Ohm Walsh Micro Talls: who's actually heard 'em?

By *set up* are you referring specifically to the EQ I used, or by *set up* are you including any system that measures flat at the listening position?

Any system, unless the measurement equipment is extremely sophisticated and has response characteristics in the time domain that closely correspond to those of our hearing mechanisms.

In other words, a system that produces measured flat frequency response at the listening position, based on test tones, will give equal weight to sound that arrives via the direct path from speakers to listening position, and sound that arrives via reflected paths from walls and furniture.

But our ears don't work that way -- consider the Haas Effect, for example, which describes the fact that, within certain limits, our hearing mechanisms give greater emphasis to early arriving sounds than to later arriving sounds (which are presumably reflections).

And adding to that is the fact that even in the frequency domain the directional characteristics of our ears are unlikely to match those of the measuring microphone. So the microphone will "hear" reflections from side walls, for example, differently than our ears will.

Best regards,
-- Al

Its true our ears are sensitive detectors of sound.

Try the old test of listening normally and with hands cupped behind the ears to see how much difference can be heard in response to a small change.

Al, what you describe seems to me to be an argument against the goal of a system that measures flat in-room since the measuring is inaccurate, unless there's some measurement device that avoids or compensates for reflected sound. Otherwise, the measuring exercise seems futile.

Why do we bother with our Radio Shack decibel meters and test tone CDs?

Personally, I haven't bothered with mine in more than a year. I just listen and go with what pleases me.

I'm an anti-audiophile, I suppose.

Try the old test of listening normally and with hands cupped behind the ears to see how much difference can be heard in response to a small change.
Mapman (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

I much prefer the ear-cupped sound. Someone should make an ear-cup audiophile tweak.

Re flat frequency response at the listening position.

Every time I've heard cones in boxes that promised something like FFR +/- 2db a 2 meters for example, they were just bright as hell, and even more so if they had a strong off axis response.

That experience causes me to wonder what the frequency response of an omni would be on axis in a space with out boundaries to reinforce the on axis FR.

I suspect that proper set up in a room is what makes or breaks omni's and that properly situated the FFR is the sum of the on axis, 360 degree off axis, and room reinforcement, to a much larger degree than cones in boxes.

I think FFR with an omni might be fine - but not so much with cones in boxes (or maybe electrostatics and panels, not just so much so.)

Does this make any sense?