Low-frequency room resonances drive roughly 30 percent of perceived sound quality
Evidence
- In retrospect, we now know that room resonances at low frequencies account for about 30% of overall evaluations of sound quality, so adhering to the new standard is no assurance of obtaining “standardized” subjective data. Room modes will be different for different IEC rooms, so some form of control or normalization is required below about 300 to 500 Hz to evaluate what is happening at higher frequencies. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 146
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
Related
- Low-frequency room resonances dominate how loudspeaker placement affects perceived quality. (similarity 0.95)
- Low-frequency performance drives roughly 30 percent of sound quality ratings (similarity 0.91)
- Loudspeaker resonances are the primary cause of poor sound quality. (similarity 0.89)
- Below the transition frequency the room, not the loudspeaker, dominates sound quality. (similarity 0.88)
- Anechoic loudspeaker data reliably predict in-room high-frequency response above 500 Hz. (similarity 0.86)
- Most loudspeakers need equalization to correct low-frequency room resonances (similarity 0.85)
- The listening room, not the loudspeaker, determines perceived bass quality. (similarity 0.85)
- Sound power is a poor estimator of bass performance in real rooms. (similarity 0.85)
- Room acoustics dominate perceived bass response below roughly 250 Hz (similarity 0.85)
- Equalizing only the low-Q resonance substantially improves subjective loudspeaker ratings. (similarity 0.85)
- Low-Q resonances are most often excited by music and most audible (similarity 0.84)
- Bass accounts for roughly 30 percent of perceived sound quality (similarity 0.84)
- On-axis frequency response cannot predict in-room measurements but does predict perceived sound. (similarity 0.83)
- Even anechoic rooms have a low-frequency operational limit (similarity 0.83)
- Bass performance drives roughly 30% of overall loudspeaker sound-quality ratings. (similarity 0.83)