Frequency Response of Speakers

[MacManNM]

Do you think the ability of a speaker to produce a flat frequency response curve (measured) illustrates a speaker’s ability to reproduce music more accurately? IE, one that is flatter across the spectrum is going to sound better?

Edit:
Assume that distortion and phase measurements are of the same quality. This is meant to be

Speaker A(flat) VS Speaker B (not flat)

[mulester7]

Do you think the ability of a speaker to produce a flat frequency response curve (measured) illustrates a speaker’s ability to reproduce music more accurately? IE, one that is flatter across the spectrum is going to sound better?.....good topic, Mac, and ideally, I would say yes, flat is better, but I have heard the comment a few times that a perfectly flat +/- "0" db speaker is not only impossible to construct/tune, but would not have the sound quality we desire....what you think?......

[jcPanny]

On Axis, Off Axis, or both?

[MacManNM]

on axis measurement


Mule, I want to hear a few opinions then I'll post some findings and opinions of my own.

[mulester7]

on axis measurement


Mule, I want to hear a few opinions then I'll post some findings and opinions of my own......currently experiencing baited-breath in anticipation, Mac.......

[Francious70]

Frequency response dosen't mean jack if the distortion measurements are high. Also that speaker the plays perfectly flat will sound like poo once it's put in a room. You want a speaker who'se FR plays well with your room modes.

[MacManNM]

Frequency response dosen't mean jack if the distortion measurements are high. Also that speaker the plays perfectly flat will sound like poo once it's put in a room. You want a speaker who'se FR plays well with your room modes.

First off, if a speaker measures flat Im making the assumption that it is a good quality unit and the distortion is low. By your way of thinking you would have to test every speaker you were thinking in your room. That is not practical. Besides, most modes excited are from the bass notes, and we have subs running there.

[jaxvon]

Yes, a high quality speaker will have a flat response, but that is only one factor of many. Obviously distortion comes in, as do many other paramters, so ONLY frequency response is not indicative of a quality speaker. But in my book it is necessary for a speaker to be considered "high fidelity" in the most straightforward meaning.

[j_garcia]

Flat response does not guarantee it will sound good to everyone.

[MacManNM]

I edited my first post, i was trying to get the feel for a comparison flat unit VS one with say +-7db in response from 30Hz-20kHz

[Buckle-meister]

All things being equal, i.e. room acoustics and personal preferences etc dismissed as contributing factors, I don't see how anyone could argue that a flat speaker wouldn't reproduce sound more accurately than a non-flat speaker.

Regards

EDIT: This must be a trick question. If one speaker reproduces a full-range frequency sweep at the same SPL as the signal it was fed, and another reproduces it +-7dB, the conclusion is irrefutable.

That's why it must be a trick question!

What have you got up your sleeve MacManNM?!

[gene]

There is alot more to a speaker than a simple frequency response measurement.

Such as:
On/off Axis Polar Response
Frequency Response Uniformity at all power levels (ie. compression)
Distortion
performance variance between each speaker pair
transient response
impedance/phase to determine how it will work with various amplifiers, etc

we will be publishing a loudspeaker measurements document shortly that will detail this and also govern our objective portions of future loudspeaker reviews.

[miklorsmith]

Not to me. I find most speakers with "flat response" to sound boring. My Gallo Acoustics Ref. 3 speakers had reasonably flat frequency response but could not track dynamic swings well. I should say they did this like most (all) conventional multi-ways I've heard.

Then, I built some homemade Fostex BR boxes that had a response curve that would look like the Himilayas. They didn't do some music at all (rock), but with jazz and vocals they were utterly captivating. Fast as hell and the tiniest nuances lost on most speakers were utterly clear.

My current speakers (Zu Definitions) are very efficient, have no XO elements from 40 hz to 12 khz, and are hugely dynamic. And, they're reasonably flat in their response (subjective, not measured).

