The Insanity of Marketing Disguised as Science in Loudspeakers

[filecat13]

If I understand this correctly, every speaker manufacturer should be able to determine in advance the placement, complete audio chain, room size, and listening distance (+ more?) in order for a DBT to be done properly. In my limited comprehension that seems to introduce so many variables as to make a DBT impossible. In fact I think this may be the best "shut up" argument against DBT diehards that I've ever read.

What would be the constant against which things could be compared? If everything is a variable, then no scientific comparison can be made.

I suppose one could take four speakers times four amps times four room sizes times four placements times four cables times four sources times four distances times four interconnects times four--whoah!, I think we're at 4,096 permutations and rising (my math's not that good) and have 50 people with nothing to do for a very long time listen to all the combos and score them (when not comatose), then average the scores to see which is the all-round champ. But who would do that? Who would frelling do that?

The next time some audio nut job espouses a DBT as the Golden Fleece of proof by insisting on everything being a constant with the exception of the speaker, or with the exception of the cable, or with the exception of any single thing, I'm going to whip out this string of posts and the link you provided and give 'em the STFU smack down.

It's gonna be sweet. No DBT for you!

[E-Stat]

If I understand this correctly, every speaker manufacturer should be able to determine in advance the placement, complete audio chain, room size, and listening distance (+ more?) in order for a DBT to be done properly.

"Should be able to determine in advance the placement"?

For every room? Surely you jest.

In my limited comprehension that seems to introduce so many variables as to make a DBT impossible.

What exactly is the goal of the DBT? If not comparing what one speaker can sound like vs. another, then what?

What would be the constant against which things could be compared? If everything is a variable, then no scientific comparison can be made.

Welcome to the real world of audio systems.

I suppose one could take four speakers times four amps times four room sizes times four placements times four cables times four sources times four distances times four interconnects times four--whoah!,

Why on earth would anyone do that? To what useful end?

[filecat13]

"Should be able to determine in advance the placement"?

For every room? Surely you jest.

I assumed that a manufacturer would be able to establish useful parameters for its products, since none that I know of actually go to every customer's home to "set it up right." But I see your point. In order to be fair, each manufacturer should be able to come onsite and set up its own product before it is tested to be sure that no tool available to the industry goes unused in determining the exact right set up.

Except those tools aren't generally known and/or available to the typical consumer who is ignorant of such things, so.. I guess the manufacturer would need to claim that the products will only work as tested under the exact same conditions in a user's home, otherwise, all bets are off. I guess that's fair: if it can't be set up as intended, then the manufacturer isn't really obligated to meet the user's needs. The user should understand he/she needs to meet the product's needs for best results.

What exactly is the goal of the DBT? If not comparing what one speaker can sound like vs. another, then what?

Umm, not sure anymore, since it also seems to be about how one speaker with a certain cable and a particular amp with a specific interconnect to a complementary source will sound when placed in an advantageous way. What exactly are we comparing again?

The typical consumer will put the speaker anywhere it fits with any speaker wire on hand to any amp and or receiver that's ready to accept the el cheapo RCA cables that came with the sub $300 player he/she picked up at the sales associate's recommendation. To this man or woman, the aforementioned DBT scenario has no relevance. "Why does this sound so bad?"

The answer is

If it can't be set up as intended, then the manufacturer isn't really obligated to meet the user's needs. The user should understand he/she needs to meet the product's needs for best results.

So maybe education rather than pointless, complex, angels dancing on a pin's head DBT minutia is the point? After all, I've never seen a DBT that even a plurality of audio enthusiasts agreed was above reproach. It's not going to happen.

Guys (and I imagine in my mind it is at least 99% guys, maybe 1% gals) who like to pull out the DBT card when they want to "school some fool" are ignorant of personal experience in such an endeavor or they'd name time and place and other participants for validation. If they've never participated, its highly unlikely they can conduct one, although I read a lot of "I conducted one by myself" as if anyone will believe that fantasy. But they blather on about the scientific approach and the true requirements for a pure DBT, all the while speed reading Wikipedia to get their facts straight. It's just a way to try to elevate their opinions or to negate the opinions of others. The guy who plays that card thinks it's the Crazy 8 of the deck. I simply think it's crazy. No one's done it; no one's ever going to do it. Stop talking about it.

There's enough good science out there to make any decent loudspeaker sound pretty good, and make any pretty good speaker sound amazing without having to prove anything with an unobtainable, pseudoscientific red herring like "Unless you prove to me with a DBT that your speakers sound better than before, it's all just...blah blah blah." (Filecat13 puts a gun to his temple.)

Welcome to the real world of audio systems.

Thanks for the belated welcome and for the wake up from my dream into the real world of audio systems.

Why on earth would anyone do that? To what useful end?

There would be no useful end. It seemed obvious to me; it was also obvious to you. It does not seem obvious to a lot of folks.

[E-Stat]

But I see your point. In order to be fair, each manufacturer should be able to come onsite and set up its own product before it is tested to be sure that no tool available to the industry goes unused in determining the exact right set up.

Doesn't have to be that complex. As I told Sean, placement of dipoles will be different than monopole boxes. One size does not fit all.

What exactly are we comparing again?

The potential sound quality of the speaker.

The typical consumer will put the speaker anywhere it fits with any speaker wire on hand to any amp and or receiver that's ready to accept the el cheapo RCA cables that came with the sub $300 player he/she picked up at the sales associate's recommendation.

The "typical consumer" doesn't purchase the $10k speakers that were included with Harman's test. Anyone who does spend that change doesn't just plop them down anywhere.

it was also obvious to you.

??

[Mash]

If you attend enough live recitals, there is a far better & easier method....

Buy what you like and then move on. There are many other things to do in one's life.

[filecat13]

Doesn't have to be that complex. As I told Sean, placement of dipoles will be different than monopole boxes. One size does not fit all.


The potential sound quality of the speaker.


The "typical consumer" doesn't purchase the $10k speakers that were included with Harman's test. Anyone who does spend that change doesn't just plop them down anywhere.


??

Yes, one size does not fit all. Does Harman test dipoles against monopoles?

---------------------------

How do we compare "the potential sound quality of the speaker?" Aren't the comparisons of actual sound under known conditions?

--------------------------

We must be looking at different things. Do you have a link? The group of four speakers I'm reading about cost $500, $600, $800, and $3,000 respectively. That would be double for a pair. To me that's typical consumer range, a range I'd think would extend to $4-6K each, at least here in La La Land.

I know a fair number of people with excess income who spend $15k or more for a pair of speakers based on a sales associate's skillful recommendations. Even with big money, these folks are typical consumers in my mind because they take them home and put them right where the old speakers were, connect them to the same old amp or receiver, and they're good to go. Sure the sales person will be following up to try to sell a new receiver or a pair of separates, despite formerly assuring the customer that "your current electronics are good enough; it's more important to spend more on getting the right speakers. They'll make everything better, including your old equipment."

I know a guy who bought some $12k speakers and spent another $5k to have a carpenter put them in custom enclosures with doors that would completely cover then so it looked like expensive built in cabinets. Unfortunately, even with the doors open, the rear-firing ports were essentially blocked (1" clearance), and the solid wood plane of the open door wreaked havoc with reflections. He thought it was A+ stuff all 'round.

--------------------------

[E-Stat]

Yes, one size does not fit all. Does Harman test dipoles against monopoles?

The answer would be yes. Which is why I linked the conversation with Sean Olive that I did.

How do we compare "the potential sound quality of the speaker?" Aren't the comparisons of actual sound under known conditions?

Well, known AND complementary to the specific design. Harman failed meeting that last piece.

We must be looking at different things. Do you have a link?

Sorry, the link I provided does contain the answer. Here's the quick link:

Mono and dipoles

This links to a relevant page where the specific document is found towards the bottom. Look for "downloaded for free" to find the comparison to which I refer. Dickie Bass Nut Greene never got that far.

I know a fair number of people with excess income who spend $15k or more for a pair of speakers based on a sales associate's skillful recommendations.

A "fair number of people"? Who are these utterly clueless folks? Exactly how many to which you refer? Sorry to hear that! I confess that I cannot relate to that stupidity at all.

[RGA]

Filecat

Unfortunately, (well fortunately for me) I am living and teaching in Hong Kong now so I can't do such a shootout.

The problem with all audio arguments on forums over loudspeakers or anything that is A VS B is that each side attempts to justify his/her preference using external pieces of information. I do it a lot as well because it is difficult to convince someone that speaker A sounds better than speaker B with words - the proof really only comes down to the listener and if they've not heard it then how do you convince them?

1) There are the measurements guys - "SHOW ME THE FREQUENCY PLOTS! Strangely some of these same people will own tube or SET amplifiers or be convinced by cable differences which are not shown to be better/different by those same measurements they hang onto for dear life when it comes to speakers.

The measurable difference between a top of the line Krell or a basic Rotel power amp is nominal at best but Krell is WAY WAY better.

But no subjective critique will convince them that a pair of speakers A is better than a pair of speakers B if one of the pair of B is measured and has flatter on and off axis response at one meter. It doesn't even matter if the reviewer who has reviewed and heard both and took the measurements prefers and/or buys speaker A - Speaker B is better regardless.

2) I am of this camp that says yes speaker B has flatter frequency response but A after numerous hours of listening to both sounds better. I refuse to discount 100% of the actual in room listening experience - the people from 1 want people from 2 to do exactly that. Discount what you hear and buy the graph regardless.

I have been involved in too many forum threads where someone will say RGA the speaker you like has lousy measurements. I say - yeah but the reviewer bought them and thinks they're one of the 2-3 speakers over the last 40 years he could live with comes from the magazine that does the measurements. That's gotta count for something no? It's not some 20 year old who has only heard iPod headphones and car speakers - it's not a guy who only listens to rock and pop. It's a guy who has heard every major speaker brand in existence, who is mainly a classical music listener.

And so being from the 2 camp where the speaker loses on measurement performance I go to the "consensus" argument model. I look at disproportionate numbers of "experts" and while reviewers are not necessarily experts on technology we can at least say they're audiophiles with a passion who take sound and reproduction seriously than the average. People, nevertheless make arguments that subjective opinion is completely worthless.

So you have grossly inadequate sets of measurements - we trust these measurements that were standardized by major corporations who "told us" that these were the best measurements "standards" (they were standards because their products did well on these measurements and the measurements they don't do well on no longer get tested). SS amps measured at near full power because they measured well there but STANK badly at very low level where SET kicks their butt. But to see SS they made full output the standard to "stack the deck" in SS's favor. I don't even care if one likes SS over SET but at least run a fair test. What are they afraid of? SETs cost much more money to build in general so maybe it's easier to write one page of a new "standard" than actually use high quality transformers.

Most of the folks in group 2 that I know - including me started out as a group 1 type. I used to make the argument that my Pioneer Elite receiver was great because it had .00025% THD all 5 discrete channels and 125 watts X 2 RMS blather blather.

I also made the argument that B&W was the best because they must be good - they sell more than any other "High End" speaker manufacturer. I shudder at myself!

So how can you convince group 1 that something from group 2 is better? Because I say so? Doesn't work. Okay so what I tend to do is use consensus - these reviewers from a wide sector of magazines and even "types of listeners" choose what I say is better. So it has to count for something right?

Reply - "they probably got a discount" - "Who cares about subjective opinion?"

Reviewers can get discounts on anything so that argument never flies. Subjective opinion is the actual listening which is all that matters.

Reply - they're biased.

3) Enter blind listening and my method above. I am somewhat biased because my speakers and the bigger brothers of my speakers and the original Snell models they were based on have won the blind tests they've been involved in. But it still doesn't mean much because it always depends on which speakers it was up against. The fourth place finisher in one group of 8 speakers might have finished first in the second test of 8 speakers. So in one test it is considered a loser but it may very well have won a shootout of different speakers.

This is why the listeners IMO need to be classically or Jazz trained musicians. Simply because audiophiles tend to hold the music and recordings to be the best. Since reviewers are deemed biased or corrupt or whatever other rubbish people believe about reviewers - the easy way to do this is to sidestep the issue and go to people who actually are experts in playing the instruments and therefore listening to them more than the average Joe.

What I want to do is to take what is deemed to be a speaker that is largely beyond reproach from a measurements perspective. One that is at least deemed to be "superior" or very close to being king of the accuracy department. (Focal/Revel/Paradigm/B&W)

Then I want to see how it does in actual real world level matched blind auditioned with classical/jazz musicians against stuff like the AN E which is deemed wrong on about 10 different parameters.

30 listeners should be enough. Surely a classical pianist listening to the Beethoven Moonlight Sonata can pick the best speaker reproducing it. If you can't reproduce the piano properly you can't do anything properly. It is the gold standard of musical instruments and covers most of the critical frequency range and most every other parameter. Transients, decay, tone, timbre, body, dynamics etc.

[RGA]

E-Stat

"Nuisance variables"

A nuissance to Harman maybe.


Filecat

Harman is a company selling loudspeakers - and like any corporation the sole goal is to make profit AT ANY COST. Be it health, environmental, or perverting science. Whatever is deemed necessary to make a buck.

All variables need to be addressed as best possible when competing manufacturers are being used in a blind test then one owes them and their employees' lively-hoods to not give them the shaft in a blind test. If the speaker is a panel and panels have certain positional requirements or amplifier requirements they need to be addressed. Some speakers are designed for certain amplifier attributes - so an appropriate amplifier needs to be used.

The problem of course then is that 2 speakers are now using 2 different amps so for a strict DBT you have a problem. But why does it need to be a strict DBT? - why not a preference based blind test? This is not the medical profession where the DBT originated - the ENTIRE point of the DBT is to find out people's preferences for A or B. It is not to determine if A sounds different than B. I'll let the cable guys argue that one forever as all the same points are always made.

The value of "blind" is to remove bias from the listeners. Hi-Fi Choice does a more credible job for "real world" preference. They remove sight bias, the levels are matched removing volume based bias.

The user doesn't know the price, the brand. They choose A, B or C as being the best and a bunch of experienced reviewers and manufacturers are the listeners who write notes as to which is the best out of the "group test."

It still doesn't mean all that much because some speakers cope with different room sizes better than others. The PMC TB1 sounded truly terrible in a fairly large room at Commercial Electronics in Vancouver. Next time I heard them in the small room and they sounded really very good. Nearfield small room turned an utter disaster into a good sounding result.

Some speakers are highly room friendly - they work well in large rooms 20 feet apart or small rooms 4 feet apart. Can be placed in corners or not - while some have to be in a corner or they'll be terrible.

It doesn't matter whether one likes a design or a particular speaker but if we are going to be fair with any such test it needs to be fair to ALL not just one design type. Panels get shafted in these tests - in many instances very large speakers get shafted.

I've been on about it for awhile and I would since I own Audio Note speakers which is a complete left turn to 99% of the "typical" boxed speaker designs on the market. Again regardless if one thinks they're complete BS marketing hype, distortion generators, goof-ball frequency response ringing monkey coffins is beside the point - having a standardized test is only "fair" if the speakers are standard. When they're not - a new test needs to be made.

Most speakers are free field designs designed from a text book of making them operate as well as possible in an anechoic chamber (essentially a room-less environment close to the equivalent of being played in the middle of a football field). The idea being that you know what the speaker is doing and not the speaker/room condition. Rightly or wrongly my speakers are designed to be operated not in the middle of a football field - they are designed to be at a certain height (absolute) and in a corner with a side wall and a back wall. They are designed for corner gain and they will see a variety of rooms the same way (mostly as nothing is ever absolute). Bell Labs and L.L. Beranek(every book on speaker design references LL Beranek) have the info on boxed acoustic design and corner loading propagation. The boxes are designed to resonate not store energy, and a few other things.

But the problem is that most standardized tests don't account for alternate designs - they always do poorly in the standardized test - the square peg trying to fit the round hole. But it doesn't mean the square peg is wrong for not doing what the round hole test demands.


I think things are simply made too difficult when simpler tests can be done.

If you want a test to see which design type works best then my solution a while back was to take out two identical rooms side by side. You put one stereo in one room and one stereo in the second room. So maybe I want to see what is better a B&W system or an Audio Note system. In room one I put in some B&W N801 loudspeakers (freestanding) with Classe amplifiers and CD players (since B&W owns Classe and most dealers carry the pair then it's pretty safe to assume this is an agreeable pairing). In room 2 Audio Note E in corners with one of their SET amps and CD players.

You make sure that a B&W and Audio Note representatives are agreeable to the room size, shape, and positioning that has been done and the equipment used and any and all room treatments used.

You have a black light that blocks out the stereo to the eye (no listener can see the stereo). Both rooms are level matched - both rooms have the identical CD playing - a selection of maybe 18 cuts ranging from Classical to jazz to rock to pop but all well recorded stuff. The CD's are played on repeat

You then bring in 30 classically or jazz trained musicians from the local university to be the listeners. Each listener is given a card. They listen to both rooms as many times as they want for as long as they wish.

They simply drop the card in the box sitting outside the room they liked best.

Add up the cards and see who wins. This is not terribly costly - it is blind, level matched and you'd probably only need to offer pizza and beer to the students at the after party.

The problem of course is it's time consuming and you can really only compare 2-3 systems in this manner. But at least you are hearing a system that is set-up to the designer intent. And IMO the results of such tests can then point back to what measurements matter. If the B&W won at 27-3 then you know the pair matching speakers is not as important as a dead cabinet heavily damped design. If the AN E won by a landslide then you can figure that pair matching might be important and there might be something to corner loading or a resonant box or that flat frequency response is second to timing or dynamics.

To me I want the ears leading the measurements not the measurements telling me what I think should sound good. I started out salivating over Bryston/PMC and B&W/Classe and Martin Logan/and I forget which amp. The measurements led my ears. I bought Arcam over Sugden based on review press at the time (and measurements).

Frankly if I had the time or inclination or money I would simply conduct my above test with the AN E/J with Meishu 300B 4.1 cd player versus a similarly price Revel/Mark Levinson flagship amp source. The guy who wrote the article doesn't need to book time in Harman's facility - all he needs is some trained classical musicians, two rooms and a black light and to level match. Easy.

With stuff that measures as appalling as Audio Note it should very easily be an agreed upon "wrong" approach. So if the AN gear shudder horror manages to win then you know it's all a bunch of bunk.

[filecat13]

Well-written and filled with sense.

If you're ever in the greater LA area, maybe we can try such an experiment. You're right, it's not a DBT, but I commend the thoughtfulness behind it.

I might even be able to supply a site at one of my facilities, and I'd be willing to truck one of my systems over for the comparo. If I can get another member of the LA Home Theater Group to do the same with something markedly different from any of my JBLs (say Ascends or Triads that are easy to move, probably not Martin Logans), we could at least evaluate the methodology.

And we'd have some fun, too.

You need to come up with a name for this, so we can stop using DBT. The "RGA Protocol" might work.

E-Stat

"Nuisance variables"

A nuissance to Harman maybe.


Filecat

Harman is a company selling loudspeakers - and like any corporation the sole goal is to make profit AT ANY COST. Be it health, environmental, or perverting science. Whatever is deemed necessary to make a buck.

All variables need to be addressed as best possible when competing manufacturers are being used in a blind test then one owes them and their employees' lively-hoods to not give them the shaft in a blind test. If the speaker is a panel and panels have certain positional requirements or amplifier requirements they need to be addressed. Some speakers are designed for certain amplifier attributes - so an appropriate amplifier needs to be used.

The problem of course then is that 2 speakers are now using 2 different amps so for a strict DBT you have a problem. But why does it need to be a strict DBT? - why not a preference based blind test? This is not the medical profession where the DBT originated - the ENTIRE point of the DBT is to find out people's preferences for A or B. It is not to determine if A sounds different than B. I'll let the cable guys argue that one forever as all the same points are always made.

The value of "blind" is to remove bias from the listeners. Hi-Fi Choice does a more credible job for "real world" preference. They remove sight bias, the levels are matched removing volume based bias.

The user doesn't know the price, the brand. They choose A, B or C as being the best and a bunch of experienced reviewers and manufacturers are the listeners who write notes as to which is the best out of the "group test."

It still doesn't mean all that much because some speakers cope with different room sizes better than others. The PMC TB1 sounded truly terrible in a fairly large room at Commercial Electronics in Vancouver. Next time I heard them in the small room and they sounded really very good. Nearfield small room turned an utter disaster into a good sounding result.

Some speakers are highly room friendly - they work well in large rooms 20 feet apart or small rooms 4 feet apart. Can be placed in corners or not - while some have to be in a corner or they'll be terrible.

It doesn't matter whether one likes a design or a particular speaker but if we are going to be fair with any such test it needs to be fair to ALL not just one design type. Panels get shafted in these tests - in many instances very large speakers get shafted.

I've been on about it for awhile and I would since I own Audio Note speakers which is a complete left turn to 99% of the "typical" boxed speaker designs on the market. Again regardless if one thinks they're complete BS marketing hype, distortion generators, goof-ball frequency response ringing monkey coffins is beside the point - having a standardized test is only "fair" if the speakers are standard. When they're not - a new test needs to be made.

