- Thread Starter
- #181
Post Dr. Toole's days. I did ton of due diligence before buying this system, including checking with Dr. Toole. Please don't question me on what I know. I know what I know!Since when? Not in Toole's days!
Post Dr. Toole's days. I did ton of due diligence before buying this system, including checking with Dr. Toole. Please don't question me on what I know. I know what I know!Since when? Not in Toole's days!
Why would you listen to any speaker indoor since that massively changes the low frequency response? Which is detrimental to sound quality?Why would someone do listening comparison tests on a desk without EQ when it is known that the peak around 150 Hz is dentrimental for neutral tonality?
Current research doesn't back your point of view. As I mentioned read the AES paper, "The Correlation Between Distortion Audibility and Listener Preference in Headphones"I think you misunderstood my quote there, I said that tonality is the most important to preference when it comes to blind testing a la Harman, but when both "A" and "B" are there almost perfect than other important factors like IMD become the decisive factor.
And opposite of my experience. I suggest having a blind test done to make sure you can even hear that effect let alone have it be the worst offender. Room modes substantially destroy fidelity of music. No way this narrowband peak has the same effect. Floor reflections which is an analog of this has been shown to not be as relevant as one may think. See Dr. Toole and my response a bit later: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...y-without-measurement.7127/page-3#post-162809Bass modes are one thing, but at desktop placement the higher 150 Hz peak is the most serious tonal offender in my experience of such setups.
There is no issue in the larger context of how to optimize sound reproduction in a room. Speaker response is a key and super important factor. It is not however the only factor as the room obliterates the speaker frequency response below a few hundred hertz. Subs are a tool to solve that puzzle. Once you have an integrated picture and data for all of this, you can optimize to get fantastic sound. Sit there with no measurements of the speaker and you have no idea what is going on as a single microphone measurements product improper data above transition frequencies.And therein lies some of the issues with speaker measurements. Is it designed to be placed against a wall or on a desk or on stands? With a sub or without? Does it work better in this room or that? Near field, mid field, or far field? Perfectly flat or Harman flat? Can a DSP make up for all of its flaws? How loud can it go? How well will it integrate with a sub? So many things play into it all.
Yeah, but with this, the smoothness is drastically lower because it doesn't follow the target slope, it's almost flat for the in-room.
I'm trying to see if I can get smoothness to only look at smoothness regardless of slope, but I'm not having luck. Any alterations to target slope have no effect on the final score.
Yeah, any alteration to the target slope makes 0 difference in the final smoothness score (R2); so I’m not sure why it’s even relevant to the calculation, unless there is something I‘m missing, such as why the summation goes from 12kHz to 100Hz, when typical summation is done from min to max.Surely the fact that the smoothness variable SM (and so final score) doesn't change if the target slope is changed, tells us that following the target slope is not a factor influencing SM? Which is as it should be - SM quantifying only smoothness, and SL only slope. It seems like SL being used in the formula for SM just cancels out somewhere in the spreadsheet maths. But then it does seem odd that it's included in the SM formula in the first place. I think we need clarification from Sean Olive on this.
This is to be expected because these traditional methods of distortion are not psychoacoustically aware. This is why all of my electronics measurements include full spectrum of the distortion so that we can apply psychoacoustics to them.
It's too complex and system/listener dependant, and won't fit on a single graph. It's far easier to read Toole's book and learn to interpret the spinoramas.
Yeah, any alteration to the target slope makes 0 difference in the final smoothness score (R2); so I’m not sure why it’s even relevant to the calculation, unless there is something I‘m missing, such as why the summation goes from 12kHz to 100Hz, when typical summation is done from min to max.
I found a Reddit discussion of someone asking about the same thing (near 0 slope giving them worse results), and the comments just state that it’s irrelevant.
I won’t know until Amir measures more speakers, if we get one with a flat PIR but has little variation, then we’ll know that the 305’s score is correct and that R2 is just really aggressive.
It's too complex and system/listener dependant, and won't fit on a single graph. It's far easier to read Toole's book and learn to interpret the spinoramas.
Sorry. No easy way to knowledge.
Definitely not.No, nonlinear distortion is a completely different thing than Toole's work and spinoramas. I think you can catch up by reading some of the previous posts in this thread.
There is no correlation between nonlinear distortion and listener preference, or even listener ability to detect, in the literature Toole reviewed.
Sorry, I did miss that.You may have missed my link for Rnonlin: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/browse.cfm?elib=13013
This metric came after Toole's work and his conclusions. Most previous conclusions about nonlinear distortion were drawn based on THD and IMD which indeed correlate poorly with perception.
"A new method predicts the perceived quality of nonlinearly distorted signals based on the outputs of an array of gammatone filters in response to the original signal and the distorted signal. [...] gives a perceptually relevant measure of distortion called Rnonlin, which can be used to predict subjective ratings."
Dr. Toole's book very much post dates that paper.You may have missed my link for Rnonlin: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/browse.cfm?elib=13013
This metric came after Toole's work and his conclusions.
Dr. Toole's book very much post dates that paper.
I think this paper isn't relevant for full-range speakers, but only for small drivers which are expected to be (over)driven as part of their operation, as in cellphones and laptops and so on, the object being to overdrive them in a controlled manner which produces the least objectionable kind of distortion possible.
It's a start for sure.Thanks for the reading. I don't imagine they're perfect for our purposes either, but I would think it, or other recent metrics, has at least the potential to give us a better signal than THD/IMD. The research also tells us that freq response may not be the only relevant audible measurement.
And in context, this is only if we want to go further than frequency response, which I agree is a far bigger issue for most speakers.