Both elements are important (as are many others). But, for me flat response isn't nearly as important as dynamic punch. Certainly no response graph can guarantee a good-sounding speaker.

[MacManNM]

There is alot more to a speaker than a simple frequency response measurement.

Such as:
On/off Axis Polar Response
Frequency Response Uniformity at all power levels (ie. compression)
Distortion
performance variance between each speaker pair
transient response
impedance/phase to determine how it will work with various amplifiers, etc

we will be publishing a loudspeaker measurements document shortly that will detail this and also govern our objective portions of future loudspeaker reviews.

Again, see the edit, assuming all other things being relatively equal, which is going to sound better?

[bpape]

As has been stated, flat frequency response is important - but not the only thing that matters in a speaker's ability to accurately reproduce music.

Distortion, xover phase issues, cabinet refraction, etc. also play a part.

Now, is a speaker that is +/-1 or 2db from 32Hz to 15kHz and down significantly outside those 'worse' than a speaker that is +/-3 from 20-20kHz? Maybe, maybe not. What are you listening to? How good is your hearing at the extremes? What is the room like?

[MacManNM]

Again all other things being equal speaker 1:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/frequency_on1530.gif


Or speaker 2:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/speaker2.gif

[jaxvon]

I'd say it would be totally dependent on my listening preferences then. If I were a recording engineer, I'd probably want Speaker 2, but for pleasure listening speaker 1 might just sound magical. Until I listened to them, there's no way for me to tell.

[Buckle-meister]

...which is going to sound better?

Not fair! :mad: You just can't go around asking such things MacManNM! ;) Clearly, what sounds good to one person sounds awful to another.

Is the question 'accuracy' (as I thought), or 'preference'?

Regards

[MacManNM]

Not fair! :mad: You just can't go around asking such things MacManNM! ;) Clearly, what sounds good to one person sounds awful to another.

Is the question 'accuracy' (as I thought), or 'preference'?

Regards

Id say accuracy

[buffethead1984]

Again all other things being equal speaker 1:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/frequency_on1530.gif


Or speaker 2:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/speaker2.gif


WOW speaker 1 looks like its not that good, no bass response, the 3db point is around 55 Hz, off axis response isn't going to be affected down there!:p

[j_garcia]

Flat frequency response does not necessarily correspond to perfect reproduction of the original signal. If you use the x-over design to attenuate the speaker's response to achieve a flat response, that means the signal has been modified. The sound produced is also colored by the overall speaker design - driver selection, materials, cabinet design and tuning, x-over design, etc...

Accuracy and personal preference are two very different things, and as I mentioned before, just because a speaker is accurate or flat, does not mean you will like the way it sounds.

I could use $20 worth of parts and potentially build a speaker that was nearly flat across it's range. Would that make it the best speaker in the world? Hardly. It is those variances in the speaker's characteristic sound that make you like or not like the way a particular speaker sounds.

[MacManNM]

Flat frequency response does not necessarily correspond to perfect reproduction of the original signal. If you use the x-over design to attenuate the speaker's response to achieve a flat response, that means the signal has been modified. The sound produced is also colored by the overall speaker design - driver selection, materials, cabinet design and tuning, x-over design, etc...

Accuracy and personal preference are two very different things, and as I mentioned before, just because a speaker is accurate or flat, does not mean you will like the way it sounds.


Whoah gear down there big shifter........

Assuming all other things equal, phase, distortion etc, there is no way what you say is true. If the speaker is flat throughout its intended usage range it is going to reproduce the signal EXACTLY as it was recorded.

[Shaft0rz]

This is the same debate that goes on for instrument amplifiers/cabs. I'm a bass player, and there are some highly regarded amps and cabinets that are anything but flat. Ampeg equipment sounds great, but it adds a great deal of coloration to the sound. Some people see that as "color" or "character" and they enjoy it. Other speakers, like the Acme Low B2 (http://www.acmebass.com/) are "hi-fi" sounding with a reasonably flat response from 41hz-22khz (and only -6db down to 31hz), are also highly regarded, even though they don't impart as much coloration. Some don't like them because they sound too "flat" for their ears.