Most speakers are free field designs designed from a text book of making them operate as well as possible in an anechoic chamber (essentially a room-less environment close to the equivalent of being played in the middle of a football field). The idea being that you know what the speaker is doing and not the speaker/room condition. Rightly or wrongly my speakers are designed to be operated not in the middle of a football field - they are designed to be at a certain height (absolute) and in a corner with a side wall and a back wall. They are designed for corner gain and they will see a variety of rooms the same way (mostly as nothing is ever absolute). Bell Labs and L.L. Beranek(every book on speaker design references LL Beranek) have the info on boxed acoustic design and corner loading propagation. The boxes are designed to resonate not store energy, and a few other things.

But the problem is that most standardized tests don't account for alternate designs - they always do poorly in the standardized test - the square peg trying to fit the round hole. But it doesn't mean the square peg is wrong for not doing what the round hole test demands.


I think things are simply made too difficult when simpler tests can be done.

If you want a test to see which design type works best then my solution a while back was to take out two identical rooms side by side. You put one stereo in one room and one stereo in the second room. So maybe I want to see what is better a B&W system or an Audio Note system. In room one I put in some B&W N801 loudspeakers (freestanding) with Classe amplifiers and CD players (since B&W owns Classe and most dealers carry the pair then it's pretty safe to assume this is an agreeable pairing). In room 2 Audio Note E in corners with one of their SET amps and CD players.

You make sure that a B&W and Audio Note representatives are agreeable to the room size, shape, and positioning that has been done and the equipment used and any and all room treatments used.

You have a black light that blocks out the stereo to the eye (no listener can see the stereo). Both rooms are level matched - both rooms have the identical CD playing - a selection of maybe 18 cuts ranging from Classical to jazz to rock to pop but all well recorded stuff. The CD's are played on repeat

You then bring in 30 classically or jazz trained musicians from the local university to be the listeners. Each listener is given a card. They listen to both rooms as many times as they want for as long as they wish.

They simply drop the card in the box sitting outside the room they liked best.

Add up the cards and see who wins. This is not terribly costly - it is blind, level matched and you'd probably only need to offer pizza and beer to the students at the after party.

The problem of course is it's time consuming and you can really only compare 2-3 systems in this manner. But at least you are hearing a system that is set-up to the designer intent. And IMO the results of such tests can then point back to what measurements matter. If the B&W won at 27-3 then you know the pair matching speakers is not as important as a dead cabinet heavily damped design. If the AN E won by a landslide then you can figure that pair matching might be important and there might be something to corner loading or a resonant box or that flat frequency response is second to timing or dynamics.

To me I want the ears leading the measurements not the measurements telling me what I think should sound good. I started out salivating over Bryston/PMC and B&W/Classe and Martin Logan/and I forget which amp. The measurements led my ears. I bought Arcam over Sugden based on review press at the time (and measurements).

Frankly if I had the time or inclination or money I would simply conduct my above test with the AN E/J with Meishu 300B 4.1 cd player versus a similarly price Revel/Mark Levinson flagship amp source. The guy who wrote the article doesn't need to book time in Harman's facility - all he needs is some trained classical musicians, two rooms and a black light and to level match. Easy.

With stuff that measures as appalling as Audio Note it should very easily be an agreed upon "wrong" approach. So if the AN gear shudder horror manages to win then you know it's all a bunch of bunk.

[filecat13]

BTW, I would never assign altruistic motives to any corporation, from Apple to GE to R. J. Reynolds. I would, however, assign integrity to some of the people working at these corporations, even in the.. ouch..dare I say it.. it really hurts...the marketing department. I have to believe there's at least one body with a soul in it even there.

I actually think Harman International has had some spectacularly bad leadership at the executive level, but I also see the diligence with which many others address their responsibilities.

From the time I bought my very first new pair of "real" speakers, JBL L100s in 1970, to the time I purchased the K2s, the designers, engineers, scientists, and technicians have been conscientious and accessible, helpful and encouraging, even when doing things for free and fixing problems that were mostly my fault.

Some I've met once or twice, others, I've met many times. As I wrote in my initial post in this thread, I cannot escape that bias, but I'm also not blind to it. On balance, the work Harman has done in research and development has been spot on every time I've taken the time to read and act on the findings of Welti, Toole, Timbers, Morro, Devantier, Eargle, Olive, and the rest.