Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ General Asylum ] [ Return to Search Results ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

If I am building the fastest dragster in the world, I don't worry about how it corners

> > "Accurate" flat frequency response on-axis, no huge dips or flares in the off-axis> >

Interesting thing this flat frequency response. It doesn't lead to a flat frequency response in room from the listener position in stereo. The "room targets" from Toole/Olive studies are not flat. https://www.harman.com/documents/AudioScience_0.pdf page 13/14.

As for off axis response I think there is some circular reasoning here. It is certainly important in a room where early reflections are quite audible. Toole and Olive insist on this being the ideal room because of earlier studies thet cite showing that early reflections enhance the sense of spaciousness. So in effect it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. They do not ever test speakers that have issues off axis in rooms with room treatment that might be ideal for such designs. In effect they are judging a dragster as a poor race car because it doesn't corner well.

Further more, back in the 80s there wasn't much you could do to change the frequency response of a speaker without doing more harm than good. Now with DSP EQ you can take a speaker with otherwise low distortion and poor on axis frequency response and pretty much completely fix it.

What could have also been done all the way in the 80s to this date was fix some frequency response issues in speakers that did not fit the off axis frequency response bill with careful speaker/listener positioning and room treatments.

IMO this is one of the elephants in the room.

> > Conducting the listening tests in mono, with a single specimen of each speaker, was a wise decision as it allows the listener to focus exclusively on the tonal qualities of the speaker, not distracted by "imaging" or stereo effects.> >


In blind tests one need not be "distracted" by something like imaging. One can focus on each element of the sound quality indivdually. And Imaging, by Toole and Olive's own admission, is nearly half of what makes a speaker sound subjectively good. And I definitely dispute their assertion that mono testing universally transfers to stereo when it comes to imaging.They have not proven that at all. In fact their own data shows otherwise.

I would go so far as to say their interpretation of their own data in their mono vs stereo tests is skewed towards wanting mono to be a better test. I think their interpretation of that data is way off. Akin to a famous dad joke.


Scientist studying frog jumping. "Jump froggy jump!" frog with 4 legs jumps 4 feet. Cut of 1 leg frog jumps 3 feet.cut off 2 legs frog jumps 2 feet, cut off 3 legs frog jumps 1 foot. Cut off 4 legs. "Jump froggy jump" nothing happens. "JUMP FROGGY JUMP!!!!" nothing happens.Conclusion: frog with no legs is deaf.

I largely agree with everything else in your post.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]