Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: 'Fundamental rich' listening, or is RTA even close to accurate?
Post Subject: But, why NOT "flat"?Posted by Paul S on: 8/19/2007
I don't suppose I get this, either.
Why would you ever on the conceptual level opt to NOT have "Full Range" and a "flat frequency response" that covers the whole audible spectrum?
Sure, this is easier said (or thought of) than done, it's "complicated", etc., etc; but why would FR NOT be the ideal?
RTA is just a tool, like the equipment we want to test with it.
If you are saying you are measuring stuff that your playback source/system is not "really" contributing, then you can either re-work the RTA or plug away until you learn what that means in practical terms. I seriously doubt if "extra HF" you are "measuring" is music...
I'm guessing that no system output above 2k is quite audible as an abberation that cannot be "balanced" with LF, any more than you can make a table radio (or older console) sound "realistic" enough to do serious music.
Meanwhile, how do problems with test equipment change The Goal, in the abstract sense, anyway?
Add range up to FR, for Pete's sake.
And good luck with it ;>
Best regards,
Paul SRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site