[Gary Eickmeier]

Andrew Haley wrote:

As I've said here before, Floyd Toole's proposal for a standardized
evaluation of studio monitor loudspeakers and rooms makes sense. Once
we have that, we can replicate it in the home. He also talks about
the correlation between loudspeaker measurements and listener
preference. He points out that much about what makes loudspeakers and
rooms sound good is known, but is not much used by the industry:
"... much seems to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Most of
the evidence fits together in a logical pattern, and although not
simple, it is eminently comprehensible."

Andrew.

I think Toole has the beginnings of an idea about evaluation, but his
universe of speakers and rooms is limited to box speakers that can fit on a
turntable and an IEC standard listening room or a recording studio. There
are a lot more possibilities.

I like to describe the problem in terms of what we can hear about speakers
and rooms.

1. Physical size - we can hear how big the presentation in front of us is.
This can vary from a small living room to the stage of a performing theater.
We can hear the difference between a boombox and a large home theater with 5
to 10 speakers in it.

2. Power - we can hear the acoustic power output of the speakers. They
should be able to reproduce everything from the 1812 Overture to a string
quartet. Birdsongs to E.Power Biggs.

3. Signal fidelity - we can hear frequency response, noise, distortion
beyond a certain point. This problem has been largely solved at this point
in audio history.

4. Spatial characteristics - we can hear the imaging of individual
instruments, balances between and among instruments, spaciousness of the
frontal soundstage, depth, surround sound if any. A system should be able to
reproduce everything from the Beethoven 9th to a single solo guitar.

I agree with Andrew that speakers should not be tuned for certain kinds of
reproduction, they should be able to play anything and everything that is
thrown at them with EASE.

Gary Eickmeier