gooberdude:> if it can be so easily heard, why can't it be measured?? ,<
That's the whole point. It
cannot be "easily heard" at all. It's all placebo effect, expectation bias, and perhaps most important, comb filtering.
rollo:> Now I get it.Just visited your web site.Its all about acoustic comb filtering. <
That's only part of the equation. My personal feeling is that in
most cases it's simply the frailty of human hearing and perception. Nothing really changes or "burns in" over the course of time, it's just that we can't remember well enough what it really used to sound like. But comb filtering is very real, as I proved in my article. So in the few cases where someone really does hear a difference, and it's not just their perception, comb filtering is the cause of that difference.
> I would think in a room after treatment it would be easier yet to HEAR the differences <
You are absolutely correct! In a properly treated room it is much easier to hear a difference when a difference truly exists. And likewise much easier to tell when there's no difference at all. However, even with acoustic treatment, comb filtering still occurs because of the different arrival times from the left and right speakers to each ear. But then at least the
additional comb filtering from early reflections is avoided, and that helps to clear up the sound enormously. It also improves the sound stage and greatly reduces the effect of positional changes as you lean forward and back or left and right. My own living room is very well treated, including absorption at all the first reflection points. Not just the side walls, but the floor (carpet) and ceiling too. This is one reason I'm so confident that my audio assessments are accurate. That, and being a professional musician and recording engineer for nearly 40 years!
Pez:> can you tell me if a set of speakers have a good soundstage using measurements? <
Of course! The test for that measures the frequency response on- and off-axis. The more the off-axis response varies from the on-axis response, the worse the sound stage will be. However, the most important way to improve imaging and sound stage is to have absorption at all the first reflection points (see above). Avoiding all early reflections does
far more to improve imaging than anything else, even which speakers you use.
> Can you detect if a set of speakers or an amplifier has good imaging characteristics? <
Nothing in an amplifier affects imaging. Maybe if the response is so bad it starts rolling off well below 20 KHz that would affect imaging. But assuming the amplifier is basically competent, there's nothing it can or cannot do that will affect imaging.
> Hell can you even tell me what a speaker will sound like based solely on measurements with any sort of accuracy? <
Certainly! If a speaker has a flat response, and low distortion, and the off-axis response is not too different from the on-axis response, it will by definition sound good. The reason all loudspeakers sound different is because
none of them have an accurate response, or low distortion, or an accurate off-axis response. So it's a perpetual situation of trade-offs and the lesser of two evils.
> I say "You can't measure it, you aren't measuring the right thing." <
Please tell us what the "right thing" is. And be as specific as possible!
acresm22> I know no one likes to talk about it, but "aural perception" is a fickle thing. <
You nailed it.
Steve:> Several years ago I sent two sets of cables to
Bruno Putzeys ... not only was there no difference between the two cables, there simply wasn't any distortion beyond the residual distortion of the AP rig. <
Exactly.
> To my knowledge, it has yet to be proved that it can actually be heard or for that matter that there's anything to hear in the first place. <
That too.
> So I guess one can turn the question around and ask, if it can be so easily heard, why hasn't it been proved yet? <
And that's the final nail in the coffin.
--Ethan
