Harbeth speakers

[ahofer]

Mind you, Harbeth (and other) prices vary enormously between continents. Harbeth's US prices are significantly higher than in the EU or UK. The US importer seems quite greedy.

$22k for the M40.3. yeesh.

Harbeth 40.3 XD Speakers

All speaker prices are per pair (you get two at this price).M40.3 XDThe absolute pinnacle of BBCloudspeaker design.The result of a passionate and tireless quest for audio perfection. Built on the success of theglobal award winning M40.2 40th Anniversary, this new generation Harbeth achieves a...

generubinaudio.com

don't forget the sticks & glue Tontrager stands for $1,850...each.

 

[Willem]

In the Netherlands the M40.3 is even more expensive (but includes 21% tax). The other models are quite a bit cheaper than in the USA, however.

 

[Inner Space]

Directivity matters whether or not you listen on or off axis, as we still hear reflections. This has been proven with double blind listening tests ...

Well, to recalibrate the discussion ... blind tests have shown that, when required by the test methodology to listen some tens of degrees off-axis, most consumers prefer speakers that retain decent response some tens of degrees off-axis. (Which falls into the well, duh category.) It's important to remember that for users who listen on-axis in dead-ish rooms, off-axis performance is largely irrelevant.

This is where the BBC research falls short ...

Again, to recalibrate the discussion ... there was no BBC research in this Average Joe domestic context. BBC broadcast engineers were inventing things as they went along, in response to extremely picayune and inside-baseball professional demands, made by a couple dozen producers in a small handful of extremely individual use-case situations. Those engineers would be astonished to find fifty years later that they were being blamed for not catering to a broad consumer domestic market they weren't originally tasked to serve.

 

[ahofer]

It's important to remember that for users who listen on-axis in dead-ish rooms, off-axis performance is largely irrelevant.

I think Toole finds it important for Timbral reproduction

AES E-Library » The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms-The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future

At the point of delivering recorded sounds to listeners, the complex interactions of loudspeakers, rooms, and listeners present many challenges to delivering satisfying listening experiences. In the past the directional and spatial limitations of two-channel stereo led to many creative solutions...

www.aes.org

However, a literature review is less conclusive

AES E-Library » Effects of Loudspeaker Directivity on Perceived Sound Quality - A Review of Existing Studies

The directivity of a loudspeaker system is often regarded as a prominent factor in the overall subjective quality of the reproduced sound experience. Much literature is available on the topic, and currently a broad field of opinion exists amongst designers. This paper provides an overview of the...

www.aes.org

I don’t have access to all these papers, so I’d be interested in other opinions. But I will say, very few people have a dead enough room for the directivity not to push the in-room response away from ideal, which brings you back to the well-understood preference for frequency response (and the importance of FR in timbral accuracy, to tie it up with Toole).

 

[Inner Space]

I think Toole finds it important for Timbral reproduction

Again, being rigorous about it, so he claims ... but I find no evidence that Toole or his test subjects had reliable familiarity with the sound of real instruments. I feel people purporting to judge timbre should include their qualifications to do so. My impression of his program is that it tested Speaker A -vs- Speaker B, rather than either -vs- reality.

 

[ahofer]

Again, being rigorous about it, so he claims ... but I find no evidence that Toole or his test subjects had reliable familiarity with the sound of real instruments. I feel people purporting to judge timbre should include their qualifications to do so. My impression of his program is that it tested Speaker A -vs- Speaker B, rather than either -vs- reality.

Well, wait a minute, "being rigorous about it", all of this curve/target research is about predicting user preferences from measurements, not accuracy per se.

 

[Inner Space]

Well, wait a minute, "being rigorous about it", all of this curve/target research is about predicting user preferences from measurements, not accuracy per se.

Yes, agreed. I think the "preference" question is likely the weakest part of the research. It's so amorphous and idiopathic. Right away you're acknowledging it's OK that preference and accuracy could be two different things.

I wish the question had been, "Which sounds most like real instruments?" (With a "none of the above" option.) Instead all we have is a vague notion of "sounded most like my own mental construct of a pleasant loudspeaker," possibly followed by "and oh by the way, the last time I heard live music was years and years ago."

 

[NTK]

... but I find no evidence that Toole or his test subjects had reliable familiarity with the sound of real instruments...

You do realize that all of Dr. Olive's academic degrees are from music schools? (I believe his B. Music degree is in piano.)

AES Member Profile » Sean Olive

This is the member profile of an AES member.

www.aes.org

 

[Inner Space]

You do realize that all of Dr. Olive's academic degrees are from music schools? (I believe his B. Music degree is in piano.)

Did I mention Olive?

 

[NTK]

Did I mention Olive?

... Toole or his test subjects ...

 

[NTK]

And Dr. Toole was Dr. Olive's boss.

 

[ahofer]

I wish the question had been, "Which sounds most like real instruments?"

