![]() ![]() The results are identical for headphones. In studies, when listeners are allowed to adjust the steady-state room curve themselves using bass and treble controls, the average result is a curve that falls off slightly at high frequencies - that's what I used in post#147 - that the four untrained listeners have set a "batman curve" ("loudness curve"), i don't find unusual, i think that's how we all started once In double-bind subjective preference ratings, the best rated speakers show a PIR that drops off slightly at high frequencies To answer your unasked question, all data points in the same direction. Crowe "sibelius clone" show very nicely - for comparison, the KEF LS50 Wireless II with the same scaling, frequency range and +-90° horizontally: Very briefly, if you believe that, then you don't even need to start building the Sibelius clone, because a full-range loudspeaker, despite being tuned with an on-axis FR that rises at high frequencies, usually has a PIR that falls off steep (more steep with increasing driver diameter) at high frequencies, because the directivity of the loudspeaker increases drastically at high frequencies.Īs the measurements of J. flat steady-state room curve in a normal listening room) might be preferred. I assume you doubt that an average listener prefers a steady-state room curve that slopes slightly at high frequencies and that, for example, a constant directivity loudspeaker with a flat PIR (i.e. It would be helpful if you could formulate a question or a point of view. ![]() Nevertheless, this evaluation is usually better than relying on individual subjective impressions (and definitely better than relying only on the on-axis measurement). This back-and-forth of mutual influence and trade-offs makes evaluating a LS based on measurements difficult and rarely allows for clear black-and-white assessments. However, since the on-axis FR usually has the highest SPL of all FRs, it has a large effect on tonality, depending on the room reflections. Of course, the fixation on the on-axis FR makes little sense when the speaker is listened to at 20°. Just because the on-axis FR is not as flat as possible does not mean it is a bad LS if the rest of the radiation is smooth. As already said, a dip is usually less serious than a hump. There is no sudden transition from a good to a bad loudspeaker, but transitions that can be identified and described (sometimes better, sometimes worse) by using the CTA-2034 standard (and other evaluation methods like hor and ver FR, normalized FR.).įor example, vertical errors in the radiation are usually not perceived as serious as in horizontal radiation. I think very few people here in the forum will call a LS "broken" just because it does not exactly match what Toole and Olive found - such polarization makes little sense. The behavior described above is perceived as "faithful reproduction of the original content" in listening tests and the best perceived speakers showed such behavior. PIR tries to predict the resulting steady-state room curve for a given loudspeaker in a typical listening room only by using anechoic measurements - which is brilliant! can sound too "bright" in poorly treated listening rooms"), on average across all listeners, a slightly decreasing steady-state room curve was preferred: The subjectively preferred steady-state room curves can be very different (that is why I said: ". But if the PIR curve drops a little less or more to high frequencies is not crucial, but that the the PIR curve is as smooth as possible and that usually a dip is less problematic than a hump. With such designed speakers a downward sloping PIR toward high frequencies is normal behavior. But the listening tests of Toole and Olive have shown statistically relevant that the following radiation behavior of LS is preferred: If you or I claim that it is "too bright", then this would be individually subjective impressions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |