[TitaniumTroy]

Okay this study is not new, but I would like to hear from some of our gurus. As to why speaker C in one study a $3,800 Martin Logan speaker came in last, and a more expensive 11k ML or speaker M also did poorly. Is their testing of dipoles flawed, they did use just one speaker per evaluation at a time. Supposedly stereo speakers more easily mask flaws.

The few Martin Logan's I have heard I liked very much, mostly recently the Montis. So I am not trying to insult ML speakers, however I do own Magnepan 3.6's.They seem to be saying all dipole/planer type speakers will have problems with resonance's, depressed midrange, and lack of low bass. Though I cannot find any testing by them of Maggies, I wonder how a 3.7 or 2.7 would in their lab?

Hope some of the people on the board can explain the results, as Harmon is supposed to have the best and most extensive resources regarding speaker testing. Otherwise I like what they say, about listeners liking smooth, flat frequency response, good off axis response, wide tweeter dispersion, neutral sounding etc...

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/loudspeakers/66341-some-new-evidence-generation-y-may-prefer-accurate-sound-reproduction.html

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-3-relationship-between-loudspeaker.html

http://www.martinloganowners.com/forum/showthread.php?11073-Gen-Y-prefers-more-accurate-audio-but-does-not-like-ML/page2

Here is a you tube video of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56xPMqZmejU

[JRace]

From what I gather the issue is that the put each speaker in the exact same location. No allowances or consderation to the fact that each and every speaker has a sweet spot. Put a dipole too close, or too far from the walls and it will affect the sound.

As well I take issue with the mono test as that is hardly real-world.
Would you take a F1 machine and a Prius on a nascar oval and at the end proclaim
"well they both handled the corners well, but he Prisu was much more comfortable to ride in"

[Speedskater]

Harmon does some excellent tests including this test.  But in this case I think that they let the conditions & conclusions expand without limits.

If they limited to:

One type/style of speakers
Similar room shapes and acoustics
Number of speaker channels
Type of music

And most important:
Recording technique!
A stereo recording using spaced microphone in a concert hall, places very different demands on the loudspeakers compared to a multi-mono pan potted recording done in a studio.
 
Then the test would have been more meaningful.

[satie]

The test method is obscuring the performance of the speakers - as "positional bias" i.e. which speaker happens to be placed in its optimum spot vs. those that are not, has been addressed by placing all the speakers in the same spot. The Klipsch should be placed close to the front wall, the Vista pulled far into the room, Only the Infinity and the other speaker that I don't know appear to be designed to be placed in the test location. Doing a mono test is useless when a major audiophile concern is imaging.

The correct answer to the preference question is "I prefer not to be here" or "please turn that off".

The other issue is the elimination of "loudness bias" where you are setting up all the speakers to produce the same output level regardless of their design goals. The extremes of the klipsch and the ML. where one is a fff speaker and the other is a mf speaker.

The equalization against biases has rendered the test meaningless.

It is a significant invalidation of the tests that professional audio reviewers did worst in identifying speakers in this setup. Not surprisingly, when a speaker  is placed in what is pretty much a random location and played at inappropriate levels for the speaker it produces inconsistent cues which will throw off a careful listener (other than those trained to listen in this idiotic manner) looking to evaluate SQ aspects - not to prefer and not to distinguish. And one of the more significant SQ aspects is imaging.

BTW, no panel speaker will ever sound right in that setup. Besides which, the curtain looks like what I use to dampen high freq reflections from the wall.

The correct way to go is to let the test subjects pick the playback volumes musical material and the exposure times and have each set of speakers at optimized locations for them.

The English hi fi press have panel listening tests in blind conditions, but the test subjects - the equipment - is in a semi optimized position.

[Freo-1]

I hate to say this, but the testing results are in line with my experiences regarding speakers.  As a long time owner of very large Acoustast speakers, along with owning Magnepans, and experience with Martin Logan speakers, I agree with their conclusions.  Planar speakers DO tend to exhibit those qualities.  For example, the lower bass from the Maggie 1.7's is congested, and measurements confirm that. 
 
Having said that, the measurements do not necessarily correspond to one's listening enjoyment when using speakers in the real world environment.  Planar speakers obviously have strengths as well, and those strengths can be alluring indeed.  The Acoustats could sound almost "spooky" with some types of Jazz/Acoustic music types.  However, for music such as large scale orchestra, "fuggetaboutit"!  That requires the abilities of either a well balanced horn setup (which is VERY difficult to find), or superior dynamic speakers such as ATC with the super liner drivers. 
 
