Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Speaker Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Errrr . . .

Posted by RGA (R) on February 3, 2007 at 08:44:43

In Reply to: Errrr . . . posted by Pat D on February 3, 2007 at 06:02:26:

"So you in fact basically agree with Dr. Floyd Toole, Paul Barton, Scott Bagby, Kevin Voecks, etc., because that is their goal, too."

No that is what they say their goal is -- the result is that they don't work in any room that I have used them in. I have heard the Voecks - NHT and Snell stuff and I am very familair with Canadian speakers. Sounding bad in every room but having the same badness in every room is not exactly something to be excited about. The Big mac is the same in Canada as it is in Korea but a good burger it ain't.

The bass peak was not the problem that I can see in the frequency response - like I said the speaker SOUNDS terrific so in fact there is NO PROBLEM in the frequency measurements. The so called "problems" you mention are only problems because measurement freaks have been programmed to think a set of issues are going to do them in. For example - if someone misread the graph and thought there would be a huge overblown bass would NEVER hear this in room because they simply don't and can't do it.

"but still, that huge bass peak in the quasi-anechoic measurements will not exist in typical rooms"

Well listening can tell you this. And again why are the confusing the issue with a measurement that will never be relevant -- why even show the speaker in isolation -- no speaker is developed for such a purpose?

"If one wants to know what the speaker itself does, then one must somehow remove extraneous influences. Rooms are different and so speakers measure differently in different rooms and so would not be any more valid in your room than anechoic measurements. Anechoic or pseudo anechoic measurements have the virtue of consistency and so one can interpret them with consistency and determine how they will react in typical rooms (and if you actually read his white papers, you would know Dr. Toole measures that, too)."

I did read his white papers and the ones directly talking about speakers are merely mediocre. And this is in the sense of what conclusions he is trying to draw not in the technicality of his set-up and conclusion.

The logic here is seductive but a an anechoic measurement is supposedly set-up to give the reader the measurement of speakers themselves without room interaction. As You stated. But THINK about that -- what is the desired goal -- to illustrate how the speaker will likely perform in a "typical room." Well gee using basic logic if you have one of these "typical rooms" then the measurement you get will ALSO be reasonable for other "typical rooms." This is especially true of speakers that are designed with room boundries in mind and not speakers trying to escape from room boundries.

I do understand that Anechoic measurements would be useful for clone speakers like the majority of east coast sound speakers glutting the market - the Paradigm Studio and the look-a-likes. Almost all of these are designed with the same goals and the same positioning requirements and often the same materials of constructions etc. So yes developing a standard for the majority is fine I get it -- but that standard goes out the window and bloody well ought to for panels, and corner loaded speakers like K-Horns, Alisons etc and big ass brute things like Avanteguards. These speakers should not be forced to the mold of the majority. Have a panel standard, have a corner loaded standard etc. Apples to apples for heaven sakes is not a lot to ask.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---