OC 703 faced? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-15-2011, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Vai_rules View Post

What application are you using in those pics?

Matt

AFMG Reflex (available for free 30-day trial)
http://reflex.afmg.eu/index.php/rf-features-en.html

along with Soundflow:
http://soundflow.afmg.eu/index.php/sf-features-en.html
localhost127 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-15-2011, 04:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
Steve_Vai_rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The land of Ice and Snow
Posts: 988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post


AFMG Reflex (available for free 30-day trial)
http://reflex.afmg.eu/index.php/rf-features-en.html

along with Soundflow:
http://soundflow.afmg.eu/index.php/sf-features-en.html

Cool thanks!!

"The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live." - George Carlin
Steve_Vai_rules is offline  
Old 11-15-2011, 10:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

the priorities when discussing acoustics and how to address measured problems in small acoustical spaces change so often i can no longer keep track. now we have one more to add and to be attacked against when discussing solutions.

Is it wrong to want to enjoy the process of one's hobby as well as the results?

Bigus is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Is it wrong to want to enjoy the process of one's hobby as well as the results?

your response doesn't make any sense in reply to my previous statement.
but you are good at taking a statement by me and swisting the words such that i am "implying" something like (now) how apparently it is "wrong" to enjoy the process ... just like in post #62 where you insinuated that i "rub their nose in it" if people have constraints (of which you have yet to provide quotes from me or even kindly take the statement back).

again, ANY excuse NOT to actually discuss solutions. now, one has to perform reconnaissance and understand just what a user's level of 'enjoyment' may be regarding a particular solution to a particular problem (on top of their wife factor, aesthetics, and colour choices!!) before offering solutions to the actual ACOUSTIC problem in the space!- so many design priorities to consider for the user before offering a possible solution!

'enjoyment' is now another priority to consider? ... great - looks like we will all be using bookshelves in place of something like a Schroeder diffuser for life, because i sure as heck wouldn't wish the 'enjoyment' of building Schroeder diffusers on my worst enemy!
localhost127 is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 09:45 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
alittletank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: San Antonio Tx
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Localhost I'm sure I could learn a lot from you however I find myself incapable of seeing past your condescending tone and abrasive delivery to absorb anything useful from your posts. Perhaps that isn’t your intention but it certainly is the end result.

alittletank is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 11:14 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by alittletank View Post

Localhost I'm sure I could learn a lot from you however I find myself incapable of seeing past your condescending tone and abrasive delivery to absorb anything useful from your posts. Perhaps that isn’t your intention but it certainly is the end result.

Yawn...

Local, why bother?
You have folks here whose primary reason is not to learn the actual acoustical physics - as we are told repeatedly that such is far to difficult for the average Joe, who can't be bothered to read 76 pages of Sound System Engineering.

Instead their purpose is validation. They have had much fun reading copious marketing brochures full of miraculous promises, or copying something they saw elsewhere (regardless of the actual purposes that may have been designed to remediate - but hey, it looked cool!), or repeating what someone else did based upon their 'interpretation' of what someone else did based upon their reading of what someone did on another Internet site - actual behavior be damned. And regardless of how objectively valid the actual behavior, since the result is "different" from that which they started, it is necessarily defined as "better". What could be simpler - or more enjoyable.

For you see, in this world, there is no objective basis for performance, as most still think that acoustics is far beyond the realm of science to understand and most still think that they are exploring uncharted territory where noise control, reflection, absorption and diffusion have never been studied - as after all, as one reads all too often on the 'net, this subject is simply far beyond the ability of science to understand - as if they don't know - nobody knows.

So why try to upset their world of enjoyment based upon a myopic ignore-ance of the larger world of acoustics. Just because you have taken some time to actually read and learn from primary sources and current models and research, why do you persist in upsetting he good folks who have some Luddite notion that one cannot find enjoyment in identifying ACTUAL behavior, noting ACTUAL problems, and surgically using the appropriate treatment to effectively treat, and verifying the effectiveness of such treatment in order to achieve a coherent acoustical response model that is appropriate to their intended use?