While its not a direct comparison (you don't want your stereo speakers to add as much color as an instrument speaker), I think the lesson is the same. Coloration and a non-flat frequency response doesn't have to be a bad thing, it can be euphonic.

It may be cliche, but I think it all comes down to the ear listening.


PS- Also worth throwing into the mix (no pun intended) -- hyper-accurate studio monitors aren't always the best things to listen to music on. Perhaps it's a result of most recordings being over-mastered to compensate for most speakers.

[j_garcia]

If you are attenuating the response of the drivers to hit a flat response, then this would affect the resulting sound would it not? (I'm asking, not saying this is fact) And once again the sound will be altered by the driver's characteristics.

OK, speaking theoretically, if you had a speaker that had perfectly flat response, thus reproducing the signal 100% faithfully, would it sound exactly like original or would it still be colored by the speaker?

[ironlung]

Again all other things being equal speaker 1:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/frequency_on1530.gif


Or speaker 2:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/speaker2.gif


If all things are equal isn't speaker 1 adding things to the recording that are not there? If all is equal I'll take the flat response.

[j_garcia]

It's easy to say that looking at a graph, but listening to those two speakers is a different matter.

[MacManNM]

If you are attenuating the response of the drivers to hit a flat response, then this would affect the resulting sound would it not? (I'm asking, not saying this is fact) And once again the sound will be altered by the driver's characteristics.

OK, speaking theoretically, if you had a speaker that had perfectly flat response, thus reproducing the signal 100% faithfully, would it sound exactly like original or would it still be colored by the speaker?


It doesn't matter if you have to artificially attenuate the drivers, as long as it is linear. As far as the drivers characteristics, as long as you are applying some sort of linear equalization, they would idealy be transparent. So if indeed it was flat, there would be no coloration. Now to make this scale linear with power is not really that easy, then you really have to think about compression and driver characteristics. Idealy one would use a computer to actively correct for amplitude, phase, and frequency as you were listening.

[j_garcia]

Have you listened to speaker 1 and 2? Will there be an outcome to this thread? >waiting for bomb to drop< :)

[ironlung]

This is the same debate that goes on for instrument amplifiers/cabs. I'm a bass player, and there are some highly regarded amps and cabinets that are anything but flat. Ampeg equipment sounds great, but it adds a great deal of coloration to the sound. Some people see that as "color" or "character" and they enjoy it. Other speakers, like the Acme Low B2 (http://www.acmebass.com/) are "hi-fi" sounding with a reasonably flat response from 41hz-22khz (and only -6db down to 31hz), are also highly regarded, even though they don't impart as much coloration. Some don't like them because they sound too "flat" for their ears.

While its not a direct comparison (you don't want your stereo speakers to add as much color as an instrument speaker), I think the lesson is the same. Coloration and a non-flat frequency response doesn't have to be a bad thing, it can be euphonic.

It may be cliche, but I think it all comes down to the ear listening.


PS- Also worth throwing into the mix (no pun intended) -- hyper-accurate studio monitors aren't always the best things to listen to music on. Perhaps it's a result of most recordings being over-mastered to compensate for most speakers.


I would like speakers in my HT to exactly reproduce the coloration and character in the amp/cabinet combo you use on your bass to get as close to being at the show live in my HT. Wouldn't that need the flatest speaker response possible to reproduce the recording exactly?

[MacManNM]

Have you listened to speaker 1 and 2? Will there be an outcome to this thread? >waiting for bomb to drop< :)

I have listend to one of them and a friend listened to the others, really wierd, his comments were dead on with the FR of the speakers, he listened to #1, said that they lacked bass, were a little weak in the midbass, had good midrange and decent highs. The imaging was average. He said that they were nothing special. I listened to #2, thought they were pretty good, detail was really good as was imaging.

[MacManNM]

This is the same debate that goes on for instrument amplifiers/cabs. I'm a bass player, and there are some highly regarded amps and cabinets that are anything but flat. Ampeg equipment sounds great, but it adds a great deal of coloration to the sound. Some people see that as "color" or "character" and they enjoy it. Other speakers, like the Acme Low B2 (http://www.acmebass.com/) are "hi-fi" sounding with a reasonably flat response from 41hz-22khz (and only -6db down to 31hz), are also highly regarded, even though they don't impart as much coloration. Some don't like them because they sound too "flat" for their ears.

While its not a direct comparison (you don't want your stereo speakers to add as much color as an instrument speaker), I think the lesson is the same. Coloration and a non-flat frequency response doesn't have to be a bad thing, it can be euphonic.

It may be cliche, but I think it all comes down to the ear listening.


PS- Also worth throwing into the mix (no pun intended) -- hyper-accurate studio monitors aren't always the best things to listen to music on. Perhaps it's a result of most recordings being over-mastered to compensate for most speakers.

Yes but you are creating the music, not reproducing it. That application is totally preference driven.

[MDS]

So if indeed it was flat, there would be no coloration. Now to make this scale linear with power is not really that easy, then you really have to think about compression and driver characteristics. Idealy one would use a computer to actively correct for amplitude, phase, and frequency as you were listening.

I think that sums it up nicely. Given the choices presented I would choose the speaker with a flat response. It is accurate.

I don't understand the logic that says a flat response doesn't necessarily sound good and it's better to just listen and choose the speaker that sounds best to you in your room - that is choose the speaker that is inaccurate yet colors the sound in a way you find pleasing.

The flaw I see in that reasoning is that it puts the cart before the horse. The acoustical flaws of your room affects the sound so you want to choose a speaker whose own flaws counteract the room acoustics? Doesn't make sense to me. It seems it would be better to get the speaker that is the most accurate and address the external factors in other ways (eq, room treatments, etc). Otherwise, it's nothing but trial and error buying multiple speakers till you hear what you want. Make changes to the room and all bets are off and you are right back where you started.

[MacManNM]

I think that sums it up nicely. Given the choices presented I would choose the speaker with a flat response. It is accurate.

I don't understand the logic that says a flat response doesn't necessarily sound good and it's better to just listen and choose the speaker that sounds best to you in your room - that is choose the speaker that is inaccurate yet colors the sound in a way you find pleasing.

The flaw I see in that reasoning is that it puts the cart before the horse. The acoustical flaws of your room affects the sound so you want to choose a speaker whose own flaws counteract the room acoustics? Doesn't make sense to me. It seems it would be better to get the speaker that is the most accurate and address the external factors in other ways (eq, room treatments, etc). Otherwise, it's nothing but trial and error buying multiple speakers till you hear what you want. Make changes to the room and all bets are off and you are right back where you started.

Bravo! I agree. This is what McIntosh used to do (still might) and the results are exceptional. My grandfather has his 2ch system (86 yrs old still loves his music) it is all McIntosh and the guys came in in 1978 and set it all up using noise generators, spec anns and calibrated mics, it hasnt been touched in 27 years and still sounds absolutely wonderful.

[WmAx]

Not fair! :mad: You just can't go around asking such things MacManNM! ;) Clearly, what sounds good to one person sounds awful to another.

Is the question 'accuracy' (as I thought), or 'preference'?

Regards
Listern preference is demonstrated to be nearly always identical among different people, given a (1) controlled environment/setup (2) the same program material, and (3) non-impaired hearing. People will overwhelming choose the same sound as has been demonstrated in peer-reviewed, credited [1]scientific study.

-Chris

[1] Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences: Part 2
Floyd E. Toole
JAES, May, 1986, Vol. 34, pages 227-235

[WmAx]

If you are attenuating the response of the drivers to hit a flat response, then this would affect the resulting sound would it not? (I'm asking, not saying this is fact) And once again the sound will be altered by the driver's characteristics.

OK, speaking theoretically, if you had a speaker that had perfectly flat response, thus reproducing the signal 100% faithfully, would it sound exactly like original or would it still be colored by the speaker?

A transducer behaves/models almost perfectly as a minimum phase device. As such, the coloration(resonance) caused by a frequency response deviation is correctable by eliminating this deviation via a corrective filter circuit, for example. As Mac suggests, however, you must also account for driver physical performance[for example having to boost a band by a large degree may cause the speaker to operate at SPL levels where the motor can not remain linear due to the excursion/incursion and power levels required].

-Chris

[j_garcia]

If you want to know the funny part. My speakers have a response of +/-1.2dB across their range :D I didn't compare the response curves though, just listened to them. It just so happened that the ones I prefer were extremely flat.

Curve (http://www.gr-research.com/kits/av2fr.htm) (though it only shows fro 200Hz-20kHz).

[Shaft0rz]

Yes but you are creating the music, not reproducing it. That application is totally preference driven.

Good point -- the goals are different in each case. I'd argue though, that they're similar than you might think. Proponents of hi-fi, accurate, flat speaker cabinets believe that all the character and color in their sound should come from the instrument itself, not the speaker it's attached to. The same thinking holds for music -- if you believe that all your coloration and character should come from the music source (cd, vinyl, dvd), you want a flat response, and some people enjoy that sound.

If on the other hand you view your speakers as a part of the listening experience itself (or in the case of instruments, you consider it part of your "sound"), you don't want a flat response.

I tend to fall in the second half -- I like tubes, which color the sound, and I like speakers which impart some gentle coloration. I find listening to studio monitors to be a bland (albeit impressive from a technical standpoint) experience.

After re-reading this, I realize I suck at being clear in my posts :)

[mtrycrafts]

Do you think the ability of a speaker to produce a flat frequency response curve (measured) illustrates a speaker’s ability to reproduce music more accurately? IE, one that is flatter across the spectrum is going to sound better?

Edit:
Assume that distortion and phase measurements are of the same quality. This is meant to be

Speaker A(flat) VS Speaker B (not flat)


I believe what credible research is telling us:
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf

Yes, flat frequency response and off axis response must follow as well.
DBT listening tells us this is what is needed.

[mtrycrafts]

Frequency response dosen't mean jack if the distortion measurements are high. Also that speaker the plays perfectly flat will sound like poo once it's put in a room. You want a speaker who'se FR plays well with your room modes.

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf

[Sheep]

Mac,


This poll is almost useless. If the speaker is perfect in everyway, but one has a flat FR, and the other doesn't, what would I choose? I wonder what.


you have to have more variables in the question. For my personal opinion, No, flat FR isn't everything for me.

Sheep

[MacManNM]

Mac,


This poll is almost useless. If the speaker is perfect in everyway, but one has a flat FR, and the other doesn't, what would I choose? I wonder what.


you have to have more variables in the question. For my personal opinion, No, flat FR isn't everything for me.

Sheep


You know what they say: Opinions are like @#$%!^@#, everyones got one! The 2 graphs I posted are measured actual speakers, one is much flatter than the other.

[Francious70]

You forgot one thing about opinions/excuses: Everyone's got one, and they all STINK!!!

[Sheep]

You know what they say: Opinions are like @#$%!^@#, everyones got one! The 2 graphs I posted are measured actual speakers, one is much flatter than the other.

SO!!!!!!?!?! Bah!

One could be 6 times the price. One could be like 70dB efficiency. One could blah blah blah. Theres not enough information to base your poll on. THEN, when everyone answers, you attack them and say, they are the same speakers, and are perfect in everyway except Ones not flat, one is. DUH everyone would take the flat one. Thats why I said this poll is useless.

Usually people buy what they like, and the best they can get for the price. This poll belongs in some Snake oil filled forum.

Sheep

[mtrycrafts]

Flat response does not guarantee it will sound good to everyone.


You should talk to the experts who research this, what sounds good to most or the vast majority. You cannot please 'everyone' at all, silly question.

[mtrycrafts]

Again all other things being equal speaker 1:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/frequency_on1530.gif


Or speaker 2:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/johnmbod/speaker2.gif


Speaker 2 in a DBT any day of the week.

[Sheep]

Speaker 2 in a DBT any day of the week.

what about the weekend? :rolleyes:

[Waveform]

As mentioned before on this thread, I think by definition a flat response implies that the speaker faithfully reproduces the signal as fed to it. I don't see why that can be a bad thing, although I can see that certain colorations imparted to the sound may actually sound very good. Personally, I would rather my speaker did not impart colorations. This is why I would really like to hear these (http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cbm170/cbm170meas.html) and these and these (http://www.behringer.com/B2030P/index.cfm?lang=ENG). This was the design philosophy of Dunlavy speakers, (which were never in my price range:( ). However this discussion (http://stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.html) may be relevant (see especially, page 2). Another relevant factor is how much flatness digital correction (MCACC, YPAO, Audessey) can achieve, and whether such programs have become sophisticated enough to make corrections without introducing audible artefacts, as discussed here (http://www.regonaudio.com/Digital%20Correction%20for%20Audio%20Part%20III.ht ml).

[MacManNM]

SO!!!!!!?!?! Bah!

One could be 6 times the price. One could be like 70dB efficiency. One could blah blah blah. Theres not enough information to base your poll on. THEN, when everyone answers, you attack them and say, they are the same speakers, and are perfect in everyway except Ones not flat, one is. DUH everyone would take the flat one. Thats why I said this poll is useless.

Usually people buy what they like, and the best they can get for the price. This poll belongs in some Snake oil filled forum.

Sheep

I guess that would be everyone except the 8 that voted for the ones with the more variable response!

You know, the purpose of this forum is to be informative AND entertaining. If you think it is a useless thread then don't post in it. Loosen up, go have a shot of whiskey or something dude!

[mulester7]

You know, the purpose of this forum is to be informative AND entertaining.....Mac, you're sly....I believe with this thread you are trying to convey the conception that a speaker should be as flat as possible for balance, but each speaker manufacturer goes for a little + db at certain points for their speaker to hopefully stand out, and appeal to a certain grouping of listeners.....

[MDS]

Has anybody read the Floyd Toole paper at the link posted by Mtrycrafts? I would highly recommend it.

[mulester7]

Has anybody read the Floyd Toole paper at the link posted by Mtrycrafts? I would highly recommend it......Mtrycraft's link to Floyd Toole, again.....

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf

[MacManNM]

.....Mac, you're sly....I believe with this thread you are trying to convey the conception that a speaker should be as flat as possible for balance, but each speaker manufacturer goes for a little + db at certain points for their speaker to hopefully stand out, and appeal to a certain grouping of listeners.....

Give that man a cigar! I do believe this to be true.

[j_garcia]

Already sort of knew that was what you were getting at ;) It became painfully apparent to me with Paradigm when upgrade time and some disposable cash came around. After doing a lot of auditioning, I found that the Studio's highs actually seemed to be notched up a tad, making them sound the way they do. Some people like that, but I don't, so I removed them from my upgrade path. In the cars, I've always had soft dome tweeters, and I've always been fond of the way they sound, and that's what I was looking for when I started my search, but I ended up looking for the smoothest, most detailed midrange in the end, because those seemed to be the types of speakers that captured my attention most.

[mtrycrafts]

I guess that would be everyone except the 8 that voted for the ones with the more variable response!

You know, the purpose of this forum is to be informative AND entertaining. If you think it is a useless thread then don't post in it. Loosen up, go have a shot of whiskey or something dude!


