Talk but not walk?


Hi Guys

This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?

I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?

You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?

I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?

thanks, be polite

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net


michaelgreenaudio

Showing 3 responses by sbank

@hombre If you are interested in considering planars, I'd encourage you to expand your shopping list a bit and add Sound Lab, Sanders and Analysis Audio for audition. 
I am biased as a Sound Lab owner, but after having owned Quads and spent much time with many Maggies and listened a few times to the others, I think it would be worth your while. 
FWIW, I agree that in general you do need a pretty beefy amp with most of these guys. I am a bit surprised by @elizabeth 's comment that her 20.7s are easy to drive. Maybe they have been improved in this regard, but the 20.5 and 20.1s I'm more familiar with both benefit from plenty of power and current, and relatively suffer without them. I know Sound Lab has also gone to great lengths to make their newer models easier to drive than my vintage thirsty, hungry A3s. If budget is an issue, Sanders makes the Magnetech amps designed specifically for electrostatics, and they provide pretty great value/$ in that regard. Cheers,
Spencer
@hombre Yes, same Roger Sanders. 
Sound Labs, which are full ESLs (most models)' are also led by a Roger, Dr. Roger West. He's brilliant imho. Read his suggestions about how set up & room treatment should be approached when using his (and perhaps others) ESLS. Cheers,
Spencer 
@kosst_amojan Your last post says more about you than the person you are aiming your flamethrower at, in this case MG. His questions get right to the heart of the matter at hand, and you failed to answer. To generalize about the sound of all planars is pretty worthless. To say you don't like them and mention that you almost bought a pair is pretty worthless. 

To say, "They don't sound realistic and they have serious dispersion and room interaction issues." is worse than worthless, it's just plain wrong and does a disservice to the OP. My Sound Labs sound more realistic to me than dozens of other speakers I've owned(e.g. Nolas, Silverlines, Vandersteens, Thiels, Von Schweikerts, Avalons, Quads, Alons, Merlins to name a few) and hundreds more I've demoed.

When it comes to serious room dispersion and interaction issues, that varies widely by brand/model. Sure some are "head in a vice", like the old InnerSounds. But the Sound Labs have some of the best measured in room off-axis response you will find. Just a few days ago, a friend who does room acoustical analysis and treatment professionally was here measuring performance of the Sound Labs with his testing gear. He measured on and off-axis at 15, 30 & 45 degrees at 3ft, 5ft and listening position(12ft.) using his omni-mic and pc software. He told me that the off axis performance in room was better than most dynamic speakers and far superior to a pair of planar Apogee Stages + sub that he recently measured. Granted, this is in a treated room with a combo of bass traps, absorptive panels and diffusion set up in Live End/Dead End fashion as recommended by Dr. West at Sound Lab. Some of the results are attributable to the benefit of working on the room, but much of it is because Sound Labs and many other dipoles are less affected by side wall, floor and ceiling reflections than most other speakers. Granted, impact of the wall behind the speakers is great and the wall behind the listener does somewhat come into play. So you've got to attack the wall behind the planars with great amounts of absorption and ideally a bit of diffusion. That's a bit of my experience measuring and listening to planars. 
So instead of throwing shade at everyone, why don't you share what you've measured, what you actually listened to and what you learned from putting 2 + 2 together? That might actually help someone, including the OP. What I anticipate is a snarky reply belittling me or pretty much everyone. Please prove that assumption wrong. Cheers,
Spencer