Originally Posted by localhost127
the room is indeed NOT anechoic - it is only the speaker-listener response.
This is the graph you put forward:
The is a spike (impulse) in time but no reflections. Nothing. Just the original spike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anechoic_chamber"An anechoic chamber (an-echoic meaning non-echoing or echo-free) is a room designed to stop reflections of either sound or electromagnetic waves. "
See it? Echo-free. That is what is in your marketing brochure. Designed to make people think they should strive for that. The only way to get that is to build said chamber. Real life chambers are actually never that good but they are the closest approximation to what you put forward as "accurate" sound:
that was the point of the exercise. perspective. perspective is exactly what Flatlanders like yourself have difficulty achieving.
The only exercise was a marketing one to get people to be scared of reflections, forgetting that in our everyday life, we are bombarded with reflections. If our brain didn't know how to tune that out appropriately, we would go nuts! It does that so well that if you take that all away, it seems strange and non-pleasing. Since the purpose of listening to music is enjoyment first, then we must take these things into consideration.
Now I realize you are not advocating that people build chambers. So please don't put forward graphs like above, taking out of context to prove your point. We can see what something is, and isn't. And that graph never proved what is accurate. It tried to say floor bounce is not a good thing. We all know that and that is the reason bare floors are something folks should be aware of. That is all you could use that chart for.
The spin of that into diffused fields and recording studios with many feet of diffusion has nothing to do with that chart.
sorry, amirm - but i do not have much of anything to market here
unlike yourself and the company in your signature.
Sadly what you have to market is worse than that: your online reputation. Why on earth would you spend hours and hours posting to defend yourself? You would do that without motivation? Don't be silly
. Most of us post for that reason. The rewards don't have dollar signs written on them but in some ways, they are far more precious as getting respect is something money does not buy.
And it is not like my company doesn't make money selling whatever you say vs what I say. Unless of course you are advocating people go in parking lots and hear music with their ear to the ground in which case, you can sell them that stuff
the accurate "direct signal" as measured by the ETC speaks for itself.
Yes. And what it says has no frequency response component. Since we are highly sensitive to that domain, then it is the wrong place to start or even use. The latter is because the graphs can be misleading.
there are no "subjective listening tests" by anyone to hide behind. no "room correction" or "speaker manufacturers" opinions to hide behind. the direct signal speaks for itself
If this isn't the funnies line in this thread, I don't know what is. Let's see if Arny takes you on telling him that your spikes are better than a listening test.
As I noted, here is Dr. Toole on that:
Originally Posted by Dr. Toole
the ETC (energy-time curve). In such displays, the strength of the reflection would be represented by the height of the spike. However, the height of a spike is affected by the frequency content of the reflection, and time-domain displays are blind to spectrum. The measurement has no information about the frequency content of the sound it represents.
[example given how time domain display way showing the wrong perceptual effect.]
All of this is especially relevant in room acoustics because acoustical materials, absorbers, and diffusers routinely modify the spectra of refl ected sounds. Whenever the direct and refl ected sounds have different spectra, simple broadband ETCs or impulse responses are not trustworthy indicators of audible effects.
So yes, if you start your music playing and let a microphone listen to it, you are good to go
. If on the other hand you want to enjoy music with *two* ears then you better think past that.
to anyone reading this - this is the heart of it all. this is the part where Amirm uses the restrictions of a "typical living room" in one conversation, and then a "dedicated designed rooms" by his company to satisfy another conversation. one moment "treatment" is not allowed, as he wishes to refer to "typical living rooms" - the next moment, he can suddenly design the room from scratch! and all of the issues magically disappear! must be nice
My company? I keep saying Keith Yates designed it. That aside, the distinction of an empty room and a typical living room is important.
And treatment *is* allowed. What is not allowed is random suggestion by people who don't understand the science and tell people to use sonar dispalys to know everything about the room. And listening tests don't matter.
and now for comparison, let's see AMIRM's "reference room" -
When do we see yours Local? When? Do you have one? Have you been in one?
your deployed diffusion suddenly does not look very effective with respect to the lower specular region.
You could tell that by looking at a picture? So ETC is not needed either? And measurements I showed didn't? All this time we could just use our eyes to tell what is good and what is not! Subjectivist at hand! Let the stoning begin
Floyd also laments about how people think what pros use, is what we must need at home. They have a job to do. You don't. They make money from their audio technology. You don't. They can afford to put that magnitude of diffusion there. You don't. Even with our theater we had to limit the cost. It was *my* money being spent there
. So when I say it is reference class, it means relative to any other showroom home theater I have been in. Our competitor across the street has a room that retails for $600K. It is full of Wilson speakers and such. And everyone says our little JBL speakers blow them away. Reason is that ours was designed by science and not back of the envelop acoustic advice. It is verified to perform well subjective and objectively. That is why it works. It is not by chance.
why do you NOT utilize diffusers in your REFERENCE ROOM that are effective to lower frequencies? why amirm???? is it because you bought them from another company and didnt design them from scratch, with respect to your customized "room"???
Half the treatment in the room was built by us (the absorbers). The diffusers were sourced by Keith because he knows the pretenders from the real ones. I trust his advice. Our goal was not to impress clients with sticks coming out 3 feet. That is needed in post houses because it translates to higher bill rate. For us, it would be the opposite because it is a theater meant to pull people into the picture, not the diffusers
As theaters go, we could easily do double or triple. If I left it to Keith, he would have speced $25K+ just for the HVAC duct work!!!
He even simulates temperature and humidity gradients in the room so that the air you breath is fresh so that you are as comfortable as you can be!
Again, when you decide to spend your money, you could put a few hundred thousands more than I did. So we stopped where we needed to showcase how far you can push up the performance. And I am telling you, the experience at this level is captivating. It leaves nothing wanting. Two seconds in the chair and you don't want to leave.
You are marketing audio fiction. Telling us that that we shouldn't hide behind listening tests and frequency response measurements? What do you think invalidates a $1000 power cord? Your ETC charts?