p<0.0001 — if we are talking about the same .86 correlation, but that was on an unrelated topic? (Predicting preference from speaker measurements)
I don't think so, because listener preference is actually what I'm talking about. My point is that not all people prefer the same dispersion width. Therefore, it makes sense for there to be different dispersion width designs on the consumer market. Just because most people prefer pepperoni pizza, that doesn't mean that restaurants are "wrong" for offering cheese. There exists a number of people who prefer cheese, and it makes sense to offer solutions to those people.
BTW, I do agree with your "circle of confusion" reference to a great degree, and I do agree that dispersion width plays a role there. Do you think that all mixing and mastering speakers should have the same dispersion width? For example, far field main monitors (like 1236A) tend to target a narrower dispersion than near field monitors(like 8030c), though on axis is the same. Do you see that as a mistake?
“In summary, it is clear that the establishment of a subjective preference for the sound from a loudspeaker incorporates aspects of both sound quality and spatial quality, and there are situations when one may debate which is more important. The results discussed here all point in the same direction: that wide-dispersion loudspeakers, used in rooms that allow for early lateral reflections, are preferred by listeners especially, but not exclusively, for recreational listening. There appear to be no notable sacrifices in the “imaging” qualities of stereo reproduction.”
Not much wiggle room there. Wide dispersion is preferred, and imaging is not sacrificed. That’s the opposite of what some of the recent commentary in this thread has been pushing.
Are you claiming that Toole
has never said that dispersion width may be a matter of listener preference to some degree? That's the sense I get from your
"Not much wiggle room there" comment. If not, maybe you can clarify what you mean. I've read Toole's book, as well as many of his forum posts. My characterization of his opinion on dispersion width preference is more akin to a strong majority preference, not a universal preference. It's also not clear to me where that preference for wider dispersion stops. Revel doesn't make omni designs.
As far as imaging not being sacrificed, I agree that's true if you prefer a wider apparent source width(as Toole, Amir, and many others do). For those of us who prefer a narrower image, imaging is definitely sacrificed by increasing the dispersion width(and decreasing the ratio of direct to reflected sound). More sidewall reflections means a wider center image. My Revel speakers throw a wider center image than my Genelec speakers. Whether or not one sees that as a positive or negative will come down to listener preference, even if a majority prefers it one way over the other.
So far, everyone I've tested(blind) has slightly preferred the more narrow dispersion Genelec in my 20'x9' room (speakers on short wall). Though these people are completely unfamiliar with audiophile terms, it's clear that spatial effects play a big role in their overall preference. It helps that on axis is equalized(both are really good).
I actually don't disagree with this Toole quote at all. In fact, it's something I've brought up many times in the common wider vs narrower dispersion debates. Further, I even alluded to it in my previous post:
I realize that his personal preference also happens to align with what was most preferred in research
Though it's not reflected in the Olive preference score, Toole has said many times that most people seem to enjoy the spatial effects that wider dispersion speakers bring. The key word there is "most". I happen to enjoy some of those spatial qualities(wider soundstage, envelopment), but dislike others(wider and taller image).
While it's true that Toole has been clear that majority preference is for wider dispersion, - to my knowledge - Toole has never claimed that
100% of people prefer it.
My point here is that once on axis, smoothness, and (lack of)resonances are equalized, there exists a smaller minority of people who actually prefer a narrower dispersion(more off axis tilt) for stereo listening. Toole seems to agree with that to some extent. Do you disagree?
Individual anecdotal personal preferences don’t interest me, honestly.
Realize my point here is that there exists non-zero number of people who do in fact prefer a smaller image. An individual example should be sufficient. As long as there are consumers that want it, you can't blame manufacturers from making it.
Although “narrower ASW but wider soundstage” is probably not what you meant to write, since widening the soundstage, in stereo, is simply moving the speakers further apart, and if you want it wider than that, then adding ASW is the way to get it.
Cheers
I said what I meant, though I may be misusing terms(apparent source width vs image width). To be more clear, I want my center image to be as small(horizontally and vertically) as possible, but I want my soundstage to be as big(horizontally and vertically) as possible. Narrow dispersion speakers(like Danley) nail the former, but fail the latter. Wider dispersion speakers (like Revel) fail the former, but nail the latter. To date the best compromise I have found is to have something in between(Genelec 8351b), move them far apart, and upmix my music to Auro3D(or listen to multichannel music). That - to my ears - gives a good balance of image and soundstage.
.
