[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On May 23, 5:42 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

That would defeat the
purpose, since the subjective effect of audible FR
differences is one of the key things you want to
identify.

Not so fast, there.

This is like power amplifiers all over again. There was
a widely-held opinon that amplifiers in general sounded
vastly different and that certain amplifiers had
mystereious non-measurable properties (i.e., properties
other than linear and nonlinear distoriton) that made
them sound better. The ABXer's hypothesis was that if
you at most matched the frequency response reasonbly
well, very many would sound the same and that there no
mysteious non-measurable differences. In general, we
proved our hypothesis.

Granted. But my understanding is that FR differences
between amplifiers tend to be rather small, except for
the case of impedance- caused differences (which is
largely a function of certain tube designs). By contrast,
audible FR differences between speakers can be
substantial and so common as to represent the norm.

In either case, equipment to deal with differences of this kind have long
been on the market and are now being sold for very reasonable prices.

You are about to make the argument that every system
should include an equalizer to correct any FR
irregularities in the speakers.

I didn't know that reliable mind-reading was one of the things that you
claim!

If you would phrase that as follows:

"You are not adverse to systems that include an equalizers to correct any FR
irregularities in the speakers."

I would agree.

If you would phrase that as follows:

"You believe that where economically feasiible, the use of equalizers to
correct any FR
irregularities in the speaker/room combination should be considered"

I would agree.

I think you would agree
that using an equalizer to correct FR irregularities in
an amplifier makes far less sense than simply buying a
good amplifier in the first place.

Yes, for economic reasons.

And a good amplifier,
as defined by FR, comes very cheap these days.

Exactly.

Equalizing the FR of speakers is relatively easy to do.
There's no rational reason to spend a lot of money on
speakers to get a certain tailored frequency response
characteristic. Unless a speaker is so poor that it is
not economically feasible to buy an equalizer to obtain
a desired frequency response characteristic, it is
reasonble to use an equalizer to get that desired
frequency response characteristic. With advances in DSP
technology, really powerful equalizers can have a
reasonble cost. The skill level required to equalize a
speaker system have dropped considerably, and there are
even automated systems that can do the job credibly,
according to many audiophiles and music-lovers.

Granted. But I would not banish from the Audiophile Guild
anyone who chose not to employ an equalizer, and chose
instead to seek out a speaker with excellent FR.

It's their money to use or abuse. However, there's no evidence that even a
speaker with excellent FR might not benefit from some equalization. Lots of
good speakers in bad rooms. And while equalizers aren't always the best way
to fix up a room, people do a lot of things for reasons of appearance and
other practical considerations.


If that
is their choice (and I suspect that IS the choice of
everyone who is arguing the other side of the question
here), then equalizing speakers for a blind comparison
would be counterproductive.

I would not presume to know the preferences of everybody who posts here,
even if I cared about it. ;-)