[Andrew Haley]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...

What does this theory predict that conventional psychoacoustics does
not? In other words, is it possible to design an experiment which
would show whether the IMP is a superior theory to others?

Sure. Just violate any of the three ingredients of the model. If a
speaker puts out all direct sound, as most do even today, then the
majority of the high freqs will be heard from the actual speakers
only, limiting the depth impression and spaciousness.

That's pretty conventional; in particular, Toole describes it at some
length.

If the speakers are mis-positioned, as in placed too close to one or
more reflecting surfaces, the model will collapse to a clustering of
sources near those reflections, leading to stretched soloists and a
hole in the middle. We have noticed these effects for a long time
now, but not realized what causes them.

That's not unconventional either.

Finally, if the surfaces around the speakers have been padded with a
lot of sound absorbing material, the back and side reflections will
be greatly diminished in the high frequencies, leading once again to
a smaller soundstage with less depth.

Or that. Again, Toole describes the benefits (in terms of perceived
spaciousness) of reflected sound, and in particular the benefits of
the reflected sound having the same spectrum as the direct sound. He
also talks about the precedence effect, and how it applies in real
rooms with reflective surfaces

I can't see anything at all in what you have descibed which is not in
accordance with well-known principles. Sure, it's not how speakers
(except some electrostatics and perhaps the Linkwitz designs) are
usually made, but that's a different thing altogether.

Andrew.