Originally Posted by Heinrich S
Originally Posted by Wayne Highwood
]See that output around 3500 hz or so? Imagine how that's interacting in your untreated, lively room.
Output around 3.5kHz is high enough to cause brightness?
Wouldn't the top end need to be over-exaggerated for that to occur?
The top end is perceived as "air".
This illustration was referenced earlier in the thread, but apparently it was not inspected carefully so I clipped out the relevant portion:
And guess what - here's the problem with subjective terms - nobody uses all of the same ones. On this illustration 3.5 KHz is between Crunch and Edge. But its also brightness. Air
fares better - both the illustration and myself used it to refer to the top end. There is a reason why people refer to frequencies as numbers and not subjective words - the meanings are more consistent.
Looking at the graph it doesn't look like the bump is that big, but I have no idea.
Really? Referencing the origional graph:
This kind of plot is hard to estimate data from because the z axis is tilted, but I see an approximate 12 dB peak. That's big! This speaker sounds smoother and smoother the deader or more uniformly absorbtive the room is, but as others have pointed out, a room that is too dead is also bad. Its a speaker that sounds worse in a live room. One of the goals for a speaker designer is to create speakers that are both optimal in a room with good acoustics, but also sound as good as possible in a wider variety of more reverberant rooms.
This is a similar graph for a better speaker, with the z axis running in and out of the page for easier reading:
Notice how the off axis frequency response curves are smoother, and seem to consistently fan out from a common point? Again, its not perfect, but its a speaker that probably sounds better in a wider variety of rooms.