Room differences dominate loudspeaker differences when listeners cannot adapt

Evidence

It should not be concluded that listeners can always adapt to or normalize rooms to the extent shown here. As will be seen, there is always some adaptation, but in Experiment One it was enabled by the experimental method of comparing different loudspeakers within each room. Experiment Two is more closely related to real-life listening, in that the sounds of the room and the loudspeaker are combined. Listeners living in the room may develop enough familiarity with it to be able to discern some characteristics of loudspeakers being listened to, but having multiple comparison loudspeakers available is a very advantageous situation. The tests had the additional advantage of being in mono. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 547

Categorization

• QUESTION: Does binaural measurement reveal normal room adaptation better than in-room monaural comparisons?
• XREF: Connects to the well-documented ‘headphone vs loudspeaker’ measurement paradox and room-normalization research in Toole’s earlier chapters and Olive’s work. — connects to: Room acoustics contaminate loudspeaker listening tests needing controlled environments; Anechoic chambers misrepresent how loudspeakers sound in normal rooms — Ville Pulkki, Matti Karjalainen, Communication Acoustics- An…, 872; Humans adapt to room acoustics through training over hundreds of trials (+17 more)
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 547

Broader Connections

• Changing room geometry barely alters loudspeaker quality rankings #corroborates (0.80)
• Listeners can perceptually separate loudspeaker timbre from room coloration in comparisons #contradicts (0.75)
• Loudspeakers do not break in but listeners adapt to new sound #expands (0.72) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 134
• Seeing a known loudspeaker erases sensitivity to room-position changes #contradicts (0.72)