In Reply to: RE: There's really no such thing as a flat speaker posted by 3db on June 19, 2015 at 08:49:50:
As has been pointed out several times in this thread, flat does not sound correct. Everybody designs for a roll-off. The question is how much top end roll-off is right in a speaker, and there is no objective answer because the end result is dependent on external variables such room, listening distance, positioning, and so on.
That's where the B&K and similar curves come into play. The B&K curve is one attempt to capture what response sounds the most natural. A designer who accepts the B&K curve as a reference will try to achieve a power response that follows the curve in a typical room. Of course, deciding what is "typical" is guesswork.
You seem to be hung up on thinking that there is an objective standard that you can measure loudspeaker frequency response against and there really isn't.
One might be forgiven for thinking that an objectively good speaker is one that measures flat on-axis at 1m in an anechoic chamber, but that is neither necessary or sufficient. It is a somewhat arbitrary design target. I can design two speakers that both measure flat on-axis at 1m pseudo-anechoic, but with very different power responses, one that rolls off slowly with increasing frequency which sounds too bright and one that rolls off rapidly and sounds too dark.
Similarly, I could design a speaker with an intentional rise or dip in the on-axis 1m anechoic response which compensates for a falling or flaring off-axis response such that the response at the listening position 3m away is smoother and flatter than if I had designed it with a flat on-axis 1m anechoic response.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- They ALL purposely roll off the top end - Dave_K 13:13:11 06/19/15 (0)