Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound (Read 76037 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #50 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: analog scott on
As an owner of electrostatic speakers I would certainly say yes, they accomodate 1 listener and/or one listening seat in the room. How is that a gross admission of failure of the design oof the loudspeaker? That is like saying a formula one racing car is an example of a failed design of an automobile because it only seats one person. One can't judge success or failure of a design without considering the purpose for which it is designed.


When you purchased it, did the manufacturer of the speaker or dealer explicitly state this was how the speaker was designed to be used?  Did they talk to you about the sweet spot, ideal speaker positioning, ideal seating position, and state all of this was very particular and important to this particular speaker?  Did they tell you this behavior or design diverged quite a bit from the typical dynamic speaker, which most people are used to?



I bought my current speakers, the Soundlab A3s second hand. But as a long time owner of ML CLSs I already knew what I was getting. Way back when I bought the CLSs the from Optimal Enchantment Randy Cooley went out of his way as a dealer to accomidate me as a consumer. He even proctored a SB comparison between the MLs and a pair of Apogee Duettas. Yes he made it very clear that these were one person speakers. The in store audition and the week long home audition made it clear as well. Randy more than did his job. I was well informed.

Quote from: odigg on
I've visited many audio dealers and NONE have ever made such statement when trying to sell me an electrostatic speaker.  I don't recall seeing any of this in the marketing literature either.



If they are assuming that the buyer will know or setup their room to use the speaker that way, that is a faulty assumption.




I can not speak for all ML dealers. But Randy at Optimal Enchantment didn't make any such assumptions. They gave me excellent instructions on home setup and use and came by to help tweak my speaker and listener positioning.

Quote from: odigg on
Many people do not have the luxury of changing the whole room for a pair of speakers.



Of course not. And this is a significant point. Some of us do. Some of us have the luxury of having a custom dedicated listening room. For those of us with that luxury speakers that demand such things as a dedicated listening room with treatment for optimization are not a "failed design" because of those needs any more than a formula one car is a "failed design" because it has practical limitations.

Quote from: odigg on
Beyond that, even people will dedicated listening rooms may have multiple couches, chairs, seating surfaces, etc.



Or they may not. I didn't.

Quote from: odigg on
In my home I sometimes listen to music and read while lying down or sitting in a recliner that is not in the sweet spot.  I would certainly be irritated to learn that the manufacturer of an allegedly superior speaker designed them with the assumption that I would not perform the common activity of listening outside the sweet spot.




I would think that if you did a propper extended home audition this would have come to your attention. It certainly was more than clear to me after my audition.



Quote from: odigg on
Other than consumers like Richard Branson or the CEO of Oracle, few people purchase formula one cars.  Many "average joes" with no knowledge outside of what their dealers and marketing literature has told them will buy electrostatics.



Highend electrostatic speakers are IMO no more for the average Joe than a formula one car. I know ML has made a wide range of product long after the CLSs and I haven't paid much attention to those products. I know they even have a surround sound system. I don't know if that system has the same limitations of the CLSs or not. But if I were in the market for those speakers I would find out before buying. The top of the line Soundlabs are 9 feet tall! Ya think someone would buy these without knowing a thing or two about how they work in a room?




Quote from: odigg on
As for the formula car, it's pretty obvious from looking at the car that it only seats one person.  And everybody knows the cars are designed for a specific purpose and not one professional associated with Formula one would say otherwise.  The Formula one car is not advertised as a car for daily use.  Is it obvious from looking at an electrostatic that it's off axis performance is different from a dynamic speaker?  I think it's safe to assume speakers sold to consumers will be used as "daily use" items, meaning they have to accommodate to the different ways consumers use them and the differences between consumers.



IMO the same is quite obvious for high end electrostats an is made clear with just the simplest and most brief audition. Cerianly the two channel high end systems I have  had and have listened to. If someone bought electrostats without ever auditioning them they may be in for a surprise. But I would think some folks would actually do their homework first. I don't think the potential pitfalls of buying speakers without a propper audition and some homework would be unique to electrostatic speakers.  Evey design has it's unique characteristics and optimal room configuration.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #51 –
Quote from: solive on
Quote from: analog scott on


Quote
That is like saying a formula one racing car is an example of a failed design of an automobile because it only seats one person. One can't judge success or failure of a design without considering the purpose for which it is designed.


But I would bet it says in the Formula One's operator's manual that only  person can sit in it, and it's probably clear when you see it.  The drivers manual probably warns you not to drive the car except on a professional racing track under optimal driving conditions; it's probably clearly understood by the owner that it's  not a practical car you can drive in rain, snow or  a wide range of real world driving conditions: otherwise the car will operate at 30% of its performance, and be unsafe and dangerous for the driver and people around the car.

There is no such warning in this electrostatic speaker's manual that says: "WARNING: This $3800 loudspeaker is only intended for 1 listener in one specific spot in one specific room of specific size and acoustic treatment. IF your listening room, speaker position and single listening spot DOES NOT meet these exact conditions DO NOT PURCHASE IT: OTHERWISE  its sound quality may fall into the lower 30 percentile of modern day loudspeakers ( and will sound significantly worst than a $500 loudspeaker that has no such specific requirements)



Quote
How about a comparison using the speakers as they were intended to be used?


I will send you the plans of our room, if you can provide me the exact locations where the speaker and listener should be located so that the test  meets the "purpose for which the speaker was designed". Do that and I would be happy to rerun the test.  Also, let me know the specific music tracks for which it was designed.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings



I have a hunch Formula One cars don't come with any manual.

As I have stated in other posts the reality of the one listener limitation of the electrostaic speakers I encountered was plainly obvious with even the most limited auditions. Um, the Revel Ultimas that I had the pleasure of listening to had a sweat spot too. The damage was obviously less severe as one moved from the sweat spot with the Revels but for me it was still enough to call those speakers a one man speaker as well along with every other two channel speaker system I have ever heard. It's just that with electrostats the damage is more severe. I can't say that I have ever heard any two channel system that did not suffer from moving out of the sweat spot. I'm pretty sure the physics dictates that the imaging will always be affected by moving out of the sweat spot. Call me crazy but I didn't go out of my way to get the best sounding system I could afford with the idea of screwing up that sound by sitting somewhere other than the sweat spot. If I owned Revel speakers I would still have a dedicated listening room and listen from the sweat spot.

I'd be more than happy to look at the plans of your facility and make suggestions on how to better situate electrostatic speakers in that room and what sort of treatment to use to further optimise things. But it would just be a starting point. I would also be happy to provide you with a play list of material that works for me as an audiophile when doing such auditions. I am glad to hear you would consider these variables in follow up tests.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #52 –
Quote from: solive on
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Did these many audio dealers all have you listen in mono directly in front of a room centered electrostatic speaker, 3' off the front wall?
What was your impression of the sound?


Believe me, some of the setups I've used at audio dealers are far worse than any claimed issues with Dr. Olive's test.  Perhaps that's why I've never been impressed with electrostatics when I listen at dealers.  Beyond that, my comments were not directed at the validity of Dr. Olive's testing methodology.  I was refuting analog scotts' claims that a speaker with terrible off axis performance is a sensible design and that the formula one car analogy is a valid one.


According to the manual of this speaker it's supposed to be 3 ft from the front wall. On page 10 it states:

"By now your speakers should be placed approximately two to three feet from the front wall, the wall in front of the listening position, and about two feet from the side walls"

Is that a misprint? Or does this confirm I got the distance from the front wall correct in our testl

  A few paragraphs later it contradicts the recommendation for placement 2 ft from the side walls: 

"A good rule of thumb is to have the side walls as far away from the speaker sides as possible... An ideal side wall, however, is no side wall at all. "

This indicates that I also got the distance from the side walls perfect according to manufacturer's instructions! 2 out of 2

So according to the electrostatic owners' manual I set the speakers up perfectly as instructed in terms of distances to the front and side walls.


They recommend a 72 hour break-in period, which to me is always a Red Flag  for electrodynamic loudspeakers at least. It's more of a cognitive effect they hope for where listener adaptation to the speaker over several days will alleviate buyer remorse due to issues about its poor sound quality.

" Now that you have positioned your speaker system, spend time listening. Wait to make any major changes in your initial setup for the next few days as the speaker system itself will change subtly in its sound. Over the first 72 hours of play the actual tonal quality will change slightly with deeper bass and more spacious highs resulting. After a few days of listening you can begin to make refinements and hear the differences."

I'm not saying that's the case here but it would be interesting to see some physical and perceptual evidence that this break-in has measurable effects on its sound. I've actually done this with our own loudspeakers (motivated by a former marketing person who insisted on putting  "break-in labels on a model of our speakers). Both measurements and listening tests proved the break-in was a crock. The break-in stickers were removed, and the marketing person was fired shortly thereafter.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings



The break in on Martin Logans is real. I have done side by side comparisons between brand new and broken in MLs. It is a substantial difference. You are dealing with a very different driver here. Dealer demo speakers do tend to have more than 72 hours on them so it should not be an issue with any auditions using dealer demo speakers.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #53 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: odigg on
Believe me, some of the setups I've used at audio dealers are far worse than any claimed issues with Dr. Olive's test.

Can you explain that to me, I'm having trouble making sense of it - The dealer setups were "worse than any claimed issues with Dr. Olive's test"? TIA.
Were any of them in mono with the speaker centered on the front wall?

Quote from: odigg on
I was refuting analog scotts' claims that a speaker with terrible off axis performance is a sensible design

Where did he claim that?
What speaker has "terrible off axis performance"?

cheers,

AJ


What is your problem with mono? Do you not believe the research results I've point you towards indicating that a) mono test results track stereo results b) listeners are more discriminating in mono c) that mono signals exist in stereo music recordings and multichannel music/films? Your rationale for requiring stereo signals for loudspeaker tests escapes me given the body of research that suggests otherwise.


Check the off-axis measurements for speaker C in slide 28 compared to the Infinity. The mid/treble is significantly down in level relative to the bass: they will sound very dull as you move off-axis. The reflected sounds arriving at the listener will also sound dull and colored compared to the direct sound.

There is a strong argument that this speaker will sound better the further it's away from side walls (as we tested it and as the owner's manual recommends) since there will be less colored reflected sound arriving at the listener.


Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #54 –
Scott, just FYI, it's "Sweet" spot.
Sweat spots are what happens when you try to read the manual or I go to church.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #55 –
Quote from: solive on
What is your problem with mono?

Nothing. I use it myself, along with pink noise to do something like what you do...hear specific non-linearity issues in my builds.
Plus I like really old recordings  . My "problem" is the extrapolation to stereophonic soundfield perception predictions. I urge reconsideration.

Quote from: solive on
Do you not believe the research results I've point you towards indicating that a) mono test results track stereo results b) listeners are more discriminating in mono c) that mono signals exist in stereo music recordings and multichannel music/films? Your rationale for requiring stereo signals for loudspeaker tests escapes me given the body of research that suggests otherwise.

Why did you use a stereo test for the mp3 vs CD? Why not have them listen to a central located speaker in mono?

Quote from: solive on
Check the off-axis measurements for speaker C in slide 28 compared to the Infinity. The mid/treble is significantly down in level relative to the bass: they will sound very dull as you move off-axis.

Or placed 2' from the sidewalls (stereo listening, as both are intended for), they won't sound as overly bright and smeared as the 362's, due to that same dipole null. Depends on how you view it Sean.

Quote from: solive on
The reflected sounds arriving at the listener will also sound dull and colored compared to the direct sound.

Was that the perception in stereo? Can you link the results of the 362 vs ML's when listened to this way, in stereo, positioned around corners of a typical living room? TIA
Gotta run...

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #56 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
Quote
The 360's measured very well by Stereophile and as the 362's predecessor, seems very similar, so I'm hoping your answer is yes.


Yes, the only differences should be cosmetic ones.


The 360s have one woofer per box, while the 362s have two.

I have a pair of 360s and they are very smooth.


Arnie: That's not correct. Both the Primus 360 and 362 (the update) have the same driver compliment: 2 woofers, midrange + tweeter.  The drivers are identical except I think the color of the  cone or surround changed.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #57 –
Quote from: ajinfla on



Quote
Why did you use a stereo test for the mp3 vs CD? Why not have them listen to a central located speaker in mono?


We were testing stereo codecs - not loudspeakers -- and the codec might produce spatial artifacts. Loudspeakers don't create spatial artifacts (the artifacts are in the recordings), but  they produce differences in  apparent image width/depth, which are related to their directivity and frequency response. These difference are apparent in both mono and stereo.  No need to test them in both modes.

Quote
they won't sound as overly bright and smeared as the 362's, due to that same dipole null. Depends on how you view it Sean.


Smeared?? What does that term mean? Do you greater ASW (apparent source width) or spaciousness? Most listeners consider that a good feature unless they are tight-assed imaging purist puritans [it's getting late so my tongue is getting looser]


Quote
Was that the perception in stereo? Can you link the results of the 362 vs ML's when listened to this way, in stereo, positioned around corners of a typical living room? TIA
Gotta run...


The speaker sounds dull off-axis whether in mono or stereo. Do a walk by of that speaker versus the Primus and they are night and day: the timbre of the Primus is much more constant as you walk to the left and right of the reference axis. The electrostatic sounds like someone is putting socks in the vocalist's mouth as you walk to the left or right. There is nothing magical about the psychoacoustics of stereo that changes the character and perception of the off-axis sound (except you may be more forgiving of certain problems). 

Stereo does produce a more colored, unstable phantom center image compared to a center channel  due to the interaural cross-talk between the ears and the left and right speakers.  For this reason, the  sweet spot restriction and the spatially deprived experience of 2 channel sound, I personally can't stand listening to stereo loudspeaker recordings  anymore  except when I'm in another room preferably drinking a glass of Pinot Noir or another Rhone varietal. Multichannel or up-mixed stereo is my preferred choice, although the perfect up-mixer hasn't been developed yet.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #58 –
Quote from: analog scott on

Quote
As I have stated in other posts the reality of the one listener limitation of the electrostaic speakers I encountered was plainly obvious with even the most limited auditions. Um, the Revel Ultimas that I had the pleasure of listening to had a sweat spot too. The damage was obviously less severe as one moved from the sweat spot with the Revels but for me it was still enough to call those speakers a one man speaker as well along with every other two channel speaker system I have ever heard. It's just that with electrostats the damage is more severe. I can't say that I have ever heard any two channel system that did not suffer from moving out of the sweat spot. I'm pretty sure the physics dictates that the imaging will always be affected by moving out of the sweat spot. Call me crazy but I didn't go out of my way to get the best sounding system I could afford with the idea of screwing up that sound by sitting somewhere other than the sweat spot. If I owned Revel speakers I would still have a dedicated listening room and listen from the sweat spot.


It's called  a "sweet spot" not a "sweat spot"  Perhaps this was  a Freudian slip you made stemming from the fact the "sweet spot" of your electrostatics is so incredibly tight and small that it causes you to profusely sweat trying to stay within it, thus leaving a permanent sweat mark on the chair

The dispersion of the Revel Salon/Studio II  mid/tweeter with its very shallow waveguide is extremely wide and smooth, and not even in the same ballpark compared to that of most electrostatics I've tested. I'm not sure what you are talking about but it makes we wonder if  you might be talking about stereo image stability while moving around within the speaker spot versus spatial variance in timbre as you move around the seat.

Quote
I'd be more than happy to look at the plans of your facility and make suggestions on how to better situate electrostatic speakers in that room and what sort of treatment to use to further optimise things. But it would just be a starting point. I would also be happy to provide you with a play list of material that works for me as an audiophile when doing such auditions. I am glad to hear you would consider these variables in follow up tests.


