Simply that you can use a loudspeaker with really deep bass in any room and cure with EQ any boomy bass.
My understanding was you can cut peaks with EQ but you can't fill in nulls.Simply that you can use a loudspeaker with really deep bass in any room and cure with EQ any boomy bass.
At a single listening position, that I'd agree with .Simply that you can use a loudspeaker with really deep bass in any room and cure with EQ any boomy bass.
You should read this bookYes entirely
Even DIRAC don’t make this claim. They claim that DSP can reduce room problems but the don’t claim that they can be eliminated; I wonder why?Yes entirely
Good point, I imagine if you measure the response at a null point it will think there's no problem whereas if you measure at the peak it will maximise the eq.At a single listening position, that I'd agree with [emoji4].
Indeed. Which is one reason that Dirac uses multiple measurements over a volume rather than a single measurement at the sweet spot.Good point, I imagine if you measure the response at a null point it will think there's no problem whereas if you measure at the peak it will maximise the eq.
Even when optimising for a single listening position it still makes sense to base EQ on some sort of average over a range of positions. Most listeners have two ears that are not at the same location for starters .Good point, I imagine if you measure the response at a null point it will think there's no problem whereas if you measure at the peak it will maximise the eq.
I don’t think there is any substitute for actually treating the room modes with bass traps.Whilst dirac/eq is an option I still feel it's a compromise over a suitably sized room for different types/sizes of speakers given their optimum design, purpose and maximising their potential.
Yes, I think that's part of it.I don’t think there is any substitute for actually treating the room modes with bass traps.
I agree that the large majority of audiophiles will buy speakers whose "presentation" they prefer.It’s like training people to identify added salt in meals and then asking them which meal has added salt; it’s obvious that a well trained person will spot what they were trained for. But we’re these people asked to identify which speakers they preferred? People buy based on their subjective tastes including people who subjectively prefer well measuring speakers.
I have a bunch of good ones but only fully read the first one:
A lot of those untrained people were not audiophiles. Is this the same study that found the students wanted more bass? Actually apart from bass the results were similar, the trained wanted less treble than the flat response and the untrained wanted more. It does not say how long they listened to the speakers for. If a short time then a more impact sound may have been preferred by many, if for longer than 30 minutes then a more flat sound may be preferred.I agree that the large majority of audiophiles will buy speakers whose "presentation" they prefer.
It is perhaps likely that trained listeners will prefer more accurate speakers, for the simple reason that they have learned to identify deviations from accurate and different types of distortion.
Everyone has their own preferences but I personally prefer my ‘not flat’ Quad 909/Harbeth P3ESR over my ‘completely flat’ active Neumann KH80s to listen to commercial music for pleasure any day. For mixing the Neumanns are better.I agree that the large majority of audiophiles will buy speakers whose "presentation" they prefer.
It is perhaps likely that trained listeners will prefer more accurate speakers, for the simple reason that they have learned to identify deviations from accurate and different types of distortion.
I was not just trying to be contrary but a consideration is also the type of music played. If it was a well recorded a string quartet or guitar and vocal then maybe I would listen on the Neumanns but even then would still much prefer the Harbeths. I know that you like to listen to the ambience of the concert hall in which case you would love my Neumanns over the Harbeths.I agree that the large majority of audiophiles will buy speakers whose "presentation" they prefer.
It is perhaps likely that trained listeners will prefer more accurate speakers, for the simple reason that they have learned to identify deviations from accurate and different types of distortion.
I linked the study in another thread, if you're interested. The differences are quite significant in my view:A lot of those untrained people were not audiophiles. Is this the same study that found the students wanted more bass? Actually apart from bass the results were similar, the trained wanted less treble than the flat response and the untrained wanted more. It does not say how long they listened to the speakers for. If a short time then a more impact sound may have been preferred by many, if for longer than 30 minutes then a more flat sound may be preferred.