Stupid speaker test question...please help a n00b

I'd suggest listening to speakers at the appropriate listening position. Caveat, first order speakers might not be the best choice for dancers. I'd be leery of putting too much stock in Sterophiles testing of first order speakers. Unlike many other speakers manufactures, first order speaker manufacturers usually suggest testing speakers at the preferred listening positions, not 1 or 2 meters, something that seems to have been challenging for Stereophile.

Johnnyb53 wrote:

Basically, if you create a loudspeaker to measure well in an anechoic chamber (the only way you can accurately evaluate its output), it will sound unnatural in a number of ways when placed in a room.

I might have said "different" rather than "unnatural" to describe the in-room performance, but his point should be taken. An anechoic chamber is (for measurement purposes) infinitely large - with no contributions to the measured performance from reflected sounds. To achieve this in your listening room (for instance, to eliminate quarter wave reflections), the speakers would need to be +/- 5 meters from the nearest wall (including the floor, to be a purist). I thinks Johnny's generalization is pretty safe: few rooms will allow such speaker positioning.

Marty

PS The contribution of reflected energy is usually VERY audible. Audyssey is - broadly speaking - a system that attempts to adjust your system's in-room response to something more akin to anechoic response. A simple "before" and "after" test with Audyssey will quickly demonstrate just how far from "anechoic-ish" response you will get in your listening room.

PPS I'm pretty confident that anechoic testing arose to "level the playing field" for comparing speaker test results. Unfortunately, the level field is IMHO also the wrong field. If you want to determine which is the better of two football teams, by all means schedule a head to head game. Just don't play it on a basketball court.

Marty

Where should they play, in a water polo pool? Without anechoic measurements we wouldn't have a baseline. Without a baseline it would all become a crap shoot. With reasonable speaker/ placement we can differentiate between direct and reflected sound surprisingly well. Appropriate room treatment can go a long way towards attaining a fairly neutral environment. As you have pointed out, digital room correction is starting to further help in that regard too.

Where should they play, in a water polo pool?

I'm tempted to say that that would be roughly as useful as an anechoic chamber, but that would be a (slight) overstatement.

I never said that I had a better place to measure than an anechoic chamber (other than the "right", but impractical answer: In your own listening room), I just said that an anechoic chamber is a poor environment for simulating real world performance (per Johnnyb53). If you want to make the case that any baseline is better than no baseline, I won't argue, but....

Hopefully, my point was understood: Anechoic measurements may be the most logical way to measure a speaker, but IME, they're not very useful for predicting in-room performance. By the way, "not very useful" isn't the same as "useless". Above 250hz or so, smooth anechoic FR usually translates to smooth in-room response in that region. Below 150hz, IME, anechoic response is pretty much useless. Again, IME, for predicting critically important (to me) octave to octave balance, anechoic FR only weeds out the really bad desgns.

This thread has morphed into the question of which measurements might be useful in evaluating speakers - and my conclusion is that, generally, anechoic FR is of sharply limited utility.

Marty

The vast majority of music is above 150 Hz. Even with the diversity that exists in most real listening environments, having a baseline at least lets one try to correct for it.