I cannot trust the Harman speaker preference score

[Sean Olive]

With a mono test with the speaker placed in the middle, the side wall specular reflections are at a lower level. So this takes the room a bit more of out of the play compared to having speakers closer to side walls with no side wall treatment.

Optimal position for each speaker can makes sense. As a speaker designer you have to tune the low frequency with a certain type of room gain and how a designer does this can vary. Some may tune it with a corner gain of 9 dB in, some with 6 dB, etc. And with a cardioid or a dipole, the best position generally are different compared to a monopole.

Multichannel is a step away from accuracy due to much more comb filtering and lobing. While one cannot hear discrete reflections in the same matter with many channels, everything is sort of a mess. Another approach to achieve spaciousness without this and maintain accuracy is using a high level of lateral later arriving diffuse energy. Something Harman never included in ther researchers to my knowledge but others have and it's often used in the studio world.

Personally I don't fancy multichannel for music and much prefer a late arriving diffuse tail. However, as a speaker designer it would financially be much better to sell more speakers to people.

<<<nother approach to achieve spaciousness without this and maintain accuracy is using a high level of lateral later arriving diffuse energy. Something Harman never included in ther researchers to my knowledge but others have and it's often used in the studio world.>>


That is what this does: The DI is adjustable from cardioid to almost omni - with something in between.

SoundSteer Technology from Lexicon

As Stereophile's minister without portfolio, my goal was to find something interesting that didn't quite fit into traditional categories. The prize was an introduction, at a Harman demo room in the Hard Rock Casino/Hotel, to Lexicon's SL-1 loudspeaker prototype (price TBD) and the SoundSteer...

www.stereophile.com

Most speaker designers design for flat anechoic frequency response on-axis. Designing a loudspeaker for an optimal position makes absolutely no sense unless it's intended to be used in/on a wall.

Otherwise, you cannot predict where people will put it or what the size and acoustics of the room will be. It has to be designed to sound good in all types of rooms, and hopefully have controls or the ability to adapt to the room acoustics via calibration or auto-correction.

 

[Sean Olive]

The best thing about this graph is that it shows the people keeping quiet are the true gurus. Can't argue with that. Thanks for your responses, they're greatly appreciated. It's honestly a privilege to see you participate so much in this thread.

Which means I should shut up and leave

 

[tuga]

You are the one that proposed the new speaker test methodologies , not me. They are your issues - not mine. You solve them

Seems like you are taking the easy way out by complaining about our test methods but coming up with no good scientific alternatives.

I understand the imperative of eliminating variables over which one has no control. But when we're done, we are no longer testing preference (as intended) but something else.

 

[witwald]

I think some speakers without rear ports can be shoved closer to the front wall?

Realistically, they can be placed with their backs right up against the front wall. It can work very well, even though it is regularly frowned upon to do so.

 

[witwald]

I understand that, but Harman's research seems to have ditched those variables which it could not (easily) control regardless of their value.

I'm curious. Specifically which variables of value do you think that Harman ditched? It would be interesting to see the list, which could prove informative.

 

[witwald]

And the consumers you refer to as “really caring about sound quality” are also crippling themselves if they don’t go multi-channel, so let’s take multi-channel seriously.

To take multi-channel seriously seems to involve something along the lines of the setup shown in the photo below (from an earlier post in this thread). Apart from the overall expense, is that really something that is viable for the majority of consumers? It is for those that may have a specialized room for home theatre applications, but modifying a lounge room to accommodate such a setup just isn't viable for many consumers. However, the latter can still use a good stereo sound system to listen to music, which they have been successfully doing via 2-channel audio for quite a while now, and at a relatively moderate total cost.

 

[ROOSKIE]

To take multi-channel seriously seems to involve something along the lines of the setup shown in the photo below (from an earlier post in this thread). Is that really something that is viable for the majority of consumers? It is for those that have a specialised room for home theatre applications, but modifying a lounge room to accommodate such a setup just won't be viable for many consumers.
View attachment 192280

I think this is a reference.
Maybe a literal reality for some environments but likely for testing alternatives here.
I'dbet they are trying to get close to something like this with other means maybe software, DSP what have you.

"It is a reduced set of speakers that we have set up in our Hyperion Lab where we measure listeners' HRTFs. The room is used to conduct spatial and sound quality assessments of immersive technologies like up-mixers, different music formats, and compare virtual sources produced by 3D headphones, soundbars,etc to the actual sources (the loudspeakers in the room). The system provides a ground truth."

 

[HooStat]

There again, the man who created the scoring systems confirmed what I had been saying as at least the minimum ASR has to do: Remove the decimal point.

So a 5.4 speaker and a 5.5 speaker would be one whole point apart?

I don’t see the usefulness in that.

I agree with @abdo123: it is better to give people the information (including the decimal point) and teach them how to use the information.

 

[Sancus]

To take multi-channel seriously seems to involve something along the lines of the setup shown in the photo below (from an earlier post in this thread). Is that really something that is viable for the majority of consumers? It is for those that have a specialised room for home theatre applications, but modifying a lounge room to accommodate such a setup just won't be viable for many consumers.

The pictured setup is for immersive audio research, it's pretty extreme, and is different from the current consumer standards.

I got started with 4.1, just adding 2 surrounds to an existing 2.1 setup. Most material available is 5.1 channel SACDs(there are download sources like Pentatone and NativeDSD), so there isn't that much content for the truly immersive setups yet. That may change in a couple years with the accelerating pace of Atmos music production, but not yet.

A dedicated center does sound better than phantom center -- as documented in Dr. Toole's book -- but it's important it be identical to the L/R or at least have similar directivity. And you want the height as close as possible as well. Not a problem in a dedicated audio setup, but can be in a HT. If you enjoy 5.1, the next upgrade is to add 4 heights to allow Auro3D upmixing, which is quite nice for larger instrumental stuff like full orchestras. At this point, you can play full Atmos and Auro3D music as well, as limited as the library is. And that's basically all you need. Rear surrounds, front wides, and the extra 2 heights (for 9.1.6) are nice to have in very large rooms, but not at all critical to enjoyment.

I'm leaving out multiple subs. They aren't necessarily connected to multi-channel but are equally useful in stereo and really a separate topic.

 

[witwald]

The pictured setup is for immersive audio research, it's pretty extreme, and is different from the current consumer standards.

I understood that. My point was that it served as a ready-made visual example of a multi-channel audio setup. I don't think that it's really all that different from an 11.2.4 setup. Just add a pair of large 2-channel main speakers to replace the appropriate two small boxes and you have the makings of a modern Dolby Atmos home theatre setup.

I note that you mentioned that the setup in question is pretty extreme. The point I was trying to make was that it would be exceedingly extreme for a typical consumer to adjust their loungeroom to properly accommodate such a level of multi-channel audio as part of their music reproduction chain. Even a much simpler 5.1 system can be quite visually confronting and won't be considered a viable proposition by many.

 

[gnarly]

Of course testing outdoors doesn't test the off-axis response because there are no reflections.. It solves loudspeaker positional biases but some people will argue it the results cannot be extrapolated to results in rooms.

Sorry i didn't explain what i mean by test outdoors.
I mean doing the spinorama outdoors as reflection free as possible, and tuning there for polars as smooth as possible.

There's off-axis response in no room, right?

 

[Sancus]

I understood that. My point was that it served as a ready-made visual example of a multi-channel audio setup. I don't think that it's really all that different from an 11.2.4 setup. Just add a pair of large 2-channel main speakers to replace the appropriate two small boxes and you have the makings of a modern Dolby Atmos home theatre setup.

I note that you mentioned that the setup in question is pretty extreme. The point I was trying to make was that it would be exceedingly extreme for a typical consumer to adjust their loungeroom to properly accommodate such a level of multi-channel audio as part of their music reproduction chain. Even a much simpler 5.1 system can be quite visually confronting and won't be considered a viable proposition by many.

There are 10 bed channels and the center rear surround is unusual. The height layout is also unusual -- kind of like Auro3D but kind of not. And 8 heights is also unusual.

Anyway. I agree with you, but I don't think of any of us on this forum as typical consumers. The typical consumer does not want a nice pair of stereo floorstanders either. They usually want a low profile sound bar and that's it. My system is in my signature and it is in my living room. I'm happy with it there. I don't need to be in the majority to enjoy it, nor do you

As I said previously I expect most folks in the future to enjoy immersive audio content on headphones. And I'm certain that's why Dr. Olive's research now focuses on headphones.

Those of us with nice speakers, whether stereo or multichannel, will always be a tiny minority from this day forward. Anything we benefit from will be nothing but a byproduct of the headphone targeted work.

 

[hardisj]

As to the argument for blind testing speakers in mono....

Let's all keep in mind that no one is doing blind testing in the review space. No one. So no matter how high a horse one may climb up to put down other's efforts, there is no one really doing what the science says we should do. Myself included.

It's not for a lack of effort on my end. It's just no feasible for me to do that. I've tried. This is why when I give my subjective feedback I work very, very hard to relate it to the data where I feel confident it can be done so. But, in the end, I lean much more heavily on the objective data. And I say this in all my video reviews. People who watch/read my content should have zero issue discerning where/what my focus is on.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Let's all keep in mind that no one is doing blind testing in the review space. No one. So no matter how high a horse one may climb up to put down other's efforts, there is no one really doing what the science says we should do. Myself included.

It's not for a lack of effort on my end. It's just no feasible for me to do that. I've tried. This is why when I give my subjective feedback I work very, very hard to relate it to the data where I feel confident it can be done so. But, in the end, I lean much more heavily on the objective data. And I say this in all my video reviews. People who watch/read my content should have zero issue discerning where/what my focus is on.

The NYT Wirecutter does do blind testing frequently.
I wish would cover more product, they stay very budget oriented catering to a very mainstream budget buyer.

Anyway, love your site/channel. Great stuff.
Not totally sure if your comment pertains to research methods and doing the blind testing that Harman does. Some folks were discussing wether those should be done in stereo or mono or something else entirely.
What do you prefer when making a review, stereo or mono?

 

[hardisj]

The NYT Wirecutter does do blind testing frequently.

Wasn't aware of that. Does he do that with speakers? (is it Brent whom you are referencing?)

What do you prefer when making a review, stereo or mono?

Both. I've given my reasons before. Single mono for relative differences in timbre. Stereo for "the room". That's my preference. Others have their own.

Not totally sure if your comment pertains to research methods and doing the blind testing that Harman does. Some folks were discussing wether those should be done in stereo or mono or something else entirely.

Understood. I'll bow out now. I just saw the comment above and thought it pertinent to reply.

 

[Duke]

I agree they are instances where both mono and stereo tests should be done.

A speaker with an unusual directivity, or in cases claims are made about its spatial imaging that need to be tested and verified.

By any chance were any pairs of the Polk Audio "Stereo Dimensional Array" speakers evaluated? Their distinguishing feature being a cross-fed reverse-polarity signal whose arrival was timed to cancel out interaural crosstalk, something which would only work properly in stereo.

That is what this does: The DI is adjustable from cardioid to almost omni - with something in between.

SoundSteer Technology from Lexicon

As Stereophile's minister without portfolio, my goal was to find something interesting that didn't quite fit into traditional categories. The prize was an introduction, at a Harman demo room in the Hard Rock Casino/Hotel, to Lexicon's SL-1 loudspeaker prototype (price TBD) and the SoundSteer...

www.stereophile.com

Controlled blind stereo listening comparisons of the Lexicon SL-1 in its various modes would arguably be the Holy Grail of comparing different radiation patterns. Was this ever done, and if so, do you recall the results?

Most speaker designers design for flat anechoic frequency response on-axis.

In my limited experience and subjective opinion, IF the frequency response of the off-axis sound tracks the frequency response of the on-axis sound very closely, such that their spectral balances are virtually identical (something easier said than done), THEN "flat" sounds "bright".

Otherwise, you cannot predict where people will put it or what the size and acoustics of the room will be. It has to be designed to sound good in all types of rooms, and hopefully have controls or the ability to adapt to the room acoustics via calibration or auto-correction.

Yes! I've seen more than one sale salvaged because the speakers incorporated sufficient adjustability to adapt to the room acoustic situation.

"Speakers + room" is arguably a "system within a system", and as such imo room interaction matters a great deal. The Snell Type A and Acoustic Research MGC-1 come to mind as examples of designs which paid a lot of attention to room interaction. I think you mentioned that the AR Magic speaker was evaluated - how did it fare, if you don't mind?

 

[ROOSKIE]

Wasn't aware of that. Does he do that with speakers? (is it Brent whom you are referencing?)




Both. I've given my reasons before. Single mono for relative differences in timbre. Stereo for "the room". That's my preference. Others have their own.





Understood. I'll bow out now. I just saw the comment above and thought it pertinent to reply.

Yes Brent.
However I should have said sometimes instead of frequently.
Plus COVID seemed get in the way.
They have a small group and he blind tests the participants. Small scale but still pretty cool that they pull some of it off.

 

[Inner Space]

.

I think that argument falls apart when we consider beyond 2-channel. And the consumers you refer to as “really caring about sound quality” are also crippling themselves if they don’t go multi-channel, so let’s take multi-channel seriously.

That's such a 1970s view. Hardware-based systems with multiple discrete channels each fed different signals are dead in the water. There is precisely zero chance of significant market acceptance of such a prehistoric approach. What Dr. Olive and everyone else is working on are synthesized two-channel signals, fed via headphones, with motion tracking, as a kind of audio virtual reality. Not multi-channel, but effectively infinite-channel. That's the future. I imagine one minor stumbling block currently is compatibility with soundbars and homepods, but they'll get there soon. ASR will be reduced to reviewing bass shakers to bolt under your chair.

 

[EJ3]

Indeed only 8% of that figure (Hi-Fi or Turntable) can be classified as exclusively stereo. Radio is still a mono speaker.

My FM tuner runs through my stereo. Most people that I know do listen to radio in their car & that radio is stereo (or more).

 

[Bjorn]

If you will, can you please provide some examples? Maybe a photo or two, if at all possible?

I'll attach a few pictures with examples, but otherwise I recommend starting another thread for this topic.