Correct me if I'm wrong, to me, I interpret the directivity as not that good and that it won't take well to EQ. I noticed that Kef speakers for example, tend to have smoother directivity that these. I know I'm not comparing apples to apples, I'm thinking of the context of EQ-ability.
Thing is, it depends. Toole, if my recollection doesn‘t trick me, always emphasizes, that the reverberant sound field in-room is secondary to the direct field. The latter comes first. The reverberant field will follow, depending on many factors that interact in complicated ways,
that are not yet ready for evaluation. The estimated, or predicted in-room response is calculated assuming a standard room regarding dimensions, size, frequency depending reflectivity, damping, listener distance, and what not.
To take a short-cut in taking the directivity chart once for all, comparing the lines for whatever feature is unscientific. There is not good reasoning behind such misinterpretation of data, it is just coarse at best.
O/k, REW makes it easy to „measure“ the grand total sound field, the steady state, all reverberation included, but, according to Toole, that‘s not what people, you also maybe, „hear“. REW is misleading, one might argue. Easy but wrong. Strong statement? Sure. Before you condemn my notice, please look-up the literature, and for starters the weighting of „estimated in-room reasponse“ in the Olive score.
On the other hand, the steep change in directivity at a somehow arbitrary freq/ won‘t be universally beneficial.
Ps, compare the REW measurement for different positions in the room. You will wonder, and stop taking the directivity charts too seriously.
