First, Danny, cute little juvenile move in choosing the subject name. Speaks appropriately to your character. (And does not speak in the least to my actual words.)
Ya ya ya.. doing a double blind study of wire and xo parts has been done.. I did it. I had 90 students take the test, with myself not knowing which was which, information held by another. Of the 90 students age from 14-24, 85 of them picked the speaker xo with the higher quality wire and parts. Now, this being double blind, there is no mix of self bias or instructor interaction on any part. Its almost as if in many cases, high quality parts do make a sonic difference, and students are hearing a JND at least 50 percent of the time-actually 85/90.***
I would like to know more about the study.
How closely were the transfer functions of the two circuits matched?
Where is it published?
I have also completed a double blind of another speaker modifier her in AC. The results are also posted. This had to do with driver coatings...
Driver coatings should, if nothing else, lower the efficiency of the driver due to added mass, which is often perceived as deeper bass even though it's not the bass that has changed but rather the midband efficiency. Coatings may also fix various resonance/break-up issues. If people can hear those things (even with levels matched and EQ used on the worse-measuring part) that wouldn't be a huge surprise. If people can hear them without the proper controls (see supra), then...I hope you didn't spend too much time on the experiment.
You can design a system around the limitations of the room, but the room will still severely limit performance to the point to where some of us would feel as if there was no real performance at all.
Danny, you designed the Usher Tiny Dancer, right?
You see, insinuating that a higher quality wire is a con is what keeps you from having any credibility here.
If sonic claims are made about wire, the claimant is hearing something that just isn't there. (And if s/he's trying to sell wire based on those claims, s/he is a scammer.)
If you want to talk about looks or something like that, that is a separate issue. As I wrote, for those few feet of wire in my room that are visible (wires are certainly better hidden than seen!) I do dress them to look nice with techflex. Though anything of my design will use the superior Speakon rather than a lesser monopole speaker connector such as a banana, spade, or your silly little contraption. (The Speakon is sonically identical, but functionally superior because they're insulated, positively locking, quick disconnect, and multipolar so they can't be connected in the wrong polarity.)
I am also a fan of multiple subs. It will even out the room loading, but that does not support the case for using digital room correction.
It does, as stated, because then the correction will not be a single-point correction, but an area correction.
Also, in the first-mode region, multisubs don't do anything but add headroom. EQ is needed there.
Secondly, regardless of how smooth the off axis response is the room reflections will drastically alter the response. Take a typical side wall reflection from a speaker with perfect off axis response. The side wall reflection arrives to the listener, or microphone used for correction, with a time delayed arrival. So at certain wavelengths the delay will either be in phase or out of phase with the on axis response. So you will have either as much as a 6db peak where they are in phase and as much as a 15db dip where they are out of phase.
Define your terms, namely "perfect off axis response." I suspect my definition of that term will differ markedly from yours.
Furthermore, you know or should know about this little thing called "gating" in audio measurement. Anthem, Trinnov, Dirac, etc. certainly do.
The only way to control the side wall reflections is with room treatment.
Ignoring the question of whether or not controlling side wall reflections is a good thing (studies by Klippel and Toole actually suggest otherwise), you're wrong. One can control sidewall reflections by using narrow-pattern speakers and determining the amount of side-wall illumination via placement (close to sidewalls vs. far away) and rotation of the speakers.
Furthermore, at the level of performance I am used to, those processors considerably degrade the sound.
You like your nonsense snobbery, don't you Danny?
Do you consider the Usher Tiny Dancer a speaker that offers at least a taste of "the level of performance [you] are used to" if deployed in the conventional manner (well out into the room, equilateral triangle, fairly well-damped room, etc.)?
And calling the people trying to teach you something con men is only making you look bad.
What, besides how to suspend my cognizance of reality so that I can fall for silly cons, are you trying to "teach me," Danny?
I don't delete anything from a thread too often. This thread is the proof of that. Your rudeness and name calling is still here for all to see. So I doubt that I ever deleting anything from that thread.
Rudeness and name calling, accuses the pathetic charlatan who named this thread "DS-21 with egg." Irony, or hypocrisy? (And countdown to this thread's demise in...)
Furthermore you (or someone else on your behalf) systematically deleted my posts in your challenge thread, and any resultant exchange.
Do you deny that we've had this conversation about your "test" before? And that it has been deleted?
What, exactly, threatened you about reality, Danny?
Both networks measure the same. I published measurements of both networks. This was also confirmed by another nay sayer that wanted to prove that they did indeed measure differently. Again they measured the same. And admittedly the nay sayer also confessed that they did indeed sound different.
Did the "naysayer" do her/his own measurement, or do you really expect us to rely on yours? That's why one of my baseline conditions is that I will take, and publish, comparative measurements. After, not before, listening.
Which means if they are measurably different in a way that should be material and I don't hear it, I will indeed have egg on my face. I'm willing to trust my ears on that.
You are still welcome to give them a shoot.
If you wish me to participate in your marketing gimmick, my terms and conditions are above. If they are acceptable to you, then you can PM me for contact information. No point talking further in public about it. If you actually believe in what you peddle, my terms are not onerous and in fact are geared to proving you right if there is any underlying truth at all to your claims. My position is clear, and your action/inaction will speak for itself.
Now, if you're scared that some rigor might make your marketing gimmick blow up in your face, either because you've rigged it in some way or because there is no underlying truth to your claims, then, well, fair enough. I understand.