Originally Posted by localhost127
that was NOT presented as an example of a room "done right"
So you are saying it is not an example of a room done right?
- i presented that photo as an example of a diffuser (read: treatment) that is effective across the entire broadband specular region - exactly like toole states that if applying treatment, then it must not modify the spectral content of the reflection like thin porous absorption or a shallow diffuser would. what is the bandwidth of the PRD diffusers or Auralex T'Fusors in your company's reference room? are they broadband?
Where do you find in Dr. Toole's teachings that back wall behind the speakers should be diffused as seen in the picture?
tell me - has toole done any listening test in the Ambechoic Blackbird Studio C?
I don't know if he has or hs not. For that matter, I don't know what he had for lunch yesterday either
. Regardless, as I post here, http://larchive.avsforum.com/www.avs...php?p=21851266
, the term "Ambechoic" is a marketing term coined by RPG. And they plan to produce their own objective and subjective data: "Future Research: We are beginning both objective and subjective measurements on the space...."
If you have that data, we can examine it. Until then, it is a wonderful looking space, in need of objective data to analyze it
because the room is effectively anechoic (first reflection is -30dB down and rate of decay is linear to schroeder integral). curious to see what his findings would be, especially as the room is designed as a surround sound control/mixing room. george massenberg had this to say:
George is a good man. I appreciate and accept his feedback that the room performs as he expected it. It doesn't mean I rush and put 3 foot sticks on my front walls though
. Here is what he says there:"the prime number which determined the primitive root diffusor calculation was suggested by Peter DAntonio (my collaborator in the project) was is 138,647, yielding co-primes of 181 & 766. this linear series was folded into 2D by the Chinese Remainder Theorem. there is roughly 47 tons on the walls after milling on a Cosmac horizontal mill, which ran for about 3 months cutting 1532 pieces of 1" MDF. we had thought that "sagging" might be a problem, and worked out a system of installing 1/4" dowels at strategic spots in the array to support it should this be the case - it hasn't been a problem, though."
but hey, who is george massenberg and why should we "trust his ears".
We should certainly respect his opinion (his last name by the way is spelled Massenbu
rg). He certainly has earned that. If you feel his opinion applies to your living room, by all means, go and buy tons of material and CNC them to fit your walls
but i don't really understand your attempt to steer my commentary away from what i said. the photo was an example of a proper broadband diffuser that would NOT alter the spectral content of the reflection as toole himself states in his paper. but it IS "loaded" with acoustic treatment! on every surface/boundary!
The picture was used as an example of what "loaded" meant. Since you say the same then it was appropriate use
so what exactly is it that you have an issue with if people want to add 'treatment' into their dedicated listening space or living room?
I have said a dozen times that dedicated spaces need treatment. I don't understand how you could be so confused about my position there. Would you please confirm you have read this response so that we don't rehash it another time?
As for living rooms, I have conveyed Dr. Toole's research saying it is not an issue of concern. You have put forward no contrary data. Does your living room have treatment? If so, what is it and do you have measurements of it? Can you demonstrate its efficacy in an objective way as he has done?
you and AJ seem to be the primary opponents to treatment. why is it OK for harman room or your company's reference room to apply diffusers instead of bookcases, but typical living rooms or the OP's room it suddenly meets contention.
Your beef needs to be with Dr. Toole and his research, not us. We are just messengers. On one hand, you quote Dr. Toole, on the other you resist his other statements with regards to living room treatment. If you sit and listen to him in person, you see that he is even more vocal about people running off to copy what they see in recording studios. He shows you pictures of his own living room which looks nothing like the dedicated spaces you have been posting.
what do you have against people wanting to apply treatment in their rooms? who are YOU to decide?
Well, neither you, nor I are deciding. That is for the OP
. What we are doing is putting forward data. On my side, I quote top experts, provide links to authoritative research papers on AES site, together with my interpretation of them, having spent time with these researchers, participated in tests that formed their opinion, etc. That enables me to summarize their findings in ways that I think make sense, are logical, and pretty easy to understand and follow.
You have likewise put forward your opinion and that is cool. Op will have to decide who is more convincing.
glad we're finally on the same page. your conclusions differ from AJ as he does not ever see the need for 'treatment'. im curious why you find such contention with ME when apparently you are now in agreeance with myself and toole - when i never see you argue or discuss with AJ on his stance of NO treatment ever.
I don't know why it is important to argue about AJ in this thread. He is not here and what we have to do to treat our rooms is immaterial to that point.
You on the other hand are here and my arguments with you is that you never share first hand data, and what you post, appears to be copies of other people's forum posts (mostly from Pro forums with different requirements). Even when referring to writings of Dr. Toole, you again show snippets posted on forums. I am worried that you have only grabbed fragments of what he talks about and don't know the totality of it. Hence the reason you can't agree when more of it is stated.
I am especially concerned that you never share any data that you have created yourself, nor any personal experience you have with these products, measurements, etc. These all point to someone who is what I call a "forum summarizer" and not a proper source of research. I apologize if this is not you but you asked why, and I share my impression
For all of AJ's ills, he has built his own speakers and spent a lot of time measuring and listening. And he has shared that information. Until you catch up to him, I am afraid I can't rely on your statements which are cut and pastes from forums as opposed to authoritative research. I hope you understand
i presented toole's commentary to support my statements in this thread. are you still contesting mine or toole's commentary?
As I noted, you do not convey Dr. Toole's teaching with completeness and proper point of view. When I provide the full context, you no longer agree with him. In that regard, I don't see you in agreement with him in any meaningful and logical way. Or else, we would be done by now arguing over whether living rooms need treatment or not.