2. speakers
  3. 1336785767

Analytical or Musical Which way to go?

The debate rages on. What are we to do? Designing a spealer that measures wellin all areas shoulkd be the goal manufacturer.
As allways limtiations abound. Time and again I read designers yo say the design the speaker to measure as best they can. But it just does not sound like music.

The question is of course is: what happens when the speaker sounds dull and lifeless.

Then enters a second speaker that sounds like real music but does not have optimum mesurements?

Many of course would argue, stop right there. If it does not measure well it can't sound good.

I pose the question then how can a spekeer that sounds lifeless be acurrate?

Would that pose yhis question. Does live music sound dull and lifeless?
If not how can we ever be be satisified with such a spseker no matter how well it measures?
gregadd

Showing 1 response by bryoncunningham

bryoncunningham
893 posts
 
I agree with you, Josh. Digital EQ has improved so dramatically in the past ten years that, at this point, the best ones add virtually no perceptible colorations. I've used both hardware and software implementations of digital EQ and had excellent results with both. Of course, there are still plenty of older generation digital EQ's out there that sound harsh and compressed, and IMO they give EQ'ing a bad rap.

From what I can tell, the audiophile preoccupation with accuracy is another obstacle to the acceptance of EQ. But I share view that, because the system itself (esp. speakers and room) is always to some extent inaccurate, the use of EQ can result in a MORE accurate sound at your listening position, which is where it counts.

IMO, IME, etc.

Bryon
More to discover