Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazb0t View Post
    Keep in mind that the preference rating is separate from the measurements/spinorama results and is based on the research and formula created by Sean Olive at Harman. It's clearly not perfect, but is useful as a guide and was peer reviewed and statistically validated to have a predictability rating of 0.86. Here is a link to how the rating is derived:
    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...8/#post-302047
    Yes, I am well aware of Olive's research with regard to the preference rating. I have worked with ex-Harman engineers who shared different opinions and I as well as many other engineers I know do not agree with this preference rating. In many ways, it is like trying to determine what food someone will like best over another based on the ingredients used.

    Harman's groundbreaking spinorama research was developed using listening tests back in the early 80's, where the majority of speakers available to the public measured quite poorly and many of the listeners were specifically trained what to listen for. Things are different these days - most quality speakers measure quite well, some exceptionally well and transducer technology, in general, has greatly improved since then.

    Amir assigned a listening preference rating to the 340SE center (placed vertically) being 6.6 and this speaker is not even designed for this type of placement. It actually "scored" higher than our Sierra-2. I can definitively tell you that does not correspond with listener preferences, not even close - and we have had significantly more listeners compare these two speakers (some blind, some sighted, in customer's homes - in our listening room etc) compared to the number of listeners that participated in those Harman listening tests back in the 80's, the data of which was used to develop that rating.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shazb0t View Post
    All the data taken so far is surmised in the speaker preference listing and the graphs are all made to the same scale.
    Clearly not the same scale:

    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...46191&slide=0/

    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...t52240&slide=0

    And when I click on the 340SE center on the link you provided, it shows the measurements of the Polk T15, not the 340SE center. That is highly unprofessional if you ask me, those are horrible measurements. I just hope there is no agenda here.

    Look, as I stated - I applaud what Amir is trying to do and while posting measurements is great, provided they are consistent from one to another as to how they were taken, following a speaker manufacturer's guidelines as to "preference" and sharing his own opinion (subjective) is not only wrong, but going to cause issues and very likely lead inexperienced consumers to make wrong choices.

    Amir should post measurements only - no opinions, no preference rating. If he did that, more speaker manufacturers might be willing to send him speakers rather than him getting used speakers loaned to him from various owners that could possibly have been abused, defective or even modified without Amir having any possible way of knowing. I know I would be more open to sending a speaker to him but not until that absurd preference rating is taken down and reviews & measurements are kept purely objective...

    As I clearly indicated, that preference rating does not correlate to real world listening these days. I have listened to the Pioneer BS-22 dozens of times, it was assigned a very high preference rating, I found the speaker unlistenable and have corresponded with countless consumers who felt the same....
    Last edited by davef; 03-01-2020 at 09:55 PM.
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    43

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazb0t View Post
    Keep in mind that the preference rating is separate from the measurements/spinorama results and is based on the research and formula created by Sean Olive at Harman. It's clearly not perfect, but is useful as a guide and was peer reviewed and statistically validated to have a predictability rating of 0.86. Here is a link to how the rating is derived:
    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...8/#post-302047
    When you say "validated," you mean self-validated by Harman, right?

    The problem with self-validation with a regression analysis model like this is that if there is a bias in the process, self-validation can perpetuate it. So when you say it's "useful," I have to wonder, objectively, how useful a model is until it has been independently replicated?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    Yes, I am well aware of Olive's research with regard to the preference rating. I have worked with ex-Harman engineers who shared different opinions and I as well as many other engineers I know do not agree with this preference rating. In many ways, it is like trying to determine what food someone will like best over another based on the ingredients used.

    Harman's groundbreaking spinorama research was developed using listening tests back in the early 80's, where the majority of speakers available to the public measured quite poorly and many of the listeners were specifically trained what to listen for. Things are different these days - most quality speakers measure quite well, some exceptionally well and transducer technology, in general, has greatly improved since then.

    Amir assigned a listening preference rating to the 340SE center (placed vertically) being 6.6 and this speaker is not even designed for this type of placement. It actually "scored" higher than our Sierra-2. I can definitively tell you that does not correspond with listener preferences, not even close - and we have had significantly more listeners compare these two speakers (some blind, some sighted, in customer's homes - in our listening room etc) compared to the number of listeners that participated in those Harman listening tests back in the 80's, the data of which was used to develop that rating.




    Clearly not the same scale:

    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...46191&slide=0/

    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...t52240&slide=0

    And when I click on the 340SE center on the link you provided, it shows the measurements of the Polk T15, not the 340SE center. That is highly unprofessional if you ask me, those are horrible measurements. I just hope there is no agenda here.

    Look, as I stated - I applaud what Amir is trying to do and while posting measurements is great, provided they are consistent from one to another as to how they were taken, following a speaker manufacturer's guidelines as to "preference" and sharing his own opinion (subjective) is not only wrong, but going to cause issues and very likely lead inexperienced consumers to make wrong choices.

    Amir should post measurements only - no opinions, no preference rating. If he did that, more speaker manufacturers might be willing to send him speakers rather than him getting used speakers loaned to him from various owners that could possibly have been abused, defective or even modified without Amir having any possible way of knowing. I know I would be more open to sending a speaker to him but not until that absurd preference rating is taken down and reviews & measurements are kept purely objective...

    As I clearly indicated, that preference rating does not correlate to real world listening these days. I have listened to the Pioneer BS-22 dozens of times, it was assigned a very high preference rating, I found the speaker unlistenable and have corresponded with countless consumers who felt the same....
    I'm not looking to die on the preference rating hill. I've made that clear over at ASR as well. I just thought in case you might have quickly parsed over the information you wouldn't have realized what they were attempting to do. As a Sierra RAAL Tower owner I wouldn't replace them with BS22's ��.

    I see the link error on the center results for the 340se from the Google docs link. I'm sure the link will be fixed. The spreadsheet isn't run by Amir so I doubt there is a nefarious motive there. I posted about the error to the guy who runs the spreadsheet. If you click on the name of the speaker in the main listing of the preference rating list you can view all of the data on the same scale. Here are direct links to Ascend's results:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...u1-BeZ/pubhtml

    *Edit* The link was fixed, here are the 340se center measurements:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...LucraM/pubhtml

    Quote Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post
    When you say "validated," you mean self-validated by Harman, right?

    The problem with self-validation with a regression analysis model like this is that if there is a bias in the process, self-validation can perpetuate it. So when you say it's "useful," I have to wonder, objectively, how useful a model is until it has been independently replicated?
    Again I was trying to give context. The rating doesn't take into account many important aspects of loudspeakers. The people calculating it have made that point clear. It is interesting to see how different speaker spins factor into the formula.
    Last edited by Shazb0t; 03-05-2020 at 01:47 PM. Reason: Update to correct link

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazb0t View Post
    I'm not looking to die on the preference rating hill. I've made that clear over at ASR as well. I just thought in case you might have quickly parsed over the information you wouldn't have realized what they were attempting to do. As a Sierra RAAL Tower owner I wouldn't replace them with BS22's ��.

    I see the link error on the center results for the 340se from the Google docs link. I'm sure the link will be fixed. The spreadsheet isn't run by Amir so I doubt there is a nefarious motive there. I posted about the error to the guy who runs the spreadsheet. If you click on the name of the speaker in the main listing of the preference rating list you can view all of the data on the same scale. Here are direct links to Ascend's results:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...u1-BeZ/pubhtml

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...ljAbs/pubhtml#


    Again I was trying to give context. The rating doesn't take into account many important aspects of loudspeakers. The people calculating it have made that point clear. It is interesting to see how different speaker spins factor into the formula.
    You seem to be one of the few sane voices posting on the ASR site relating to the two Ascend reviews. There is a whopping amount of obsession on the ASR site regarding speaker graphs. Glad I do not know how to read one. Below is the outcome of a review system many think is flawed. One user posted:

    "After which I just crossed out the Ascend brand. So much difference between official and independent measurements is unacceptable."

    The testing location for the speakers is the guy's garage. I haven't read anything which indicates acoustical improvements have been made. My first thought was that of an "influencer" on the internet posting what people need to do to take charge of their lives and become a success - all the while vlogging from his mom's basement. If I was testing speakers, I would not be doing it in a garage. There has to be universally accepted ways of testing speakers. I doubt a garage environment is on the list.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    43

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazb0t View Post
    Again I was trying to give context. The rating doesn't take into account many important aspects of loudspeakers. The people calculating it have made that point clear. It is interesting to see how different speaker spins factor into the formula.
    If it's not reliable, it's not very interesting. And in science, if a rating process like this has not been independently replicated, it's not assumed to be reliable.

    But let's assume that the .86 reliability rating is accurate, what does that even mean? If the BS22 results are not reliable, does this mean the preference could be grossly off? Or only mildly off? This matters to people if they are to invest in the speakers based upon the rating. And it would seem to do a disservice to the industry if good speakers are labeled as bad speakers because the preference rating is grossly off.

    Notably to Harman, this is not an important issue. Harman can use the preference rating to help evaluate a speaker initially during design, and then they can do double blind testing in their facility with a prototype to validate the results. ASR is not validating any of their results with double blind testing.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post
    If it's not reliable, it's not very interesting. And in science, if a rating process like this has not been independently replicated, it's not assumed to be reliable.

    But let's assume that the .86 reliability rating is accurate, what does that even mean? If the BS22 results are not reliable, does this mean the preference could be grossly off? Or only mildly off? This matters to people if they are to invest in the speakers based upon the rating. And it would seem to do a disservice to the industry if good speakers are labeled as bad speakers because the preference rating is grossly off.

    Notably to Harman, this is not an important issue. Harman can use the preference rating to help evaluate a speaker initially during design, and then they can do double blind testing in their facility with a prototype to validate the results. ASR is not validating any of their results with double blind testing.
    I understand your point, but nobody is claiming that the preference rating is a be all end all solution to choosing a loudspeaker. It is interesting because the formula was derived based on the Harmon spinorama research and was statistically shown to correlate to user preference at a 0.86 rating. We don't have a lot of measurements or formulas in the audio industry that correlate to user preferences. The more hard data and correlations that we can make the better off the consumer will be.

    What would be interesting to me, as a Sierra RAAL Tower owner, is a blind speaker test consisting of the BS22 and the Sierra 2 in a controlled environment with a large sample of listeners. Once at low volume where the BS22 is well behaved and once at high SPL where the BS22 cannot compete (this is not taken into account in the preference score). I wonder what the results would be? If we are to believe the Harman testing performed by Sean Olive, the BS22 might win the first and lose the second. I don't know what would happen, but I am not aware of any other group that has performed large scale controlled listening tests and published the results.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by ahender View Post
    The testing location for the speakers is the guy's garage. I haven't read anything which indicates acoustical improvements have been made. My first thought was that of an "influencer" on the internet posting what people need to do to take charge of their lives and become a success - all the while vlogging from his mom's basement. If I was testing speakers, I would not be doing it in a garage. There has to be universally accepted ways of testing speakers. I doubt a garage environment is on the list.
    The measurement rig is pretty sophisticated and negates the environmental influence of the garage. While it's still a fairly new installation and Amir/community have found some discrepancy with some of the measurements. The data Amir has collected closely correlates to other's spinorama measurements.

    This isn't a situation of a vlogger in their mother's basement.

    https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-s...d-scanner.html

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by SAFETYpin View Post
    The measurement rig is pretty sophisticated and negates the environmental influence of the garage. While it's still a fairly new installation and Amir/community have found some discrepancy with some of the measurements. The data Amir has collected closely correlates to other's spinorama measurements.

    This isn't a situation of a vlogger in their mother's basement.

    https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-s...d-scanner.html
    Yep. I've already received a tongue-lashing on the ASR site for that comment. A picture was posted of his review process.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    Yes, I am well aware of Olive's research with regard to the preference rating. I have worked with ex-Harman engineers who shared different opinions and I as well as many other engineers I know do not agree with this preference rating. In many ways, it is like trying to determine what food someone will like best over another based on the ingredients used.

    Harman's groundbreaking spinorama research was developed using listening tests back in the early 80's, where the majority of speakers available to the public measured quite poorly and many of the listeners were specifically trained what to listen for. Things are different these days - most quality speakers measure quite well, some exceptionally well and transducer technology, in general, has greatly improved since then.

    Amir assigned a listening preference rating to the 340SE center (placed vertically) being 6.6 and this speaker is not even designed for this type of placement. It actually "scored" higher than our Sierra-2. I can definitively tell you that does not correspond with listener preferences, not even close - and we have had significantly more listeners compare these two speakers (some blind, some sighted, in customer's homes - in our listening room etc) compared to the number of listeners that participated in those Harman listening tests back in the 80's, the data of which was used to develop that rating.




    Clearly not the same scale:

    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...46191&slide=0/

    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...t52240&slide=0

    And when I click on the 340SE center on the link you provided, it shows the measurements of the Polk T15, not the 340SE center. That is highly unprofessional if you ask me, those are horrible measurements. I just hope there is no agenda here.

    Look, as I stated - I applaud what Amir is trying to do and while posting measurements is great, provided they are consistent from one to another as to how they were taken, following a speaker manufacturer's guidelines as to "preference" and sharing his own opinion (subjective) is not only wrong, but going to cause issues and very likely lead inexperienced consumers to make wrong choices.

    Amir should post measurements only - no opinions, no preference rating. If he did that, more speaker manufacturers might be willing to send him speakers rather than him getting used speakers loaned to him from various owners that could possibly have been abused, defective or even modified without Amir having any possible way of knowing. I know I would be more open to sending a speaker to him but not until that absurd preference rating is taken down and reviews & measurements are kept purely objective...

    As I clearly indicated, that preference rating does not correlate to real world listening these days. I have listened to the Pioneer BS-22 dozens of times, it was assigned a very high preference rating, I found the speaker unlistenable and have corresponded with countless consumers who felt the same....
    Hi Dave!

    If you don´t follow up the thread at ASR, post #78 is directed for you:
    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-4#post-341657

    Would be nice if you could come chat on that thread, we have lot of Ascend speaker owners there and some negative owners from this site it seems, but i´m sure things will be kept civil. Let`s not make this some odd battle as there is no need for that. People will google products and ASR will come up with more and more products. We are spreading the word in every forums and sites for measured data as most manufacturers are hiding that. People would love to see manufacturer and ASR working together, not against!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by ahender View Post
    Yep. I've already received a tongue-lashing on the ASR site for that comment. A picture was posted of his review process.
    You're not doing the Ascend brand or it's owners a great service with the postings that you've been making over at ASR. I suggest that you let it go.
    Last edited by Shazb0t; 03-02-2020 at 02:44 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •