Interesting article by Mitchco.

[dallasjustice]

This is another headphone study with some potential application to real world loudspeakers.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4426

The authors used all pass filters with varying group delays in the more sensitive frequencies. I think the idea was to simulate crossover group delays.

 

[mitchco]

Thanks for the post. I have to run and don't have time to post a proper response. But let me say that I now know what you are arguing, even though you continue to state it in improper technical terms. When I get a chance I will state the points and my response to them.

Thanks again.

Consider Phase, Time and Distortion in Loudspeakers: http://sound.westhost.com/ptd.htm

This is a bit older (2002) mathematical proof of what I am claiming. It even has the Toole quote you quoted me earlier ;-)

Conclusion: "For what it's worth, I originally started this article not to praise, but to debunk the theory that time alignment is the only way a speaker should ever be designed. Having done the research, run tests, and written the article, I confess that I must agree with many (perhaps even most) of the points made by the time alignment proponents."

"My overall opinion, based on the research for this article (primarily tests and simulations), is that time alignment is a very good thing, and perhaps all speakers should be designed this way."

With the advent of powerful DSP software that is available today (2016), this only increases the level of precision and accuracy of the time alignment.

 

[hvbias]

This has been an enlightening read and one of those threads that makes me happy to be here, thanks to all that contributed

 

[dc655321]

For all those curious about the "Big speaker vs. Small speaker" arguments:

Another great article from @mitchco on the re-christened CA site - https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/revi...ker-comparison-with-binaural-recordings-r768/

Well done good sir!

 

[Cosmik]

For all those curious about the "Big speaker vs. Small speaker" arguments:

Another great article from @mitchco on the re-christened CA site - https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/revi...ker-comparison-with-binaural-recordings-r768/

Well done good sir!

Cheers for the link. Well, if all else was equal, I would say that the listening results confirm R.E. Greene's contention that:

What is true of the mini-monitor, that it cannot be EQed to sound right, is also true of narrow-front floor-standers. They sound too midrange-oriented because of the nature of the room sound. This is something about the geometry of the design. It cannot be substantially altered by crossover decisions and so on.

I'm not saying I don't like the LS50 sound in Mitch's recordings - I think I possibly do because of the extra 'liveness' - but I do think there is a mid-range difference there. If attempts were made to EQ that away, the direct sound would not be quite right and the ambience correct, or vice versa.

This is the rationale for the design of the super-wide Grimm LS1, and cardioid Kii Three and D&D 8C i.e. it's not just a question of EQ, but the frequency at which the speaker becomes omni-directional which, conventionally, is related to baffle width.