I am always willing to experimentally  test a question or challenge. This forum stemmed from a challenge I made to the Jonathan Berger Mp3 study, which I felt didn't jive with my experience and others when listening to MP3 at 128 kpbs.  It's good to have constructive differences in opinion and challenges, although I always seem to be the one who ends up doing all the work 

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #59 –
Quote from: solive on
Stereo does produce a more colored, unstable phantom center image compared to a center channel  due to the interaural cross-talk between the ears and the left and right speakers.  For this reason, the  sweet spot restriction and the spatially deprived experience of 2 channel sound, I personally can't stand listening to stereo loudspeaker recordings  anymore  except when I'm in another room preferably drinking a glass of Pinot Noir or another Rhone varietal. Multichannel or up-mixed stereo is my preferred choice, although the perfect up-mixer hasn't been developed yet.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings


So what do you listen to when you want to listen to music? IMO most of the good stuff is in two channel stereo.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #60 –
Quote from: solive on
Quote from: analog scott on

Quote
As I have stated in other posts the reality of the one listener limitation of the electrostaic speakers I encountered was plainly obvious with even the most limited auditions. Um, the Revel Ultimas that I had the pleasure of listening to had a sweat spot too. The damage was obviously less severe as one moved from the sweat spot with the Revels but for me it was still enough to call those speakers a one man speaker as well along with every other two channel speaker system I have ever heard. It's just that with electrostats the damage is more severe. I can't say that I have ever heard any two channel system that did not suffer from moving out of the sweat spot. I'm pretty sure the physics dictates that the imaging will always be affected by moving out of the sweat spot. Call me crazy but I didn't go out of my way to get the best sounding system I could afford with the idea of screwing up that sound by sitting somewhere other than the sweat spot. If I owned Revel speakers I would still have a dedicated listening room and listen from the sweat spot.


It's called  a "sweet spot" not a "sweat spot"  Perhaps this was  a Freudian slip you made stemming from the fact the "sweet spot" of your electrostatics is so incredibly tight and small that it causes you to profusely sweat trying to stay within it, thus leaving a permanent sweat mark on the chair

The dispersion of the Revel Salon/Studio II  mid/tweeter with its very shallow waveguide is extremely wide and smooth, and not even in the same ballpark compared to that of most electrostatics I've tested. I'm not sure what you are talking about but it makes we wonder if  you might be talking about stereo image stability while moving around within the speaker spot versus spatial variance in timbre as you move around the seat.

Quote
I'd be more than happy to look at the plans of your facility and make suggestions on how to better situate electrostatic speakers in that room and what sort of treatment to use to further optimise things. But it would just be a starting point. I would also be happy to provide you with a play list of material that works for me as an audiophile when doing such auditions. I am glad to hear you would consider these variables in follow up tests.


I am always willing to experimentally  test a question or challenge. This forum stemmed from a challenge I made to the Jonathan Berger Mp3 study, which I felt didn't jive with my experience and others when listening to MP3 at 128 kpbs.  It's good to have constructive differences in opinion and challenges, although I always seem to be the one who ends up doing all the work 

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings



Not so much a Freudian slip as a consequence of growing up with dyslexia. My spelling simply sucks. I don't sweat it much.   

I'm simply pointing out that the sweet spot may be tighter for electrostatic speakers and more destructive when you move out of it but that all speakers have the sweet spot with two channel stereo and the sonic performance of any speaker system suffers as one moves away from the ideal listening position.  I don't get up and walk around when listening to music. That certainly destroys any illusion of an aural soundspace. Yes it is worse with electorstatic speakers. I notice it when i get up to get a drink or go to the bathroom. It doesn't bother me. So I don't see how the more severe breakdown outside the sweet spot becomes a failure in the design of the speakers. Certainly it is an inconvenience if you want to wander the room or if, for whatever reason ,you need to move your head around a lot. But I think it is obvious that electrostatic speakers are not for headbangers anyway.    That was the point of the Formula One analogy. High end electrostatic speakers are built for performance not convenience.  The old Martin Logan CLSs could create an uncanny illusion of live music with excellent source material, the right room, the right set up and the right equipment. At 2,400 dollars they were pretty unique in that ability at that time. My Soundlabs do much the same thing only with a much wider variety of music. At 3,000 dollars used they are pretty tough to beat for an illusion of live music from a wide range of source material. 


When I am back in L.A. I'd be happy to come by and help you with any follow up tests of electrostatic speakers.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #61 –
I still don't get the argument. I understand, that an "exclusive" sweet spot can be conceived as a feature of high priced gear. But what does this discussion have to do with the fact that frequency response within the sweet spot is also worse than that of the 362?

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #62 –
Quote from: googlebot on
I still don't get the argument. I understand, that an "exclusive" sweet spot can be conceived as a feature of high priced gear. But what does this discussion have to do with the fact that frequency response within the sweet spot is also worse than that of the 362?



1. It is not a "feature" it is an inconvenience. the question is whether or not that inconvenience is a deal breaker. For me it is not. Apparently for Sean it is. He called it a failed design because of that. The conversation moved from the specific speakers to the nature of electrostatic speakers in general. There are no assumptions about the on axis frequency response of all high end electrostatic speakers in the current discussion of the sweet spot they share as a family of speakers and whether or not that inconvenience constitutes a failed design.
 

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #63 –
Quote from: dhromed on
Quote from: cyberdux on
Have you conducted the same experiment by gender? I would find those results very interesting.


Don't women have a higher upper limit anyway? That one woman's 100% CD preference seems to support that.

It's possible that it's been suggested by older data taken for example when men were more likely to have spent time working in heavy industry with inadequate hearing protection, but I've never heard anyone claim women naturally have a higher upper limit to hearing.  If anyone knows otherwise please send me a reference since I'd be interested to read.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #64 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Dude take a chill pill.    One doesn't have to argue for a personal aesthetic choice so such a post would be kind of silly.


I thought there was a discussion about controlled and repeatable measurements and disciplined judgements of quality going on, not an exchange of aesthetic choices (about which, also, reasoned discussion can be undertaken, but not on HA).

But I am interested. I have a smallish room which I could set up as primarily a listening room, where I would listen by myself. I wouldn't normally think of spending thousands of bucks on speakers, but if I were persuaded that it would really make a difference, I could spring. My musical tastes are various, but I'm especially concerned with Bach solo instrumental and chamber music, Haydn and Shostakovich. What sort of benefit might I expect to get from electrostatics, compared with more modest speakers that measure flat, like the Infinity speakers mentioned here?

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #65 –
Quote from: solive on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
Quote
The 360's measured very well by Stereophile and as the 362's predecessor, seems very similar, so I'm hoping your answer is yes.


Yes, the only differences should be cosmetic ones.


The 360s have one woofer per box, while the 362s have two.

I have a pair of 360s and they are very smooth.


Arnie: That's not correct. Both the Primus 360 and 362 (the update) have the same driver compliment: 2 woofers, midrange + tweeter.  The drivers are identical except I think the color of the  cone or surround changed.

Audio Musings


I just double checked my speakers and I misrembered the model numbers. You're right, and I'm wong. Sorry.

But, they still sound great! ;-) I think that speakers this good in this price range are quite a technical accomplishment.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #66 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
Quote from: analog scott on
Dude take a chill pill.    One doesn't have to argue for a personal aesthetic choice so such a post would be kind of silly.


I thought there was a discussion about controlled and repeatable measurements and disciplined judgements of quality going on, not an exchange of aesthetic choices (about which, also, reasoned discussion can be undertaken, but not on HA).

But I am interested. I have a smallish room which I could set up as primarily a listening room, where I would listen by myself. I wouldn't normally think of spending thousands of bucks on speakers, but if I were persuaded that it would really make a difference, I could spring. My musical tastes are various, but I'm especially concerned with Bach solo instrumental and chamber music, Haydn and Shostakovich. What sort of benefit might I expect to get from electrostatics, compared with more modest speakers that measure flat, like the Infinity speakers mentioned here?



It was in response to Sean's comment "I personally can't stand listening to stereo loudspeaker recordings anymore except when I'm in another room preferably drinking a glass of Pinot." Looks like an aesthetic choice or at least an easthetic reaction to me. I simply thought it was an aesthetic value that carries a tremendous handicap for any music lover given the body of work recorded in stereo for stereo speaker playback. so I asked Sean what he personally listens to given his personal aesthetic dislike for two channel playback and the obvious handicap it presents any music lover.


IME with that sort of music in particular in a smallish dedicated listening room one simply gets a more convincing illusion of live music in the original space with electrostatic speakers. It's almost the ideal listener needs for one to consider some of the less expensive models from Soundlab. I am a big fan of going used. You can get some real bargains. But you should hear them first. Here are some fine speakers (IMO) for reasonable prices that fit the bill.

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spk...mp;/Quad-ESL-63
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spk...mp;/Quad-ESL-63
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spk...p;/Quad-ESL-988
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spk...p;/Quad-esl-988
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spk...p;/Quad-esl-989

I didn't see any ML CLS IIzs or any lower end Soundlabs for sale at Audiogon hence all the Quads.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #67 –
Quote from: analog scott on
The break in on Martin Logans is real. I have done side by side comparisons between brand new and broken in MLs. It is a substantial difference. You are dealing with a very different driver here. Dealer demo speakers do tend to have more than 72 hours on them so it should not be an issue with any auditions using dealer demo speakers.


An obvious TOS 8 infracftion. :-(

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #68 –
[quote name='analog scott' date='Jun 23 2010, 06:49' post='711099']

" I personally can't stand listening to stereo loudspeaker recordings anymore except when I'm in another room preferably drinking a glass of Pinot."

Note that the text above does not seem to come Sean's OP in the matter.  It appears that Scott rooted about in the collected writings of Sean Olive until he could find something that he could take out of context and present as incriminating evidence.

It looks to be like this whole thread has veered solidly off-topic. Instead of being about the preferences of Gen Y listeners, it has turned into a rehash of the battle of 2-channel stereo versus surround sound.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #69 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
The break in on Martin Logans is real. I have done side by side comparisons between brand new and broken in MLs. It is a substantial difference. You are dealing with a very different driver here. Dealer demo speakers do tend to have more than 72 hours on them so it should not be an issue with any auditions using dealer demo speakers.


An obvious TOS 8 infracftion. :-(



Perhaps but maybe a little context would be helpful. the reason I compared them was because I though my upgraded pannels and/or traansformer was defective. I brought the speakers back to the dealer to demonstrate the gross problems. In a side by side comaprison the problems were quite apparent. The dealer insisted this was a "break in issue." I didn't believe it. The differences were to gross IMO. I suppose....I could have imagined the differences between the new pannels due to bias effects.....

I reluctantly took them back home vowing to return them if the "break in" didn't fix the problem. After one hundred hours of continuous play at loud levels I took them straight back without even a re-evaluation due to my skepticism about that kind of "break in." Guess who went home with a little egg on his face after the second side by side comparison. They were now pretty close to indistinguishable. Reverse subliminal bias expectation effect? Possibly.....Sure surprised me.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #70 –
Quote from: analog scott on
IME with that sort of music in particular in a smallish dedicated listening room one simply gets a more convincing illusion of live music in the original space with electrostatic speakers.


I guess I'm especially interested in what it is about electrostatics specifically. The claim for illusion of presence of live music is one that seems to be made for all excellent gear, and IME, using only a couple of cheapy little KEFs, that depends a very great deal on the recording. MA Recordings, for instance, have a couple of disks of Bach on lute which definitely convey an ambiance, but which are also so close-miked that the sound of fingers on strings is actually distracting. But other recordings, not so much, with the same speakers or headphones. So, electrostatics aren't as linear as other speakers (this seems to be non-controversial); what do they win in exchange? Is it to do with having a larger driving area? My only experience is hearing some Quads long long ago, when I was hardly a critical listener.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #71 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
" I personally can't stand listening to stereo loudspeaker recordings anymore except when I'm in another room preferably drinking a glass of Pinot."

Note that the text above does not seem to come Sean's OP in the matter.  It appears that Scott rooted about in the collected writings of Sean Olive until he could find something that he could take out of context and present as incriminating evidence.