You see, the real problem is that in the absence of such awareness, and the refusal of folks to make an attempt that is commensurate with the stated importance of the response of their room, all you are doing is reminding them that their oh so enjoyable efforts are in most cases less than optimal. And of course the cry is to burn the witch! And these folks have spent much more time assembling torches and pitchforks from some Internet page claiming to offer the latest greatest most effective torch and pitchfork design than they have actually trying to read some readily available texts on current models, tools, or acoustics pertinent to small acoustical space acoustical spaces.

And don't worry, there are plenty here with a commercial vested interest who will chastise you as well, as rather than advancing an understanding of actual current acoustical models and concepts, they have a vested interest in cultivating the cult of personality as they sell services marketed not on objective performance that translates to subjective experience, but they sell the 'image' and the enjoyment of casting their worries to the side as long as they only employ their services or buy their magical products guaranteed to solve everyones' problem - regardless of what they are - based on the foregone conclusion that if you have already justified spending that much money, OF COURSE you are going to hear the desired difference as you have already decided it is worth it - regardless of whether it actually exists or not!

After all, this is about ENJOYMENT and MARKETING! And most importantly VALIDATION! They want to FEEL good! Its not about objective results that may or may not occur, its about their deserved reward for participation.

Nevermind if various marketed measurement platforms over promise and vastly under deliver at a price twice of more capable alternatives - they are not buying actual performance, they are buying the feeling that they have DONE something without really having had to spend any effort or time to learn what they are doing! But hey, given its limited scope and abilities, its the ideal app for those who were not astute enough to simply buy a receiver with the limited benefits of Audyssey to EQ their sub below ~100 Hz. Besides, isn't that all acoustic measurement can do???????

After all, why do you think so many flock to buying fancy interconnect and power cables? As they are the one area where the 'average Joe end user' does not feel intimidated as they respond to claims to be able to make quantum leaps in performance improvement!

But whatever you do, DO NOT dare suggest that such notions are not valid, as this invalidates their FEELINGS. Don't dare suggest that their arbitrary placement of too thin treatment might over-damp the high frequencies while ignoring the high energy low-mid energy and actually exacerbate the situational. Don't DARE suggest that physics actually plays a role, as most are intimidated by physics, and most don't ant to believe that all of their effort and money was wasted. Nevermind that if one acknowledged the principles that they could more effectively and enjoyably expend the same or even less effort and money and actually achieve an objectively verifiable result that translates to an enhanced subjective experience.

So Local, don't rock the boat! You are making the mistake of assuming that this and other similar forums are ACTUALLY about "Science", when in fact they are simply about the validation of whatever it is that someone did for whatever reason. It's not about science, its not about acoustics, its about FEELINGS. And as you have been told by yet one more participant, the presentation of objective fact where performance can indeed be determined objectively (and where the concepts of 'correct' and 'incorrect' can often be ascribed), they are "incapable of seeing past your condescending tone and abrasive delivery to absorb anything useful from your posts". For you see, you miss the point in trying to present objective concepts that describe physical behavior. As to disagree or state that something can objectively be measured and possibly found lacking, that is necessarily "condescending...and abrasive".

This is not about doing it right. This is about participation. And as we have all learned in recent years, the actual results don't matter! What matter is that everyone get a medal simply for participating.

So, can the acoustics - as they has little place here; and instead start validating!!! Just ignore the actual results and instead smile and say "it looks nice..." Either that or invest in some new tennis shoes in which the 'fast' has not yet worn off - as you will need them as you run chased by the natives (their pockets bulging with glossy brochures) bearing torches and pitchforks chanting "Burn the witch"...

So get with the program, dude!
dragonfyr is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 11:31 AM
HOME THEATER CONTRACTOR
 
BIGmouthinDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 21,505
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Don't dare suggest that their arbitrary placement of too thin treatment might over-damp the high frequencies while ignoring the high energy low-mid energy and actually exacerbate the situational.

Actually I understand what you guys are saying, and actually plan to study up on this topic and learn more about the kind of measurements you suggest. Having said that, in the numerous theaters that I have been in (or built) all with too thin absorption I haven't yet experienced an exacerbated problem, the rooms always sounded better than butt naked drywall.

Do you have a link to a case study? Would like to read.
BIGmouthinDC is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 11:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
ADDUpstate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Perinton NY
Posts: 650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Yawn...

Local, why bother?
You have folks here whose primary reason is not to learn the actual acoustical physics - as we are told repeatedly that such is far to difficult for the average Joe, who can't be bothered to read 76 pages of Sound System Engineering.

Instead their purpose is validation. They have had much fun reading copious marketing brochures full of miraculous promises, or copying something they saw elsewhere (regardless of the actual purposes that may have been designed to remediate - but hey, it looked cool!), or repeating what someone else did based upon their 'interpretation' of what someone else did based upon their reading of what someone did on another Internet site - actual behavior be damned. And regardless of how objectively valid the actual behavior, since the result is "different" from that which they started, it is necessarily defined as "better". What could be simpler - or more enjoyable.

For you see, in this world, there is no objective basis for performance, as most still think that acoustics is far beyond the realm of science to understand and most still think that they are exploring uncharted territory where noise control, reflection, absorption and diffusion have never been studied - as after all, as one reads all too often on the 'net, this subject is simply far beyond the ability of science to understand - as if they don't know - nobody knows.

So why try to upset their world of enjoyment based upon a myopic ignore-ance of the larger world of acoustics. Just because you have taken some time to actually read and learn from primary sources and current models and research, why do you persist in upsetting he good folks who have some Luddite notion that one cannot find enjoyment in identifying ACTUAL behavior, noting ACTUAL problems, and surgically using the appropriate treatment to effectively treat, and verifying the effectiveness of such treatment in order to achieve a coherent acoustical response model that is appropriate to their intended use?

You see, the real problem is that in the absence of such awareness, and the refusal of folks to make an attempt that is commensurate with the stated importance of the response of their room, all you are doing is reminding them that their oh so enjoyable efforts are in most cases less than optimal. And of course the cry is to burn the witch! And these folks have spent much more time assembling torches and pitchforks from some Internet page claiming to offer the latest greatest most effective torch and pitchfork design than they have actually trying to read some readily available texts on current models, tools, or acoustics pertinent to small acoustical space acoustical spaces.

And don't worry, there are plenty here with a commercial vested interest who will chastise you as well, as rather than advancing an understanding of actual current acoustical models and concepts, they have a vested interest in cultivating the cult of personality as they sell services marketed not on objective performance that translates to subjective experience, but they sell the 'image' and the enjoyment of casting their worries to the side as long as they only employ their services or buy their magical products guaranteed to solve everyones' problem - regardless of what they are - based on the foregone conclusion that if you have already justified spending that much money, OF COURSE you are going to hear the desired difference as you have already decided it is worth it - regardless of whether it actually exists or not!

After all, this is about ENJOYMENT and MARKETING! And most importantly VALIDATION! They want to FEEL good! Its not about objective results that may or may not occur, its about their deserved reward for participation.

Nevermind if various marketed measurement platforms over promise and vastly under deliver at a price twice of more capable alternatives - they are not buying actual performance, they are buying the feeling that they have DONE something without really having had to spend any effort or time to learn what they are doing! But hey, given its limited scope and abilities, its the ideal app for those who were not astute enough to simply buy a receiver with the limited benefits of Audyssey to EQ their sub below ~100 Hz. After all, isn't that all acoustic measurement can do???????

After all, why do you think so many flock to buying fancy interconnect and power cables? As they are the one area where the 'average Joe end user' does not feel intimidated as they respond to claims to be able to make quantum leaps in performance improvement!

But whatever you do, DO NOT dare suggest that such notions are not valid, as this invalidates their FEELINGS. Don't dare suggest that their arbitrary placement of too thin treatment might over-damp the high frequencies while ignoring the high energy low-mid energy and actually exacerbate the situational. Don't DARE suggest that physics actually plays a role, as most are intimidated by physics, and most don't ant to believe that all of their effort and money was wasted. Nevermind that if one acknowledged the principles that they could more effectively and enjoyably expend the same or even less effort and money and actually achieve an objectively verifiable result that translates to an enhanced subjective experience.

So Local, don't rock the boat! You are making the mistake of assuming that this and other similar forums are ACTUALLY about "Science", when in fact they are simply about the validation of whatever it is that someone did for whatever reason. It's not about science, its not about acoustics, its about FEELINGS. And as you have been told by yet one more participant, the presentation of objective fact where performance can indeed be determined objectively regarding concepts where one can determine if something is objectively correct or not, they are "incapable of seeing past your condescending tone and abrasive delivery to absorb anything useful from your posts". For you see, you miss the point in trying to present objective concepts that describe physical behavior. As to disagree or state that something can objectively be measured and possibly found lacking, that is necessarily "condescending...and abrasive".

This is not about doing it right. This is about participation. And as we have all learned in recent years, the actual results don't matter! What matter is that everyone get a medal simply for participating.

So, can the acoustics - as they has little place here; and instead start validating!!! Just ignore the actual results and instead smile and say "it looks nice..." Either that or invest in some new tennis shoes in which the 'fast' has not yet worn off - as you will need them as you run chased by the natives bearing torches and pitchforks chanting "Burn the witch"...

So get with the program, dude!



Dude, you have A LOT of time on your hands.
ADDUpstate is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 11:50 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADDUpstate View Post

Dude, you have A LOT of time on your hands.

Yeah, a whole 15 minutes!!!

But I find your tone condescending and abrasive.
As, after all, I ENJOYED myself!
dragonfyr is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 12:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
ADDUpstate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Perinton NY
Posts: 650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Yeah, a whole 15 minutes!!!

But I find your tone condescending and abrasive.
As, after all, I ENJOYED myself!


How often do you ENJOY yourself? :P
ADDUpstate is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 12:10 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Dragon,
You're right on many counts, you exaggerate several aspects to help facilitate your point, some elements are merely wrong in my opinion. That said, I welcome your input here. I think anyone paying attention clearly understands both your cynical viewpoint, and the phenomenal wealth of knowledge in acoustical science that you possess.

Myself, I'd much prefer reading a 13 paragraph dragonfyr contribution detailing some particular element of small room acoustics, as opposed to an equally long post detailing the collective failure of many of the enthusiasts that frequent these parts. I do take exception to some of your broad strokes, however many of your contentions are spot on.

Unabomber manifesto aside, don't encourage Local to bail. I appreciate anyone taking the time to share their knowledge here,...anyone,.... even Ted Kaczynski

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

your response doesn't make any sense in reply to my previous statement.
but you are good at taking a statement by me and swisting the words such that i am "implying" something

I didn't intend to twist your statements or imply anything out of line. My simple one line question was meant to instead provoke just a bit of thought about why forum members seem to be retracting from the informative posts you and dragonfyr offer. I've tried several times to politely suggest the cause. It isn't the blissful state of idiocy dragon describes. People just want to have fun... fun in listening/watching, fun in building, and yes... even fun in learning.

Quote:


just like in post #62 where you insinuated that i "rub their nose in it" if people have constraints (of which you have yet to provide quotes from me or even kindly take the statement back).

I wasn't referring to a specific statement from you (or dragon, who it is likely I had more in mind), but rather put a name on the overall feeling I think posters have in response to some of these lengthy, condescending posts.

But if your intent was not to rub people's noses in it, I retract the statement.

I don't know how many times or how many different ways I need to say it. Information is great. People here want to learn, myself included. Delivery is king. No, we don't need to be treated like babies, but being called a herd of idiots isn't going to open any ears either.

Dragon makes the claim that posters here don't want to learn, but rather simply validate each other. It is appearing more and more that he doesn't want to educate and help, but rather simply display his "superior knowledge." So which is it? Is advice only possible in one direction, poured from the educated on high to the ignorant herd below, or is there room for constructive criticism to be offered and accepted in the other direction as well?

For all the claims about people not being willing to learn, perhaps the best way forward is to lead by example.

Bigus is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I don't know how many times or how many different ways I need to say it. Information is great. People here want to learn, myself included. Delivery is king. No, we don't need to be treated like babies, but being called a herd of idiots isn't going to open any ears either.

Dragon makes the claim that posters here don't want to learn, but rather simply validate each other. It is appearing more and more that he doesn't want to educate and help, but rather simply display his "superior knowledge." So which is it? Is advice only possible in one direction, poured from the educated on high to the ignorant herd below, or is there room for constructive criticism to be offered and accepted in the other direction as well?

i think it's mostly human nature and defense mechanisms kicking in - and people reading others' commentary over the internet in a specific tone in their head which leads to the "condescending tone" .... a critical, inherent problem of reading text (communicating without seeing facial expressions or hearing the tone of the user) on the internet - the tone you read it in in your head changes the perspective of everything! (where are the psychology majors?)

i have always read his commentary in a non-personal, up-beat kinda cynical/comical way (monty python) such that you kinda "jokingly" follow-along to realize just how non-objective and silly some of the stuff we do or think about a topic is (eg, misconceptions) ... if you take his posts personally, as if being directly attacked, then by all means of course your brain and defense mechanisms are going to kick in and you're going to be completely blinded by such emotion and completely ignore the real data content.

but that's my own feeling towards him and im not sure why people keep lumping me and him together. im just a novice. ive never presented myself as anything more than that and instead focus on small room acoustics and inherent misconceptions regarding treatments of specific issues in small acoustical spaces. you dont see me in many other threads, ya?

but it is painful to see such data presented, and anyone combing for any such fault to point out as if that completely nullifies the data presented: grammar, spelling, condescending tone, etc - it goes back to the fact that we will look to distract whateverittakes EXCEPT actually getting back on the topic.
localhost127 is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 12:33 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I didn't intend to twist your statements or imply anything out of line. My simple one line question was meant to instead provoke just a bit of thought about why forum members seem to be retracting from the informative posts you and dragonfyr offer. I've tried several times to politely suggest the cause. It isn't the blissful state of idiocy dragon describes. People just want to have fun... fun in listening/watching, fun in building, and yes... even fun in learning.


I wasn't referring to a specific statement from you (or dragon, who it is likely I had more in mind), but rather put a name on the overall feeling I think posters have in response to some of these lengthy, condescending posts.

But if your intent was not to rub people's noses in it, I retract the statement.

I don't know how many times or how many different ways I need to say it. Information is great. People here want to learn, myself included. Delivery is king. No, we don't need to be treated like babies, but being called a herd of idiots isn't going to open any ears either.

Dragon makes the claim that posters here don't want to learn, but rather simply validate each other. It is appearing more and more that he doesn't want to educate and help, but rather simply display his "superior knowledge." So which is it? Is advice only possible in one direction, poured from the educated on high to the ignorant herd below, or is there room for constructive criticism to be offered and accepted in the other direction as well?

For all the claims about people not being willing to learn, perhaps the best way forward is to lead by example.

blah blah blah

More social commentary from one who has yet to offer any contribution to the subject of acoustics.

Yet you CONTINUE to falsely accuse me of calling people here "idiots", when my reference was clearly to how the marketeers of OmniMic conceive of their intended market! And I OBJECTED to that characterization! But just as with acoustics, don't let facts confuse you!

...But just keep repeating the Big Lie as you posture as Mr. Congeniality.

What would be a radical change would be if you spent just one fraction of the time you spend sanctimoniously criticizing others delivery and actually attempted to pursue some of the information that has been presented that you claim to want so badly .

JUST ONCE.
dragonfyr is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 01:07 PM
Senior Member
 
test4echo101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGmouthinDC View Post

Actually I understand what you guys are saying, and actually plan to study up on this topic and learn more about the kind of measurements you suggest. Having said that, in the numerous theaters that I have been in (or built) all with too thin absorption I haven't yet experienced an exacerbated problem, the rooms always sounded better than butt naked drywall.

Do you have a link to a case study? Would like to read.

In bold, that's the point!

In all the rooms you've built or help design,( and I love the look of your HT) how have you determined where and what type of treatment to use in any particular location?
Is is an estimation or an actual measurement you use to determine what goes where and why?
Its great that you "like" the sound better than bare drywall.
However, is what was done based on proper measurements or a ton of other factors that DO NOT have a thing to do with the science of it?
(Such as aesthetics, Wife factor, ..etc...(ETC...lol)

Thats all I see Local and dragon trying to do. Show HOW to do what your already doing (placing treatments) but place it where it should be and the type that should be used.

Are some compromises expected? Sure, but base your compromises around a solid scientific acoustic model.
Don't dismiss the science outright for the sake of compromises.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I expect most that are still reading this thread for its scientific data already have the tools. Maybe some just lack the understanding on how to use them and what those tools tell us.
They can help with that. They have certainly helped me.

If people don't like the way Local and dragon come across, well so be it.
You cannot argue the facts they are presenting.

Test,

Mpray1983- "User error due to sneeze or fart occurred during measurement"
test4echo101 is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 01:28 PM
HOME THEATER CONTRACTOR
 
BIGmouthinDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 21,505
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by test4echo101 View Post

In all the rooms you've built or help design,( and I love the look of your HT) how have you determined where and what type of treatment to use in any particular location?

My theater was completed before I knew anything and I basically followed the herd. Lately I'm been building rooms for clients that have paid for acoustical plans developed by subject matter experts. I can tell you that the recommendations passed around on this forum by the herd don't differ that much from the subject matter experts. Mainly because those that have purchased the plans have written about what they did in their project threads.

As was mentioned before, a pre-construction plan probably represents the low hanging fruit. But I have yet to find a single example of one that is worse off. Could they be improved with good measurement and tweaking, I'm sure.
BIGmouthinDC is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 03:35 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Dragonfyr, (or anyone for that matter)
Will you elaborate regarding your thoughts on OmniMic's operational short-comings, wrt their marketing/etc.?
Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 09:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

blah blah blah

More social commentary from one who has yet to offer any contribution to the subject of acoustics.

Yet you CONTINUE to falsely accuse me of calling people here "idiots", when my reference was clearly to how the marketeers of OmniMic conceive of their intended market! And I OBJECTED to that characterization! But just as with acoustics, don't let facts confuse you!

...But just keep repeating the Big Lie as you posture as Mr. Congeniality.

What would be a radical change would be if you spent just one fraction of the time you spend sanctimoniously criticizing others delivery and actually attempted to pursue some of the information that has been presented that you claim to want so badly .

JUST ONCE.

OK, so its getting a bit personal and I didn't intend to derail the thread in that direction. I could fire back my own snarky comments, but at what cost? I apologize for and retract any mischaracterization I may have applied to you. No posturing, just attempting to be helpful.

Bigus is offline  
Old 11-16-2011, 10:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Despite my previous observations not being worthy of the status of 'contributions', I am actually interested in two of them in particular and feel they are worth raising again.

One, it has been suggested a couple of times in this thread that you either use ideally sized absorption, or you make things worse. Is this necessarily the case?

Second, it has been suggested that if you don't have the room to properly absorb, you can reflect. My concern was that the geometric depth required was no better than absorption. Is this necessarily the case? Can a reflector be designed that is also effective down to 300hz within the 8" depth under discussion and with an angle of incidence great enough to have application in typical small acoustic spaces?

Bigus is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 03:03 AM
Member
 
dannut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Well it depends. What the end result should look like is to let the acoustics from the recording through without your (too)small room masking the detail of the recording space and/or giving false spatial ques due the reflection being too early and above the image smearing treshold. Also a single reflection gives a tonality error, due to our hearing we notice it mostly at low-midrange (side effect of combing).
Some auditory efects are depending on low-midrange, some perceptions are dominated by higher frequencies. The thing is, when you absorb only high frequencies, you can change some auditory perceptions for the better, but some effects remain or get accentuated.
Was it too vague?

As has been told, for the surface to do anything useful, it needs to be similar size as the wavelengh involved. Try the Reflex software, it gives you a graphic illustration.
dannut is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 06:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

One, it has been suggested a couple of times in this thread that you either use ideally sized absorption, or you make things worse. Is this necessarily the case?

adding to what user: dannut has already stated - one is generally concerned with maintaining the spectral balance within a room. if you are merely attenuating the HF band of the specular reflection (which has the shortest wavelengths and LOWEST energy content to begin with!) - then your are filtering/EQ'ing the reflection as it will still combing at the listening position to produce low-mid band comb-filtering results. this is precisely why we attenuate specular reflections with respect to overall gain via the ETC - versus breaking a reflection down in terms of absorption of specific frequency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Second, it has been suggested that if you don't have the room to properly absorb, you can reflect. My concern was that the geometric depth required was no better than absorption. Is this necessarily the case? Can a reflector be designed that is also effective down to 300hz within the 8" depth under discussion and with an angle of incidence great enough to have application in typical small acoustic spaces?