That aligns with my ex ante preference - I would get satisfaction out of knowing I had the most accurate system. And I certainly chose the Harbeths based on comparison with my best reference - the live chamber music I hear all the time (although Alan Shaw would say I should use voice for universal familiarity).

However, this research was done for commercial purposes and had to be objective, so preferences (with a mind towards purchase/satisfaction) were the goal. Using musical experts is inherently subjective.

 

[Inner Space]

... Toole or his test subjects ...

OK, so at least one of his subjects knew music. So that's OK then.

This is one of our biggest problems. This hobby is entirely parasitic on the world of music, and very few make much attempt to learn. E.g. even Amir, who talks about judging a loudspeaker's tonality. Tonality is entirely musical - the chosen key, the preferred intervals, the preferred chordal structures. Imagine listening to a spoken-word recording of an actor reading a poem. Would you judge the loudspeaker's rhyme scheme?

 

[ahofer]

This hobby is entirely parasitic on the world of music, and very few make much attempt to learn

I know/have known hundreds of musicians. A few of the amateurs have cared about accurate audio reproduction (memorably one who was a physics professor and invented the gas laser), but none of the pros, that I can remember. One, perhaps, cares about the monitors on which he creates/masters his heavy metal creations, but in no way resembling anything on this forum.

 

[tuga]

Directivity matters whether or not you listen on or off axis, as we still hear reflections. This has been proven with double blind listening tests. Great on axis and great directivity will always beet great on axis on its own. This is where the BBC research falls short; Harbeth speakers are great on axis, but they're not as good as the state of the art designs from Revel, KEF, Genelec, Neumann that are great on and off axis.

Like it or not, Harman research expanded greatly on the BBC research, and the state of the art designs following said research(Genelec, Revel, KEF) sound better to the average listener than Harbeth speakers.

Not saying Harbeths(and other BBC designs) are bad, but they're just no longer state of the art. Also, I'm speaking purely from an "average preference" perspective. Individual preference is entirely different, and I have no doubt that Harbeth meets the individual preferences of certain listeners.

I don't think that the research falls short, only the implementation (lack of waveguides).
They were discussing directivity back in '67, and using slots to control it:

 

[Inner Space]

I know/have known hundreds of musicians. A few of the amateurs have cared about accurate audio reproduction (memorably one who was a physics professor and invented the gas laser), but none of the pros, that I can remember. One, perhaps, cares about the monitors on which he creates/masters his heavy metal creations, but in no way resembling anything on this forum.

Again, well known and agreed. But we're talking the other way around. Musicians already have music in their lives - they live it and breathe it. Others attempt to reproduce it. But too many people in this hobby purport to do so without any knowledge or curiosity about how music works or how it really sounds. You all would find it illiterate if someone confused volts and ohms. We find it illiterate that people confuse timbre and tonality. And so on.

 

[richard12511]

I don't think that the research falls short, only the implementation (waveguides).
They were discussing directivity back in '67, and using slots to control it:

Yeah "falls short" may not be the best words to use. I do think the research was great for the time. Waveguides are an example of further research improvement that came after the BBC research. "Standing on the shoulders of giants", etc. Especially true for 2 way loudspeakers imo.

 

[ahofer]

Again, well known and agreed. But we're talking the other way around. Musicians already have music in their lives - they live it and breathe it. Others attempt to reproduce it. But too many people in this hobby purport to do so without any knowledge or curiosity about how music works or how it really sounds. You all would find it illiterate if someone confused volts and ohms. We find it illiterate that people confuse timbre and tonality. And so on.

Indeed, dramatic pitch variations from audio equipment are rare (the aforementioned physics professor once built a turntable from a truck flywheel to reduce 'wow', but "found [he] had a bit of a rumble problem"), but in terms of inapposite audio language, this is beginner stuff (pace and timing anyone?).

Agree on musicians. For my wife, all she needs is a 'prompt' from the sound system to recall a piece in her head, which is enough. And playing it is the goal anyway.

 

[richard12511]

It's important to remember that for users who listen on-axis in dead-ish rooms, off-axis performance is largely irrelevant.

This is just not true, though. The research is very clear that off-axis performance matters a lot, regardless of where the listener sits. Take two speakers, one of which(A) just has good on axis response, and the other(B) has good on axis response and good off axis response; the latter(B) will be preferred by most listeners sitting directly on axis. So if you value better sound, it's still very relevant.

 

[richard12511]

Again, to recalibrate the discussion ... there was no BBC research in this Average Joe domestic context. BBC broadcast engineers were inventing things as they went along, in response to extremely picayune and inside-baseball professional demands, made by a couple dozen producers in a small handful of extremely individual use-case situations. Those engineers would be astonished to find fifty years later that they were being blamed for not catering to a broad consumer domestic market they weren't originally tasked to serve.

"Falls short" is a poor choice of words on my part. It has been surpassed by current SOTA research(much of which Alan is likely using now), but I agree that it's an unfair comparison.