That different musical types might be preferred with different designs is something that I have said for a long time. The best way to have "both worlds" is not at all clear to me. I have only ever sought one side of this coin and haven't given much thought to how to do both.
I thought so but wasn't sure if I remembered correctly. That reinforces the idea -- for me -- it might not be a bad idea to swap 1,000Hz up modules. Especially if one has varied music tastes. I like all music styles but if there's a good recording of a small group in a studio I'd like to be able to pop on a suitable waveguide.
Regarding the ITD paper, the thing I really like about science is that you can know something until it's proven wrong. Then you get to know something else. Although, it's more common that you know a refinement rather than a total repudiation of the accepted science to that point. The exception might be psychology. Those scientists have been reversing years of existing science (knowledge) because the original science (methodology) wasn't done right. I have tons of respect for them.
I like the wording. I never interpreted forgiving as synonymous with unimportant. How does it help? It gives you a sanity check before you build gigantic horns in your living room.
Alternatively, the JBL 305P mkIIs have a little switch on the back to adjust EQ for boundaries. Low cost and convenient. Meets the sanity check.
For the most part I have found that science gets more and more refined. Like gravity. Newton wasn't "wrong", its just that Einstein showed a more far reaching solution than Newton's. I think that this is generally the case, not that somebody screwed-up, it's just that others may have developed a broader understanding.
BTW I have come across this paper that states:
"[...] Some researchers suggest a down sloping character across the full or at least a part of the audio band. This seems to be largely motivated by listener preference [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] while little attention has been paid to solving the problem of the ‘circle of confusion’. This refers a self-referenced system where existing recordings are used to evaluate the room sound [10],[13]."
This nicely sums up my view (expressed earlier) as well.
"[...] Some researchers suggest a down sloping character across the full or at least a part of the audio band. This seems to be largely motivated by listener preference [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] while little attention has been paid to solving the problem of the ‘circle of confusion’. This refers a self-referenced system where existing recordings are used to evaluate the room sound [10],[13]."
This nicely sums up my view (expressed earlier) as well.
Sounds good, although I'm not sure of the rationale behind omitting the axial response. The listening window (using the ANSI/CTA-2034-A definition) is nearly the same as the listening axis response (18°) with my speaker despite the slight axial ripple. The difference between the curves is like half a dB.
Fair enough, I just don't think it would make much difference really, especially with how little ripple most of your more recent designs have.
By the way, I was wondering whether you saw my post a few days ago (it was definitely overshadowed by adjacent ones).
By the way, I was wondering whether you saw my post a few days ago (it was definitely overshadowed by adjacent ones).