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

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?

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.

Yes, exactly, although I wouldn't say "avoids." I would say the measurements, and the analysis of the measurements, need to take into account arrival time as well as frequency domain characteristics. Some computer programs will do that, to an approximation that apparently can sometimes be useful (I haven't used any of them myself).

I just listen and go with what pleases me.

You're doing the right thing!

Best regards,
-- Al