Brilliant Art Dudley's article

[MDP]

So true. Harman is one of the few places where actual blind testing takes place after the participants have been sheep-dipped by Harman in what to listen for in their speakers vice everyone else's speakers.

Another great MEP perspective, in other words , he doesn't have a clue.

 

[puroagave]

Nope. Just read about it. I think you would have to be extremely naive to think that when Harman is 'training' their listeners that they aren't training people on what to listen for with regards to how Harman designs speakers vs. how other manufacturers are designing their speakers.

are you suggesting blind listening tests are useless the way harman does it? kevin voecks has been head of speaker engineering for Revel since day 1 and works closely with dr floyd toole, and has been since his days with Snell. they used the facilities at the NRC way before the competition were.

kevin is interviewed here, most of it is speaker design 101 but interesting nonetheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4lA0cO87OE

 

[rbbert]

Nope. Just read about it. I think you would have to be extremely naive to think that when Harman is 'training' their listeners that they aren't training people on what to listen for with regards to how Harman designs speakers vs. how other manufacturers are designing their speakers.

Mark I don't think you've thought this through. Harman is looking to design speakers that will sell; to that end their research is much more valuable to it if it doesn't involve any value judgements or prejudices on their part. Listeners just telling Harmon what it "wants to hear" doesn't sell any product.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

I

are you suggesting blind listening tests are useless the way harman does it? kevin voecks has been head of speaker engineering for Revel since day 1 and works closely with dr floyd toole, and has been since his days with Snell. they used the facilities at the NRC way before the competition were.

kevin is interviewed here, most of it is speaker design 101 but interesting nonetheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4lA0cO87OE

Yes have you actually read the testing methodology? 2% science, 98% ad copy. In fact, it's a joke.

 

[puroagave]

I

Yes have you actually read the testing methodology? 2% science, 98% ad copy. In fact, it's a joke.

whats the link to the paper you're referring to?

 

[Myles B. Astor]

whats the link to the paper you're referring to?

It was all posted and talked about on WBF. I don't remember the threads exactly but try Sean Olive's forum.

But seriously, no one has read how they [Harman] carry out their speaker tests or seen or even tried the downloadable software to carry out their testing but are criticizing Mark?

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Mark I don't think you've thought this through. Harman is looking to design speakers that will sell; to that end their research is much more valuable to it if it doesn't involve any value judgements or prejudices on their part. Listeners just telling Harmon what it "wants to hear" doesn't sell any product.

Except when they use their testing methodology to trash every other speaker but theirs. Again, their testing of the Martin Logan speaker is funnier than most of the skits on SNL for the last twenty years.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Another great MEP perspective, in other words , he doesn't have a clue.

So you've read how they do the testing Mark? Tell all of us how Harman does their training and what parameter their use to evaluate all the speakers in their test. While you're at it Mark, tell us how you scored on their downloadable training test. You do realize it's basically one parameter. And one of something else.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Nope. Just read about it. I think you would have to be extremely naive to think that when Harman is 'training' their listeners that they aren't training people on what to listen for with regards to how Harman designs speakers vs. how other manufacturers are designing their speakers.

Exactly.

 

[puroagave]

It was all posted and talked about on WBF. I don't remember the threads exactly but try Sean Olive's forum.

But seriously, no one has read how they [Harman] carry out their speaker tests or seen or even tried the downloadable software to carry out their testing but are criticizing Mark?

i'm not after Mark, to the contrary, if someone demonstrates superior knowledge on a subject i'm all ears. I didn't see Sean's thread on WBF i'm referring to the snippet i read here: Revel Salon loudspeaker A Visit, Continued 2 | Stereophile.com

I'm a fan of Kevin's work, if pseudo science is in their ad copy so be it, and if he works at a co. that once bashed Martin logan whats new? they all bash each other brazenly or subtle jabs here and there. ML's own promo videos will have you think all moving coil speakers are inherently defective.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Almost everything Harman applies to it's speaker design can be traced back to Toole/Olives work at the NRC before they got to Harman. Smooth on and off axis, free of resonances, especially low Q ones. That's why you see similar principles in most of the NRC offshoots like Paradigm, PSB and (now defunct) Mirage, Energy, etc.
But it's not just the NRC inspired manufacturers. Here is an example from Soundstage Networks NRC tests, for the Magico S5:

Clearly there are smaller manufacturers (myself included) that adhere to those principles....and listeners who like the results.
However, none of this is an indictment of blind/controlled testing, which are the defacto standard of science, whether it be audio/perceptual related science, or the statistics of particle physics.
Perhaps the biggest irony of the Dudley article, is that the founder of Stereophile, J Gordon Holt, had this to say about blind tests

As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing. Remember those loudspeaker shoot-outs we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least-favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it's (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio.

