Pure diffuse-field calibration yields inadequate bass and low preference ratings
Evidence
Figure 15.25 is an example of several headphone targets plotted with preference bounds after DF calibration for the B&K 5128 has been applied. These target curves have all produced high preference ratings in controlled listening tests reported in the previous sections and fall within the preference bounds. The exception here is the DF target (dashed line at 0 dB). It does not receive high preference ratings in listening tests and below 100 Hz falls outside the bounds indicating insufficient bass. Above 100 Hz it sits just on the edge of the upper bounds. The DF target with a −1 dB/octave downward tilt lies in the middle of the bounds and is a good match to the PIR of a well-designed loudspeaker like the Revel F208. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1854
Categorization
Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims
Related
- Diffuse-field targets are least preferred, but adding bass improves them (similarity 0.84)
- Headphone and loudspeaker bass targets converge on the same in-room response (similarity 0.83)
- Listeners strongly prefer the Harman target over DF, Lorho, and FF headphone targets (similarity 0.81)
- Audience bass preferences deviate from the Harman target by up to six dB. (similarity 0.81)
- Ignoring resonance Q can under-predict listener dislike of specific headphones (similarity 0.81)
- Headphone reproducibility varies strongly with frequency, worse at bass and treble extremes (similarity 0.81)
- A single headphone target curve cannot satisfy all listener preferences (similarity 0.80)
- Diffuse-field regions sound best because modes are minimal and level is even (similarity 0.80)
- No single headphone target satisfies most listeners (similarity 0.80)
- A headphone target curve descends gradually with frequency and boosts bass. (similarity 0.80)
- The three listener classes differ mainly in preferred bass level (similarity 0.79)
- Leakage-dependent bass makes closed-back headphone sound quality vary across listeners (similarity 0.79)
- Physical accuracy of a sound field does not predict perceived accuracy (similarity 0.78)
- Real listening rooms produce semi-reflective fields, not free or diffuse fields (similarity 0.78)
- The preferred headphone EQ matches the loudspeaker’s predicted in-room response. (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- The diffuse field assumption underpins room acoustics predictions but fails at low frequencies
#corroborates(0.95) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 1774 - Diffuse-field regions sound best because modes are minimal and level is even
#contradicts(0.85) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 2024 - Reverberant fields typically color perceived sound with excess bass that equalization must fix
#contradicts(0.80) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 2431 - Physical accuracy of a sound field does not predict perceived accuracy
#corroborates(0.75) — Ville Pulkki, Matti Karjalainen, Communication Acoustics- An…, 1902