That is a possibility. We also know there are people from both camps, that is, the love and hate B&W groups.
I have no opinion specifically towards B&W. I simply dislike
all speakers that don't have controlled directivity through the midrange. Objectively, they are low-fidelity devices, but that's less important than the fact that they simply all sound crappy once one is accustomed to higher-fidelity reproduction.
It's something I have
shown I can pick out in a blind comparison, too.
I am from the camp where people generally prefer pure direct, yet reference to live unprocessed, unamplifiered music.
Which only means you prefer extremely low fidelity reproduction in the modal region. See the in-room response graphs
in Part I here to see how some great speakers with flat and extended bass in anechoic/outdoor settings and some horrible speakers with badly-tuned bass alike simply
mangle that region in a real room.
The one that is preferred by more people does not necessarily mean it is of higher fidelity, but again it depends on how the tests were done.
I'm puzzled by the lack of analytical clarity in this comment.
"Fidelity" is determined, ultimately, by measured performance.
Can a "lower fidelity" system end up being subjectively preferred? Don't see why not.
It would be interesting to see the two PhDs in a debate . I intend to write Dr. Olive to find more about that test and hopefully he may respond.
One thing I think most people miss about the comparison is the Dr. Olive used
music. Audyssey's research has mostly been about
movie sound. Movie sound means spoken dialogue clarity first, every thing else second.
Perhaps one implication is that people who care about music reproduction and don't give a damn about movie sound (me, Prof. Rubinson, Dr. Rich, etc) will then have a different preference than people who focus more on movie sound than music reproduction.
I do feel Audyssey should have included the option to turn that dip off. If they are concerned about people messing with it they could make it default to "On".
I would have a high opinion of Audyssey if that option were included. (Actually I do have a high opinion of Audyssey; it's probably the third-best room correction system offered on an AVR in the past 5 years, after ARC and Trinnov.) It's certainly possible for Audyssey to delete-option the crappy speakers compensate notch: Audyssey Pro obviously domes, and my Alpine PXE-H650 car-fi Audyssey box has it as an option.
Please enlighten us.. In other words, prove it. All I see is "I know this" which means absolutely squat at this point.
YPAO is just a relatively crude parametric EQ. It also doesn't have many bands to work with in the modal region. I'm also not sure if it uses properly spatially-averaged sound power measurements, or if it relies on a single-point measurement; everyone serious about audio reproduction knows or should know that a single-point measurement in the statistical field (i.e. above 150-250Hz in a typical domestic living room) is not reliable. One needs a spatial average to see the true response.
Low fidelity because these speakers can generate a flat frequency response across most of the audio frequency except for the deep bass region; Flat frequency across the crucial midrange? Have good off axes dispersion?***
You're simply wrong on fact. A speaker with wide directivity shifts in the midrange (i.e. narrowing woofer, wide-open tweeter)
cannot have flat FR in the midrange, except along a very narrow coverage angle.
Yes, the direct field may in fact be flat, but the reverberent field is loaded with excess midrange energy. For people who listen in anechoic chambers, that's fine. For those of us who prefer to listen in domestic settings, it is not.
Let's look at the horizontal measurements overpriced and crappy-sounding example that's horribly expensive and uses the "best" drivers, the Magico V3.
Now let's look the same at a reasonably-priced high-technology speaker, the KEF Q900.
No, those aren't "perfect" speakers. There is a small ridge of energy. However, it's much higher up in frequency, and also much narrower, than found on lower-fidelity speakers like the Magicos.
Generally, people focus way too much on on-axis response, when it really tells us little about how a speaker will sound in a room. Midrange polars are in my experience the measurement that best correlate with actual sound in a room. Now, that's not to say someone can't prefer a spacer with a low-fidelity polar response. But that person will generally IME prefer
all speakers with that response over speakers that throw a different pattern.
I believe what I hear and don't jump on the personal bandwagon that others like to ride on just to be popular.
Yes you do. You follow conventional wisdom, even when it's demonstrably flawed, because you lack the basic courage to deviate from it.
