed such studies.

Studies have shown that some people prefer certain distortion profiles. It is interesting that this doesn't seem to appear in your research of speakers.

How exactly do you define "timbral neutrality" and "technical accuracy"? What are your metrics?

It has been said over and over that the room itself contributes the most to the actual sound heard. When you say "most people most of the time prefer non-resonant, uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers", I am curious if this characterization of the speakers is based on measurements in the listening room or anechoic measurements. One wonders if most people similarly choose the same dsp application/tuning to achieve a "uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate" presentation...in my limited experience over the last 30-40 years, it seems to me that in practive many actually enjoy coloration and a less than technically accurate presentation.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Floyd Toole]

First, I have a few of your publications and am very thankful to you for taking the time to elaborate on your research.

I have no doubt your research has led to the conclusion that "most people most of the time prefer non-resonant, uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers. Such loudspeakers can be dipoles, forward-firing cone and dome/horn, bipolar or omnidirectional."

When we compare audio amplifiers, we find however that a large number of people prefer colored, non-neutral, less than accurate performance. It would be interesting to test a variety of speakers that meet this "criterion of excellence" against those that do not, using a variety of tube amplifiers and state of the art class d amplifiers like those made by Purifi. Perhaps you have already done this- my apologies if I have missed such studies.

Studies have shown that some people prefer certain distortion profiles. It is interesting that this doesn't seem to appear in your research of speakers.

How exactly do you define "timbral neutrality" and "technical accuracy"? What are your metrics?

It has been said over and over that the room itself contributes the most to the actual sound heard. When you say "most people most of the time prefer non-resonant, uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate loudspeakers", I am curious if this characterization of the speakers is based on measurements in the listening room or anechoic measurements. One wonders if most people similarly choose the same dsp application/tuning to achieve a "uncoloured, neutral, technically accurate" presentation...in my limited experience over the last 30-40 years, it seems to me that in practive many actually enjoy coloration and a less than technically accurate presentation.

Thanks for your time.

You clearly have not viewed the slide show I linked you to, or not understood the essence of it. It is a very simple outline of what is in my books, omitting much detail, but I thought it was evident that the metric that matters most above the transition frequency is comprehensive anechoic data, but below that the room exerts a dominant influence. Bass alone accounts for about 30% of one's overall assessment of sound quality and cannot be ignored. Two chapters in the 4th edition explain the problems and offer some solutions.

As for power amplifiers, in years past I have done very serious double-blind equal loudness comparisons between tube and solid state designs, including how they behave with different loudspeaker loads, at different playback sound levels. The results were unsurprising. Frequency response alone explained the most audible differences, and in competent designs the differences were small. Instability was found in one design when driving a particular cone/dome loudspeaker. Tube amps had sufficiently high output impedances that they changed how loudspeakers sounded, so as a class do not qualify for loudspeaker evaluations (there are a few exceptions). One class A/B amp had too much class B and occasionally crossover distortion was heard. Some solid state amplifiers exhibited current limiting with loudspeakers having low minimum impedances, especially in receivers. Competently designed class A/B amps were essentially transparent, as are several modern class D amplifiers.

Non-linear distortion still lacks standardized metrics that correlate with audibility in music, but simultaneous and temporal masking by the signal generating the distortion is most often enough to prevent its audibility. There are exceptions but rarely in amplifiers. Yes, some people like distortions, and they are often added during the recording process for "effect", but it is difficult for me to believe that audible non-linear distortion is desirable in amplifiers or any other audio component.

For more I guess you will have to read my book, review my many contributions to this forum, or just believe what you believe.

 

[goryu]

You clearly have not viewed the slide show I linked you to, or not understood the essence of it. It is a very simple outline of what is in my books, omitting much detail, but I thought it was evident that the metric that matters most above the transition frequency is comprehensive anechoic data, but below that the room exerts a dominant influence. Bass alone accounts for about 30% of one's overall assessment of sound quality and cannot be ignored. Two chapters in the 4th edition explain the problems and offer some solutions.

As for power amplifiers, in years past I have done very serious double-blind equal loudness comparisons between tube and solid state designs, including how they behave with different loudspeaker loads, at different playback sound levels. The results were unsurprising. Frequency response alone explained the most audible differences, and in competent designs the differences were small. Instability was found in one design when driving a particular cone/dome loudspeaker. Tube amps had sufficiently high output impedances that they changed how loudspeakers sounded, so as a class do not qualify for loudspeaker evaluations (there are a few exceptions). One class A/B amp had too much class B and occasionally crossover distortion was heard. Some solid state amplifiers exhibited current limiting with loudspeakers having low minimum impedances, especially in receivers. Competently designed class A/B amps were essentially transparent, as are several modern class D amplifiers.

Non-linear distortion still lacks standardized metrics that correlate with audibility in music, but simultaneous and temporal masking by the signal generating the distortion is most often enough to prevent its audibility. There are exceptions but rarely in amplifiers. Yes, some people like distortions, and they are often added during the recording process for "effect", but it is difficult for me to believe that audible non-linear distortion is desirable in amplifiers or any other audio component.

For more I guess you will have to read my book, review my many contributions to this forum, or just believe what you believe.

Was finally able to open the file and watch the slide show. Thanks for sharing that. It answered most of my questions.

 

[Aryzon]

I am new to speakers in general and would like to ask a pretty broad question on whether Electrostatic speakers are worth bothering with over conventional dynamic ones.

I have a lot of experience with headphones. There, electrostatic and planar drivers generally reign supreme over dynamics due to their rock bottom distortion that applies to the entirety of frequency response, including the low end. So even tho they very rarely have a natural bass shelf, you can easily add one with EQ and face no drawbacks because the drivers can take it no problem.

So I wonder if the same rules apply to electrostatic speakers. I looked through ASR and some other sources and couldn't find measurements that would give me a clear answer on this topic.
Looking at conventional speakers however, I have seen that they behave much more eratically than headphones. Many having distortion levels shooting through the roof in many places and pretty much always a sharp bass roll off. With only very few (usually also very expensive) speakers managing to avoid those problems.

Will electrostatic speakers help me combat those issues? Do they share the same technical advantages that electrostatic headphones have over dynamic headphones?