You had me scratching my head until I realized my typo. He could not hear below 150Hz. Too many ones.
Well, that is three octaves better, but that's still a high cutoff, heh. That freq is still lower than the open 4th string on a guitar. He would only hear about half of what I say, lol. Well, maybe that's not a bad thing.
Another one of the things I remembered about well liked speakers is that they had an off axis response that was reasonably close to on axis. The thinking was that the reflected sound that did make it to the listener from the first reflection points was good enough to add positively to the whole experience.
I read that it was Toole who mentioned this. That by leaving the sidewalls untreated, with superb offaxis response, the perceived stereo width could be wider. However, I've been led to believe that with a mch setup, depending on sidewalls for perceived width is unnecessary. I have to admit that I've been led down many roads though.
Otherwise, having good offaxis response makes it better not only for multiple listeners, but even for a single listener who has a specific toe-in angle that might be desired for width, imaging, and so forth.
[*]Set the software's audio range to measure from 200 Hz and up. At one meter you are too close to accurately measure below that anyway. This called a "nearfield" measurement.
[*]The NRC of Canada does have a large (and expensive) anechoic room that allows them to accurately measure below 200 Hz. A poor man's substitute is to measure outdoors far away from other reflecting boundaries (such as a parking lot). Either way, the idea is to remove the room from the equation and make the signal time as long as possible to accurately measure the sound of the speakers without measuring a room's contribution.
[/LIST]
So, to sum all this up, the FR curves we've been talking about in this thread should be heard by any listener, in most any typical room. If a speaker has a poor nearfield FR response curve, room corrections will not fix it.
Thanks so much for your insight throughout this thread. I have a couple of quick questions. Did the 1 meter distance become a standard, because anechoic rooms are so expensive, and therefore a standard could be adopted even with small anechoic rooms? For if the NRC has a large room as you say, they could take measurements from further distances?
May I ask what the implications are to the FR at further distances in such a room? I assume that HF energy is reduced more so than the LF, and so that must be interpreted. But at least one has the LF to compare to, since 200hz is still higher than ideal, obviously.