Obviously the direction of the magazine has changed since his departure, perhaps to better suit it's readers who seem to loath the defacto standard of perceptual science - blind tests. Which is fine, no one is forcing anyone to change their high end beliefs. No blind test police..yet.
But outside the high end and in the rest of the world, including as I noted, even selecting orchestra performers, blind tests are used. If you want to remove biases.
If not, enjoy anyway, it's all preferences.

cheers,

AJ

 

[MDP]

Great post AJ !

 

[AJ Soundfield]

It was all posted and talked about on WBF. I don't remember the threads exactly but try Sean Olive's forum.
But seriously, no one has read how they [Harman] carry out their speaker tests or seen or even tried the downloadable software to carry out their testing but are criticizing Mark?

I believe the founder of WBF Amir M, has personally participated in the Harman speaker tests and is a proponent of their methods.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Myles B. Astor]

i'm not after Mark, to the contrary, if someone demonstrates superior knowledge on a subject i'm all ears. I didn't see Sean's thread on WBF i'm referring to the snippet i read here: Revel Salon loudspeaker A Visit, Continued 2 | Stereophile.com

I'm a fan of Kevin's work, if pseudo science is in their ad copy so be it, and if he works at a co. that once bashed Martin logan whats new? they all bash each other brazenly or subtle jabs here and there. ML's own promo videos will have you think all moving coil speakers are inherently defective.

Rob, you weren't the one bashing Mark in the thread.

What we are talking about has nothing to do with Kevin's designs (he and I have been friends since his Snell days) but more to do with the arrogance of one company, the owners business plan and their true motivations.

And sorry but I do not agree with your statement about high-end companies commonly bashing
each other. Yes there are a handful of individuals but I've never heard 99% bash anyone. I've never heard ARC, cj, Magnepan, VPI, Lyra, Rockport, VTL, ML, D'Agostino, Spiral Groove, Rowland, Transparent Audio, Magico, etc, in 35 years ever knock a competitor. No, they are quite happy to let their products rest on their own laurels and let the chips rest where they may. And I do not consider saying that you believe your design is better is bad mouthing a competitor.

 

[mep]

I believe the founder of WBF Amir M, has personally participated in the Harman speaker tests and is a proponent of their methods.

cheers,

AJ

True, but my father-in-law drank instant coffee and swore it tasted just as good as coffee made from fresh ground high-quality beans.

I didn't anticipate some people getting so lathered up over Harman, but everybody needs to take a step back and breathe and relax a little. Harman designs their speakers to measure a certain way which they obviously think is superior to some other brands they want to use in their demos. Harman trains people on what to listen for and then conducts their tests with speakers behind the great Oz curtain moving into place via an automated platform if memory serves me correctly. After people have received the Harman training which helps people understand how Harman designs speakers and what the trainees need to listen for, Harman speakers always rank high in the blind test results. Does this really surprise anyone?? And now, people are taking pot shots at me for stating the obvious?

The ironic thing is that this thread was started to take pot shots at double blind testing and not by me. I earlier stated the obvious that the people who claim they love them some blind testing really never participate in it and don't make any of their purchasing decisions based on it. It's just a fact. That doesn't stop the proponents of double blind testing from beating everyone over the head with their cherished ideals even when they never practice what they preach. I also mentioned that the only real double blind testing in audio that I know about is conducted by Harman.

