That's the nice thing about having so much control over your system. You can try things just to see, (or hear) and then put it back later. My experience is similar to yours. Bad directivity doesn't necessarily sound so bad, can be intriguing at times. Better directivity seems more versatile, best overall effect with the most recordings.
I like a bold midrange. That whole range between 100 and 1000, (or maybe I should extend that to 3500) needs to be adequately prominent, and I think it won't sound shouty if the bottom end of it is not under represented. It'll sound bold and rich, solid, full, but not necessarily the clearest and most detailed. If there's anything I percieve to be a common error with most systems I've set up and others I've heard in people's homes, trade shows, high end shops, etc., it's that they're too thin in that range to sound realistic. The thing is, it can quickly get murky and chesty too if there's a little too much, or the room is causing problems. I think a lot of people inadvertently or on purpose cut in the lower part of that range because of room issues, and that resulting thinness in tone has become a practical hallmark of the sound of stereo to me. And I'll have to say, if I can't get that fullness without it sounding murky and chesty, then I'll go with the thinness. It's a practical compromise. Actually, I will tolerate a small amount of murkiness. I'm really liking what my system is doing right now, and it's because I boosted the range between 200 and 800 Hz by a couple dB over what measured to be a fairly flat room curve with about 0.7 dB/ octave slope. It's hard to tell in that range because the room response is rough through there.
Exactly, that's why Toole also says that "correcting" a listening position response to such a predefined targets doesn't guarantee anything, as people prefer loudspeakers with flat direct sound and smooth directivity, the curves at the listening positions measured from such are results but not targets. That's why he also says that there is no such predefined "Toole target curve" and reacts allergic when people come up with such.
www.audiosciencereview.com
www.audiosciencereview.com
www.audiosciencereview.com
www.audiosciencereview.com
www.audiosciencereview.com
www.audiosciencereview.com
www.audiosciencereview.com
What I read him to say, and what I agree would be interesting to see, is the direct sound AFTER you made the room correction EQ. The direct sound dominates above the transition frequency, so it's interesting if altering it from flat ever consistently creates a preferred overall sound when the directivity is not smooth.
The direct sound or listening window (so for example a gated response or a nearfield MMM) of your loudspeakers after the correction with all those LP targets you used. If you have it already without EQ of course no additional measurements are necessary as you could convolve them with your used filters.
As written if you know or had measured the gated/anechoic response of your loudspeakers you can apply on it the filter functions that you generated to see how the direct sound of them after your EQ will look like.
I know, per Acourate measurements always do, but even for example with the typical values like 5-15 cycles they include a significant portion of reflected sound if they are taken at the LP and not close(r) to the loudspeakers.
Even with just 3 cycles the sound of a 50 Hz sinewave will travel already 20 m. So how do you exclude a reflected sound in a normal listening environment?
Exactly, that's why closer measurements with a gate before the first reflection are more useful for the region where we care more about the direct sound, that is above room transition frequency.
That can't be right.
I don't mind showing all the warts on my system for all to see and criticize.
Remember that none of this is anechoic.
