@dukanvadet raised a very important point about these preference ratings in the original speaker announcement thread that hasn't been addressed so far:
To take this into account, I suggested having two separate scores for speakers - one that encompasses the full 20Hz to 20kHz, and another that has a greater lower-limit (the standard subwoofer crossover frequency of 80Hz seems like a good choice), so their performance in both 2.0 and 2.1 systems can be accurately judged.
As the other three variables in Sean Olive's algorithm ignore data below 100 Hz, this can easily be done by doing a second calculation of the preference rating with a slight modification only to the LFX (Low Frequency Extension) variable as follows:
1. If the -6 dB point in the Sound Power Curve relative to the mean Sound Power SPL of the speaker being measured is 80 Hz or below, then use a value of 1 Hz for the LFX calculation i.e. assume it's paired with an ideal subwoofer. So in this case LFX = log10(1) = 0, and no deduction to the score in the formula for the speaker's preference rating will be made for this lack of extension below 80 Hz, as a sub would handle these frequencies.
2. If the -6 dB point in the Sound Power Curve relative to the mean Sound Power SPL is above 80 Hz, then use this actual -6 dB point for the LFX calculation, in order to penalise speakers that would require the subwoofer crossover to be increased above 80 Hz, which may result in some bass from the sub being directional and so impact imaging.
Very few speakers, even full-range floor-standers, provide full extension down to 20 Hz. A separate subwoofer would be needed in most situations to produce true full-range extension, and so it would be these 2.1 systems that would likely score the highest in real listening tests. So I think this set-up needs to be fairly represented by these preference ratings, especially as @amirm has said he will also be measuring subwoofers in the future.
One problem is that I think [these preference ratings] would give an advantage to speakers that can be used fullrange. A smaller speaker that are meant or likely to be crossed over to subwoofer may get a bad score that would turn out really good once you use it with a sub?
To take this into account, I suggested having two separate scores for speakers - one that encompasses the full 20Hz to 20kHz, and another that has a greater lower-limit (the standard subwoofer crossover frequency of 80Hz seems like a good choice), so their performance in both 2.0 and 2.1 systems can be accurately judged.
As the other three variables in Sean Olive's algorithm ignore data below 100 Hz, this can easily be done by doing a second calculation of the preference rating with a slight modification only to the LFX (Low Frequency Extension) variable as follows:
1. If the -6 dB point in the Sound Power Curve relative to the mean Sound Power SPL of the speaker being measured is 80 Hz or below, then use a value of 1 Hz for the LFX calculation i.e. assume it's paired with an ideal subwoofer. So in this case LFX = log10(1) = 0, and no deduction to the score in the formula for the speaker's preference rating will be made for this lack of extension below 80 Hz, as a sub would handle these frequencies.
2. If the -6 dB point in the Sound Power Curve relative to the mean Sound Power SPL is above 80 Hz, then use this actual -6 dB point for the LFX calculation, in order to penalise speakers that would require the subwoofer crossover to be increased above 80 Hz, which may result in some bass from the sub being directional and so impact imaging.
Very few speakers, even full-range floor-standers, provide full extension down to 20 Hz. A separate subwoofer would be needed in most situations to produce true full-range extension, and so it would be these 2.1 systems that would likely score the highest in real listening tests. So I think this set-up needs to be fairly represented by these preference ratings, especially as @amirm has said he will also be measuring subwoofers in the future.
Last edited: