Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ? - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 01:10 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
And our marketing buddy, in the establishment of what is now a grand tradition), still does not get it.

One uses verified broad band treatment on broadband boundaries.
If one does this, limited spectral stimulus does not matter at ALL.

If the source material is broadband, it addresses all of the energy, present in whatever variable source configuration, in a manner designated by the treatment choice.

If the source stimulus is limited in spectral content, it affects all of the limited spectral content in a consistent manner.
In other words the treatment modifies the behavior in the desired manner regardless of the nature of the incident energy.

Once broadband treatment is utilized to achieve the desired acoustic response, what is the advantage of using bandwidth limited analysis if the treatment treats any selected bandwidth uniformly over the broader spectral window?

Not much except that it requires quite a few more tests with resulting restricted resolution and proves that you can do in multiple measurements what others can do in one.

Let see, and has our learned friend become familiar with WEIGHTED SWEEPS? Where the gain and energy content of the sweep is weighted so as to compensate for variances in perception throughout the sweep stimulus? In fact, are they even aware that the preponderance of the more complete measurement and analysis platforms allow for the construction and use of variously configured stimuli? It is hard to imagine that their word searches would have missed that, but then they are dependent upon us to point such facts out so that they can then go to work searching as they lack the independent awareness to know what to search on based upon his own understanding and experience.

Add to that that that they seem unaware of the relationship between hearing and both linear and log scales and how such an awareness can modify and correlate acoustical data. And then don't even dare mention how various perspectives of the same data can be convolved from and into other useful perspectives in both the time and frequency domains - provided one understands their relationship and what useful information the various response perspectives provide.

Instead we are treated to a one trick pony critique as his awareness of the various USEFUL perspectives is SO LIMITED or non-existent that his critique imagines that others are so limited and they others ONLY use one perspective to gain a more complete understanding of the total system behavior.

I am curious as to how long it will take them to locate through their word searches a diagram that will show them the nature of such perspective relationships - as heaven forbid, they apparently also lacks ANY awareness of the nature of the Analytic. But I am confident that with time, they will finally be able as a result of the multiple references, to find such a chart and impress us with their late to the table prodigious acumen for word searches and cut and paste (characterized as "people's hard work and dedication ") - if not their actual awareness and understanding of acoustics other than what they find in but one book.

In fact, if we stopped posting, they would be limited to repeating, once again, the SAME stuff sources and parroted from Toole about which they has little actual acoustical awareness other than an abbreviated second hand account that he has read in one source coupled with even less, or no, applied personal experience.

Why of course not, as one would most likely have to have actually tried to use a modern platform featuring a complete set of stimuli and have a first hand knowledge of that which they heretofore can only cut and paste material sources from word searches.

But such is the result of someone who comes to the party late, coupled with the lack of any first hand comprehensive knowledge or experience, and hen proceeds, based solely on his word searches and cut and paste evidence tries to intimidate folks with posting of the SAME time based compiled data based upon time based measurements (that they maintain are worthless) regarding psycho-acoustics of which so many are performed with respect to time (and apparently worthless seeing as how they have repeatedly told us that time domain data is superfluous) coupled with the obligatory references to Fletcher Munson curves that are trotted out every so many posts.



And as local has correctly pointed out, don't dare point out that where as acousticians such as Beranek and Schroeder correctly explained and labeled the frequency and wavelength based behavior as modal and specular, using the proper terms sourced from acoustical physics, noting that labeling one "room" and other "speaker" implies that they each do not properly involve the interaction of a speaker sourced stimulus and how the wavelength of the sourced signal interacts with the bounded space dependent upon the relative sizes of the room dimension and the wavelength of the constituent energy. For you see, apparently one is supposed to think that one behavioral domain is dependent upon the speaker, and the other is dependent upon the room, when BOTH are dependent upon the wavelength relative to the room's dimension. And ALL are sourced by, for our purposes, a speaker.

...Yet another case where words and terms are used, not properly as defined in acoustical physics as "modal" and "specular", but as slang.



And to think that ALL of this hassle is simply over the fact someone has taken one available response model and zealously attempted to impose it as the ONLY appropriate response model while willfully denying the value and understanding of availing oneself of the additional insight the time domain provides in addition to the frequency domain.. rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 06:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

And as local has correctly pointed out...
The only thing that Local has pointed out is that he has just been reading forum posts and feeding them back to us. He has no real life experience with anything we have been talking about. There is a reason he couldn't even show us an ETC graph. The very thing he keeps saying we should be using. If you think theory = practice, that a poster who has never touched, heard or even seen the products and solutions we are talking about, and doesn't even own Dr. Toole's book as to tell me one sentence about it, should then be telling people what to do, you lack far more sensibility than I like to give you credit for. So please spare us using him as some kind of authority and making him feel good about his participation. We don't need you to sanction the opinion of someone in his situation lest you want some of that to rub off on you, telling us we should listen to people with no real life experiences. And let's not even think about the ethics of going back to a forum and deleting his posts as to cover up his tracks. Say it in your own words. Local made his bed there and he needs to sleep in it alone.

