Does frequency response of speakers change with volume?

[storing]

The frequency response data I've seen tends not to but perhaps we should be looking at other parameters?

I'd think particular example (i.e. not being able to overcome inertia) would show up in the frequency response and/or distortion measurements because it's by definition that (unless I'm misunderstanding OP's point): the cone would react slower than it should, so lower frequency?

 

[ahofer]

The 70's style loudness curve can be awesome or over-the-top, depending on the implementation. It was tied to a 50% tap on the volume potentiometer in most cases and offered the most bass/treble boost at low levels. It became flatter as you turned the pot up and then was out of circuit past halfway or so.

Some so-called loudness controls had no treble boost and were merely bass only, and again (pun) tied to the pot rotation.

There was an interesting discussion in another thread about the use of loudness compensation (can’t find it right now). After all, we bring the same Fletcher-Munson ears to a live performance, so adjustments are actually deviations from how we would perceive it live (IF it were the same amplitude…). Ultimately, I come down on that being OK, because the volume level is generally higher live (really always, for me), and that is one of the many ways home reproduction is *smaller* than the live performance. Loudness compensation is a way to approach the illusion of a live performance. Anyway, it’s a weird round trip from some objective truth and an interesting paradox for objective-leaning folks.

 

[sdiver68]

This is an audio not a science forum (and I say that as a professional scientist). Also, Floyd Toole has lead and published primary research which is covered in his book. If you really are unaware of it then the following video is worth a watch:

That's not true, since what you said was:



Understanding what people like and how to correlate it to measured data is a fundamental component of 'understanding home audio' as far as I'm concerned, and also fundamental to the overwhelming majority of the speaker performance discussion on this forum come to that. You may have meant something else but if so I doubt it was clear to many what this may have been.

Again, I did address psychoacoustics since that was your direct perspective. Studies back to 1943.

Stereophile and other audio experts have been touting flat FR, low distortion, virtues of directivity, placement of speakers in the room along with treatments at least back to the 80's.

What most people "prefer" is only of use to the companies not already pursuing preferred characteristics in their designs. It's a marketing tool, not audio science.

Not by chance, I was drawn to speakers designed and tested at the NRC in the 90's. You are making an assumption that Im not familiar with Dr Toole and his research which is unfounded.

Thus, no nothing has changed..except for areas enabled by digital.

 

[KSTR]

IMHO, this is more of physics. There is a minimum amt of power needed for the cones to overcome inertia and other resistance (eg. how material flexes) to move properly.

Inertia is not the problem, resistance itself isn't either. It's the stick-slip friction (non-continuous, non-linear and time-variant resistance) in the surround and spider which may create problems at very(!) low signal levels. This obviously is extremely hard to measure, it is a tricky random low-level noise floor modulation of sorts. Audibility of such effects is debatable and again almost impossible to test for.