Flat Anechoic Measured Frequency Response Speakers

Hesson11,

I use this page. it is a list of all the NRC measured speakers:

http://www.soundstageav.com/speakermeasurements.html

Shadorne,

The ATC has a very flat response. Do you find that flat responses sometimes limit the 3rd dimension to the soundstage? In other words, do you find it is more like a two dimensional picture than a three dimensional picture depth-wise?

Thanks.

According to Dr. Toole's group that has been researching subjective listening for the past 2 decades, it seems to be very important. Not necessarily flat, but smooth.

The not necessarily flat point is important. Supposedly people like a deviation from flatness in the mid-bass and on top, according to Paul Barton (who also worked with Toole).

The thing that doesn't impress me with their methods is that they cherry pick their testers and instruct them in what qualities they should listen for in the speakers before using them in the tests. They only keep the people who demonstrate an ability to pick out the qualities they are instructed to pick out for the tests.

Does anyone have any information and a link that quantifies "smooth?" I've been wondering exactly what the term means in respect to frequency response, not as much in phase response.

I'd also be interested in what Paul Barton meant by additional mid-bass and extra sizzle on top, if anyone has a link to numbers.

Thanks.

It makes sense that a flat frequency response is a good starting point. I don't know if people will inherently like it better without training. I can't even do that kind of experiment on myself, because I've done the Moulton Labs training courses...

It is very easy to take a flat frequency response and alter it after the fact by dropping dBs wherever it suits you if you find you would like to accentuate parts of the spectrum. My understanding is that it is much harder to fix a signal that is inherently flawed.

Drubin,

You are referring to what Paul Barton said concerning Toole's studies? I've heard that people prefer sizzle on top, not roll-off. Do you have a quote? Thanks.

Actually, what they did was to evaluate and train listners to hear various types of distortions added to program material. As well, this was for research purposes, not in any way a marketing ploy to sell a particular brand of loudspeaker.

The testing also taught listeners how to identify changes to different ranges of the frequency response. Though that could be considered added distortion. I read an interview where Voeks discussed the process. If people couldn't learn to identify changes to frequency response, and didn't identify which one was incorrect, or not flat, they weren't used for the blind testing. People with suboptimal lower and higher frequency hearing were also excluded. I don't think any of this was a ploy, but I do think it is cherry picking, and that will likely affect the final outcome.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. It is good that speakers have some type of technical boundary within which they should measure and that people have tried to shed light on that boundary. It does make me wary though as to exactly what those boundaries are and how much they can differ between different individuals. Especially if those individuals had no training.

I'm planning on experimenting with my own setup to see what I like best. Part of that will include speakers that measure extremely flat. I would consider Revel Ultima2 Salons to be one of the speakers worth experimenting with, but no one around me is carrying them to allow me to demo them at a store... ATC is another one I've been considering (the Pro versions). The Magico Mini II as well.

As for the top end, simply google the EBU target curve and you'll find a good graph.

If you could give a link to something I would appreciate it. I tried Google-ing "EBU target curve" and I didn't get anything useful on the first bunch of pages.

I have been trying to find the quote someone else I know got their information from concerning the "top-end sizzle," but so far no luck (he might have been wrong about the top-end, which is exactly why I want to find some quotes on it - I'm not being cantankerous or anything, just looking for a source).

Thanks.

Bob,

Teaching people what results to pick, then putting them in a test room to pick those results goes beyond just weeding out the hearing deficient IMO...

Shadorne,

I liked it. It is cool to be able to understand when you are hearing things like ranges of the frequency response being out of proportion. Of course, with my 40-90Hz bass issues, I already knew there was a problem because of the kick drum from hell.

It is also nice to be able to identify compression, distortion artifacts, phase issues, reverb effects.

Some of the stuff, like effects, is fairly obvious if you play electric guitar (or other instruments where effects are used often), but others, like being able to single out areas of the frequency response when they are boosted, are pretty neat.

Shadorne,

In other words, I recommend it for anyone who is a fan of music. It can only help you appreciate music more by being able to discuss it with greater subtlety.

I would especially recommend it to you because the ATCs measure so flat. They would be perfect speakers for doing the coursework on.