Originally Posted by localhost127
ignorance preserved. an anechoic speaker-listener response means exactly what it says: the speaker to listener response is anechoic and there is no indirect signals (generated from the speaker) that impede the listening position. the direct signal from the speaker is all that is heard at the listening position with no contributions from the room. eg, absolute accuracy of the direct signal (no room masking with respect to intelligibility, localization, imaging, or frequency response anomolies due to superposition of direct + indirect signals). the direct signal is all that is processed.
Thanks for the response. I noted the same said differently in your other forum post. The issue is not what you have said, but the accuracy of your statement relative to response being anechoic even though clearly reflections are allowed in Non-envrionmental rooms and contribute to listener pleasure/comfort. If they are there for our ears to hear and perceive, surely they exist for a measurement tool to see them too. And hence, the reflections are above noise floor of the room and not anechoic.
however, the epiphany you'll have (if you ever manage to comprehend the copy-paste commentary you're presenting) --- is that an anechoic speaker-listener response DOES NOT INDICATE the ROOM is an anechoic chamber - as you continually attempt to present!
I am going by your language. The industry term anechoic is very specific: absence of echo. The term you are using, "anechoic speaker-listener response" is not used by others perhaps for good reasons: it is not correct use of the term.
some here seem to be completely oblivious to what "perspective" means; eg, speaker-listener response vs listener-room response. so, the speaker-listener response in an NE room is indeed anechoic. but the reflective front wall and floor mean that the listener is NOT in an anechoic room as his discussion and actions within the room are reflected back by the reflective front wall and floor - such that the user is NOT uncomfortable as one generally is in an anechoic chamber. while he still MAINTAINS an anechoic speaker-listener response!!
You seem to be saying there are two parallel universes for me as the listener sitting in that room. There cannot be. If I am there and I hear reflections due to those reflective surfaces, then there is no such thing as anechoic response. The sound arriving at my ear is a combination of direct sound of the speaker plus reflections from other surfaces. Ergo, nothing is anechoic. Echos exist.
yep - an anechoic chamber is not a pleasant space to mix music or enjoy - but an NE room (or equivilant design) has an anechoic speaker-listener response while NOT being an anechoic chamber.
Nope, it is not "anechoic." It is approximately so. They have dialed back from anechoic enough to make the room pleasing yet satisfying their goal of hearing direct sound of the speaker. Instead of having all the surfaces blocking sound, they leave some to reflect. Nothing more complicated than that. There is clear admission here that psychoacoustics plays an important and non-intuitive role here.
for the record, amir (who has zero experience in the recording world) - is attempting to discredit Hidley/Newell and the NER design. he, who wasn't even aware of what NER was until he googled it, is attempting to call NER "flavor of the day". now that's bold.
But it is flavor of the day. Had you not moved to crown Blackbird studio? How similar are those rooms? One with 4 foot diffusion everywhere and the other with mostly absorbing room? How are they not flavors of the day? Folks are experimenting. Tell me when they are done with subjective listeners who buy that music and then we can see if we should follow their lead. Otherwise, despite their qualifications in recording music, I do not follow their path in design of home listening environments. I listen to people have researched what surface should be reflective and not a choice like the floor, or the back wall, or this other wall.
Thanks for the larger letters. My eyesight is not where it used to be.
So now there is a pathway from the speaker and it is "blocked" by the mixing board/desk? What blocks the reflections from the surface those instruments? And if a desk/mixing console is necessary, how is that possibly relevant to a home situation?
Let's hit the literature a bit. AES Paper: A Proposal for a More Perceptually Uniform Control Room for Stereophonic Music Recording Studios
, by Newell, Philip R.; Holland, Keith R. (1997):"Except for the floor, and any equipment placed within the room, the monitors face something approximating to an anechoic chamber. "
So first of all, your statement of "anechoic speaker-listener response" is invalidated. The speaker clearly sees the floor and equipment as reflective and hence nothing is "anechoic." The article goes on:"From the monitoring direction, the reflexion problems from recording equipment can be dealt with by angling the equipment such that reflexions pass away from the listener and into an absorbent surface. If this cannot be done directly, then the offending surface can be protected, either by anabsorbent shield, or by a streamlining devices that will deflect the incident waves around or away from the object, and prevent them from, in particular, returning to the front, reflective wall and thence back to the listener."
Seems like fair bit of countermeasures are being put in place to deal with reflections. Clearly not anechoic. And clearly the equipment blocking the floor reflections wasn't enough to render it such.
We can document this quantitatively as the paper above shows impulse response of the room:
We see that the room is ringing up to 50 msec and past. Last time we discussed accuracy, you put this extract of the image I post earlier from you:
Originally Posted by localhost127
so, amirm - you're saying that the 'accuracy' ETC from the response in the graph indicates an anechoic space, yes? is this what you're saying?
what makes you think the room has to be anechoic in order to achieve that response?
Clearly the two graphs do not match. One is true Anechoic with an impluse and nothing following it, and the other, having ringing past that. They also post the frequency response:
I see 10 dB variations above the transition frequency, and that is dismissing that dip that they say was a crossover problem. If this room is anechoic, and that speaker has such wild anechoic response, it should not be something you spend money on.
are you attempting to discredit Hidley with your statements?
I don't talk about people but the topic. And the topic is the one you put forward: a fantastical notion of a room that is not anechoic but somehow is. You used the room style he developed as proof point. Research tells us that if you are going to use reflections to good use, the floor is not it. That he would come up with that as the solution means his work in this area is not instructive for what we like as consumers in our homes. New research has invalided his approach as being the valid one. But maybe you show me half a dozen home room acoustic experts that advise leaving the floor reflective and blocking them with tables....
what experience do YOU have in control rooms - what types of control rooms have you been in, worked in, etc? or are you all copy-paste parroting with no real world experience?
What experience do I need to find the definition of the NE Room? Isn't it as the research says it is? It is not like you have provided your own personal data, designs, research references. So what I have, is the best thing in front of us
so the mixing engineer has a choice in what they want, but the people who just want to enjoy music do not?
Everyone has a choice. Please don't keep posting this slogan. What people are searching for in these posts, are best practices. We have discussed Dr. Toole's. You don't seem to like that. Now we are discussing your best practices as coined in that phrase. You gave the example of NE Room as such. We dug in, realized that your understanding that it is somehow is anechoic is not right. No one in the industry uses your phrase and data shows that the room clearly deviates from an anechoic response. And that aside, the model came out years before research showed us what consumers prefer.
even toole says "it is a matter of taste",
This is what he says at the start of that paper: http://www.harmanaudio.com/all_about...ience.pdfAudio
"Audio products must sound good. That is a given. However, the determination of what constitutes good sound is a matter that has been controversial. Some assert that it is a matter of personal taste, that our opinions of sound quality are as variable as our tastes in wine, persons or song. This would place audio manufacturers in the category of artists, trying to appeal to a varying public taste. Others, like the author, take a more pragmatic view, namely that artistry is the domain of the instrument makers and musicians and that it is the role of audio devices to capture, store and reproduce their art with as much accuracy as technology allows. "