So, if you are a firm believer in double blind testing and you love how Harman conducts their speaker tests, shouldn't all of you own Harman speakers? You should all really leave your choice of speakers up to the trained listening experts and buy what they say is best because they figured that out for you using rigorous scientific methods. And if you do buy a Harman speaker and you decide you really don't like the way it sounds, you can take solace in the fact that you are not a Harman trained listener and you just don't know how to really listen and you should be enjoying the speaker.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

I believe the founder of WBF Amir M, has personally participated in the Harman speaker tests and is a proponent of their methods.

cheers,

AJ

Yes AJ I assume Amir brought Sean to WBF and he is also a Harman dealer. I don't remember if Amir directly or indirectly participated.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Almost everything Harman applies to it's speaker design can be traced back to Toole/Olives work at the NRC before they got to Harman. Smooth on and off axis, free of resonances, especially low Q ones. That's why you see similar principles in most of the NRC offshoots like Paradigm, PSB and (now defunct) Mirage, Energy, etc.
But it's not just the NRC inspired manufacturers. Here is an example from Soundstage Networks NRC tests, for the Magico S5:

Clearly there are smaller manufacturers (myself included) that adhere to those principles....and listeners who like the results.
However, none of this is an indictment of blind/controlled testing, which are the defacto standard of science, whether it be audio/perceptual related science, or the statistics of particle physics.
Perhaps the biggest irony of the Dudley article, is that the founder of Stereophile, J Gordon Holt, had this to say about blind tests

Obviously the direction of the magazine has changed since his departure, perhaps to better suit it's readers who seem to loath the defacto standard of perceptual science - blind tests. Which is fine, no one is forcing anyone to change their high end beliefs. No blind test police..yet.
But outside the high end and in the rest of the world, including as I noted, even selecting orchestra performers, blind tests are used. If you want to remove biases.
If not, enjoy anyway, it's all preferences.

cheers,

AJ

I would aver that Harman, like many companies back then, went to people doing basic research and told them to make money off their basic research. Yes basic research has changed since I began in 1976; otherwise, why do you think journals make authors sign releases about commercial interests before publication?

You can also read more about JGH's thoughts on the matter here:


http://www.herronaudio.com/images/Measurements.pdf

 

[rbbert]

mep Mark, can you explain to me how having listeners (in their listening tests) prefer Harmon designs either advances Harmon's research or leads to increased sales? Because I can see no advantage whatsoever to Harmon by just having a few listeners say they prefer Harmon designs to others.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

True, but my father-in-law drank instant coffee and swore it tasted just as good as coffee made from fresh ground high-quality beans.

I didn't anticipate some people getting so lathered up over Harman, but everybody needs to take a step back and breathe and relax a little. Harman designs their speakers to measure a certain way which they obviously think is superior to some other brands they want to use in their demos. Harman trains people on what to listen for and then conducts their tests with speakers behind the great Oz curtain moving into place via an automated platform if memory serves me correctly. After people have received the Harman training which helps people understand how Harman designs speakers and what the trainees need to listen for, Harman speakers always rank high in the blind test results. Does this really surprise anyone?? And now, people are taking pot shots at me for stating the obvious?

The ironic thing is that this thread was started to take pot shots at double blind testing and not by me. I earlier stated the obvious that the people who claim they love them some blind testing really never participate in it and don't make any of their purchasing decisions based on it. It's just a fact. That doesn't stop the proponents of double blind testing from beating everyone over the head with their cherished ideals even when they never practice what they preach. I also mentioned that the only real double blind testing in audio that I know about is conducted by Harman.

So, if you are a firm believer in double blind testing and you love how Harman conducts their speaker tests, shouldn't all of you own Harman speakers? You should all really leave your choice of speakers up to the trained listening experts and buy what they say is best because they figured that out for you using rigorous scientific methods. And if you do buy a Harman speaker and you decide you really don't like the way it sounds, you can take solace in the fact that you are not a Harman trained listener and you just don't know how to really listen and you should be enjoying the speaker.

Paragraph 2 essentially sums up Art's point and the subject of this thread.

 

[mep]

mep Mark, can you explain to me how having listeners (in their listening tests) prefer Harmon designs either advances Harmon's research or leads to increased sales? Because I can see no advantage whatsoever to Harmon by just having a few listeners say they prefer Harmon designs to others.

Isn't that a question that you really need to ask Harman? They obviously feel the testing is worthwhile or they wouldn't conduct it.