@dannad --
I’m not putting into question your being knowledgeable in the areas you point out to me, but what makes your believe what we’ve done with my set-up (or the others I’m referring to) isn’t implemented "highly accurately," if that’s what your saying?
If this is the principle basis of your criticism it still goes: you have zero knowledge about the specific implementations in question, so what you have at hand is simply conjecture - end of story. I’ve previously had measurements and digital corrections done of my set-up with different main speakers, passive at that, using DRC Designer (in both time and amplitude domain), and it sounded.. oh well, why bother; what you need is the theory in place according to your head and a set of measurements, right? Currently with my fully active set-up and different speakers I’ve chosen not to implement digital corrections, and yet it’s certainly the sonic scenario of my/our preference. Measurements and digital corrections only get you so far, on their own. They can be helpful, but the final tweaks must be done by ear.
So? Essentially what you contest is based on mains and subs placed side-by-side and our having done phase adjustments per ear, which is hardly the big picture. Sorry, man, this is a dead end.
Whether I am knowledgeable with your specific setup, I am very knowledgeable about how difficult it is to match the phase response of two completely different speakers, with two different amplification chains, and potentially with some crossover components thrown in. I am also knowledgeable about what happens when you don’t do it highly accurately.
I’m not putting into question your being knowledgeable in the areas you point out to me, but what makes your believe what we’ve done with my set-up (or the others I’m referring to) isn’t implemented "highly accurately," if that’s what your saying?
I am also knowledgeable about the specific case of main and subs side by side and what the artifacts are when the matching in phase is not really good. I am also knowledgeable that you can’t match that by ear to any good accuracy.
If this is the principle basis of your criticism it still goes: you have zero knowledge about the specific implementations in question, so what you have at hand is simply conjecture - end of story. I’ve previously had measurements and digital corrections done of my set-up with different main speakers, passive at that, using DRC Designer (in both time and amplitude domain), and it sounded.. oh well, why bother; what you need is the theory in place according to your head and a set of measurements, right? Currently with my fully active set-up and different speakers I’ve chosen not to implement digital corrections, and yet it’s certainly the sonic scenario of my/our preference. Measurements and digital corrections only get you so far, on their own. They can be helpful, but the final tweaks must be done by ear.
That I have not experienced your exact system does not change how the physics of sound and how electronics work.
So? Essentially what you contest is based on mains and subs placed side-by-side and our having done phase adjustments per ear, which is hardly the big picture. Sorry, man, this is a dead end.