Why do you insist manipulating my words? My words are "there are somethings that matter more than just the simple on axis FR.".
This does not mean "has nothing to do".
BTW, I should have added I was focusing mainly on FR above the transition zone - it is the most important zone for speaker evaluation, in room bass response is mainly dominated by room.
No, not manipulating your words, sorry.
You are clear, at least to me, that these 'other' things are more important than simple FR. That is it in a nutshell, more important. Yet, when asked to be defined, this thing that is MORE important somehow evades description? We never seem to find out just what IT is, just that it is there somehow, and more important than FR.
If it overrides all else, I cannot grasp how it has never yet been identified. Just a small conceptual problem I have with the notion, that's all.
In any case, you seem m to have missed the implications of what has followed the post you quoted, some further implications (unconsciously) raised by yourself.
Let's go back to your basic sticking point, that simple FR does not seem to correlate with your perception (therefore justifying 'throwing out' FR as having great importance), you missed the bit about the bibles measurements being (perhaps) of little real world significance. Yes, I saw the bit about above the transition zone but I fear that still does not cover the whole scene.
Before I address that, any thoughts about how misleading the bibles measurements might be, about how those (poor-if true, ie they do not in any real way reflect what people might reasonably hear) measurements themselves contribute to this stark divide in audio?? That because those bible measurements are 'essentially useless' not only are they 'worthless' but themselves cause or at least strengthen this underlying concept of measurements having no value?
Is that not a bit interesting as a topic of discussion even on a 'what if' level? Put another way, what if you received 'proper' measurements that now DO coincide with perception, would the thoughts on the value of measurements change in the audiophile world?
Perhaps this is at the bottom of the divide, those of us 'diyers' if we can use that label (cause we do get in and measure) that HAVE found the measurements that correlate with perception (for us), no wonder we are bemused when people say measurements are worthless or not very helpful. That the measurements those statements are based on ARE worthless goes a long way in turning the light on.
Anyway, back to the transition zone. When we look at artificial divides like that we miss an
extremely important point. Basically, it does not work that way. There is no possible way you can seperate the entire package, and evaluate the region above the transition zone 'as if it stood alone'. Whatever happens below the transition zone
impacts and effects dramatically the perception above it.
You can't separate the two. Seriously, remove a bass hump (say, just for illustration) and you do NOT hear 'just the bass hump gone'. Yes, of course it has gone and yes the bass does change....
but so does the perception of the rest of the frequency range.
I can't stress that enough, we have not done a thing to anything above the bass region yet it sounds very different. It can (and is) a very dramatic demonstration to someone who does not know that, just turn off the room correction (and just note in passing the bass changes) but listen to the rest of the spectrum. It too changes dramatically.
You could look at it a few ways I guess, recognise that the system is a package and find it, whilst dramatic, not that very mysterious a phenomenon.
Or, 'seeing that the FR above the transition zone' did not change, yet the perception did, start to feel there are undiscovered measurements yet to be found by science.
I rather think that instead I found out more about
my own perceptions rather than a new thing to be discovered by science.
Now, rather than get upset by thinking I twist your words, can you have a look at the way you phrase things and see if that contributes even a little to the problem?
We built two pair using their accurate plans. One in Corian the other in MDF. They sounded completely different.
Back to the completely different again. Seriously, what does that mean?
Completely different? The same as two dac chips out of the same batch? That sort of completely different? Or the completely different as a sandwich made of ham vs a sandwich made of peanut butter. That sort of completely different?
We used to gag about with my girls when they were young, they'd talk about something that was exactly the same but completely different. So it became a standard...'they were exactly the same yet completely different' Lotsa fun.
Anyway, can you at least acknowledge that that sort of rhetoric at the very least confuses the issue? I doubt the majority of people would describe your scenario as producing 'completely different'.
I get and accept that you heard a difference, and I get and accept that it was real. In other words, it is not the usual 'you must have been imagining things or subject to some sort of uncontrolled bias'. I also accept that those differences might not show up on a simple on axis FR measurement (even tho as you admit you have no way of actually checking that).
But, here is the but...always one eh! Your claim is that this difference is MORE important than FR. How do you know?? You seem to be conflating 'having heard a difference' with *us* saying there is no difference if FR is the same. A simple Fr only measures that, FR. It does not measure other things. I mean obvious but hey, it needed to be said.
So here is the thing...change very slightly (1db dip from 1-5k say) the Fr of one...now compare.
Did you do that? No I don't think so.
See, your statement that this 'thing' is MORE important than FR can not be substantiated without experiments such as the above. Alternatively, have the FR change on a dial, move it till the differences equals the difference the 'thing' makes. Then you have quantified the two.
But none of this happened, all that happened was you heard a difference. THAT is what defined your stance, and it seems to me to be fighting a different proposition than the one we give. You seem to think that we say 'FR is all and everything', so if you heard a difference (and you are assuming the FR is the same anyway, we will never know) you have disproved the ''FR is all and everything'.
Well we don't say that! You are disproving something that is not claimed.
We might (and probably do) say that 'FR is the most important single parameter'..something I doubt Sean would disagree with....yet your anecdote above did nothing to show one way or other if that is true. You did not deliberately introduce a small change in FR to judge it's audibility, yet because you did hear a difference you feel it justified to throw out the false hypothesis. We don't say 'FR is all and everything'.
Compare two pairs speakers, one with the 'thing' yet 'identical FR', the other without the 'thing' yet measurably different Fr.
Which set produces a greater 'completely different'??
That is how you prove or disprove your claim of 'greater importance than FR'.