The one planar driver that outperforms everything are Stax headphones...  

[JRace]

Another thing that I forgot to mention, Panel speakers will sound different based on the angle and height relative to the listeners ears. If I sit 2 inches higher when listening to my ML Vistas the HF is rolled off. Did they make any adjustments for listener heights?

[satie]

I hate to say this, but the testing results are in line with my experiences regarding speakers.  As a long time owner of very large Acoustast speakers, along with owning Magnepans, and experience with Martin Logan speakers, I agree with their conclusions.  Planar speakers DO tend to exhibit those qualities.  For example, the lower bass from the Maggie 1.7's is congested, and measurements confirm that. 
 
Having said that, the measurements do not necessarily correspond to one's listening enjoyment when using speakers in the real world environment.  Planar speakers obviously have strengths as well, and those strengths can be alluring indeed.  The Acoustats could sound almost "spooky" with some types of Jazz/Acoustic music types.  However, for music such as large scale orchestra, "fuggetaboutit"!  That requires the abilities of either a well balanced horn setup (which is VERY difficult to find), or superior dynamic speakers such as ATC with the super liner drivers. 
 
The one planar driver that outperforms everything are Stax headphones...

While I agree about the accoustats and most other stats - probably all of them, the big maggies and apogees when driven with sufficient power and braced well can give you most of the dynamic impact you need so long as you don'g try to fill a large room with pipe organ music. Which is something most subwoofers can't do either. In my case, with the high sensitivity and high output Neo8 line array there is no lack of midrange energy down to 250hz. Though I am not yet at "planar with horn dynamics" goal, I am not that far. With a good pair of subs you can do very well with stock 20.x, and Tympani too.

One of the problems is that traditional planar placement limits their bass output. The other is the leaden sensitivity, which dictates a deliberately lean tonal balance (below 80-100hz) so as not to pose too heavy a burden on the power amp. Using my XO to change the tonal balance to mimic the Focal Utopia poses a terrific strain on the amp, particularly if the bass panels are not braced. I have clipped and had thermal shutdown of the 2.5 kw/ch bass amp on bass heavy loud passages when the balance is such. Bracing increases peak output capacity in the lower two octaves by 6-8db if not more.

[SteveFord]

Nice job with the speaker placement in that test...
You can't just plop them down anywhere and expect great results.
Didn't a Harman product win this shootout?
Nitwits.

[SteveFord]

Freo-1,
I figured out why my old Stax earspeakers sound so good: you take the room out of the equation.
Well, no kidding.
With the planar speakers you really have to spend a lot of time to get them to play right in the room. 
I need to spend some time with the 3.7s and get them positioned exactly right and then mark the floor with some tape so I don't accidentally slide them out of position (again).

[Hank]

With the planar speakers you really have to spend a lot of time to get them to play right in the room.

  No kidding.  I've had my newly acquired Acoustat Model 3's for 2 weeks and have yet to get decent soundstage width - very frustrating

[Freo-1]

  No kidding.  I've had my newly acquired Acoustat Model 3's for 2 weeks and have yet to get decent soundstage width - very frustrating

And THAT is the key reason why the listening tests came out the way they did.   I owned Acoustat Spectra 33 for twelve years, and I never could get the soundstage exactly right. 
 
For HT, planar speakers just don't work well.  You can get some great sound from planar/ESL types if set up correctly for stereo, but it's so much easier to use high quality dynamic speakers/subs for HT.
 
Stax headphones (to me) sound better than any speaker setup (yes, getting rid of the room is huge). 

[electricbear]

Another aspect that I believe they miss in the testing is synergy between amplification and speakers.

[*Scotty*]

I am not surprised at the results at all. The Martin Logan speaker was measured on multiple axes and no orientation of the speaker could produce a flat or flatter response curve, a by-product of this is that there won't be a sweet spot that has a flat response curve. If you compare the measurements of the MG 3.6R taken from Stereophile you will find that it has a much flatter response curve. http://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-magneplanar-mg36r-loudspeaker-measurements

I strongly suspect that the MG 3.6R would also be preferred over the ML although it might not make the top of the list.
The results are believable and consistent, even audiophiles are going to chose a loudspeaker with a flatter response curve some of the time.
 People will still like what they like but the take-away from this study is that a buyer should audition more than just one brand or loudspeaker design before their purchase. A lot of buyer remorse and selling the new speakers after only 6 months could be avoided.
Scotty