Audio nonsense

I feel this bears mentioning;

Zavato, you are a total babe!

@jerryg123 ,

Say jerry, will you tell us what your last user name was before you got booted from the forum?

My "mechanical equalizer" is tuned to work and modify the room zone pressures level for some frequencies in relation with one another yes , but ALSO in relation to my own IMPERFECT hearing apparatus...Then my "curve" on the same graph as used by some here will not be so neutral...

Then my room is not neutral but the sound pressure levels related to some frequency bandwidth is ADAPTED also to my SPECIFIC tuning hearing/brain apparatus...

Then i need no microphone nor any electronic equalization...

I dont speak about that to boast about my devices, nor to boast about the alleged superiority of my method and device... THEY ARE NOT superior, they call for a dedicated room and much time to do the tuning...And they are not perfect but unlike an electronic equalizer which is a very limited tool for the global tuning of the room , my mechanical equalizer tune ALL the room at all the frequencies that matter for human hearing....

But that cost nothing , it is not only possible to do it, it is fun, and it is efficient: the sound quality is more than good for almost all people who listen music in my room and for me it is so good any upgrade appear preposterous...

Than measures are important yes, specially measure in acoustic for my ears in my case, and subjective correlated experience also is important...

The big egg objectivist, and the small egg subjectivist are two blind warring side whose existence make no sense for acoustic ....

But remember at last there is an order: any measure must be correlated to a subjectivity, not the opposite....

And in my process of tuning i at least learned the hard way that acoustic of small room is NOT the results ONLY of some waves coming from the walls ... It is a bit more complex thav this simplification for the benefit of acoustic panels sellers industry....This is the inconvenient truth....

😁😊

I have never understood why having a flat frequency response for speakers is a desirable attribute when the human ear hears almost every frequency differently, as described in the Fletcher Munson curves.

My ideal frequency response is equivalent of when the old but now shunned 'loudness' feature is turned on....

Exactly....

But most people dont understand that they NEVER hear speakers alone but they listen with EARS/speakers/room specific TRIPLE interaction with each one his own specific unique characteristic...

Tuning a speakers/room relation ask for a specific brain/ears history to do the work and trained listening experiments in specific condition...

It is why their ears are for acoustician their main tool...

Exhibiting a graph is not a proof of understanding .... Concept matter more than measuring tools...Because nobody can understand a tool result without the right concepts...

Ideological objectivist or entrenched subjectivist position make people DEAF...

By definition acoustic and psycho acoustic sciences are the art of correlating objective measure and a subjective interpretation...These two different correlated perspectives are separated ONLY by consumers marketing idolatry of the gear or marketing engineering idolatry of the tool, not by acousticians....

«Music is like God, nobody understand it but everybody can listen to it»-Anonymus Maestro

I have never understood why having a flat frequency response for speakers is a desirable attribute when the human ear hears almost every frequency differently, as described in the Fletcher Munson curves.

My ideal frequency response is equivalent of when the old but now shunned ’loudness’ feature is turned on....