Kenjit wrote: "you say that [tonality is your priority] but your focus is and always has been off axis response. That is your holy grail."
My interest in getting the off-axis response right arose from its beneficial effects on timbre. Subsequently I found other worthwhile benefits. So to me, getting the off-axis response right is a means to an end, and that end is multi-faceted, and its main facet is timbre.
(A major difference between live and reproduced sound is, what’s happening in the reverberant field. You can walk past an open doorway with no line-of-sight to the sound source, such that all you can hear is the reverberant sound, and instantly you know whether it’s live or a recording. There are some simplification assumptions in this statement, but not all that many.)
" Cheap dsp speakers costing a few hundred bucks can give you smooth perfect off axis response if thats the goal. "
If there is a significant discrepancy between the on-axis response and the off-axis response, that discrepancy shows up in the shape of the radiation pattern. EQ cannot correct the radiation pattern shape, so it cannot simultaneously correct the on-axis and off-axis response if the radiation pattern has problems. (When the radiation pattern does not have problems, on-axis and off-axis issues ARE simultaneously corrected, which is what makes such speakers good candidates for DSP.)
So smooth perfect off-axis response is not THE goal. It is one of many.
If you are able to achieve satisfactory results with cheap DSP speakers, congratulations! If you are willing to share the secrets of your success, even better.
"My definition of tonality is completely different than yours. Tonality, according to my definition is the area well below the crossover point. So it has nothing to do with off axis response."
In that case, our use of the term is too different for us to move forward with its use. Do you accept the dictionary definition of "timbre"?
Duke
