Perfect Path "Solutions" (PPS) eMat

As usual Mahgister, your replies are essentially misguided, the effect of too much confidence, and too little knowledge perhaps or are you just rushing to your keyboard without taking the time to think things through?


Read more, think more, and type a whole lot less!

I will point out a few paragraphs which you conveniently glossed over or did not understand. I will also note the size of Dr. Toole's listening space (which was a long time ago), and how that compares to oregonpapa's and the closeness and high reflectance of those surfaces.

The dramatic change happened when the precedence effect broke down and two images were perceived – that was a problem. The strength and spectrum of any reflection depends on the strength and spectrum of the sound radiated in that specific direction by the loudspeaker, and by the frequency-dependent acoustical performance of the reflecting surface. If you look at (a) in the preceding diagram, the adjacent side-wall reflection is the sound radiated at close to 90° off axis from the loudspeaker. This is much attenuated in most loudspeakers, and is motivation to angle the loudspeakers to face the listener.

the very neutral, essentially omnidirectional, Mirage M1s

You figure out why this is important.

Because of the designed-in irregular scattering surfaces, the heavy carpet and thick felt underlay brought the reverberation time down to under 0.5s so the room sounded much less “live” than one would think.

Figure 7.1 above shows the first reflections in a stereo setup, and in an LCR arrangement. Anyone claiming that a phantom center image is superior to a real center loudspeaker has some persuading to do. The phantom-image situation is significantly muddled, and most listening situations are not perfectly symmetrical. As we will see later, eliminating all of the reflections does not solve the fundamental problem with the phantom center; in fact it makes it worse.

That last one is for MC and others ignorantly claiming that a center channel is not needed for movies.

As an illustration of how much loudspeaker technology has improved over the years, these data on the JBL Pro M2 indicate that whatever one’s opinions of loudspeaker/room interactions were in the era of the UREI, they cannot be the same in the era of the M2, and any similarly “neutral” loudspeaker.

And this is specifically w.r.t. the Legacy III’s which were somewhat average at the time and have significant issues with the integration of the two different technology tweeters, and would not be, as Dr. Toole mentions above"neutral". They have a significant anomaly where the two speakers crossover.

Don't let this mad devil get to you mahgister, he is arrogant beyond belief and incapable of any thought other than how to insult everyone else while aggrandizing himself.  

He misses everything we love about music. Notice he never, ever talks in terms of how things sound to him. Anyone like you, me, Frank, anyone good at listening, that is how we talk. We talk about how it sounds. How it sounds in our rooms right here in the real world. All the arrogant clown ever talks about is how it can't because, reasons.  

Listeners like us, we learn what we can, buy what we can, build what we can't buy. But mostly we try and listen, throw out what doesn't work and keep whatever does. Regardless of what it was or who said it or how big a degree they have. If it sounds better we do it. If it doesn't we don't.  

Here we are enthusiastically engaged in the pursuit of better sound, and we have the temerity to judge our success at getting better sound by.... enjoying the better sound we get. Sound his tin ear can't even hear. No wonder the poor man is seething in rage all the time. So relax. Let him go. Not worth your time. Certainly not worth mine.

Golly, that is an awful room, awful loudspeakers too. It seems that Dr Toole has a lot of knowledge but terrible ears or maybe he does not earn enough in his profession to be able to afford the good stuff and I am not saying that in a bad way, it is true for a lot of us. We do the best that we can. 
We should all be proud of our systems but I do not understand this constantly "tweaking" business. I will go years, sometimes a decade before doing anything and When I make a change it is always a big one like new speakers or amps. I kept the same turntable for 40 years although I had some others over the past decade. My version of a tweak is a new cartridge. I've had the same room for 28 years and it was treated acoustically from the start and has not needed any additions. Now with new speakers coming and new more dense carpet things will change a little so I will have to take new measurements and maybe adjust crossovers. I suppose making digital changes is a sort of tweak but I can see exactly what is going on. There are no illusions here. I am programming the system to do exactly what I want.
I hate to say this but, I think people with less elaborate systems are constantly looking for inexpensive ways to improve their systems and fall pray to marketing hype. That does not explain the Hallograms at $1600. I suppose that is cheap relative  to an $85,000 amplifier.
@audio2design, now you are not only harsh but politically inappropriate.
You don't need to beat people up because the have no idea what they are doing. Just notice the group of comedians lined up against you.
It is the old science vs religion conundrum. So, keep up the good fight. It is a lot of fun watching them squiggle around the facts. They can not get their heads around the fact that some of us do not have to hear an item personally to know it does not work. Guys, it is just knowledge and experience. It is very easy to take advantage of those that have neither.

I missed millercarbon's last comment. We need to get you a soap box millercarbon. Better yet a TV show! You would make a great preacher. That says a lot coming from a atheist:-)

@glupson, Hey, it is time for you to make a comment!