The rest of your post is another wordy one that is yet again repetitious, insulting and lacks insight. As always, it ignores how we hear and my repeated questions to you in that regard. Earlier I explained the psychoacoustics showing that for floor reflections for example, even a half-inch padding and carpet provides the absorption we need. I have asked you and your brother ten times what you have put on your floor if that is too thin to be a "broadband absorber." All we hear is the sound of crickets. As with him, you dispense advice for others when you have not tried to deploy them for yourself. If you had, then you would have an answer for us. And you would realize that when dealing with real life situations, if science backs something as fortuitous as having such a thin absorber do what we need, we celebrate it. We don't ridicule it. Ridicule would be putting forward blackbird studio with 48 inch diffusers and say, "oh, the physics says we need to have them this deep!" Yeh, the physics says a lot of things. It says if you bang your head against the wall, it will hurt. The answer is don't hit your head against the wall! smile.gif There are solutions that come to you when you have wider scope of knowledge than continuing to think that a single microphone that can't even tell you how one ear hears sound, shows spikes on a graph that is the sum total of what you need to know as far as what impacts the sound we hear and enjoy. So you keep thinking about how to put padding on said wall to solve the problem as opposed to not banging your head against it! biggrin.gif

I have to think that these tactics have worked for you elsewhere so you keep using it. But please don't use them with me. It is easy to see through the tactic and information free nature of it. Please find a more constructive way to advance the discussion.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #273 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
of course it's marketing - have you seen ANY insightful acoustical analysis commentary as to how to address a user's specific, measured acoustical issue in their space with anything other than: "add more subs", "you don't have the right speakers", or "add more typical home furnishings"? or that "you have typical room furnishings, already - so no need for additional 'treatments'". and let's not forget that all "reflections are reflections are reflections" - with no accepted differentiation as to sparse/dense, time arrival, gain, angle of incidence, etc - oh no because we should only be looking in the frequency-domain, even though the toole/olive research is with respect to the time-domain. cool.gif

it's not anyone's place to pick a user's end destination based on their personal preferences (or if their requirements for accurate localization and imaging) - but one can surely assist in "how to get there". that's the difference.

but hey, there are clientele out there who need to be 'told' what they 'should prefer' - that's where the marketing brochures come in. so if that's his market then you can't blame him for that - it'll help pay for all of those fancy DSLRs and glass he was sure to inform us about regarding his ownership and their prices (lol!). the dollar signs sure must impress someone around here -

where are all the people complaining about the negative impact in perceived quality when applying broadband absorption at the sidewall reflection points? where are all of the complaints and the people who subsequently ripped down the treatment after application?
localhost127 is offline  
post #274 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 08:12 AM
Senior Member
 
audiophilesavant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 

He has no real life experience with anything we have been talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 

No, I don’t do the acoustic design for our customers. We bring in experts.
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #275 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 08:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
"who has never touched, heard or even seen the products and solutions we are talking about,"

lol - must have been imaginary beer i've been drinking all this time that all my imaginary band friends (and others) have bought me for helping them out with THEIR acoustical issues rolleyes.gif

but yes, amir - i do use broadband absorption when utilizing a porous absorber to attenuate an indirect specular reflection such that the reflection is NOT colored/eq'd/filtered -

zRX8A.jpg



hey dragonfyr, show us YOUR cyclotron in YOUR living room !
localhost127 is offline  
post #276 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 08:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

Originally Posted by amirm

No, I don’t do the acoustic design for our customers. We bring in experts.
That's right. While I founded Madrona Digital, I have a team of internal and external experts to serve our customers. I have paid my dues over 30+ years of working and I enjoy setting the direction for the company but don't try to take on any of the jobs myself. I have a lot of other engagements such as dealing with information free, mistaken personal posts like yours smile.gif.

To make you feel really good, I have no issue at all with being positioned as not being an industry expert. I don't this work professionally, and couldn't hold a candle to the experts I am quoting.

What I can do is translate what the research is. A decade of my job requiring knowledge of psychoacoustics has allowed me to understand that aspect of science. I can also convey first hand experience such as talking to Dr. Toole as opposed to relying a paragraph in an online quote. If that is not useful to you and you rather believe Localhost by all means, I am not here to stop you. I will ask you to please let us focus back on technical points as I assume that is what you are here to do. Not antagonize members. Yes?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #277 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

What I can do is translate what the research is. A decade of my job requiring knowledge of psychoacoustics has allowed me to understand that aspect of science. I can also convey first hand experience such as talking to Dr. Toole as opposed to relying a paragraph in an online quote. If that is not useful to you and you rather believe Localhost by all means, I am not here to stop you. I will ask you to please let us focus back on technical points as I assume that is what you are here to do. Not antagonize members. Yes?

and where is your commentary here in assisting AVS community members to address their specific, measured acoustical issues based on THEIR personal choice for THEIR end state response?
all that we seem to have is "purchase more subs", "add more room furnishings", "buy better speakers". - convienently what you sell? you don't sell acoustical products so you go out of your way to fault them in living room envronments and instead preach "typical home furnishings" as being acceptable - do you have any clue as to how much time i've spent here giving advice and recommendations for DIY treatments? you really should venture to the Dedicated Theater Design & Construction sub-forum; it's strange for your level of knowledge that we don't see you over there discussing such topics. why is that?

there is nothing wrong with presenting toole's research on what people seem to "prefer" based on surveys and polls - but some people prefer other things such as accurate/precise localization and imaging --- and instead of HELPING people ACHIEVE accurate localization and imaging based on THEIR choices, you get into spats about toole's research and what people SHOULD (read: MUST) prefer!

THAT'S the difference -
localhost127 is offline  
post #278 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 08:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

"who has never touched, heard or even seen the products and solutions we are talking about,"
lol - must have been imaginary beer i've been drinking all this time that all my imaginary band friends (and others) have bought me for helping them out with THEIR acoustical issues rolleyes.gif
but yes, amir - i do use broadband absorption when utilizing a porous absorber to attenuate an indirect specular reflection such that the reflection is NOT colored/eq'd/filtered -
zRX8A.jpg

Let me get this straight. Earlier you complained that I was taking pictures with a cropped sensor professional camera and here you provide us the worst picture a camera phone can take? You even missed the focus on the tape measure you want to show us! You couldn't even do noise reduction in post? Sorry, could not resist biggrin.gif

Good that you have touched the fabric at least. In this context though it is a bit like reading Oliver Twist thinking you know how an orphan feels as the line went in the great movie, Good Will Hunting. Just in case the point is still not clear, the argument is still on whether you take into account the difference between measurements and paper graphs, and how our hearing system works. Staring at the tape measure I am afraid doesn't indicate you are aware of that part of the science. It just shows you are blindly following a paragraph from Dr. Toole without the other 99% of the knowledge he shares.
Quote:
hey dragonfyr, show us YOUR cyclotron in YOUR living room !
Yes! Please show us! You can't be that bad if you have a cyclotron in your room! smile.gif

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #279 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 08:57 AM
Senior Member
 
audiophilesavant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 

I will ask you to please let us focus back on technical points as I assume that is what you are here to do. Not antagonize members. Yes?

30 minutes later...
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 

Let me get this straight. Earlier you complained that I was taking pictures with a cropped sensor professional camera and here you provide us the worst picture a camera phone can take? You even missed the focus on the tape measure you want to show us! You couldn't even do noise reduction in post? Sorry, could not resist biggrin.gif
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #280 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 09:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

If that is not useful to you and you rather believe Localhost by all means, I am not here to stop you.

"rather believe" ??? eek.gif
your problem is you see it as an "us vs them" scenario. black vs white. my way or the highway. only one CORRECT way to treat a room (based on toole's surveys and polls). it's not - people are allowed to make choices based on their own personal preferences.

gee, let's see what i have contributed here at AVS:

  • insist that people STOP covering ENTIRE BOUNDARIES with THIN porous absorbers (1-2"), and instead utilizing broadband absorbers that do NOT alter the spectral content (filter/eq/color) the reflection -- exactly as toole states (and boy - i've taken a LOT of heat for recommending sufficiently thick absorbers and how people "cannot give up that kind of real estate" - well that is NOT my problem but it IS one solution to fully attenuating a BROADBAND indirect specular reflection based on the rules at play we refer to as "physics").
  • insist that people utilize ACTUAL measurements based on source-receiver positions in the acoustical space such that they can SURGICALLY apply broadband absorption ONLY at the areas required to achieve THEIR personal choice for end-state result, vs blindly (over)applying absorption treatment in their room and creating a HIGHLY damped/dead space (unless that is THEIR design goal).
  • insist that people utilize ACTUAL measurements to VERIFY the treatment is functioning and sufficient to cure the measured issue it was originally procured to address.


i'm not here to tell people what they MIGHT or SHOULD or MUST prefer - i can't answer that! however, what i have done here is inform people how they can go about achieving ACCURACY with respect to the direct signal, if they PREFER to have ACCURATE and PRECISE localization and imaging. accuracy with respect to the direct signal is OBJECTIVE; as it can be verified with measurements. personal preferences are SUBJECTIVE - and thus no single measurement will be a "catch-all" end-state. notice how i don't go around telling what people SHOULD prefer based on OTHERS surveys and polls.

where is your commentary in assisting other AVS community forum members on cheap, DIY solutions to address particular problems?

where is all of the users who have absorbed sidewall first order reflections and subsequently ripped down the treatments because they did not like the perceived change in response ?


where are all these QUOTES where you insist that i have some sort of complex where i insist i "know more" than the top experts in the industry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You say you know more than top experts in the industry.


rolleyes.gif

who provides more to the community here, amirm? care to take a poll?
localhost127 is offline  
post #281 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Just in case the point is still not clear, the argument is still on whether you take into account the difference between measurements and paper graphs, and how our hearing system works.

you're the type that when someone asks how they can use a hammer to build a log cabin, you stop them dead in their tracks and ask them why they are building a log cabin in the first place.
localhost127 is offline  
post #282 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 09:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

and where is your commentary here in assisting AVS community members to address their specific, measured acoustical issues based on THEIR personal choice for THEIR end state response?
I post a big part of it already: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/BassOptimization.html. How many times you are going to ask me?

The advice in that article will assure better sound. One that none of your experts will dispute either. It also warms your heart because it does use measurements.
Quote:
all that we seem to have is "purchase more subs",
Yes you do. You have a better solution? Post it. And demonstrate you have used it.
Quote:
"add more room furnishings"
No. It means existing furniture works and you don't need to buy ugly acoustic products and put them on your living room wall. That saves money. You might be OK putting ugly panels on your wall but in a real world, people prefer to not do that. And put that saved money and effort toward above subs.
Quote:
"buy better speakers".
Oh what a concept. Let's ignore the thing that produces sound and focus instead on sticking fiberglass or wood structures on the wall. That is the ticket. Go after the symptom and not the cause. Best example of audio alchemy I have seen. Let's assume the speaker is no good and then fix it by fixing the room. Just because your vocabulary doesn't extend to speakers it doesn't meant that we should ignore that most critical factor. Unless you turn your room into an anechoic chamber, poor directivity from the speaker is still going to cause the overall sound you hear to be colored. If you don't fix that, you are going to have less than optimal sound. Good news there is that with proper data, we can use measurements. They are frequency domain measurements so you won't like them. But the science of how we hear does! smile.gif
Quote:
- convienently what you sell?
You mean if someone wants to buy Harman speakers they have to come to us? By your logic, no one should listen to Dr. D'Antonio because he owns probably the largest acoustic product company. But I could swear both you and Dragon constantly hammer people to read his $140 book and buy such products. And we should ignore how you want to sell yourself as an expert in this field? If not, why did you delete your posts in the other forum that you don't own a listening space?
Quote:
you don't sell acoustical products so you go out of your way to fault them in living room envronments
Who says? How do you think we outfit the theaters? With paintings of the products you saw in the pictures of our theater? Of course we sell acoustic products. And we have great margins on them. In that regard, when I say furniture can work just well, I am talking my company out of business it can bring. But the truth is the truth.

Clearly you don't even know which misdirection to use with whom. What if we didn't sell acoustic products. You still have to prove your point on merits. Implication of bias <> bias. But maybe you never go to a doctor fearing he makes money from you.
Quote:
and instead preach "typical home furnishings" as being acceptable -
No one is preaching anything. You are provided by *research* by a top industry expert with 40 years of experience in this field, i.e. Dr. Toole. He could preach. Heaven knows he has earned the status to do that. But he doesn't. He demonstrates his case.
Quote:
do you have any clue as to how much time i've spent here giving advice and recommendations for DIY treatments?
I have seen it. I have also seen all the badgering, insults, and misinformation that you put out. That's why we are here. Get you to focus on advice that is supported by science and not spread myths that make sense to a layman whose only source of information is public data on the Internet. If folks really want to know this kind of information, they should spend $44 on Dr. Toole's book. For the price of one and half movies they could have 1000X more information that you have post, coming from practicing experts. Wish you spend the money too and do what you said in the other post: study the theory. ALL the theory. Not just the part regarding a meter reading whose math you don't appreciate as to tell me about "AC signals." Hope you remember that conversation.
Quote:
you really should venture to the Dedicated Theater Design & Construction sub-forum; it's strange for your level of knowledge that we don't see you over there discussing such topics. why is that?
I don't know. You tell me. Maybe i should go to every forum in the world and post about this as you are. Or maybe, just maybe, I have a real hobby called music that I enjoy experiencing between forum posts. Or photography.
Quote:
there is nothing wrong with presenting toole's research on what people seem to "prefer" based on surveys and polls
How have you two convinced yourselves that this spin does anything but put you in bad light? Listening tests are now polls and surveys? The Haas effect is a poll and survey so I should therefor go by my belly and think all reflections are echos? Is that what you are saying?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #283 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Listening tests are now polls and surveys?

...

NVleR.png

??

do you care to start an AVS poll? just where are all of the users who have absorbed sidewall first order reflections and subsequently ripped down the treatments because they did not like the perceived change in response ?
localhost127 is offline  
post #284 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 09:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

...
NVleR.png
??
?? back at you smile.gif.
Quote:
do you care to start an AVS poll? just where are all of the users who have absorbed sidewall first order reflections and subsequently ripped down the treatments because they did not like the perceived change in response ?
I thought you didn't believe in polls biggrin.gif

Putting aside the anecdotal representation of facts that you are not even presenting to us, you have two variables there, not one. A room that is too reflective is bad. The fix for that is some absorption. Preference for putting material on the wall can therefeore come from reducution of overall reverbrations in the room and not because the specific use there. We also like to remove experimenter bias if we can (hard for a guy to be objective after he has bought and installed such things). This is why reserach tests are not conducted this way. These would indeed be not so useful polls and surveys. Instead, proper test protocols are created to make sure we are dealing with one variable and only one variable. No amount of anecdotal data that is not yet created is going to be a substitue I am afraid.

I let you ponder this while I go and get the ribs ready for barbeque tonight! My mouth is watering just thinking about it! smile.gif And finish sorting through my vacation pictures from last week...

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #285 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
A room that is too reflective is bad. The fix for that is some absorption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Preference for putting material on the wall can therefeore come from reducution of overall reverbrations in the room and not because the specific use there.

small acoustical space LACKS a statistically "reverberant" sound-field - so we do not randomly apply absorption within the room "statistically" to bring down reverberation times like one does in a Large Acoustical Space.
in a small acoustical space, we have focused specular reflections of which the gain, time-arrival, and vector (direction) can be measured and discretely identified - and thus the incident boundary/surface can be resolved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I thought you didn't believe in polls biggrin.gif

im serious - do you care to start an AVS poll? just where are all of the users who have absorbed sidewall first order reflections and subsequently ripped down the treatments because they did not like the perceived change in response ?
localhost127 is offline  
post #286 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 12:52 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: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
A room that is too reflective is bad.
It is? Out of curiosity, how would you know... just listen? Are there any measurements that might help make that determination? And if as you later say, putting in some absorption might help, how do you decide where, and how much? How do you decide if your treatments were optimally effective... just listen again? Are there any tools that might make this process more efficient?


Bigus is offline  
post #287 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 01:02 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: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
We also like to remove experimenter bias if we can (hard for a guy to be objective after he has bought and installed such things). This is why reserach tests are not conducted this way.
If research shouldn't be conducted this way, do you think it would be wise to avoid also relying on this approach to treat our room? If we can't reliably listen to the results of added absorption secondary to this experimenter bias you mention, are there objective measurements/tools that can help guide us? How can we measure reflected energy in our rooms to provide objective data to guide us, rather than our flawed biased perceptions?

I'm having a very difficult time reconciling this new perspective of yours with your previously stated preference for two ears and a brain over objective measurement.

Is the solution to set up a series of blinded listening tests where you get many friends to help evaluate each treatment possibility? Seems a little complicated, especially since compared options will be so widely seperated in time. Perhaps you could offer a suggested test methodology.

Bigus is offline  
post #288 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 03:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

It is? Out of curiosity, how would you know... just listen?
If I answer your questions, you will only respond on technical points and not discuss me? Because if you don't agree to that, there won't be any answers forthcoming from me.

For now, can you please provide the answers to the same questions? Love to read the other party's answer too.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #289 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 04:16 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: 50
Sheesh, if you're afraid to answer just say so, or say nothing.

Bigus is offline  
post #290 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 04:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
OK, let's try a fresh approach. The thesis from the Dragon and Local camp is that if you come to them seeking advice on how to better your room sound, you are instructed to run a time domain measurement where the system response is measured as amplitude versus time of an impulse. They forgive me if I say this in my own words but the thought is to find strong reflections and then create a strategy to mitigate them. I was hoping we could get them to walk through how that is done with their own personal measurements but that is not going to happen it seems.

So here is an alternative. The following are three time domain measurements taken in the identical room (i.e. NOT anechoic chamber):

i-FwcCLVM.png

These are three different scenarios (again in the same room with the same speakers and same measurement system). I would like to ask them to please look at these graphs and characterize for us if there are differences and if so, what those are. To be clear, if there are differences, I am looking for what those are to a human. Don't say there is a spike at 20 msec that is not in the other. We can all see that smile.gif. I have put letters on the graphs so that you can identify them that way.

The measurements come from a public source by the way so it is possible to cheat. But I am OK with that smile.gif.

I am also open to hearing from others. Bigus, Audiosavant, etc. feel free to also opine what differences you can extract from these graphs. Both of you have expressed preference for this kind of measurement so it would be good to know what you think of them.

And oh, happy fourth of July for those of you in the US! I have to go and check on my ribs......

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #291 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 05:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Sheesh, if you're afraid to answer just say so, or say nothing.
I was more than pleased to answer them. I actually wrote the answer but then figured you would come back make this an unpleasant discussion and deleted it and wrote what I wrote. Who wants that on a gorgeous day like this. We are talking sunny, 70 degrees, and the scent of Alder smoke from the Ribs is a killer! biggrin.gif

By the way, I have given those answers multiple times including when answering you!

Now, let's see if you are afraid to answer your own questions. Ditto for the other camp. smile.gif

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #292 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 08:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
do you care to start an AVS poll? just where are all of the users who have absorbed sidewall first order reflections and subsequently ripped down the treatments because they did not like the perceived change in response ?
localhost127 is offline  
post #293 of 871 Old 07-04-2012, 09:39 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: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
I was more than pleased to answer them. I actually wrote the answer but then figured you would come back make this an unpleasant discussion and deleted it and wrote what I wrote.
I can keep a pleasant tone, but I'm afraid if having inconsistencies and, erm, "other affronts" pointed out is unpleasant, I can't fix that.
Quote:
By the way, I have given those answers multiple times including when answering you!
Really? OK, I'll try and search for them when I get a bit more time. I recall a lot of stuff about using two ears and a brain, and using the frequency response, but I don't recall anything that would help in knowing when a room was too reflective, by how much, and how to correct and know you have corrected the issue when your own ears are as you state biased.
Quote:
Now, let's see if you are afraid to answer your own questions.
Just as you said, I feel I have answered that in very plain writing many times, including in this very thread. I'll either copy an appropriate quote or repeat my answer when I get a bit more time... working on call and people think alcohol and ATV's make for a fun ride!!
Quote:
Who wants that on a gorgeous day like this. We are talking sunny, 70 degrees, and the scent of Alder smoke from the Ribs is a killer! biggrin.gif
Unfortunately working night call all week, so no ribs for me. I usually use a mix of cherry and hickory or apple and hickory. Never tried alder... I'll have to give that a shot.

Bigus is offline  
post #294 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 12:20 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Bigus, why bother waste your time talking to someone who utterly lacks any acoustics knowledge and whose sole support is a cut and paste source and whose sole goal is to say"this is the ONLY acoustical response you are allowed to like - per our surveys where everyone in the survey even failed to fall into line".


And to compound the lunacy still further, he has delusions that others imagine that measurements have meaning without relation to subjective experience and that alternative response models and precedence have no nexus with subjective experience.

His entire premise illustrates that he lacks any semblance of an understanding of how these processes came about as he denigrates every prominent acoustician from D'Antonio to Schroeder to Heyser to Davis, to Killion to VMA Peutz and to all of the others who have done exactly that which he says has never been done except by Toole - leaving Toole and his clique of friends as the only legitimate parties in acoustics in his self-constructed mutual admiration society. And simply look at his abject unawareness of the subject of binaural research where he literally denigrates those who were involved with the fundamental research into binaural measurements and psycho-acoustics for which his hero merely compiled a Reader's Digest collection that renders him now a self-proclaimed authority? - which seeing as one has "several days" claimed exposure, how can anyone question him!?!?!?!)

And we are treated to his continued desperate attempts to denigrate the entire field of model acoustical physics further as evidenced by his absolutely ludicrous 'exercise' above where he imagines that others operate on the same level as he and examine measurements without any contextual information about how the experiment was conducted and about the space itself - think that it proves anything but his own lack of understanding about proper measurement practices.

And the result, we are dealing with someone with essentially no qualified training or experience who like Paul, 'hears' a story on the proverbial road to Damascus and is SO effected that he experiences an 'epiphany' which now renders him THE qualified spokesman who can now speak FOR - and even on place of - those whom he has decided are the beginning and end of acoustics research as he pushes a premise wherein everyone is admonished that they MUST agree (regardless of application, situation, or personal preference) for a scenario that has now morphed into one declared absolutely definitive which is simply a set of speakers that few if any have (but which have existed previously) and simply a room with some randomly scattered furniture that behave acoustically in ANYTHING BUT a broadband manner violating the very premise that his hero - depending upon which day you read his stuff - (and so many others) support.

You see, those on the forum are essentially asking for help for situations that they should instead be sitting back and enjoying. And ALL of the folks who have tried treatments (however non-ideal they may be) and who apparently believe they have helped things, are totally wrong and without foundation as they, even if they may add a bit of coloration also tend to tighten and define the image - which our friend(sic), CONTRARY TO THE VERY CONCEPT EXPRESSED BY HIS HERO, declares invalid and apparently a figment of others and his hero's vivid imagination.

And all because he has backed himself into an exclusive corner and lacks the intellectual honesty to admit that a reflection rich environment is but one of several available response models that each emphasize various aspects of legitimate psycho-acoustical properties, that based upon one's application and personal preference, that one MAY or MAY NOT prefer.

And he persists in this despite the fact that I am aware of no one who asserts that a reflection rich response may not be preferred by some who like the big amorphous imprecise image that augments a large sense of envelopment... No one. What all seem to agree upon however is that the pronouncement that all WILL or MUST prefer it is a complete load of BS.

Not only does he lack any personal insight by which to contribute to any aspect of an analysis of the response model itself, but he utterly lacks any level of analytical acumen (especially as he fallaciously imagines that measurements exist in some vacuum totally isolated from a contextual subjective response which tells you that however he would employ them will by his own definition be a mistake), and he lacks ANY ability to recognize the total range of variability in acoustical mechanics and how this range relates to subjective impressions.

And as such, this 'discussion' is effectively over except for his continued attempts to salvage a completely unutterable position of exclusivity where even his hero asserts that ones preference is a "matter of taste".
dragonfyr is offline  
post #295 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 01:33 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: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Now, let's see if you are afraid to answer your own questions.

To begin, I think addressing the issue of personal preference is deceptively difficult. I started a thread about just this topic, here. dragon and local weren't so receptive to the idea that personal preference might actually be something difficult to define on a personal level. I'm not convinced.

In any case, one potential solution is to let an expert design your room and trust he knows his stuff. You have done that for your showroom. Not exactly in the DIY spirit of course. Another possibility is to just pick one expert that you believe should know his stuff, and follow their advice. That seems to also be your suggestion, choosing Toole as the expert. Sounds reasonable. I can't fault that logic, just that when following it to the natural conclusion we arrive somewhere you seem unwilling to go.

You see, Toole partially throws the problem back in your face, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, by specifically pointing out absorbed lateral reflections might provide a more intimate, precise, accurate listening experience which some listeners may prefer. Here's a quote from this thread on my own take on this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigus 
My take or summarization or interpretation of his work in this area is that for the average person, in the average residential room, with the average or typical program material (for most people this is TV/movies with speech and non-critical music listening), lateral reflections from untreated walls are unlikely to be destructive and may even sometimes prove beneficial.... The point is, there are many such possible conditional criteria that Toole's work can't speak to directly. He even gives explicit leeway for such preference, as Sanjay has tried so eloquently to highlight. And if in the end I want to know whether the reflections contained in my room, with my speakers, using my preferred source material improve or detract from the experience to my ears, how am I to find out...?

So we have one fly in the ointment; what is our individual preference, do we care to find out or just follow a graph of "the average", and if we care to find out... how?

Suppose we take the "I'm average" route you suggest, following Toole who provides averaged results of listener tests that, if you stick your fingers in your ears ever so gently and ignore questions about listener training/experience, program material, etc., might persuade you to buy into the "tastes better" mantra and just forego absorption. Thus, requiring only his treatment frameworks and frequency response measurements, right?

Simple enough, right? But then, as you and Toole mention, perhaps a room can be overly reflective. Ah, well there's another fly in the ointment. What rooms are overly reflective? Can you tell by looking? Can you tell by listening if, as you point out here and numerous times in the past, our hearing/perceptions are fallible under biased sighted conditions? I'm thinking, perhaps you need measurements. But what measurements then? Can a frequency response tell me in the specular region how lively a room is? I think not. Perhaps you have in mind a simplistic measure like RT60, but that is useful (and defined) only for large acoustical spaces that have well developed statistically defined reverberation. If you try and use it in a small space, in your home, as many people have, you might get a result that leads you in the right direction... or you may not. Step a couple of feet to the left with your mic, into a region of high gain specular reflection, and you may get a different result pointing you in a different direction. But let's be especially generous and assume that your suggestion of a single 500Hz RT60 measurement is adequate for ascertaining the general "liveliness" of a room, and that the range suggested by Toole at that frequency will lead to a good result. We measure our room and it is too lively (being designed as a dedicated HT, and lacking lots of furniture). We need to apply some treatments, but where?

There are tools which have been developed specifically for this purpose. But you have to decide what to with the information gathered. Well, Toole says lateral reflections are good. So we don't want to kill those. Past research starting with the Haas interval and continuing to the present is available to help define reflections that may be harmful to precise localization, intelligibility, whatever. Toole suggests strong reflections coming from the front or back walls may be especially bad. So you start looking for specific reflections that are too early or late or too strong in gain that might cause a "too lively, overly reflective" room you and Toole mention (or, if you used your two ears and biased brain first, suspected you had, somehow). Ah, we identify a couple of likely candidates... now what to do with them? We want to preserve lateral reflections according to Toole, and we want to avoid altering the frequency response of the specular reflections according to Toole, so we apply broadband absorption (or diffusion, choose what is practical) to as small an area as possible that will reduce the gain of the reflection such that it now falls within the limits literature suggests will be benign, or according to Toole, good.

We listen. We measure, in both time and frequency domains. Repeat based on preference and measurements. All is well. Perhaps we even achieve better results than possible by willy nilly placing furniture and/or treatments around the room that will likely result in lower than optimum lateral reflections and higher than necessary front and back wall reflections.

Now examine the above closely. What we accomplished was surgical treatment of high gain specular reflections with as small as possible broadband absorption. We did exactly as Toole suggested at every step. We also did EXACTLY as local and dragon have suggested, nay, screamed, at every step. Never did we deviate from Toole's gospel.

Now, if we wanted more accurate imaging, or wished to use modern processing to provide laterally arriving diffuse sound, or for whatever reason we wished to go further than his "average" we would simply use our same time domain measuring tools to go further down the path of surgical absorption or diffusion, treating more reflections in order of gain and time criteria, as measured, arriving at various points along the path at many of the room models you have lambasted until it suited our taste, just as Toole says is OK. The only real difference that Toole has staked out from many of the prior models is that he suggests preserving the maximum possible lateral energy, and other have advocated preserving the maximum possible late arriving lateral energy. Whoa! But in either case, following Toole's "average" listener path, or following his nod down the more precise imaging path, there is a place for time domain measurements.

That is my answer, and I believe Toole's, local's, and dragon's too.

Bigus is offline  
post #296 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 05:34 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Bigus, two quick small comments.

Don't forget that per Toole you cannot get a spectrally uniform laterally arriving soundfield unless you have literally 'special' speakers - NOT what you most likely have to today - but speakers featuring a low Q and a uniform power response.

...And you are not supposed to pay any attention to the fact that the variously spaced room accoutrements are anything BUT broadband in their behavior, violating a fundamental Toole tenet...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #297 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 06:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kromkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 4,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

To begin, I think addressing the issue of personal preference is deceptively difficult. I started a thread about just this topic, here. dragon and local weren't so receptive to the idea that personal preference might actually be something difficult to define on a personal level. I'm not convinced.

Neither am I. I think it is very difficult to possibly imagine what a diffusion treated room sounds like compared to an absorption treated room (let alone your specific room treated one way or the other). I also strongly object to the moniker "accurate" being tagged to a room being treated primarily with absorption instead of diffusion, because A)I don't think its true, and B)It poisons the conversation, because who here doesn't want accuracy, right? Who would ever want their room to sound "Amorphous" (as the term dragon keeps using), right?

My 2 cents on the fundamental point I think Amir has been making - Its okay if you truly prefer to treat your room however you want to treat it, BUT if you are making that decision in a vacuum, having never actually *listened* to rooms treated in different ways, and rather just imagining what they must sound like based on descriptions like those above, you are simply not well informed. If you are not well informed, why *wouldn't* you assume that your preferences are probably like the majority of listeners from Toole's experiments? Seems to me its the better default position to take.
kromkamp is offline  
post #298 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 06:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Bigus, why bother waste your time talking to someone who utterly lacks any acoustics knowledge..".
I assume that characterization doesn't apply to you and you are a mountain of acoustic knowledge. As such, it is doubly surprising that you wrote that wordy response yet did not address the questions I asked in this post: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1413173/does-sound-sounds-better-in-a-room-full-of-furniture-and-stuff-or-without/270#post_22191059

You have proposed a method of acoustic analysis. Are you able to demonstrate your ability to follow the advice you give to others and superiority of knowledge in the specific instance or not? Or should we conclude you have no idea what is going on in the three circumstances and hence your analysis tool is worthless in that instance?

By the way, that test was NOT run by Dr. Toole, or his researchers. Indeed the tester links to one of Heyser's papers due to use of TDS and such. I am quoting simple results from the test as is with no commentary whatsoever. So neither I nor Dr. Toole's team should be the subject of your reply.

Same to you Localhost lest you want us to think that running polls and surveys is now more important to you than using and analyzing ETC.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #299 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

That is my answer, and I believe Toole's, local's, and dragon's too.
Thanks for the reply Bigus. I hear your frustrations. There are good answers though to just about everything you ask. I will remark in a future post but for now, Dr. Toole would not agree with much of what you attributed to him. Both in the specific and in nuanced points. What you wrote uses the right words but loses a lot in the translation. smile.gif I have explained what he says about all of these topics but folks still stick to their source of information which is a few paragraphs posted online. You have a person in front of you, me, who has had extensive exposure to his views in this area. I may be wrong still but it will be a hell of a lot closer than the the fifth hand version that keeps getting repeated online. I had read all of that prior to meeting him and the "story" turned out to ultimately be very different than what I had thought. Indeed, I had to have the benefit of not just the conversations but reading everything he has written *and* going to the sources of his research to ultimately "get" the message. I reckon I have spent hundreds of hours pouring through the research alone. At this point, and I say this with all honesty and sincerity, that I prefer you call me a liar than continue to think there can be two completely different views of what he teaches! smile.gif

What Dr. Toole does by the way, is to give you a complete strategy in this space which is I believe what you are rightly asking about. It has a beginning and and an end. Talking about reflections is but a small chapter in acoustics in your room. Unfortunately for some reason it dominates these discussions. I wish someone would explain to me why. Or demonstrate why it is the highest priority issue. Clearly we are fascinated by it. I was too. Prior to learning otherwise. As I am going through the design of my theater, my #1 problem to solve had nothing to do with reflections. It was optimizing bass. I have bought my DSP and subs and are in the process of optimizing that. Until I am done with that, I don't care about anything else. If you go to Keith Yates and don't let him deploy multiple subs and optimization of the same, he likely won't even take your project! He will walk away from it than to have his name on a design that ultimately doesn't perform no matter how well you have solved the other acoustic problems. He believes in this so much that he now unbundles his low frequency/sub optimization from all of his other services. Your list of questions therefore needs to expand well beyond the narrow area you asked about. Fortunately there is a great roadmap as provided by Dr. Toole. The roadmap is flexible but what he is not flexible about, is not following the full science of acoustics including how we hear.

Anyway, I will provide more specifics later. But right now, I like us to please finish this ETC talk once and for all. It is a story than needs an ending given how much its message is pounded into people. And the insults which have been piled on for anyone who dares to disagree. Let's see if we can get our two resident experts to solve the riddle of those three measurements. I hope you agree that it is a fun and good test case of the efficacy of the tool smile.gif.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #300 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:20 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
If and when you decide to actually demonstrate any of your prodigious acoustics training acquired over your "several days" and actually discuss a topic of which YOU have any real understanding or experience instead of pushing your amazingly naive notion that others suggest that measurements devoid of the a nexus to situational behavior and perception are sufficient, or for that matter any semblance of an awareness of how measurements are capable of showing various perspectives of a unified whole and are useful as tools - and not your amazingly erudite(sic) repeated assertion analogous to that of ones simply owning a VOM will somehow magically result in the repair electrical equipment - instead of merely proselytizing absolutes in the name of marketing, let us know.

Without additional information, and without even referring back to the post, all that can be told from the ETCs are that the later reflections exhibit more temporal (and POSSIBLY spatial dispersion - but considering there is not much change in their gain structure, such distribution of energy is curious without something else being in evidence). In other words, your experiment is as incomplete and flawed as the reasoning behind it.

And to confuse you further - if you are so worried about the sensitivity of hearing to bandwidth rather than using the tool as a diagnostic measure for specific issues and not a one size fits all apparatus that , at least in your case, thinks for you, I guess you would NEVER consider using a weighted sweep whose gain renders the measured response 'linear', would you?

And here, you can use your prodigious word search skills to reference this doc from which the following quote is found that is SURE to confound you further:

"Often a flat frequency response with minimal variation in the audible frequency range is considered optimal. However, it should be said that as outlined in the introduction the full frequency response of the room does not necessarily coincide with our listening impression. The frequency characteristics of only the early part of the impulse response, including the direct sound and the first major reflections seem to be equally important. Already, you may imagine that these two criteria are difficult to satisfy at the same time and for all listening locations. In addition, time arrivals and directions of the first reflections are important. Room modes will influence the impression at the low frequencies. The sensitivity of the human hearing system as another point of significance was discussed earlier. Various other factors enter into the equation as well.

It should be clearly stated that for a good listening impression many more things play a role than just the flatness of the frequency response. And beyond that, not only are the properties of the room and audio system important, but also the contents of the signal to be used. Speech and music performances have different requirements and different optimal conditions. Different kinds of music, like rock, jazz or classical music, do as well. Last but not least, the subjective impression must not be underestimated. Objective measurements of a venue may yield close-to perfect results, but still the audience may not like the sound. Also, a room may sound awful to one person, but someone else may like it.

As a conclusion, we cannot give a general guideline here for how to create a perfect-sounding loudspeaker system or room. We can only describe the tools to analyze a sound system and to understand it and we can explain how to solve basic problems. But the question of the optimal configuration is to a large extent a subjective issue."


But you have no need to worry, as Dr. Ahnert is no one about whose opinion you should bother yourself with either, as you so glibly dismiss the majority of modern acousticians actually responsible for the very research about which you think we are unaware as you go about like one who has missed a double entendre and interpret the remark, instead interpreting the remark literally, missing the point of the reference entirely, and thus think that it is the speaker who is stupid as you demonstrate your total unawareness to that which has been referenced.

This from someone who if you took a copy of a book away would be rendered mute.

And yet they expect us to debate the equivalent of a marketing brochure posited by someone with less understanding of the topic than the material he finds via word searches.

Best of luck acquiring a Harmonized/JBL franchise. And good luck pushing Toole endorsed "room correction devices".


So, after all is said and done, we are stuck between the dichotomous: dictate to me what subjective personal preference I will like; while still another thinks that they CAN objectively and dictatorially dictate what others WILL like....while being utterly confounded by the fact that the pronouncement has been rendered comedic by many in their surreys not agreeing as well as by trained professionals who have quite dramatically rejected the very paradigm of the very response model he dictates that we must like.

And regarding the later, you have to laugh. wink.gif

But thus is the result of overly zealous disciples who lack a sufficiently through understanding of acoustics and as a result overstate claims through a process of selective attention.
dragonfyr is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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