It looks to be like this whole thread has veered solidly off-topic. Instead of being about the preferences of Gen Y listeners, it has turned into a rehash of the battle of 2-channel stereo versus surround sound.



Hopefully the mods won't be too hard on Sean for steering so far off topic with his comment on stereo speaker playback.    Not sure what "battle" you are refering to.  I have no problem with Sean's preference for mulitchannel. I just was wondering how he deals with the fact that so much music is in stereo and designed to be heard on stereo speakers. I don't see how that is any attempt on my part to "incriminate" anyone or anything. 

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #72 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
Quote from: analog scott on
IME with that sort of music in particular in a smallish dedicated listening room one simply gets a more convincing illusion of live music in the original space with electrostatic speakers.


I guess I'm especially interested in what it is about electrostatics specifically. The claim for illusion of presence of live music is one that seems to be made for all excellent gear, and IME, using only a couple of cheapy little KEFs, that depends a very great deal on the recording. MA Recordings, for instance, have a couple of disks of Bach on lute which definitely convey an ambiance, but which are also so close-miked that the sound of fingers on strings is actually distracting. But other recordings, not so much, with the same speakers or headphones. So, electrostatics aren't as linear as other speakers (this seems to be non-controversial); what do they win in exchange? Is it to do with having a larger driving area? My only experience is hearing some Quads long long ago, when I was hardly a critical listener.



I would suggest listening again as a critical listener. If your experience runs contrary to mine then you don't need an explination as to why. But if you get the same impression then I suppose the question is worth persuing. But we can only ask why the experience is what it is after the experience. I can offer some *speculation* in private if you like as to what the advantages are. But not here. It is speculation.

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #73 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: analog scott on
Sean just introduced his opinion of two channel stereo to the thread.


He introduced an argumentation, not an opinion. So a good way of following up would picking up the elements that you consider flawed. A bad way is calling the argument as a whole an opinion and posting yours beside.





" I personally can't stand listening to stereo loudspeaker recordings anymore except when I'm in another room preferably drinking a glass of Pinot."
Looks a whole lot like a comment that reflects a personal opinion to me. I don't see any "argumentation" present in that comment. Do you? Really? And, again, the *question* I asked in response is a fair one given the body of recorded music is mostly two channel recordings designed to be listened to with a stereo pair of loudspeakers. And.... it_was_a_question. There was no "argument" form me nor any assertion of an "alternative opinion."


I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7.Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo,)a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and  spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall.

Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings

Some New Evidence that Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound

Reply #74 –
Quote
" I personally can't stand listening to stereo loudspeaker recordings anymore except when I'm in another room preferably drinking a glass of Pinot."


Quote
Note that the text above does not seem to come Sean's OP in the matter.  It appears that Scott rooted about in the collected writings of Sean Olive until he could find something that he could take out of context and present as incriminating evidence.

It looks to be like this whole thread has veered solidly off-topic. Instead of being about the preferences of Gen Y listeners, it has turned into a rehash of the battle of 2-channel stereo versus surround sound.

I agree that the discussion on 2 channel versus multichannel is off topic and I am happy to abandon it.

I only brought it up because we seem to have people in this forum willing to sit in a tiny sweet spot while listening  to overpriced, directional speakers with terrible off-axis response that we are told are both highly room-dependent and loudspeaker/listener position dependent  -- all for the purpose of what?  To listen to  stereo, which  Bell Lab scientists said back in the early 1930s was completely inadequate to convey the realism of a live music performance to an audience. 

For me,  that is a terribly misguided use of effort and money because there too many inherent compromises in sound quality,  given what is possible today with music recording and reproduction science and technology.  We can do so much better, and we should.

As an industry we have failed to learn and acknowledge the Bell Lab science that is almost 80 years old! And we are now repeating ourselves by ignoring the loudspeaker science that has been known since the mid-1980s from Floyd Tooles' work at the National Research Council. 

That is the last word I will say about loudspeakers and stereo versus multichannel in this particular forum. Let's talk about my study and high school studentl preferences for lossless versus low quality lossy music formats.


Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings