some good points raised amir.
steve (did you and plonk meet personally? or was that just meet 'on the net'??)..... regarding flat.
Half the trouble (as always in audio) is that people use/have different meanings for the same word. Well, that's what I reckon anyway.
It's a funny old world when you start to think about it. Ok, by FAR the greatest contribution to the sound are the transducers. We don't use mics in our systems, so we can rule that out which leaves speakers and it's reaction to the room. I am pretty sure we can all at least agree with that?
Personally, all that means for me is that is where I put my energies and basically ignore everything else. I'm convinced that dollar for dollar I will always get more return if I invest every cent in those areas, others obviously disagree and are more than happy to spend elsewhere too.
Now we start to get into the myriad definitions/uses of the word flat. (guess the only real reason I mentioned the last paragraph is that for all intents and purposes any and all electronics...at least in comparison with what is to come...can be considered flat).
Look at the english language, any given word can have many meanings, and I find the same with flat as it is variously used.
Flat, smooth, even, level, gentle etc etc. Heck, I guess I only twigged to this because I spotted the various subtle differences I personally used at different times! So definitely not a dig at anyone else haha.
Straight away too we have seen it applied to the same speaker in different circumstances, anechoic and in room, further 'complicating' matters.
And here we have the really interesting bit...frequency response is not the sole determinant of how it sounds, especially the single (smoothed from the manufacturer haha response given to us!).
So, starting to wrap all these disparate observations together...
Firstly, we are NOT comparing apples with apples by the simple test of comparing one 'flat' (note the marks) speaker with a non flat speaker and concluding-if you liked the non-flat speaker-that flat does not always equate to better.
Too many variables! The way to do it is to compare the non flat speaker
to it's flat self, and not move them a mm. Ie, the ONLY variable is the relative degree of flatness in frequency response, not two completely different speakers usually in two completely different rooms with completely different source chains (if that is your bent in audio). In any sort of controlled experiment you can only change the variable under examination.
This, I feel, is at the bottom of this 'accurate or musical' divide. At least I hope I have convinced people that it is far more complicated than mere 'flat vs un flat'.
Anyway, to my ears at least as I have done this many times, yes when a speaker is made more 'flat' (again note marks) it does always sound better. I have done this with the deqx on many different systems, even with the deq 2496 as well. This way with the flick of a switch you can compare
flat vs un flat on the same speaker not moved a mm.
And, it is only my taste too, not trying to force it on others.
Everyone expects flat (and basically gets it every time) in electronics yet somehow magically they not only accept but argue for erratic frequency response in speakers???
I don't understand it myself. Except when viewed in the light of the above, then it makes sense. They have never been able to compare on the exact same system only changing that ONE variable.
Now, is there anything intrinsically wrong with voicing (hope we all get the concept here)???
No, not particularly. BUT, to me, that is back to another use of the same word really, flat..
.but this time in the sense of smooth, as any voicing is usually a gentle rise or dip across a relatively broad band of frequency. The BBC dip is not some large erratic rough undesirable response, it is a gentle broad dip extending over many octaves.
Back to your concept of the use of tone controls really, but at least with tone controls you can use it when YOU want, not engineered into the speaker and always present whether appropriate or not.
Now, to get this gentle dip (example only) you first NEED to have the transducer behaving itself, ie no nasty spikes and dips and resonances coming thru, flat. The usual poor responses in speakers we see are not designed to have those nasty peaks and dips, that is simply poor engineering.
So, make the speakers accurate (have not even begun to address the room here, that as we all know is another nightmare) and THEN salt to taste as needed.
I liken it to landscaping, where we may not want a level bowling green but rather gentle hills and valleys, but we first need to prepare the earth as a foundation.
So, when we use it in room, we usually do NOT mean 'same spl at every single frequency from 20-20k'. But we do have the sense of smooth, no sharp peaks and dips, gradual transitions. This is where ethan comes in.
To me it is a lot like MP3, or what I rudimentarily understand it as, that a louder sound can mask a softer sound. So in MP3 we throw away the softer sound. But, in a speaker, what we get are areas
where the speaker itself masks the frequencies around it. Here *we* are in audiophile land chasing the 'last little details' yet sometimes the very same people (not directed towards anyone here at all) argue FOR non flat speakers!
I don't get it myself. The speaker itself is masking some of the detail! And, that heroic guitar note that rings out majestically at 2.33 into the track is NOT really meant to be like that haha, no that is just your cone ringing uncontrollably
Sorry for the boring long post guys!
