markus
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2019
- Messages
- 710
- Likes
- 819
"Only"? I mean, that's the sole purpose of the damn thing. What you describe is a lack of scientific research in how we could relate metrics to perception. And I agree.Even though a Klippel is a very nice piece of equipment, it can only measure the speaker's performance. What do i mean by that? It measures how flat the frequency response is, we get a PIR, we get the DI, but what we don't get is what that does once we put it into our own homes.
Then there's the problem we have 2 ears we listen with, which means the left channel bleeds into our right ear and the right channel into our left ear.
While this may sound insignificant, it does cause dips and peaks in the frequency response we get at our listening position. Dips and peaks in a Stereo signal that fakes something (phantom center) that comes from right in front of us. If there was a sound source right in front of us, those dips and peaks wouldn't be there. A speaker that is uneven, right where those dips and peaks are, might actually sound quite convincing if those dips/peaks counter the cross talk effects somewhat, happening at the listener's ears. It might even be why some form of BBC dip still lives on while the actual reason for that dip was something different entirely (related to the speaker they were developing at the time). It has gained a new meaning for many and lived on as a tweak that can even have many meanings as to where that dip should be.
I know Floyd Toole mentioned that reflections will fill most of those (cross talk) dips quite well, but not without consequences. The timing of those reflections do matter, as it brings quite a different presentation if they are very early (<7ms) early (>7 ms <10) ms or late (> 10 ms or more). Most of the readers probably have not heard what those differences actually sound like. So how is one to know if they like a wide pattern or a more narrow pattern speaker. I guess (or hope) we can all agree that a smooth DI will help make a better speaker, but the pattern control needed is a lot more difficult without hearing the differences and knowing what it does in your room to/for your ears.
After following many discussions about this, where it is known that Toole advocates the beneficial nature of reflections while Dr. Earl Geddes tried to convince people we would have to avoid early reflections as much as possible, both of these theories might actually be (somewhat) right. Some consensus was found that those who like classical music tend to like a wide pattern more. Those who listen more to studio recordings like 'pop music' might prefer a more narrow pattern (or at least avoidance of early reflections (<10 ms).
Without knowing what one likes, the current reviews might not tell us enough. As it is the room's response to the chosen speaker within the room that determines a lot of how the sound and the presentation is going to be.
One cannot put a preference label on that as long as there's widely differing tastes and preferences out there. Aside from the previously discussed flaws in that system.
Just a few thoughts, after spending quite a long time trying to determine my own preferences.
(and finding ways to make use of the knowledge about cross talk and it's effects)
f.y.i. my preferences are avoiding/absorbing early reflections <15ms, while adding a Haas kicker at ~17ms.
Hope it fits within the discussion.
We still could answer a lot more useful questions with measurements alone:
- How flat is the response?
- How wide is the response?
- How does the "fingerprint" of the indirect sound look like?
- How much distortion does it produce with/without subwoofer?
- How loud does it go?
- How much "watts" does it need?
- "Something" that describes speaker-amp matching in a meaningful way
Could be a ranking system. Would help people in making more informed purchasing decisions. Would help us rise above those silly "my preference is better than your preference" debates.
Last edited: