Originally Posted by dragonfyr
You selectively edit a case where Toole is specifically talking about a MINIMUM PHASE modal condition within a context where he specifically decries its use for non-minimum phase conditions - precisely what we are talking about
First of all, I did not respond to you. I was responding to locahost. And to the specific comment that frequency correction does not result in time correction. So I showed him example of that being the case. I assume you agree with that visualization yet I didn't see you be up in arm over accuracy of his statement.
I am glad you quoted that source; but unfortunately you failed to read and understand the REST of what Toole specifically wrote!
No I didn't. Thanks for the insult anyway. Is there a discussion thread where people are professional here? If you keep this insulting tone going, you will need to find someone else to exchange posts with.
Addressing your point anyway, I provided a proof point that time domain did follow frequency domain. That is the point that was disputed by localhost.
You see, Toole calls for "Intelligent Equalization", not the willful ignore-ance of large dominant behaviors such as non-minimum phase specular behavior that occur above the Schroeder transition frequency typically in the range of 200-300 Hz where modes no longer dominate.
There was nothing in my post about "willful application of EQ." Nor did I suggest to use EQ above transition frequency. You are fabricating an argument for me and then arguing about it not being correct.
Note he also correctly advocates ONLY trying to EQ modal PEAKS in MINIMUM PHASE conditions.
That's right. He also scuffs at screwing around with the high frequency response of the speaker and instead recommends getting speakers with good power response.
Precisely what I stated as I responded to localhost.
This specifically does NOT apply to the larger condition of which we were referring in regard to specular behavior! Believe it or not, there is more to acoustical behavior in a room than modes!
I do believe it. But when OP asks for a simple explanation, I am not going to write a book as you just wrote in your post. Why not ask OP if he understood what you have explained?
And Toole specifically denounces trying to use EQ in non-minimum phase conditions! In fact, that is one of the reasons cited for EQ having earned its less than stellar reputation as a result of it having been so commonly and grossly mis-applied.
That's right. As I noted, he recommends getting speakers with proper power response.
Its all the more frustrating when folks utterly miss the main point of the very selectively edited article that they erroneously assert as a disproof of the larger case where the limitations are in fact fundamental.
I have spent considerable amount of time with Floyd and I have complete understanding of his point of view. There is nothing you quoted from Floyd that is new to me or I disagree with. All you had to do was ask me if I meant what you think I did above and I would have answered and saved you your frustration.
Hope you feel better now