I am sure bias had nothing to do with the statistics, 8 people?
Or, did you hide the speakers behind acoustic curtains and rotated the speakers to the exact same place?
Or, just a plain, sighted, biased appraisal?
Lots of reason why you got 8 people voting for one.

[mtrycrafts]

Has anybody read the Floyd Toole paper at the link posted by Mtrycrafts? I would highly recommend it.


What? Facts getting in the way of beliefs? LOL

He has a few others there as well.

[mulester7]

What? Facts getting in the way of beliefs? LOL

He has a few others there as well......and sound quality can be measured?.....

[MacManNM]

I am sure bias had nothing to do with the statistics, 8 people?
Or, did you hide the speakers behind acoustic curtains and rotated the speakers to the exact same place?
Or, just a plain, sighted, biased appraisal?
Lots of reason why you got 8 people voting for one.


Ok, you got me, I conned everyones votes. .............Sike, what do you think? like, I got those people to vote in my favor?

[mtrycrafts]

Ok, you got me, I conned everyones votes. .............Sike, what do you think? like, I got those people to vote in my favor?


Yes, I got you indeed as it seems from your lack of further explanation of the protocols, you had a biased, unreliable listening evaluation. You got unreliable results, period.
No, you don't have to con anyone, bias is there on its own and works just great on its own without your help.
But then, what would Toole know about conducting meaningful evaluations???

Next time, if you want better data, do a better protocol, involve DBt listening for a change.

[mtrycrafts]

what about the weekend? :rolleyes:


[b]Originally Posted by mtrycrafts
Speaker 2 in a DBT any day of the week.]/b]

Well, I don't know. Maybe the weekends are not any day of the week:p
Maybe that is when the alcohol takes over and blurs the vision?:D

[mtrycrafts]

As mentioned before on this thread, I think by definition a flat response implies that the speaker faithfully reproduces the signal as fed to it. I don't see why that can be a bad thing, although I can see that certain colorations imparted to the sound may actually sound very good. Personally, I would rather my speaker did not impart colorations. This is why I would really like to hear these (http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cbm170/cbm170meas.html) and these and these (http://www.behringer.com/B2030P/index.cfm?lang=ENG). This was the design philosophy of Dunlavy speakers, (which were never in my price range:( ). However this discussion (http://stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.html) may be relevant (see especially, page 2). Another relevant factor is how much flatness digital correction (MCACC, YPAO, Audessey) can achieve, and whether such programs have become sophisticated enough to make corrections without introducing audible artefacts, as discussed here (http://www.regonaudio.com/Digital%20Correction%20for%20Audio%20Part%20III.ht ml).

Thanks for that Dunlavy interview.

[mtrycrafts]

.....and sound quality can be measured?.....


Its in the specs. Been show to correlate very well.

[mulester7]

Its in the specs. Been show to correlate very well......weeeeell, "sound quality" IS, reflected and indicated by the specs, Mtrycrafts, sure, but thank goodness, "sound quality", is "experienced", by the hearing of.....

[mtrycrafts]

.....weeeeell, "sound quality" IS, reflected and indicated by the specs, Mtrycrafts, sure, but thank goodness, "sound quality", is "experienced", by the hearing of.....


You did ask about measurement of sound quality, no? My eyes have yet to enjoy acoustic music, speech, etc of any kind:D But, when looking for reproduction components, I start at the spec sheet, don't you?

[mulester7]

But, when looking for reproduction components, I start at the spec sheet, don't you?.....and yes, but specs are secondary and only an indicator, no?.....

[mtrycrafts]

.....and yes, but specs are secondary and only an indicator, no?.....


Well, eliminating components with poor specs to start with would be a primary indicator? Why even bother with poorly spec-ed components?

And, an indicator is a powerful tool in the selection process, right. Didn't say the only tool though.

Are you trying to stomp me? :D