I never even hinted that Amir’s testing method was somehow flawed. I have absolutely no expertise in this field. I just thought that this quick experiment is interesting and when I moved my head back-and-forth I did hear a remarkable drop out in the center. I don’t exactly know what to make of it, but I would suggest that it makes for some interesting discussion for folks here.Please explain your reasoning. What makes you think that Amir's testing method is flawed? (he's using A Klippel NFS for speaker measurements)
And what does it have to do with the speaker measurement method?....and when I moved my head back-and-forth I did hear a remarkable drop out in the center.
It's a well known phenomenon. At the HF range where the cancellation occurs the precedence effect relies on the level and spectrum of the first arriving soundwave (the direct sound to each ear). The timbre ofI never even hinted that Amir’s testing method was somehow flawed. I have absolutely no expertise in this field. I just thought that this quick experiment is interesting and when I moved my head back-and-forth I did hear a remarkable drop out in the center. I don’t exactly know what to make of it, but I would suggest that it makes for some interesting discussion for folks here.
I am not quite sure at this point. But, there is also a subjective part of the testing, and perhaps Nearfield listening, might present a different result.And what does it have to do with the speaker measurement method?![]()
Amir measures and listens to one speaker, not in stereo. The problem arises in stereo, enhanced if you listen in near field or damp those important room reflections too much. That said, you can also design speakers that have small corrections on- and off-axis.I am not quite sure at this point. But, there is also a subjective part of the testing, and perhaps Nearfield listening, might present a different result.
Different rooms, different space treatments, different placement of speakers, different listeners' ears... everything affects the final sound.might present a different result
Sure, but how much and what's the most important? We don't want to needlessly worry anyone by overgeneralizing.Different rooms, different space treatments, different placement of speakers, different listeners' ears... everything affects the final sound.
Just a comment to the video. No way the mixer uses a standard peaking of 6 dB at 1.8 kHz due to near field mixing. This is also cancelation with is deeper than that at anechoic conditions.
Because it is not seen in spectra! And mixers also listen in headphones and in farfield.In a modern music production, every single sound object in the mix are normally sculptured with EQ until the mixing engineer is happy with the final result. If he hears an obvious problem in the mix and is using near-field monitors in a “dry” room where this problem is supposed to be heard even better than in other listening conditions, why on earth do you think the mixing engineer will let an obvious problem like that slip through to the finished product untouched?
But if he really did miss it, the “problem” can’t have been that obvious in the first place.![]()
Because it is not seen in spectra! And mixers also listen in headphones and in farfield.
Speaker fix will never be full compensation only fractions of it. Most important is that the speaker response does not add to the problem.Yes, and that's the reason why the fault will sometimes be addressed, and sometimes not.
And if someone tries to fix this in the speaker's response, it will be overdressed for many music mixes.
If you know that the main part of the music you are listening to is mixed with the use of headphones, you can probably make an EQ compensation for this that is always active. But you will probably never be sure that the mixer never used speakers at some point in production.