Originally Posted by amirm
He has a summary of it in his book. But briefly, no the testing was not resonance. The goal was to understand the effect of resonance but the test itself just checked frequency response variations of different amounts. Since low frequency resonances cause frequency response variations, that was a good method to tease out its audible effects.
OK, I went to your link and spent more time re-reading it and another place that briefly mentions Tools finding on this JND.
I would think that in your paper the high Q would be a much narrower band than the medium Qand the low Q. And, I would suspect the Q correlates with Clark's reference to 1/3 octave, 1 octave, and 3 octaves. And, I would think that Tooles find of 0.25 dB for a low Q at 5 kHz would also correlate with Clark's paper.
Your link indicates that it is much easier to detect a low Q than a high Q. That is exactly what Clarks chart shows as well, so I don't see why it is wrong, just because it had 1 subject? Didn't they have similar findings?
I would think that speaker dip at 100 Hz is considered a high Q event, not so easy to detect? Another note is the very sensitive test signals used in both cases, Toole And Clark. And, Tool mentions a 5 fold increase when using much less sensitive signals; perhaps music?
So, I question that 0.5 dB audibility at 100Hz especially since I found Tools paper and he states" With many common sound, under common listening circumstances, it is surprising just how much the measured performance of a signal path can be modified without significantly altering perceived timber."
No specific mention of detection dB at 100 Hz, but may be there someplace.
But, again, I have no standing in this.