Originally Posted by kromkamp
Do you agree or disagree that imperfect treatments are often/usually an improvement over no treatments at all?
This amorphous ill-defined question is fatally flawed by self-imposed limitations.
Let's see, if I apply a treatment sufficient to address non-existent flutter echo that EQs the high frequencies but does not address the problem of a late arriving high gain reflections...is doing something that exacerbates an issue without mitigating the real issue "better than nothing"? No.
If I apply sidewall treatment the strategically intercepts a destructive early arriving high gain sparse reflection that effectively EQs the high frequencies of the reflection, leaving the mids and low mids to continue and as a result STILL cause imaging, localization and intelligibility issues as well as the addition of treatment induced
coloration "better than nothing"?
No, it is NOT better than nothing. It is simply a new problem. And whether you think it is a problem or not is objectively verifiable. Whether you FEEL that it is better or not, I have neither control nor an opinion.
Personally I think the choice a rather absurd one akin to the concept of determining whether a person is a witch by immersing them in water, where if they float they are deemed a witch and are killed, or if they sink and drown they are deemed innocent.
So, if you are not a witch, is that a fair and acceptable verdict and subsequent outcome?
And since you have asked others for an opinion, instead of utilizing a fundamentally flawed course of reasoning and subsequent course of action, I would research alternative treatments methods that satisfy your particular constraints and which also address the nature of the actual problem in full, and utilize that treatment properly applied.
I know that concept seems to escape a few who continue advocating the viability of using improper treatment methods that fail to adequately address a problem condition, but simply asking the question another 100 times will not change the outcome.
The REAL problem here, contrary to what a few seem to maintain, is NOT the treatment that may, in a given circumstance, be inadequate to the task. It is the limited mind set that fails to investigate alternative types of treatment that can indeed address such issues completely and adequately, but which just might entail one having to enlarge their awareness and understanding sufficient to identify, understand, source and apply the said new alternative solution.
I find it rather amazing that a few are so stuck on one or two forms of treatment that one 'medicine' continues to be imagined as a universal cure-all for whatever the ailment, and instead of recognizing the fundamental limitations of such treatment and instead continue to fault others for recognizing the fact as they themselves fail to pursue learning about other more effective alternatives better suited to the particular circumstance.