+1Why are we feeding the troll?
+1Why are we feeding the troll?
There's no free lunch
I don't think that necessarily follows. More room sound might be the difference, but the chief difference in perceived tone could also be a different baffle step frequency or dispersion vs. frequency 'profile' (I would put money on that being the reason, myself). i.e. for example we don't know that a wider uniform dispersion would sound tonally different from a narrow uniform dispersion unless we compared speakers with uniform dispersion. And whether this would be different when listening to the speaker 'in person' compared to a recording of it.Therefore you can hear more room sound with the LS50's than the JBL's. It is readily apparent on the recordings as being the fundamental tonal difference between the speakers.
But you have to do so under controlled double-blind conditions and, even then, it will only tell you what you prefer, not anything objective.I would need to hear the results for myself.
which are constructed with the scandalous intent of engaging your emotions.Music can’t be used for measurements. Music is also just a bunch of tones.......
I didn't listen to the recordings, but I know that if I make a recording from audience position at a concert, on replay it sounds tonally different from how it did 'live' - not a controversial observation I think: it's the reason why recordings are often/usually made laboriously with close mic'ing not just a pair of mics at a distance.@Cosmik did you listen to the binaural recordings? The "room sound" difference can be heard in the 1 kHz to 3 kHz range... As seen elsewhere, there are off axis plots for the LS50 and I have the spinorama for the JBL's. The LS50's have a much wider high frequency dispersion than the narrow constant directivity JBL waveguide. The JBL waveguide has a 90 x 40 pattern and is XO'd at 630 Hz.
Our ears aren't located in a single point in space after all (horizontal dispersion matters here), and other parts of the head also affect how sound is percevied (HRTF) (both horizontal and vertical dispersion can affect this).
But you have to do so under controlled double-blind conditions and, even then, it will only tell you what you prefer, not anything objective.
The research does not say "exemplary polar response" leads to listener preference. It says that if you measure what radiates from the speaker all around in a sphere, then group those into direct, early and late responses, and then create a weighted composite scores of those three sets, then you have a great predictor of listener preference.Do your measurements show that these speakers have exemplary polar response and if not what makes them so good?
You might find this article by Kal in Stereophile of interest.Stereophile do good reviews of expensive speakers such as Magico.
Do your measurements show that these speakers have exemplary polar response and if not what makes them so good?
The research does not say "exemplary polar response" leads to listener preference. It says that if you measure what radiates from the speaker all around in a sphere, then group those into direct, early and late responses, and then create a weighted composite scores of those three sets, then you have a great predictor of listener preference.
Polar response is just a slice in frequency. By itself it is a clue but not a direct predictor. You need the full sphere with the above weighting.
Ok but the problem is it does not explain the quality of the stereo imaging, the timing, the dynamics, the transparency, the detail and insight into a recording and so on. It does not tell us anything about clarity.
First, a caution about your tone. You are discussing a topic which is the expertise for some of us. If you are claim to have higher authority than us, then let's see your qualifications. Otherwise, please stay away from "do you know" type of comments. Answer is yes, we know 1+1 is two.Ok but the problem is it does not explain the quality of the stereo imaging, the timing, the dynamics, the transparency, the detail and insight into a recording and so on. It does not tell us anything about clarity. Did you know that much of the rear soundwaves bounce around inside the box before coming straight back out? This will cancel some frequencies and add at others. You may get a flat response, but it's not pure sound you're getting.
Frequency response cannot be measured perfectly. The measurement would have to be better than what ours ears hear.
Very much this.If you have to concentrate that hard to hear the differences then the obvious point is the differences must be very small. This gets overlooked in a lot of more stringent ABX tests.
Once you've got to the differences are very small point then is the time to start thinking about what those differences might mean to you as a listener.
I like I reasonably low bass that doesn't roll away too quickly. This will influence my choice more than minimum distortion in the midrange driver for example.
Ok but the problem is it does not explain the quality of the stereo imaging, the timing, the dynamics, the transparency, the detail and insight into a recording and so on. It does not tell us anything about clarity. Did you know that much of the rear soundwaves bounce around inside the box before coming straight back out? This will cancel some frequencies and add at others. You may get a flat response, but it's not pure sound you're getting.
Frequency response cannot be measured perfectly. The measurement would have to be better than what ours ears hear.
I didn't listen to the recordings, but I know that if I make a recording from audience position at a concert, on replay it sounds tonally different from how it did 'live' - not a controversial observation I think: it's the reason why recordings are often/usually made laboriously with close mic'ing not just a pair of mics at a distance.
Even a binaural recording doesn't cut it, because it doesn't allow me to turn my head to provide all the information I need to 'hear through the room'.
So if I hear a difference in the recordings of the speakers
(a) I don't know that I would have heard that difference if I was in the same room as the speakers
(b) I don't know that the difference is due to "more" room sound, or just "different" room sound.
If polar response was what makes speakers sound different, they would all sound identical if we put them outdoors then equalised the response on axis. I suspect this wouldn't be true so I believe that polar response is unfortunately not relevant