Look at those deep notches in the ML treble. Panel break up?
Amir, where did you get these charts? Are the lower traces DI/Power response?
Amir, where did you get these charts? Are the lower traces DI/Power response?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Revel Performa 3 vs ML Electromotion ESL - comparative measurements
- Thread starter Krunok
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,410
Re: the discussion of F208Be vs Salon 2, if there is any department in which the Salon is likely to be audibly superior, I'd say it's in the 1.5-2KHz region, where the F208 (and presumably the F208Be, which to my knowledge uses the same cone midrange) exhibits a 2-3dB dip on-axis, which is there to compensate for the driver's off-axis peak in the same frequency range. Not a huge flaw, but one that may be audible IMO.
Ok, I’m not arguing they are exceptional speakers, but the idea that they don’t measure them at all in the anechoic chamber they have access to would be surprising to me.
Do you know which speaker that is btw? Most of their speakers don’t measure so poorly.
Anyway, of course we’re just speculating here. I have no idea what their design process is.
They don't measure well in anechoic measurements with 70 points:
The addition of Anthem Room Correction should improve the low frequency scores compared to above but the rest of the issues remain.
Ok, I’m not arguing they are exceptional speakers, but the idea that they don’t measure them at all in the anechoic chamber they have access to would be surprising to me.
Do you know which speaker that is btw? Most of their speakers don’t measure so poorly.
Anyway, of course we’re just speculating here. I have no idea what their design process is.
- Thread Starter
- #43
I am thinking that maybe engineers who designed ML dipols were actually counting on reflections from the wall behind the speakers. What do you think, does that make sense or.. ?
If that is the case it would maybe make more sense to measure such speakers in their typical working environment rather than in the anechoic chamber.
They are the DI and DI for different weighted measurements (early and late reflections). They are part of Sean Olive's numerous papers and powerpoints. Usually he just puts "M" or some other code in there but I post that version because it has the actual brands. That specific graph is from this online article: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/20...nse-psychoacoustic-and-subjective-importance/
The actual AES paper with that data is: Some New Evidence That Teenagers May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction
Sean E. Olive, AES Fellow
It is the Martin Logan Vista. Here is the rest from the AES paper:
Here is a picture I took while taking the same test (but with other speakers in the mix):
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,410
Maybe. If I were taking this approach I would measure them in an anechoic chamber (or quasi-anechoically if that were my only option) and then calculate the effects of intended working environments, since (1) the particular room I had couldn’t possibly stand in for all possible environments the speakers will be asked to work in and (2) trying to extricate the effects of the room from those of the speaker using only in-room measurements is much harder than using anechoic/quasi-anechoic measurements to predict how the speaker will perform in a room.
Last edited:
The measurements Harman use are based on correlation between what set of measurements determine listener preference. They measure 70 points around the speaker and then compose them as direct, early and late reflection. A weighted average of these with more bias put on direct and early reflections is what is presented in their graphs.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,410
Well there’s arguably no excuse for those measurements, but it is worth noting that that is the cheapest and worst performing speaker in their range.
I also speculate that the frequency response/DI we see for the Vista represents an apparently misguided attempt to compensate for the mismatch in power response between the woofer and panel by shelving down the woofer’s on-axis output relative to the panel.
- Thread Starter
- #49
As I remember you stated that Dirac Live correction cannot be re-checked as it was made based on measurements in 5 points I suggest you stick with DAC measurements.
Besides, what Harman states about measuring other speakers is irrelevant for this thread as it cannot be considered objective.
Not to mention that my post you qouted wasn't adressed to you.
- Thread Starter
- #50
For sure, no single room can represent all kinds of scenarios MLs would encounter in different rooms of their owners but I was merely thinking in the direction that walls are not made of many different materials and it may be easier to measure reflection from them than to calculate it. Or maybe to compare measurements with calculations..
Mind your behavior. Obnoxiousness is not going to carry points in this forum.
The rest of your points are nonsense. Harman tests are the similar to what was performed at NRC while both Dr. Toole and Olive conducted research there. They are peer reviewed and highly valued in research and industry. So take caution in making random accusations without spending the time to understand the points being made.
- Thread Starter
- #52
I once asked you not to address me and I'm doing it again. This thread is not about you and your enormous ego, so either participate in it with some objective data or I kindly ask you to refrain yourself from posting non-objective information which is of no interest here. What Harman says about which of their speakers will "smoke" another speaker in blind test is simply not an information but a hear say.
