Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 5244401" data-attributes="member: 549629">If you feed your stereo a signal that is &#039;flat&#039;, the output from the speakers should also be &#039;flat&#039;. In theory, this is exactly what is being measured with the RTA. Its an imperfect way of measuring a system&#039;s frequency accuracy. But even in measuring this one aspect of sound reproduction (frequency response), it does not show the whole picture because music is dynamic. A system&#039;s ability to play flat, when asked to, has little bearing on its ability to handle the rapid transient changes in frequency response when playing music. It simply shows elementary problems in the system that need to be addressed (holes in response, or peaks, etc).Im one of the champions around here of the idea that SQ is measurable, objective not subjective. And it is. The problem is we dont have the technology to completely measure &#039;accuracy&#039; fully... transient freq response over time, spacial imaging in the listening environment, all the intangible aspects of reproduction that dont show up on any graph, chart or equation. The human brain and ears are relied upon to &#039;fill in the blanks&#039;. And there are alot of really big blanks to fill in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 5244401, member: 549629"] If you feed your stereo a signal that is 'flat', the output from the speakers should also be 'flat'. In theory, this is exactly what is being measured with the RTA. Its an imperfect way of measuring a system's frequency accuracy. But even in measuring this one aspect of sound reproduction (frequency response), it does not show the whole picture because music is dynamic. A system's ability to play flat, when asked to, has little bearing on its ability to handle the rapid transient changes in frequency response when playing music. It simply shows elementary problems in the system that need to be addressed (holes in response, or peaks, etc). Im one of the champions around here of the idea that SQ is measurable, objective not subjective. And it is. The problem is we dont have the technology to completely measure 'accuracy' fully... transient freq response over time, spacial imaging in the listening environment, all the intangible aspects of reproduction that dont show up on any graph, chart or equation. The human brain and ears are relied upon to 'fill in the blanks'. And there are alot of really big blanks to fill in. [/QUOTE]

Verification