Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 41490" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: What is the audible effect of 180 polarity change between HF and mids?I think the point of disagreement is reaching for simple cause or explanation for what we hear.&nbsp; No doubt simple EQ can never correct for say time offsets between drivers or other error sources that will degrade the sound reproduction, even if we EQ these to measure flat for steady state sine wave testing. As I suggested before steady state response will not be the same as transient response, because 360&#039; and 720&#039; of phase shift look indistinguishable from 0&#039; in steady state tests but not for transients. Generating sound fields in real rooms is far more complex than simple amplitude response and EQ as a tool has limitations. If the raw material is seriously flawed, you are just putting lipstick on a pig. Even if we constructed a phase shift equalizer and dialed in the steady state phase response too, we could still have the same difference between steady state and transient response. Complete phase correction really needs to be time correction, and for multi-driver loudspeakers even this can only be correct for one listening axis or vector. This seems like one of the attractive things about different drivers summing together in one horn, if I understand the technology correctly, and if they are properly dialed in, but I am not the speaker guy here. JRNote: all things equal, EQ for flat steady state response is better than not, since most music is made up of relatively persistent tones, not just transient bursts, but this is only one aspect of the sound quality so making this perfect only improves but does not fix basic flaws.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 41490, member: 126"] Re: What is the audible effect of 180 polarity change between HF and mids? I think the point of disagreement is reaching for simple cause or explanation for what we hear. No doubt simple EQ can never correct for say time offsets between drivers or other error sources that will degrade the sound reproduction, even if we EQ these to measure flat for steady state sine wave testing. As I suggested before steady state response will not be the same as transient response, because 360' and 720' of phase shift look indistinguishable from 0' in steady state tests but not for transients. Generating sound fields in real rooms is far more complex than simple amplitude response and EQ as a tool has limitations. If the raw material is seriously flawed, you are just putting lipstick on a pig. Even if we constructed a phase shift equalizer and dialed in the steady state phase response too, we could still have the same difference between steady state and transient response. Complete phase correction really needs to be time correction, and for multi-driver loudspeakers even this can only be correct for one listening axis or vector. This seems like one of the attractive things about different drivers summing together in one horn, if I understand the technology correctly, and if they are properly dialed in, but I am not the speaker guy here. JR Note: all things equal, EQ for flat steady state response is better than not, since most music is made up of relatively persistent tones, not just transient bursts, but this is only one aspect of the sound quality so making this perfect only improves but does not fix basic flaws. [/QUOTE]

Verification