Jerry, no offence but as people are trying to help me relate to you guys the same will have be done the other way. So if you could amp it down a notch or 2 we might be able to get on the same page and move forward. Your coming across a little like I'm on trial, know what I mean.
Consider the likelihood that you are.
Though if we wish to discuss "coming across" consider your emphatic phrasing "Wrong!"
You are making extraordinary claims. I've tried to make it easy by picking a single one and a single concrete example that should be easy to address. You've not addressed it
I have a feeling, having been around the block, that this is about the point in the conversation where there's an attempt to deflect into an adhominem or something similar. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
"And then I've told you what sounds wrong to me ("the volume difference between the peaks and average is not as great as it is in a real performance")" It's a recording why would you think it would be live sounding?
Because you said
That CD is horrible!
Wrong! If you have a bad sounding CD in your collection of a name brand studio like warner bros or EMI or any of the mainstreams recording companies you send that CD to me and I'll give you a list of things that your system may be doing incorrectly.
But you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "live sounding", I said "volumes [...] as they sounded in reality". I asked narrowly about the difference in SPL between the loudest sounds and average sounds in a recording. This is to prevent confusion and give you one simple issue to address.
I ask because I do, in fact, understand the problem... dynamic compression (used to be called "hot mastering").
I've literally done dynamic compression myself deliberately to A/B in the past. It's easy to compress but essentially impossible to de-compress.
Which is where your statement rings untrue. Since a loss of dynamic range sounds bad, and since EMI and WB are releasing CDs with significant dynamic compression, the source material clearly is at fault. No speaker will re-add dynamic range (and one which did would have too much dynamic range on a properly mastered CD, simply shifting the problem).
There are any number of other things that could be done wrong to mess up a master; but I'm trying to make your job easy by picking only a single one which I can clearly describe and demonstrate.
You keep bringing up the 2k question, and I'm thinking you didn't understand my reply the first time so I don't understand why you would bring it up again. What I did in an earlier post was to convert the frequency into a note, did you get that part? Then I played the note through different baffles and they all sounded different, then I played different pianos through the same speaker playing that same note and they all sounded different even though they all measured the same. Did you get that part?
They would not all measure the same. This is speakerbuilding 101 (literally: this is covered in the book "speakerbuilding 101").
When you enlarge the baffle, you lower the frequency range at which baffle diffraction starts to occur.
If you change the shape of the baffle (cupping your hands over the driver) you change the shape of the pulse of the diffracted waves.
Then you can also have issues of resonance of the baffle itself, and boundary diffraction; but let's not muddy the water.
What you have *not* done is change the frequency itself in any way.
It has not come "out of tune". A high G is still a high G and a 2khz wave is still a 2khz wave.
And as I mentioned at the beginning: they absolutely would not measure the same (the SPL/F graph would not: the actual frequencies are the same). They do not measure the same. On or off-axis. This is why the crossover has a baffle-diffraction step.