- Thread Starter
- #53
One more thing: as this topic is a kind of head to head between Revel Performa3 F208 and ML Electromotion ESL and as you clearly stated in above post that your company is Harman dealer I kindly ask you to obey the same rules that are valid for other dealers. As it would not be accceptible if a ML dealer would start to post in this topic data about Harman speakers in favor of his own products obviously the same rule should apply to Harman dealers, so I kindly ask you to post your further impressions in the dealers section.
This is getting a bit hot...
Sad, that I have never heard any ML or Revel speakers, or even seen them "live". I don't sell anything either, so this is just speculation and discussion.
Earlier it was commented by many, that frontal measurements of dipole speakers won't tell the sound they give, perceptionally for humans, in a room. Only full polars tell the total sound spectrum (power response), which is more important to guess the perceived sound or measured RTA room response. This must not be forgotten here! This is why we need to read about listening impressions too.
Many dipoles are not perfect dipoles through passband, and variations is dispersion may or may not be balanced by rearside-reflected sound. The problem is to find room measurents of different speakers, that have been done in same room, not even in Stereophile. I have also noticed that in almost every picture Martin Logan panels are positioned in the corner of the room, which is the worst possible placement!
Here is a very positive review of ESL 15A, same as in opening post and in Stereophile test.
https://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/HFN_0117_Ren_4web.pdf
Here is an older review of ML SL3 where JA tells how hard it is to measure it, and ML designers answer ad tell how they do it!
https://www.stereophile.com/content/martinlogan-sl3-loudspeaker-measurements
Sad, that I have never heard any ML or Revel speakers, or even seen them "live". I don't sell anything either, so this is just speculation and discussion.
Earlier it was commented by many, that frontal measurements of dipole speakers won't tell the sound they give, perceptionally for humans, in a room. Only full polars tell the total sound spectrum (power response), which is more important to guess the perceived sound or measured RTA room response. This must not be forgotten here! This is why we need to read about listening impressions too.
Many dipoles are not perfect dipoles through passband, and variations is dispersion may or may not be balanced by rearside-reflected sound. The problem is to find room measurents of different speakers, that have been done in same room, not even in Stereophile. I have also noticed that in almost every picture Martin Logan panels are positioned in the corner of the room, which is the worst possible placement!
Here is a very positive review of ESL 15A, same as in opening post and in Stereophile test.
https://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/HFN_0117_Ren_4web.pdf
Here is an older review of ML SL3 where JA tells how hard it is to measure it, and ML designers answer ad tell how they do it!
https://www.stereophile.com/content/martinlogan-sl3-loudspeaker-measurements
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #55
I had a chance to listen several of ML speakers but for no longer than half an hour. Luckilly, HiFi show in my town was held in a hotel rooms so speakers were playing in a similar environment that I have at home (regarding the wall structure) and they were correctly positioned - the rooms were empty (without any furniture) so they didn't need to make compromises to put them in the corner etc. I liked the sound very much, I was very impressed in a way how they were making sound picture just hang magically in front of you, but I also remember that you have to sit in a relatively narrow (small) area for that magic to happen.
Unfortunately I never had a chance to listen Revels, but I have to admit they measure really well and they have been appraised by many reviewers, surely for good reasons.
There is no such rule in this forum. Even if there were, you were responding to my comments.
You won't get another warning to be cordial. Think hard before you hit post the next time with anger.
Do the curved ML have different dispersion front and rear? That's the point of the curved panel isn't it.
The rules for other dealers is that they can freely post in any topic as long as they are not offering anything for sale. Those go in desperate dealers forum. Their contributions elsewhere as designers and knowledgeable industry people is always appreciated.
As for me, due notice is given so that everyone can know the context in which I post. It doesn't admonish me from posting research data as as I have provided.
All of this said, yes, out of abundance of care I did not initially comment in this thread until it got to a point where I had personal data that I could share that otherwise would not exist. It is a balancing act and I have to make the call one way or the other.
Biblob
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2018
- Messages
- 635
- Likes
- 604
As I recall from earlier threads, these relatively well performing Infinity speakers seem to be a bargain. It makes me think that speaker brands would want to compete with these, as this research (and more) seems to be favorable of smooth on- and off-axis response and correlates to percievable audio quality.
Are there any proof of this actually happening? Have there been progress been made where in the last years where the same performance is achieved at a lower price (or even a the same)? I might be ignorant to obstacles, but it seems so obvious to me that a speaker brand would want to compete with this.
- Thread Starter
- #60
From the dictionary:
data
/ˈdeɪtə/
noun
Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
What you shared wass neither fact nor stastics but a "hear say" from a Harman employee/company. As I created this topic allow me to say this is not what I had in mind to be shared here.