depends on the size of the listening position (single chair listening space?) and the dimensions of the room (whether a < 8" reflector is feasible). as i stated in that same post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

im not sure how it would be entirely possible in a multi-row home theater design, but that constraint would be largely due to the physical dimensions of the room:

im also curious to the link to this room where (apparently) such a reflector for specular reflections is employed - but i dont see it in the photos: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post21213890

maybe the builder of that room could chime in and add some more discussion to this topic and their experiences.

again, the biggest benefactor of reflection is that you are maintaining as much of the finite, specular energy within a room - especially when one is applying diffusers. one will also need to be mindful of edge diffraction via the reflectors and apply edge absorption as necessary (via ETC measurements). but, if one is deploying lots of diffusers to create a diffuse-field decaying return, then one will want as much energy as possible such that the termination and decay can be as high in gain as possible (something that is much, much more difficult to achieve than it sounds!)
localhost127 is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 07:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
In that room, the lower millwork panels are slightly angled downward. If you look closely you can see it. I have my doubts as to whether the incident angle is enough to be effective, and with the low placement on the wall I'm not sure what reflection is being addressed in any case.

Bigus is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fotto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: N.E. OH
Posts: 1,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

In that room, the lower millwork panels are slightly angled downward. If you look closely you can see it. I have my doubts as to whether the incident angle is enough to be effective, and with the low placement on the wall I'm not sure what reflection is being addressed in any case.

Bigus, since you still seem interested in this concept, let me propagate it, as I am a bit befuddled as to why we can't construct something across the first reflection area on side walls as part of the build. Maybe I'm just dense, but would like to understand why the following concept wouldn't be of some benefit.

some pics as visual aid for a 13' x 20' room with main listening position around 12'. Visualize a false wall in front of the speakers, I didn't feel like drawing it.





I just threw this together as concept for the reflective "wedge" area so don't focus on design aspect or integration into room plans.

OK fire away
fotto is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 10:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
does not satisfy attenuation of early energy (carpet on floor will only attenuate HF band - again, filtering (EQ'ing) the early incident energy).



reflectors in the conventional sense redirect the energy towards the rear-wall (to the diffusers) - but again, that is difficult/impossible to do with a full row of seats and narrow side-walls.
localhost127 is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 11:15 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Just what is such an angled kneewall supposed to accomplish?

Assuming an adequate degree of angling, a small portion of the incident specular energy will be redirected off the angled wall and down to the floor where it will be redirected (reflected) again back up toward the listening environment. But from what appears to be the actual case with the spatial constraints, the kneewall is not significantly angled, I am not sure exactly to what degree the energy will actually be redirected.

Since we don't know the exact angles its hard to determine anything too specific. And again, the use of the ETC response would tell us precisely what the small change in direction will do to add the Very small increase in arrival time (figure 1.13ms/additional foot of travel) and gain if we were to assume the redirection of the reflections off the floor, but the difference will be minimal. And the spectral content of the reflections would feature HF attenuation and color the direct sound unless the floors were reflective (e.g.: sans carpeting).

You still have remaining some aberrant high gain specular reflections.
And the energy incident above the angled kneewall would remain as well- only with a different vector path to be addressed as necessary.

You would do better to simply apply QRDs there - as at least you would have a degree of specular scattering (not diffusion) and lobing - due to the to the near field proximity of the diffusors to the seating location.

Simply redirecting the energy to the floor where it will be redirected upward once again is not really a solution. It seems allot of work with a final result being a small 'moving of the problem (early arriving high gain specular energy) around'.

If one were to try redirection, the use of 'outwardly' splayed surfaces would be more advantageous - the primary limitation being that they would take up quite a bit of space in order for them to be splayed sufficiently to redirect the energy to the left and right of the seating area towards the back where it could be either absorbed or diffused depending upon the intended room usage and the desired acoustical response model. (But I will add, if you do not desire a diffuse energy return, it would be simply easier to absorb it at the first boundary incident point instead of redirecting it and then absorbing it.)

If one is interested in the splaying technique, this approach has been mature since the late '70's and 80's as it was refined in the implementation of the LEDE response model - as such redirection was fundamental to retaining the finite specular energy such that it could be diffused and returned in the form of a later arriving diffuse soundfield. With the particular technique fundamental to LEDE being trademarked by Peter D'Antonio and RPG as the RFZ (reflection free zone) technique.

Thus, as Don Davis often said: The ancients seem to be stealing all of our inventions.
dragonfyr is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Fotto, I think that only shifts the apparent specular reflection in position.

Dragon, I'm not sure those knee walls actually address or a problem, or would be effective if one had been identified. But they look cool! I'd have to model the room geometry to see if there were any likely reflections that could be significantly altered, but I doubt it.

As for splayed walls, you point out one of my concerns, that being the depth required is no better than effective absorption. The other is that they are by design assymetric, working for front speaker reflections as that is where this concept (and the lede model) originated. In a true multichannel environment the geometry might solve issues from the front speakers while creating new ones from other locations. In essence, should not the treatments for multichannel work as well back to front as front to back? Or do the ambiance extraction techniques in modern processors provide a haas kicker as required? If so, this votes more for absorption than reflection.

Bigus is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 01:08 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Dennis Erskine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 9,143
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:


In that room, the lower mill work panels are slightly angled downward. If you look closely you can see it. I have my doubts as to whether the incident angle is enough to be effective, and with the low placement on the wall I'm not sure what reflection is being addressed in any case.

It was, and is effective. Every item (except perhaps the sconces) were specifically designed and placed for their collective acoustical impact on the room. Since you don't have a clue with respect to where the speakers are, you wouldn't have a clue as to what they are doing. The room has been listened to and measured by a list of credentialed professionals and received kudos from all of them. Designing and building real rooms is a whole bunch different than reading a book (or two), brushing up on your calculus and running spreadsheets for individual products.

Dennis Erskine CFI, CFII, MEI
Architectural Acoustics
Subject Matter Expert
Certified Home Theater Designer
CEDIA Board of Directors
www.erskine-group.com
www.CinemaForte.net
Dennis Erskine is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 01:34 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
LOL!

We don’t have a clue as to where ANYTHING is, nor the actual attributes of ANY feature, so whining that we are not intimate with one aspect or another is superfluous and a strawman. Hell, the response was to a Sketchup rendering!

But why stop there? We don’t even know the primary intended usage of the room!

Its ALL a secret!

But again we are entreated to the realm of mystery where objective behavior – which is well understood – is eschewed in exchange for testimonials.

As actual proper before and after response measurements would easily provide insight with regards to gain, arrival times, sparse or diffuse soundfields, relative source balancing, relations of direct to indirect soundfields and their spatial and temporal characteristics etc., all of which we DO know how they correlate to psycho-acoustics.

But that takes all the magic out of marketing doesn’t it? And it also makes objective proof of performance standards possible, and we know how many hate them…
dragonfyr is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 01:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
HDvids4all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Dragon, I have a feeling you're referencing the wrong picture...Dennis is talking about the attached pic, not fotto's sketch-up.

Fun Celing Thread

I don't know about you, but I've got my money on primary usage as a home theater.
LL
HDvids4all is offline  
Old 11-17-2011, 02:08 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDvids4all View Post

Dragon, I have a feeling you're referencing the wrong picture...Dennis is talking about the attached pic, not fotto's sketch-up.

Fun Celing Thread

I don't know about you, but I've got my money on primary usage as a home theater.


Thanks.

...a room with a wall above the 'kneewall' that is most probably an RPG BAD (binary amplitude diffusor) functioning primarily as an absorber- assuming there is at least 4" of porous material behind them necessary to make them broadband (up to about 1600 Hz)....

An intended room response can easily vary to the degree that the primary use is strictly movie, hybrid music/HT, surround music versus 2 channel music, etc., as the optimal balance of direct source supplied to diffuse room return can easily be varied/balanced for optimal performance.
dragonfyr is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off