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
It seems common sense to me that the driver which is utilized in an electrostatic would be superior to a dynamic (cone) speaker in every way.Only thing is, I'm told I would need a very good amp because ESL's present a very difficult load for an amp to drive. So my lowly receiver probably couldn't cut it. 
Post removed 
I believe I said that I HAVE heard electrostatic speakers.I do plan on hearing magnepan speakers if I can find a place where they have them. And the difficult load thing with ESL’s is established fact, not "made up because I read about it". And not "theory with no meaning" but precisely the opposite.

Having owned a speaker utilizing the EMIM/EMIT drivers Elizabeth likes (the Infinity RS-1b), Magneplanars (Tympani T-I, T-Id, and currently T-IVa), and ESL’s (currently original QUADS, aka 57’s), there is a contemporary loudspeaker I suggest auditioning that provides advantages of them all and then some---the Eminent Technology LFT-8b.

A better speaker over-all imo than the RS-1b (I sold my pair back to Brooks Berdan), low sensitivity/efficiency like Maggies but at the more tube-amp friendly nominal impedance of 8 ohms (the magnetic-planar m/t drivers themselves are 11 ohms, for those bi-amping. A pair of Atma-Sphere M60 amps would be great with them), fairly low bass response from the sealed 8" dynamic woofer, higher maximum SPL capability than many ESL’s (certainly the QUADS), very low coloration and high timbral accuracy, high transparency (distortion levels approaching that of ESL’s), easy to integrate into a room. All for $2499/pr, barely more than the Maggie MG1.7i, less than half the price of the MG3.7i. The best kept secret in hi-fi.

@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