Audiophile Neuroscience

I would love to hear a subjective description of these "some pretty strange sounds." ..some things are probably best left unheard !🤫

IIRC JA makes the point that beyond 90 deg the (his) measurement method is inherently unreliable for off axis FR, which is why he doesn't offer it. Perhaps something to do with the acoustic center of the driver not matching the center of mass...I would have to search for it.... Regarding treble roll off, if it does exist in the far off axis response in the upper treble region, in this region mostly the direct sound on axis response dominates room curves anyway, at least as measured by Toole. The tweeter is directional and treble indirect imperfections off axis maximally and easily absorbed.

May I ask do you have any references/articles/sources that deal with the specific issues you have raised that speakers matching the blades directivity plots are dull sounding in typical living rooms? I note you referenced erinsaudiocorner but that guy raved about the measurements, "Incredible on-axis linearity and off-axis is top notch not just horizontally but vertically as well" and he also raved about the sound quality. Kal also raved about the speakers in Stereophile and JA also gave high praise for the measurements for directivity, "The contour lines in this graph are commendably even up to 80° off-axis". A quick google search hit on ASR and even they seem impressed with the (reported) measurements and rave about the sound (possibly because the measurements are so good?).

One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective Your use of a measurement to define "better" is subjective unless you have already *objectively* established that the measure in question is always "better" or desirable . But you are describing your preferred "flavor" and that's ok Happy to agree to disagree Ricardo, all good 🙂

There are some concerns for me here, for example on one hand you say you cannot extrapolate from measurements how it will actually sound and will inevitably fail in the real world, but on the other hand it seems you can extrapolate from measurements how it will actually sound in real rooms in the real world. I am struggling a little with the compatibility of those statements. Sorry, if I have misunderstood. I do (hopefully) understand a little bit about the reasoning behind dispersion patterns and interaction with room acoustics. That is a matter of science. I am still wary of looking at one measurement, like polar plot of dispersion/radiation and confidently predicting how it will sound in any given room or type of room. I am of course interested if there is an uneven and discontinuous pattern which might make the reflected sound voiced very differently to the direct sound. Now, what about the speaker deemed to have great on axis as well as off axis response - lets call that (perhaps) a dispersion pattern wide in lower frequencies and smoothly "narrowing down towards higher frequencies.". I am not at all sure that is "best" but prima facie, I would say okay lets run with that, given wavelengths and driver sizes and practical limitations, laws of physics etc I now have concerns about your conclusions that: There are issues talking about RT60's in small spaces. lets move past that for now. Lets leave DSP out for now.... The characteristics of the speaker also aside for now, the room will need acoustic treatment for any speaker you put in it. You can measure the room but you already know (in some cases where the geometry is more predictable) where the room resonant modes are going to be. You know where the higher frequency first reflections will be. You treat accordingly and as much as needed (for me, by listening). You know where diffraction/diffusers might help. You know if you stuff the room full of a thousand pillows, it will suck up high frequencies etc etc. You know that placing the speaker in a corner will likely not be a good position and there will be other more suitable positions to try. same goes for listening position. So now you take your speaker with a supposedly "great" measured on axis and off axis response which is predictable and you place it into your room. As said, you know where the room will likely need acoustic treatment. That treatment may be different for some speakers. Different but not difficult more or less. If the room is "showing signs of overdamping in the bass and lowers mids", fix the room. If you can't fix the room, and many cannot for obvious reasons, I predict it won't matter what speaker you place in it - you will hear the room to more or less extent. Enter the DSP discussion (but its not my thing)

When I read a review I look for relative strengths and weaknesses in the product. "Comparisons" are useful in looking at relative strengths and weaknesses but as already noted, comparisons have their practical limitations and come in different flavors. Nonetheless, If it is all one way, offering only strengths or weaknesses, it suggests bias of one form or another. Personally, in that one sided situation then, I am more interested in the scathing reviews. I want to hear the worst that can be said about this product before I buy it, like "If you want to travel to the Australian outback, buy a Landrover....if you want to reliably get back home again, buy a Landcruiser". Speaking relative strengths and weaknesses, the review itself should mention the limitations of the review. I realize these are not to the same standards of academic reviews but obvious limitations and potential biases should be addressed. "This manufacturer is a sponsor on this website but...",... "I don't think this review did the product full justice for x reason", ..etc

"better" is subjective person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is better than B* = subjective Ricardo you seem to have very subjective views 😇🙄 (*Typo corrected) person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is taller than B = objective person A is better than B = subjective Taller is better = subjective One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective The last statement is an exercise in circular reasoning unless you have already established that the measure is always "better" or desirable (as determined by who?) in one direction or scale, eg like higher cure rates for cancer. Even then, qualifications may be in order, like the potential cure may kill you for other reasons.

yep its subjective "better" is subjective person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is better than A = subjective Ricardo you seem to have very subjective views 😇🙄

yep

Its subjective Its subjective

measurements may or may not tell you what you think they do - if accurate they tell you no more or less than the measure itself. The rest is interpretation, sometimes valid sometimes not

according to your subjective bias...otherwise its enslaving 😆

All dogmas can be enslaving. tastes can and do change. High end audio pushes the boundaries just as those architects you admire explored unfamiliar possibilities

Possibly a bias thang happenin' here 😅

Hi Ricardo, yep we disagree as we have discussed previously. Even objective measurements of performance will at times involve subjective choices and often involve subjective interpretations and conclusions. I don't understand "intransmissible/unsharable view or opinion, the latter is universal".