Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ? - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 06:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

What can one say.
Bigus, I take my hat off to you a you called him on the farce quite correctly!
Bigus? Did you say Bigus? Did you say farce? Did you not speak these words about him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Yeah, and it is available where? Look bigus toolus, the qualification regarding both minimum phase systems was mentioned how many times? And the relationship of modes to minimum phase as well as to modes specifically was mentioned how many times? I'm tired of ms. congeniality constantly following me around like one other lost puppy dog some may know and trying to make points that simply do not exist had someone actually bothered to read the entire post for meaning. I am tired of this. I hope he explains the remaining issues regarding the ETC and its use regarding issues involving specular reflections, for which Audyssey and similar 'room correction'(sic) devices simply cannot - despite spurious assertions of systems that can overcome fundamental limitations of physics...
Then this one later:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

blah blah blah. More social commentary from one who has yet to offer any contribution to the subject of acoustics. Yet you CONTINUE to falsely accuse me of calling people here "idiots", when my reference was clearly to how the marketeers of OmniMic conceive of their intended market! And I OBJECTED to that characterization! But just as with acoustics, don't let facts confuse you! ...But just keep repeating the Big Lie as you posture as Mr. Congeniality. What would be a radical change would be if you spent just one fraction of the time you spend sanctimoniously criticizing others delivery and actually attempted to pursue some of the information that has been presented that you claim to want so badly. JUST ONCE.

I am happy to have served to elevate his status in your mind as to appoint him as the speaker of truth! Bigus, you owe me one smile.gif.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I'd be happy to play your game amir but as dragon explained and you ignored, it isn't a game that can be played. ETC is but one tool useful in the process of reaching a desired, hopefully agreed to as good, sounding space. You can't post isolated snippets of data from the process and ask us to describe the final destination
I clarified multiple times that I was not asking about "destination." I did not ask how to fix anything either. Nor did I even ask what caused the differences. I presented the output of the tool and asked what you can deduce from it. They actually deduced the right thing: which was nothing! And with it, proved what I told you a few pages back about the reliability of this type of analysis. I showed the experiment that Dr. Toole ran to arrive at ETC showing completely wrong results. You all dismissed that with no real response. So we have another researcher here warning you that such measurements can be quite misleading. You can argue all you want but as long as it is not with science and is some philosophical thing that doesn't even read on my questions to you all, it doesn't amount to anything. The team here repeatedly asks for ETC results yet those results are completely unreliable metrics of how we hear.

To see you have such comfort with a tool whose results don’t correlate with listening tests is quite remarkable given past conversations in other audio matters. Are you sure you want to be on record this way?
Quote:
any more than I can post three pictures of similar hammers and ask you to describe the houses they helped build.
Nope. I post three pictures of the hammer and asked what is different between them. No discussion of the house. No discussion of even the 2x4 or the nails. All the hammers looked identical. Except that one had a hollow head, the other so thin that it would break on first use, and the last, so soft that it would deform. Yet they all looked the same in the picture. Point of the story? You must know what makes a good hammer. In this case, the answer is psychoacoustics. It is that science that informs you of the usefulness of a tool. The top experts in the industry are not only telling you ETC can provide misleading results, but they go as far as performing listening test to prove it. You want to confuse yourself with the wrong analogies of hammers and homes, you are welcome to it. At the end, it demonstrates a stubbornness toward learn the science.
Quote:
Amir, tools don't lie. People lie, as you again demonstrate.
Your interactions are as non-constructive as ever. Please learn to have a professional discussion. Demonstrate what you know with the topic, not in name calling. Sure feels like you all take advantage of me never reporting anyone to mods. There are days that I think about reconsidering that policy frown.gif.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #363 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
dear god - multi-source ETC's - he keeps shooting himself in the foot!
q6xsj.gifq6xsj.gifq6xsj.gif

one step forward two steps back.

here, amir - go play with a 2D wavetank and learn yourself some multi-source polar lobing!
http://www.falstad.com/ripple/


is this ANOTHER fundamental concept NOT being discussed in CEDIA courses?!

q6xsj.gif
localhost127 is offline  
post #364 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
The team here repeatedly asks for ETC results yet those results are completely unreliable metrics of how we hear.

i-45H4Xpv-X2.png

you're calling Olive/Toole research "unreliable metrics of how we hear"?

q6xsj.gif

and to think this guy is using himself as an example byproduct of CEDIA courses.
localhost127 is offline  
post #365 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Let's see, what is best practice for performing an ETC responses?
How many sources are driven, and why do we limit them?
Anyone???
ONE.
Two out of the three scenarios are with one source:

"Fig. 6, One speaker of a stereo pair with a nearby reflective surface, Responses are similar to previous two speaker Interference pattern."

Fig 7, One speaker of a stereo pair driven by an electronic comb filter. Responses are similar to previous acoustic interference patterns."


You were saying?

The third scenario included a second speaker as another means of inducing comb filtering and measuring its results. No one is playing stereo material and measuring it. Or attempting to analyze two speakers as a general set up.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #366 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 
primarily concerned with:

-waterfall plot 0-300hz (frequency response in modal region + LF decay times)
-Envelope Time Curve (ETC) for the specular region.

that brings up an interesting point - amir, why aren't you particularly interested in LF decay times? on your bass optimization page you display frequency response only. no CSD/waterfall plot.

do you not feel LF decay times are an important factor to measure and address regarding the modal (sorry, the ROOM) region?

http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/BassOptimization.html
localhost127 is offline  
post #367 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
The team here repeatedly asks for ETC results yet those results are completely unreliable metrics of how we hear.
i-45H4Xpv-X2.png
you're calling Olive/Toole research "unreliable metrics of how we hear"?
q6xsj.gif
and to think this guy is using himself as an example byproduct of CEDIA courses.
We are discussing efficacy of measurement systems. There were no measurement systems used in that graph. Would you like me to explain the difference between measurement tests and listening results? Seems like you think if the axis has the same labels in both, that they are same. Is this what you are confused about? If so, show me a meter reading that traces those graphs. I will wait. smile.gif.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #368 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
from Digital_Chris' thread you linked to earlier, amir -

htfullrangelrsubsfirstrunnoeqfrontcenterlp.jpg

tell me about intelligibility, localization, imaging, etc?
localhost127 is offline  
post #369 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

We are discussing efficacy of measurement systems. There were no measurement systems used in that graph. Would you like me to explain the difference between measurement tests and listening results? Seems like you think if the axis has the same labels in both, that they are same. Is this what you are confused about? If so, show me a meter reading that traces those graphs. I will wait. smile.gif.


"traces those graphs"?? what?
it's clear you don't even understand what the graph itself represents - and it's Olive/Toole research.
q6xsj.gif
localhost127 is offline  
post #370 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:31 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

. I showed the experiment that Dr. Toole ran to arrive at ETC showing completely wrong results. You all dismissed that with no real response. So we have another researcher here warning you that such measurements can be quite misleading. You can argue all you want .

Incorrectly constructed multi-source experiments that prove thatt the operator is unaware of ways to minimize and eliminate sources of error in a flawed experiment.

Congrats! Yup, but rather than prove how the the technique is flawed per your predisposed bias you have simply conclusively proven that you and the others lack the understanding necessary to employ such a fundamentally simple technique.

And in 1983 as well! He should have been at SynAudCon and learned how to properly use the tool - and MUCH more! - Heck, he could have learned from Heyser hilmself, or Don Keele, or Don Davis or Russ Berger or Peter D'Antonio or perhaps even Everest.

But please, humor us and cut and past some more as you as you apparently feel inadequate to prove your incompetence all by your self. But hey.misery loves company and you have managed to find all 3 people in the last 30+ years to maintain that a measurement that is industry standard in every major acoustics platform is flawed. But one thing yo have established with certainty! You have conclusively proven that it can be misapplied in poorly constructed experiments violating nest practices.

Congratulations!

Can we say OPERATOR ERROR?

You might want to become intimate with that term, as if you only knew how to do them yourself, being the self proclaimed expert that you are!

Amd how can we ignore this chestnut " There were no measurement systems used in that graph. "

Are you serious? OF COURSE you are! Yes, NO measurement systems were employed to collect the data that was complied into your chart.rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

PLEASE do us all favor and go back to school and take a basic instrumentation and measurement course, as you embarrass yourself every time you make such asinine claims. And you went to school WHERE? I suspect they would appreciate that you do not advertise the fact...








For anyone still reading an edited cut and paste presentation of Toole by one who has “several days” exposure to the concepts, you might want to examine as aspect that he erroneously posits as equivalent and which displays an astounding lack of understanding of actual acoustical behavior.

It is rather fascinating as he makes it a cornerstone of his analytical mission.

When you electronically modify a direct signal you can modify its frequency composition in myriad ways. And after all is said and done, that is all you have done.

When this signal is played over a well designed loudspeaker it will exhibit the polar pattern consistent with the design of the speaker.

For our intents and purposes we will assume a speaker with an ideal power response per Toole – one that renders the output essentially uniform in a cardioid pattern devoid of polar lobing. (the first polar pattern “A” posted below)


Unfortunately, the behavior of the signal that he imagines is being replicated is anything but a uniform polar distribution.

And one even vaguely familiar with the concept of the superposition of spaced sources out of phase knows that what appears as a comb filtering pattern on an oscilloscope or a frequency response graph is merely the symptom of what is called polar lobing – of spatial regions where the effective signal is MISSING – not there – and regions where the signal is indeed distributed. In other words, what is modified is not the frequency response which our friend mistakes for reality, but it is the POLAR DISTRIBUTION – the actual distribution of the energy in space – that is different. The frequency composition of the direct signal does NOT exhibit ANY comb filtering! The direct signals can both be linearly ruler flat – ideal if you will.

What varies is the regional distribution of the signal energy in space, as there are literally regions of space where the pressure based energy, when the two arriving sound fronts intersect or superpose, the negative pressure and the positive pressure effectively restore the region to the ambient pressure – which results in there being no apparent pressure differential to hear as sound – it is ‘canceled’.

So, is a signal that exhibits variations in its constituent frequency composition that is reproduced in a uniformly distributed polar pattern identical acoustically to a signal whose frequency content is unmodified but whose spatial distribution is significantly modified such that entire regions lack any effective energy presence?

Heck no! The two scenarios are NOT EQUIVALENT in any way shape of form.

His example is flawed as a result of a VERY fundamental mistake very common to those who come from the world of 2 space small signal analysis – EE. He and his friends make the fundamental error of equating a 2 space uniformly distributed signal exhibiting variations in frequency with a signal whose spatial distribution has been radically altered and where the null regions lack the frequency content by virtue of active noise cancellation (superposition). But the frequency content of the source signals has never changed. Only the fat that where the spaced source signals combine out of phase at a particular frequency manifest in a spatial null is the ACOUSTICAL environment substantially modified.

Below you can see a graphical polar measurement of the result of two spaced sources whose arrival time varies by ONLY a difference of .283ms or 3 inches. The frequency content of the source signals from each speaker or of the direct and reflected indirect signal has not changed – it is whatever the source material provided – which for our example is a linearly flat full range signal from 0 Hz to gamma rays in frequency.

Note specifically how the polar pattern is significantly modified by the combining (superposition) of two or more separate ‘offset’ signals.

Note also that the signal that merely has its frequency content modified exhibits the uniform polar response of the of te non-offset signals for ALL frequencies.

Also, hopefully not to confuse this much further, but to point out another important factor with which to be aware, in the second case where ‘spaced’/out of synch signals are combined, that the polar pattern changes with frequency, and there will be not simply the one polar pattern pictured, but that with the increase in frequency you will have an increase in the number of nulls and lobes – so that what looks like a constant distribution pattern, changes with frequency – and also with ones movement within that soundfield!!!


700


In the electronically modified signal, this does NOT happen. Its spatial distribution is ‘constant’ throughout the spatial region meaning that there is no polar lobing due to the signal itself.

And anyone with half a brain can discern that an environment with e ‘radically’ modified spatial dispersion is going to be perceived DIFFREENRTLY than one whose spatial dispersion is uniform and which only features a uniformly modulated signal!

Does anyone wonder why the perceived signal is hardly noticed with such a flawed substituted stimulus??? The two scenarios they imagine to be equivalent are NOT in any way acoustically equivalent.


You see, the REAL problem here is that a few cannot properly discern what behavior is real, and which is merely an aberration on a measurement display that, while symptomatic, is NOT what is actually happening. And full range signals whose polar distribution in space is radically altered by regions where the energy is effectively ‘no longer there’ is SIGNIFICANTLY different from that a signal that is uniformly distributed over the space but which merely exhibits frequency modulation.

In ACOUSTICS, as opposed to electronics, comb filtering is a pattern in a frequency response measurement display. It is not ‘real’. In acoustics, what is REAL is the variation in the polar distribution at the different frequencies that vary with position in space – in the room. It is this REAL variation in the spatial distribution that manifests itself as simply a symptomatic pattern in the frequency response.

Also note that the polar distribution changes for the two spaced direct and indirect signals with position, as the timing/spacing relationship between the two arriving signals varies, resulting in the nulls ‘changing’ frequency. The nulls do not actually in reality change frequency, but rather their distribution varies in space, and as you move, you move into and out of the regions of spatial nulls.

And here we have learned folks making claims about the insignificance of such polar distribution with regards to perceived psycho-acoustics as they erroneously assert the equivalency of a uniformly distributed modulated signal with that of a complex spatially lobed distributed signal featuring no frequency modulation.

But hey, life is good when a reflection is a reflection is a reflection and when you can simply, by decree, ignore physics. But let’s be kind, as superposition is a complex concept and we really can’t expect an EE, let alone an entire coterie of EE’s, to have a firm grasp on something they may not have spent much time in school studying!

That is hardly equivalent to a frequency varying signal that is uniformly distributed in space whose polar pattern remains uniform for all spots featuring the exact same frequency response with the same artificially induced frequency variations distributed uniformly!

And nope, as he tells us, one would NEVER discern a subjective perceived difference in such a substantially modified polar distribution! You see, early reflections impart only a pleasant subjective difference. LMAO! The fact is that very early arriving high gain sparse reflections result in significant polar lobing and a very discernible modification of the perceived direct signal.

So, while getting one’s head around difference in how they function in the physical universe may seem a bit confusing a first, it is nowhere as confused as those who fail to make the distinction and as a result make a MISTAKE.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

This is the reason why in Clark’s test even a huge 2 foot by 3 foot reflector that caused reflections as strong as the signal itself yet it was “barely noticed.”

…And a "HUGE 2' x 3' reflector"? And he imagines this “HUGE reflector” to be not only broadband, but IDEAL, not allowing ANY indirect energy to not be reflected back to the listening position. NONE!!! Again the EE has no idea that sound has size and that unless the wavelength is SMALLER than the object, it is NOT reflected but that it diffracts around he "huge" object! It’s truly a shame that EEs effectively stop their study of physics with the several chapters limited to the first year second semester of physics dealing with electromagnetism and fail to stray far.

But it gets better, as not only does he assume that this “HUGE reflector” is broadband and IDEAL, but look at the measured results. What happens is even more astounding than the assumption about the “HUGE reflector”!!!!!!
What actually happens is that the indirect energy is GREATER in gain than the direct energy, of which it is simply redirected after incurring an apparently lossless boundary incidence, greater travel through the air (with apparently no additional loss) and in the process it has actually GAINED energy!!!!!! eek.gifrolleyes.gif

This is astounding! In fact, this makes the cold fusion claims of the University of Utah in the early 90’s pale by comparison! In fact, forget acoustics, this guy has answered all our questions regarding the future of energy on earth! tongue.gif

All you need is a 'greater than ideal' "HUGE 2' x 3" reflector" able to reflect more energy than is generated by the direct source and a group of 'his friends' capable of making such a mistake! Who said there is no such thing as a free lunch?!?!?!?! rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Not bad for a couple of folks who make such fundamental errors as assuming the equivalency of radically different acoustical spatial dispersions of signals simply because they focus solely on a frequency response comb filtering pattern while totally ignoring the actual 3 space spatial manifestation of their imagined 2space wave form, but they also image a “HUGE” 2’x3’ reflector to be an IDEAL broadband reflector capable of reflecting and redirecting more energy back to the listening position than was even incident upon it – and that is after literally ignoring the additional sources of resistive, reactive incidence losses as well as the addition air resistance loses due to a longer path of travel! These folks have transcended the limitations of physics on earth and traveled to the equivalency of Uranus where they are INDEED kings!




.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #371 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 07:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

"traces those graphs"?? what?
it's clear you don't even understand what the graph itself represents - and it's Olive/Toole research.
q6xsj.gif
Let me go slowly for you.

The discussion is efficacy of a measurement tool. The goal of any tool we use in audio is to hopefully approximate how we hear. The way we test for that is that we run listening tests and then compare the two. If they agree, we celebrate and use them because they are faster and much easier to run than listening tests.

Unfortunately a meter by definition is a linear device. If you double the amplitude of something, it shows twice as much. The human hearing system may not work that way. For example, if I double the distortion from .001% to .002% I may not hear any difference at all let alone hearing twice as much as something. Yet the meter showed a doubling of the distortion and a hence potential cause for concern.

The discussion here is that ETC/time domain analysis likewise produces faulty results that do not correlate with listening tests. The graph above is not a measurement graph. It is the final metric against which we compare the measurement tool. So nothing in this discussion has invalidated or put a dark cloud on that graph. The data by definition is representative of our target goal: how something sounds. The darkness you see is over the ETC/Time domain measurement which due to the way it works, it cannot track those results.

I want to make sure this point is understood. It is a very simple one that I thought everyone already understands but clearly not. So please ask more questions if it is not clear.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #372 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 08:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Incorrectly constructed multi-source experiments that prove thatt the operator is unaware of ways to minimize and eliminate sources of error in a flawed experiment.
It was single sourced. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1413173/does-sound-sounds-better-in-a-room-full-of-furniture-and-stuff-or-without/360#post_22194141

And the one that was not, was by design, using the second source as a stimulus to create the same distortion. Three methods generated the same display, yet had very different audible effects. Therefore, we need to be very careful to not ignore psychoacoustics when it comes to analysis of this space. The details there matter and matter greatly, shifting preference from positive to negative.
Quote:
And in 1983 as well! He should have been at SynAudCon and learned how to properly use the tool - and MUCH more! - Heck, he could have learned from Heyser hilmself, or Don Keele, or Don Davis or Russ Berger or Peter D'Antonio or perhaps even Everest

From his references:

R. Hayser_ “Determination of Loudspeaker Signal Arrival Times,” (Three parts) J. Audio Eng Soc (1971).
D.L. Clark, "Some Experiments With Times" Tech Topics, Vol. 10, No. 5, (Syn-Aud-Con, San Juan Capistrano, CA)
Quote:
But please, humor us and cut and past some more as you as you apparently feel inadequate to prove your incompetence all by your self. But hey.misery loves company and you have managed to find all 3 people in the last 30+ years to maintain that a measurement that is industry standard in every major acoustics platform is flawed.
Right....
Quote:
Can we say OPERATOR ERROR?
Yes we can! biggrin.gif
Quote:
PLEASE do us all favor and go back to school and take a basic instrumentation and measurement course, as you embarrass yourself every time you make such asinine claims. And you went to school WHERE? I suspect they would appreciate that you do not advertise the fact....
Then I won't tongue.gif.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #373 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 08:22 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


From his references:

R. Hayser_ “Determination of Loudspeaker Signal Arrival Times,” (Three parts) J. Audio Eng Soc (1971).
D.L. Clark, "Some Experiments With Times" Tech Topics, Vol. 10, No. 5, (Syn-Aud-Con, San Juan Capistrano, CA)
Quote:
Can we say OPERATOR ERROR?
Yes we can! biggrin.gif


LMAO!

Who in hell is R.Hayser??????

And in 1983 TOOLE was dependent upon reading the paper 2nd hand and misstructuring the experiment using multi-source "stereo speakers" while the rest of us were learning the methodology and science, as well as binaural applications, FIRSTHAND from the source (Heyser) himself?

At first I was not going to post it, but now I can't resist.

The enormity of the mistake on the part of those who post whatever they find in word searches and presume that the results are definitive is truly astounding.


And this one, with all due respect for the time and place and the intent of the original authors, is enormous.
PLEASE remember this the NET time amirm trots out yet another chestnut supposed to make those who disagree with him shake and shudder in their boots! ...If they can stop laughing long enough to read it... Nothing like cutting edge research to discredit what has since gone on to totally eclipse the published nonsense.

I can't wait for his market analysis declaring the horseless carriage a flash in the pan as well!

The Clark paper is not a conclusive paper written by an "authority" at all!. Rather was a stab by someone who not only did NOT use the TEF analyzer for its ETC capabilities, but rather attempts to experiment with the signal alignment of drivers within AUDIBLE thresholds - meaning he cannot get within the Haas interval due to the limits of one's hearing abilities! One must remember, as Don so aptly points out, that SynAudCon was also a colloquium for all to share their experiments and 'findings'.

This is one where a member is trying to ascertain for himself if signal alignment with respect to time has merit.

It is NOT about the use of the ETC. But apparently our friends equate TEF with ETC as none of them have ever used it! Authorities and experts ALL! rolleyes.gif

So here it is. read it, remember when, and cringe...wink.gif

700

700

443

Hmmmm...I wonder how the story turns out????? biggrin.giftongue.gif
You see, he NEVER actually ever measures the actual signal offset with regards to time and remains a Flatlander limited to living in the frequency domain dependent upon HEARING audible indications that the signals are not aligned.rolleyes.gif

Instead he resorts to brute force techniques limited by the resolution of one's hearing as defined by the Haas Effect depending, like a few others we have come to know and love so well, on the FREQUENCY response!

While a quaint experiment, it definitely does NOT withstand the test of time (now there's a pun) and demonstrates a decided lack of familiarity with both the TEF capabilities and the concept of time measurement as well as the ETC response - which is rather conspicuous in its absence!

But such are the sources our learned friend who apparently never read the paper, which I have had tucked away for 30 some years, especially as it is preoccupied with the exact same limited awareness as or more modern friend - utterly aware that the ETC quickly cuts to the chase and directly displays the signal offset between drivers to great precision - and additionally can show the exact correlation between the signal offset and the complimentary frequency response - as well as MANY other response views..

It was a valiant if a flawed effort. And his conclusions that the answers remain in the frequency domain are consistent with someone, whom like himself, demonstrates no awareness of the ability to use the TEF to precisely determine the time offset well into the microseconds FAR BEYOND ANYTHING THE EAR-BRAIN CAN DETERMINE BEING SO LIMITED BY THE HAAS INTERVAL!

But needless to say, out friends use THIS bit of demonstrated unawareness to dispel the rumors that the ETC might be of some use!

I guess we it would be a waste of time to also point out that it was from SynAudCon that the first precision microsecond delay was produced by Dennis Fink of Urei, Larry Lynn and Rod Goldhammer of Sunn to actually develop and produce the first precision microsecond delay unit for commercial distribution in 1982 precisely as a result of Don and SynAudCon's research in this area, of which they were participants - a bit ahead of our esteemed friend David here in the paper - that our modern day Luddite friends hilariously choose to focus upon in 2012!!!!!

I can't wait for Amirms' forthcoming publication of a 16th century manuscript conclusively disproving the misguided concept that there might be little unseen critters in our water that might make one sick - or at the very least might appear very ugly to our sensibilities. But not to worry! Wait for it!rolleyes.gif

But what can be funnier than EXPERTS (hey, I am just paraphrasing Amirm!) who use such a well intentioned but fundamentally flawed paper as a basis for their mistaken conclusions. It was already horrible outdated and a Flatland artifact when it was published. But no one can say that Don discouraged participation by all!

From the conclusion:
"If I were to design a speaker system for a very flat response, I would probably use arrival time compensation because it would likely be the easiest way to get the flat response. A mistimed speaker with equally flat response presumably could exist, however.
All other things being equal, within reason, I would expect the two to sound identical.

I see the importance of these studies as relating to using the new Crown TEF® analyzer. I have seen inexperienced
users of a hand held 1/3 octave real time analyzer overloaded by data from a stroll around the sound system. The potential of the TEF® analyzer to produce data overload is enormous. We can see with equal ease the energy-time response or the energy-frequency response.It would be all too possible to sacrifice first arrival frequency response to get an aligned first arrival time response. From my experiments, if a compromise were necessary, I would make any reasonable sacrifice in timing to get flat frequency response.

Maximum benefit from TEF® analysis will only be realized when we can place its measurement capabilities in a
hierarchy of human values."


And the conclusion of Clark's paper is instructive in itself, as he obviously does not know as he had only begun to experiment with the "new" TEF analyzer. Despite being years behind the ongoing research and work that was already in motion to produce the world's firs precision microsecond delay He is definitely an authority!

So we have someone who believes that signal alignment in the time domain is indeed significant, but he fails to use the time domain capability of TEF (as TEF is the PLATFORM, not the component measurements!) to evaluate the time offsets. And rather than use a precision measurement capable of easily measuring microsecond time offsets, he then proceeds to try to align the sources by ear watching the frequency response without the required ability to effect precision microsecond time offset adjustments - running smack into the brick wall of the Haas interval that prevents the last final step in precision alignment. Swooft So close, yet so far.

And having absolutely NOTHING to do with discrediting the ETC! In fact, it is most notable for its complete ignore-ance of the available technology!!!!! Sot of like is the case with out esteemed friends here!


And there we get to the conclusion of someone who was so close but remained so far as he FAILED to actually use the capabilities that the TEF analyzer presented! Just like our oh so modern friends. rolleyes.gif

At least someone so new to the technology 30 years ago can be excused and commended for their efforts - unlike those so negligent 30 years later!

I wonder if that concept of signal alignment will ever catch on! Hmmm... maybe ...but only when they can find enough inspectors who can actually listen and overcome the Haas Effect in order to see if the signals are actually aligned in time! rolleyes.gifwink.gifrolleyes.gifwink.gifbiggrin.gif

Well, not in his paper, but others certainly could who actually chose to utilize the capability rather than to simply refer to it!
Yup, when he gets it all figured out it will be something to behold!

Yup, they would sound identical as he mistakes his ability to HEAR the offset to be equivalent to a measurement that is not similarly handicapped by the Haas Effect and the lack of the ear-brain's resolution in that region of time! He would expect it and he would be WRONG! But he IS correct in that this anomaly would indeed be manifest in the frequency domain as comb filtering, and, MUCH more importantly, in the spatial domain in the form of POLAR LOBING - something that was AMAZINGLY anticipated by the mere presence of an out of context poorly designed experiment that yielded an ETC.


Oh, and one might be interested to know the the very first prototype precision microsecond delay unit produced by Dennis Fink was used by Dan Pearson with UltraSound with the Grateful Dead in the late 1970's. Sorta puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

So you see what you get when you rely merely on word searches and cut and paste rather then actually employ ones reasoning abilities based upon MODERN acoustics.


Time to find some new authorities. And some folks who can actually interpret what word searches and cut and paste present... As citing that experiment by one person that utterly fails to even address the existence of the ETC is certainly a damning piece of evidence, not of the ETC which is not even employed, but of the so called expertise some claim to posses. In fact, high school students would have caught that example of bull dooky!

And yes, not only can you say Operator Error, but you could even be the embodiment of it - if you only had a clue as to what the ETC was and how to use it!! Just like your example paper that doesn't even use the ETC and tries and fails to achieve the same goals as a result of the very lack of resolution of the ear-brain in the frequency and time domains. Yup, that certainly destroys the validity of the ETC!!! Good show! With credentials like that you might get a job as a comedy writer.

So we can't wait for more of your definitive studies!!! Do you have any from the age after the invention of electricity?

But this one is for you amirm - yet another who sits like the RCA dog in front of the speaker valiantly trying to hear beyond the limits of the Haas Interval - and FAILING.wink.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #374 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 09:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

LMAO!
Who in hell is R.Hayser??????
The AES research report is a scanned copy so when I cut and paste, PDF reader uses character recognition and it misfires a ton on this manuscript. It is painful to have quoted what I quoted. It is of course Heyser.

You did notice the pertinent part where he *presented* at the conference you said he should have attended. Right? Where would I find papers you presented?

This is the author's AES profile:

'AES Member Profile: David Clark
Job Title: President
Company: DLC Design

Status: Life Fellow
Member since: 1969
AES Committee: Journal Reviewers
Technical Committees: Automotive Audio, Loudspeakers and Headphones
Standards Committees: SC-04-03 (Loudspeaker Modeling and Measurement), SC-04-03-C (Large-signal measurements)
Section: Detroit "


I trust we are done with this character assassination.
Quote:
And in 1983 he was dependent upon reading the paper 2nd hand and misstructuring the experiment while the rest of us were learning it FIRSTHAND from the source itself?
He published his research in 1983 and you think that means he read Heyser's work at the same time? You were with him then and know which day he read the paper? I thought you said you don’t know what is in people’s heads? Now all of a sudden have that ability that way?

How do you know they did not meet in person? They are listed together in the historical record of AES management in 1983/1984. http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20120705/12180.pdf. Where would I find your name in that list?
Quote:
Time to find some new authorities.
I don’t think it is necessary. We showed that you can’t interpret time domain analysis. Or even research that explains how it was tested.
Quote:
And yes, not only can you say Operator Error, but you could even be the embodiment of it - if you only had a clue as to what the ETC was and how to use it!!
The only person who described the mathematics of it was me. The only person who in this thread has post readings from it was me. The only person who simulated its acausality was me. The only person who has brought in research into its limitation was me. The only person who has provided ample references on it has been me. I may not be right about everything but at least I try to put some evidence out there beside my own opinion.

All we have heard from you is "I don't believe it" and for proof, you throw out insults that you can't even get right. As I said, I speak your language. Until you learn mine, you are at a major disadvantage here.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #375 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 09:59 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
"With him" when????????????
Are you on drugs?
...Yet another chapter from the forthcoming Pimsleur edition of Gibberish.

Toole read of the material second hand.
Others of us were learning the material from Heyser, Davis, and other authorities firsthand.

And presented at AES? Why go there when the research and actual collaboration was actively taking place at SynAudCon!
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The only person who described the mathematics of it was me.

LMAO! Apparently he is still trying to tally the survey results to account for how the number of 'supporters' is less than the number of participants.
And nevermind those un-vetted participants at Blackbird!
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The only person who in this thread has post readings from it was me.

Really? You should have taken the time to actually READ the hilarious Flatland source you post as a definitive reference that doesn't even USE the ETC! The irony is that YOU could have almost written that.And that is ANYTHING BUT a compliment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The only person who simulated its acausality was me.

You SIMULATED it?rolleyes.giftongue.gif

You didn't even characterize Keele's paper correctly - nor the fact that Don actively uses the ETC. Amazingly Don was a REGULAR participant at SynAudCon. I suppose you were still fascinated by the DOS commands lifted from UNIX - well, we can't overlook the radical innovation of a reversed slash!
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The only person who has brought in research into its limitation was me.

The only person who has provided ample references on it has been me. I may not be right about everything but at least I try to put some evidence out there beside my own opinion.

You are perhaps the only one who has to word searches to even become vaguely aware of technology that some of us not only understand but which we have been using for over 30 years! And its application is absolutely not limited to casual acoustics - another area with which we have ample first hand experience and knowledge!

But feel free to continue to misrepresent Toole's position that is but a MATTER OF TASTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

All we have heard from you is "I don't believe it" and for proof, you throw out insults that you can't even get right. As I said, I speak your language. Until you learn mine, you are at a major disadvantage here.

And you know it all on the basis of having read a book reflecting another dated complaint that had been fully addressed more than 20 years prior, and on un-vetted word search 'references' that you have neither read nor understood.

Trust me, I inquired into the availability of the Pimsleur method for "Gibberish", but it is apparently back ordered as they cannot keep up with the constant revisions due to the rate at which you add to the language...


And lest you misrepresent things yet again in you inimitable manner - i do not denigrate David Clark at all! He was actively exploring an area that was new to ham 30+ years before you even became aware enough to ignorantly dismiss it! In hindsight Clark's assumptions and conclusions and methods (such as not incorporating the limitations of the Haas' interval) are fine but very naive and outdated. But he was part of a much larger colloquium that was doing more research into the topics that you still claim are unknown and of which you are apparently completely unaware. And of which you are at best familiar via 3rd hand means. The really sad fact is that you cannot read it and realize the severe shortcomings that SHOULD be readily and obviously apparent today! On the other hand some of us were active participants. Instead we get to listen to someone in your position denigrate what they are still unaware. And that is rather inexcusable for someone who claims to be on the 'forefront' of model acoustics! But please, its fun to hear you tell us about how it was in your vivid imagination. And if Toole is citing these references, it impugns his reportedly 'thorough' research methods as well - where apparently the thickness of ones manuscript and not the quality if its content is the measure of its worth..

Add to that BS that you have misrepresented Keele to oppose the ETC! He does NOTHING of the sort! Just more false reporting based upon an inability to read for meaning. But then, had you been present at SynAudCon you could have asked him yourself- and we (perhaps!!!) wouldn't have to put up with this continual misrepresentation and other assorted nonsense..
dragonfyr is offline  
post #376 of 871 Old 07-05-2012, 10:34 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: 51
OK Amir, so I read the details of your spoiler and feel my analysis of your challenge was spot on. You set up a strawman and knocked it down, thinking yourself clever, revealing yourself the fool.

Before I address any technical issues, let me address a thing or two first:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
If I answer your questions, you will only respond on technical points and not discuss me?

followed later with...

Bigus? Did you say Bigus? Did you say farce? Did you not speak these words about him?

and then this...

Your interactions are as non-constructive as ever. Please learn to have a professional discussion. Demonstrate what you know with the topic, not in name calling.

I asked you direct questions in a quite professional manner, and you ignored them. You asked me to respond to the same questions and I did so in detail. You declared my response in error, promising to say why, and have not. You posed a challenge, which I asked a question about, and you ignored. I responded to the challenge anyway, and you avoided the meat of my analysis. You ask me to respond to the technical points, and not the person, then take the opportunity to post personal insults directed at me as a distraction from responding to my technical points.

So don't you dare lecture me about non-constructive, unprofessional posting. Not for one moment. Want to complain to the mods instead of addressing the merits of my argument? Go right ahead... let he who is free of sin...

Now, on to your insistence that your challenge is somehow meaningful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
I clarified multiple times that I was not asking about "destination." I did not ask how to fix anything either. Nor did I even ask what caused the differences. I presented the output of the tool and asked what you can deduce from it.
But the destination is precisely what you asked about: "To be clear, if there are differences, I am looking for what those are to a human." Your backtracking analogies are now just asking silly questions, and drawing quite bizarre conclusions from the resultant answers. I used the hammer analogy in an effort to help you understand that examining a single aspect of a single tool can't possibly tell you what you are asking about the complete picture. Somehow you twisted that into me not knowing details of the hammer based on the picture. Well, now you have changed the analogy and the tool is the camera, not the hammer. You are saying that since I can't tell the internal structure of the hammer from a single picture, the picture lies, has a poor correlation with reality, and thus should not be used. Well, are pictures useful tools for the appropriate purpose or not? A more insightful analysis might note that by taking multiple pictures of a hammer under various conditions might in fact help us learn more about its structure than a single superficial picture reveals, just as multiple ETC measurements under various conditions can help us learn more about the structure of reflections in our rooms, including many of those you claim it cannot.
Quote:
You want to confuse yourself with the wrong analogies of hammers and homes, you are welcome to it. At the end, it demonstrates a stubbornness toward learn the science.
Touche. wink.gif
Quote:
You can argue all you want but as long as it is not with science and is some philosophical thing that doesn't even read on my questions to you all, it doesn't amount to anything.
I will leave it to others to decide who is responding to questions.
Quote:
To see you have such comfort with a tool whose results don’t correlate with listening tests is quite remarkable given past conversations in other audio matters. Are you sure you want to be on record this way?
I'm absolutely comfortable in what I have said, my position, and the research on ETC. I have been and will stay on record in that way. However, I've never said a single, isolated, static ETC graph could predict human perception. I said it is a useful tool, providing data other measures cannot, that when used in combination with other tools and the human brain can help reach a desired goal. So I'm not on record in that way, you are, as a strawman.

As for the specifics of the source paper for your challenge graphs, I think it is worth noting a few things you do not. Time domain measurements, if repeated according to directions on the label, can certainly provide more information about the environment than you alluded to. Specifically, they can identify the direction and source of the reflection. Knowing that reflections are perceived differently arriving from different locations, then, inferences can be made as to likely perceptual differences between them. Asking for those inferences after improper/incomplete use of the tool is just a silly thing to ask though, and I don't understand why you think you have proven anything with this challenge. So the following statement of yours...
Quote:
Notice that the same level of reflection from horizontal angle had a different effect than a vertical angle. These are things that meters just can’t recognize.
...is simply wrong.

Another interesting thing to note is that a single static frequency response showing the combing isn't appropriate or adequate to try and draw inferences as well in many cases. A simple close mic measurement would have revealed the vast differences between the artificial combing created electronically and the scenarios created by physical reflections. No one would have expected them to sound remotely similar. Use the right tool to ask the right question and you'll get meaningful, useful, perceptually relevant answers. I think perhaps I'll touch on this again in a minute.

Before I continue however, it seems this particular point needs continual addressing:
Quote:
Bottom line is that this tool can show erroneous information.
Since you won't listen to me, listen to your hero:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toole 
Measurements don’t lie
We can debate the usefulness of a tool, but please, use accepted meanings in English language to do so.

Back to your challenge, your insistence that it somehow was insightful despite being silly, and your analysis of its source. Well, here's another challenge you made that might help make the point if my above commentary has not...
Quote:
I love for him to create three set ups that sound very different yet have identical frequency response measurements. It would be quite a trick for a time domain tool to then show a problem that never appears in frequency response measurements!
Well, here we go! I'll provide you three frequency response graphs, provide the same context you did, and ask you to do exactly what you challenged us to do and what you infer should be simple per above. I'll use nothing but your own words posted in this very thread to make this exercise as fair, and revealing, as possible...
Quote:
Originally Posted by in amir's voice... :)  
The following are three frequency domain measurements taken in the identical room (i.e. NOT anechoic chamber):
99

These are three different scenarios (again in the same room with the same speakers and same measurement system). I would like to ask you 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.

You have expressed preference for this kind of measurement so it would be good to know what you think of them.

Concerned member is here looking for improvement. You asked for frequency response measurements. Well, I have provided three of them. Yet you can't tell what is going on from them relative to the changes I have made. You can't even tell me if the graphs are the same or different. Or that one will result in better or worse sound *in your circumstance.* So forget another poster. Assume these are measurements for your room. Tell us in what way they reflect audible changes.

User has not insisted on anything. He has a room. Wants better sound. You ask them to run a frequency sweep. Is the frequency response showing reliable data you can interpret or not?

You are the master of the frequency response. Why can't you answer these questions?

I am asking if you can read the graph. You can read frequency domain graphs. Right? You can see three displays and at least say they sound the same or different. Right?

And I will add that without doubt, to anyone with at least one functional ear, there are vastly different perceptions of the three scenarios. And without doubt, ETC measurements can easily demonstrate the differences and provide information and predictions that correlate highly with human perception as described by the great Dr. Toole.

Bigus is offline  
post #377 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 07:30 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 View Post

It was single sourced...And the one that was not, was by design, using the second source as a stimulus to create the same distortion. Three methods generated the same display, yet had very different audible effects.

More disinformation.

Did you forget that David Clark took both an ETC and frequency response measurement of mono material played through a stereo pair of loudspeakers to create a phantom center image and published them as Figure 3 in his paper. He also did a waterfall plot of the same and published it as Figure 8 in his paper. In fact, three of his seven setups involved measuring a stereo pair of loudspeakers.

Stereo system reference.
Stereo, centered, with ear to ear distance offset.
Stereo, off center, with ear to ear distance offset.
Single speaker with wall type reflector.
Single speaker with a desk type reflector.
Single speaker with electronic comb filter.
Single speaker with electronic all-pass filter.

Really, do you not know by now that people read the source material you quote because you spin it so wildly it is the only way to get a complete picture in an effort to get to the truth of the matter, instead of simply your selective agenda item interpretations.
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #378 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 07:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

OK Amir, so I read the details of your spoiler and feel my analysis of your challenge was spot on. You set up a strawman and knocked it down, thinking yourself clever, revealing yourself the fool.
Me clever? No. Dave Clark was clever. He set out to see if the response of the ear could be wildly different than outcome of tools and demonstrated it exceptionally well to the point that our dynamic duo had to resort to putting him down personally as their one and only answer. And for your part your argument is hammers and log homes. Hammer and log homes? Really? That is how you answer listening tests that *confirm* what we know mathematically about the tool already? i.e. that it is blind to spectrum and spectrum plays a huge role in whether we like or dislike an effect? Hammer and log homes....
Quote:
You asked me to respond to the same questions and I did so in detail.
And as soon as I opened my mouth regarding that, insults poured out again. This is how I opened my response to you: "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. "

I am courteous thanking you for responding. I acknowledge the question and direction you seek. Then I tell you that your summary of what you say Dr. Toole's views are incorrect. This is the kind of tone that comes back: "So you don't directly address anything, declare yourself an authority, and on that basis want us to agree once and for all that we have no need for time domain measurements? Forgive me if I'm still not quite absolutely convinced by your non-response." Don't address anything directly? You mean other than tons of research? You mean other than quoting Dr. Toole's words directly and with pictures and not saying what I think? You mean other that AES research? Can you point me to how much of that you used to make your point? Yes, I did not fully answer your post. I said so. I had started another discussion and wanted to finish it first.
Quote:
You declared my response in error, promising to say why, and have not.
That's right. So hang in there until I give it. My goal in answering you is not to satisfy you personally given the distasteful way you conduct such discussions. It is to see if there is another useful point to be made that is of value to the membership. So just because you ask, or call me a chicken doesn't entice me to respond. Those debating tactics should be reserved for others. I am perfectly fine with leaving any impression with folks as a result of it. If you want me to care about what you have to say, then reconsider your style of discussion.
Quote:
I responded to the challenge anyway, and you avoided the meat of my analysis. You ask me to respond to the technical points, and not the person, then take the opportunity to post personal insults directed at me as a distraction from responding to my technical points.
Technical points? What technical points? You mean this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Since you like to set traps, my first question was regarding gain scale, which you ignored, because without it as I already said I couldn't begin to guess, yes guess, at what this data might mean. If the uppermost line is for instance 5dB, I can tell you we would perceive the measured signals very much the same... which is essentially not at all. Or if the top line is 190dB, the result would be quite similar. wink.gif I know your predilection for trickery so I assume nothing.
You couldn't guess that the three displays show the same gain for reflections in all three instances? The quiz was a comparative one. It was to test the sensitivity of the test to input changes and whether its outcome would track human perception. You said it was your preferred tool. Therefore it should be able to do that. The test unfortunately showed no difference in those displays even though a human characterized the changes as negative, to almost neutral and to positive. If the scale was 2 db or 5, it would not change any of this. Keep in mind that this is the second set of proofs I put forward. In the first, I quoted Dr. Toole and Olive's tests where ETC showed the opposite of the levels of actual signals put in there. So two different methods, same results. You still want to think an argument about hammers and log homes makes the tool correct, and go against the opinion and work of distinguished experts in this field by all means stay there. I can live with that smile.gif.
Quote:
But the destination is precisely what you asked about: "To be clear, if there are differences, I am looking for what those are to a human."
That's right. Whether a human would perceive a difference or not based on what the analysis tool is telling you. If we are trying to better the sound, why would that not be a fair question to ask about the efficacy of a tool? You expect the tool to show different things if the human outcome is different. It did not show that. All you needed was in front of you. Three displays for wildly different situations, yet no difference of substance in the measurement. Look at the frequency response measurements now:

i-vrLJBM9.png

We see immediately that there are differences in what each ear picks up in frequency domain. We immediately see differences in the level of dips in the notches. Mind you, I am not suggesting that you go and use frequency domain measurements either (will explain why later). But I hope you agree my quiz would not work at all if I had showed you the three frequency response measurements here. Anyone experienced would be able to look at them and say of course there are differences and damn the worst looking one which was the electronic delay which we know humans also voted as the worst. But with the time domain display you could not do that. Why? Because that exact information: frequency spectrum was missing in its computation. You needed nothing else to arrive at that conclusion. The lack of answer was the answer! You can read the full report now and you must still arrive at the same conclusion. There is nothing else in the report and test conditions that invalidates the conclusion that time domain data is not revealing of audible differences with respect to reflections.
Quote:
I used the hammer analogy in an effort to help you understand that examining a single aspect of a single tool can't possibly tell you what you are asking about the complete picture.
Putting aside the fact that others had used that analogy already and you repeating it seemed like chanting the campaign slogan, I was in no need of that kind of analogy. I had put forward three displays and asked a question which had an obvious answer: no difference of substance could be attained from that display, with or without scale. Period. That was the right answer. I challenge you again to tell me what differences you see in there that leads you to think one circumstance sounds better or worse.
Quote:
Well, now you have changed the analogy and the tool is the camera, not the hammer. You are saying that since I can't tell the internal structure of the hammer from a single picture, the picture lies, has a poor correlation with reality, and thus should not be used. Well, are pictures useful tools for the appropriate purpose or not? A more insightful analysis might note that by taking multiple pictures of a hammer under various conditions might in fact help us learn more about its structure than a single superficial picture reveals, just as multiple ETC measurements under various conditions can help us learn more about the structure of reflections in our rooms, including many of those you claim it cannot.
I have said and I will repeat again: ETC can have uses in the hands of someone skilled who knows how it can misfire. Those experts can also choose to run it in different ways than advocated here in these threads. For a person who is not a researcher is a recipe for getting misled into applying acoustic material which may be unnecessary or cause degradation of the subjective performance as FHG researchers found out.

And it is not me who is telling you this. It is Dr. Toole. Please walk us through why you think he is either a fool or a liar to think of this. As I told you before, you need to leave me out of this ultimately because your beef is with him. I am trying to explain the case he is making which is very compelling. If you don't like it, answer them in the context of how you would speak to him if he were here. You said you know his views, did you know his views about ETC? Seems not.
Quote:
IHowever, I've never said a single, isolated, static ETC graph could predict human perception. I said it is a useful tool, providing data other measures cannot, that when used in combination with other tools and the human brain can help reach a desired goal. So I'm not on record in that way, you are, as a strawman.
And I can demonstrate that you do not need to run it at all! Do you need a tool to know that if I slap you on the face it hurts? Knowing that human perception allows you to make a decision that results in not needing instrumentation to get there especially one that can tell you said slap will not hurt! smile.gif
Quote:
As for the specifics of the source paper for your challenge graphs, I think it is worth noting a few things you do not. Time domain measurements, if repeated according to directions on the label, can certainly provide more information about the environment than you alluded to.
I alluded to nothing other than what the test was: same time domain display, completely different outcomes. It seems you also missed critical insight into how we hear. Did you catch the point that the same distortion when created in room vs up stream sounded so different to a human? That better make you stand up and take notice. That there is A LOT more going on here than your simple meter readings. None of this gets invalidated because ETC has other uses. Yes it does. But as long as it captures a single feed, is frequency blind, and can provide misleading information, it has little use in the hands of people not in the industry. There are much better strategies for those folks. Again, Dr. Toole is telling you this. So is Dave Clark.
Quote:
Specifically, they can identify the direction and source of the reflection.
You need ETC for that? You can't look at your side wall and decide it is reflecting sound? The tool also tells you there is a reflection from the floor. Did you read how I explained that a half inch carpet can take care of that even though your tool still tells you the direction and source there just the same? What are you going to do there? Put a 2 inch absorber on the floor to remove it?
Quote:
Knowing that reflections are perceived differently arriving from different locations, then, inferences can be made as to likely perceptual differences between them.
That reminds me of the directions on a can of bug spray: "first squash the bug between your fingers and then spray it with this." biggrin.gif If you know the perceptual differences, you don't need to use the tool anymore. This is what Dr. Toole teaches you.
Quote:
Another interesting thing to note is that a single static frequency response showing the combing isn't appropriate or adequate to try and draw inferences as well in many cases. A simple close mic measurement would have revealed the vast differences between the artificial combing created electronically and the scenarios created by physical reflections.
That's right. This is why I already have explained to you that you don't need any tool here. They can all misfire. This is what I said to you in the last round. You come back and ask the same questions again. And keep repeating stuff like this even though I have addressed them. But importantly, as has Dr. Toole. Watch you come back and ask me again what tool I would use.....
Quote:
I'll provide you three frequency response graphs, provide the same context you did, and ask you to do exactly what you challenged us to do and what you infer should be simple per above. I'll use nothing but your own words posted in this very thread to make this exercise as fair, and revealing, as possible...And I will add that without doubt, to anyone with at least one functional ear, there are vastly different perceptions of the three scenarios. And without doubt, ETC measurements can easily demonstrate the differences and provide information and predictions that correlate highly with human perception as described by the great Dr. Toole.
Now you are in my camp smile.gif. See this response I already wrote to you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You ask what tool to use for this purpose? The answer is none! We can classify what happens in our rooms relative to reflections and based on their psychoacoustics effects and determine the type of treatment (if any) to be applied there. I gave the example of carpet before. No timing/amplitude measurement is necessary and indeed, performing such ETC measurements can and will lead you to erroneous results and actions that can degrade the sound of your room in addition to costing you money/looking ugly in one’s living room. That is the conclusion that is reached if one appreciates the research that has been done in this area. If you want to analyze graphs, focus on low frequencies where frequency response clearly tells us what we need to fix. And psychoacoustics plays no role. That is where you want to get your fix of this sort of analytics. Not in the frequencies above the transition area. If you or others want to raise a protest again, I wish that you include listening tests backing your point of view. I have provided good bit about my position.

So by all means, walk us through why that is not a good measurement either. It only reinforces how different our perception is from anything a tool displays.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #379 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 07:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

Did you forget that David Clark took both an ETC and frequency response measurement of mono material played through a stereo pair of loudspeakers to create a phantom center image and published them as Figure 3 in his paper.
If you are going to complain and insult, at least try to read the replies and don't cut them out that way:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Two out of the three scenarios are with one source:
"Fig. 6, One speaker of a stereo pair with a nearby reflective surface, Responses are similar to previous two speaker Interference pattern."
Fig 7, One speaker of a stereo pair driven by an electronic comb filter. Responses are similar to previous acoustic interference patterns."

You were saying?
The third scenario included a second speaker as another means of inducing comb filtering and measuring its results. No one is playing stereo material and measuring it. Or attempting to analyze two speakers as a general set up.
Quote:
He also did a waterfall plot of the same and published it as Figure 8 in his paper. In fact, three of his seven setups involved measuring a stereo pair of loudspeakers.
Stereo system reference.
Stereo, centered, with ear to ear distance offset.
Stereo, off center, with ear to ear distance offset.
Single speaker with wall type reflector.
Single speaker with a desk type reflector.
Single speaker with electronic comb filter.
Single speaker with electronic all-pass filter.
More disinformation.
In the three instances I showed and asked about, only one used two speakers. Even in that case Dragon's point had no merit because this is a test and the second speaker is being used as a stimulus of comb filtering. He is not trying to optimize two speaker responses at once. The only disinformation is coming from you, trying argue with words, and even there, can't get them right.rolleyes.gif

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #380 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 08:23 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 audiophilesavant 
I found it interesting that all the walls in the listening room, which was 17.5' wide and at least 35' long, were treated with absorption and diffusion products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Not sure what is interesting about it but here is the exact quote: "A typical stereophonic arrangement in a rectangular room of medium liveliness and diffusion was used for these tests." .

This is the relevant quote:

"Fig 1. Physical layout of the listening room. Diffusion and absorption treatment on all surfaces give an average liveness."

I wonder how they determined where and how much of the diffusion and absorption treatments to put on all the room surfaces to achieve "average liveness", whatever that is.
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #381 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 08:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

"With him" when???????????? Are you on drugs?
The only one who may be on drugs is the one that says a research paper which is published in 1983 indicates the author who is an AES Fellow and award winner, only became aware of how to use such tools then. This, coming from a person who has yet to show us a measurement of his own, in 2012 or any time prior to that.
Quote:
Toole read of the material second hand.
Another mind reading exercise? You don't think in 40 years of research into acoustics and speaker design he knows what ETC is and how to perform it? And you do?
Quote:
Others of us were learning the material from Heyser, Davis, and other authorities firsthand.
Unfortunately you didn't follow up with the next course in series where you are taught how the human ear works and how that meter can show you completely wrong information. Fortunately others did, as far back as 1983. And hence we are now smarter for it and know what our tools can and importantly, can't do. You only know that tool and according by your own statement "introduced it to multiple forums" so you don't want to see weaknesses in it. That's cool. It is not our problem though. If you had noted in your introduction of said tool its limitations, you would not feel cornered this way as to resort to soiling other people's reputation as an argument.
Quote:
And presented at AES? Why go there when the research and actual collaboration was actively taking place at SynAudCon!
Because that is where Heyser presented his papers just the same! AES and ASA are THE top respected journals and conferences in this space. Both your experts and mine play active role there and use them as the authoritative place to present their work.
Quote:
LMAO! Apparently he is still trying to tally the survey results to account for how the number of 'supporters' is less than the number of participants. And nevermind those un-vetted participants at Blackbird!
Unvetted is the word that applies to you. A random poster under an alias who has never ever showed us any hands on experience with audio. Unvetted is a person who has not heard of Dave Clark. Unvetted is a person who has not read Dr. Toole's book. Unvetted is a person who doesn't even have a subscription to AES to read research paper. Unvetted is a person who doesn't know listening tests are used to gauge effectiveness of our tools and our understanding of sound. And confuses them with surveys. Unvetted is a person who thinks audio science is like food where there can be infinite variation of taste. Unvetted is a person who resorts to insults to top people in the industry to get his way rather than presenting his technical case.

The man may be wrong but he published the research under his real name. And you have no other research that says what he described is wrong. None! The paper came out in 1983, here we are with 30 years past it and no one came and said uncle Clark got this wrong. If he were so wrong as to not be able to use a measurement tool, folks would come out and say it. But not only has that not happened, Dr. Toole reviews his work and presents it in his book. He also conducts similar research arriving at the same conclusion. Still no one comes out and says, "wait a sec, that is all wrong. The man never met Heyser. He read the stuff second hand in 1983. I met Heyser therefore his listening tests are all invalid!" biggrin.gif

The work confirms what we know about the theory. That single mic measurements cannot ever capture all that is there for two ears, nor paint a picture that correlates to what we hear. Study after study shows reflections can be beneficial. Yet folks like yourself cling on a tool whose only job is to raise concern about a reflection. Look! There is a spike there! It is high energy! What are you going to do about that? Answer: nothing. You can't act on that information. It is not actionable in the hands of person who is not an expert in the field. And no, you don't qualify because you lack the prerequisite knowledge of psychoacoustics.

So please leave out these tactics for other places. It doesn't work here in this thread. Give us at least half credit to be smart enough to not accept a poster like you holds a candle in status and knowledge to the guy who reviews papers for AES Journal and is part of the technical committee to measure and characterize speakers!

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #382 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 08:42 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 View Post

The man may be wrong but he published the research under his real name.

If he may be wrong, why have you offered up his work as dispositive of the ineffectiveness of ETC as a measurement tool for locating and surgically treating reflections in a listening room so that "the listener is placed in a predominantly direct sound field, making the experience more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise." Because he published under his own name?
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #383 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 09:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

If he may be wrong, why have you offered up his work as dispositive of the ineffectiveness of ETC as a measurement tool for locating and surgically treating reflections in a listening room so that "the listener is placed in a predominantly direct sound field, making the experience more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise." Because he published under his own name?
No. You need to believe him if the data makes sense, and is corroborated by top experts in the industry such as Dr. Toole. And importantly, neither you or anyone else in this thread has brought out other research that shows his work is incorrect. You predicted that would happen by Dragon but didn't. Remember?

This of course ignores the obviousness of the matter which you should all know: that a single microphone cannot capture what two ears hear which are distanced apart and with a head that masks part of the reflection. At some point, such strong body of evidence needs to do the job vs analogies of hammers and log homes. If it doesn't, it means you don't want to have a discussion of science. You want to brush up your debating tactics instead.

As to why I mentioned who he is, that was in response to Dragon putting forward his background as the reason we should believe him instead of David Clark. He brought in the defense of who is more authoritative there. So I responded. But no, that is not the reason you should believe him. I led with his data as should you. You should believe Clark's work because it absolutely confirms what researchers have found across this field about reflections playing a positive role in many cases. So a tool that focuses in identifying them and hence being instructive in having to do something about them, whatever that is, is the wrong tool for the job. Again for the tenth time, I am not telling you this but top people in the industry are. Their work is published and not challenged in this manner.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #384 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 09:21 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


i-dMXfb7j-XL.png
Note the arrangement and configuration in test B.

i-vrLJBM9.png

Now note how in figure B the fascinating condition where the indirect signal (the second early spike) reflected off a relatively small reflector that is not broadband simply by virtue of its size, is of greater gain than the direct signal!
Nope, no mistake there!

But you want to review an error ONLY a EE would make with regards to acoustics? And this one is HUGE as it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what comb filtering is in acoustics as opposed to what it is in an equalized electronic direct signal in small signal electronics!
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As noted, despite the extreme similarity between the time domain measurements, results vary from pleasing to greatly bad. The one that is greatly bad is the last one: electronically created comb filter. Let’s dig into this one.

We had a distortion which was created in the room with the sound arriving at the ear and reflected one coming some time later mixing with it, creating comb filtering. The same distortion as then generated using electronic means and the time domain display confirmed to have similar results. Put another way, we have equivalence in distortion as measured by a tool. Yet the human reaction was wildly different. In the case of the real reflector the user could barely tell it was there. So certainly not a bother. But as soon as we pulled the distortion upstream of the speaker, they user clearly expressed distaste for the comb filtering effect.

“Similarity”??? Yeah, to someone who has no idea what they are talking about and who has made a LARGE and fundamental error!

Apparently the "equivalence in distortion measured by a tool" refers to the folks making the mistake, as they clearly lack an understanding of what constitutes "comb filtering" in an electronic signal and what constitutes the 3 space acoustical polar lobing spatial distribution that only manifests itself a in a comb filtering patter in a frequency response measurement!

Folks, an electronic signal exhibiting what appears to be comb filtering is in NO way the same as a spatially distributed 3space signal that exhibits regions of active noise cancellation and ambient pressure and regions of full gain distributed pressurized energy.

Someone can apply EQ to an electrical signal and play it back through an amp and a speaker and the spatial distribution of the speaker will not display a polar lobing pattern that is equivalent to the acoustical behavior in 3 space that generated the measurement that displayed comb filtering.

As we tried to explain before, apparently to no avail, in acoustics there in no such “thing” as a “comb filter” It does not exist independently of the spatial polar lobing. The REAL ‘thing’ IS the spatially distributed polar lobing, that when a mic is placed in a null in a particular spot, it appears as a comb filtering notch. But when you artificially generate a waveform exhibiting nothing but variations in gain at a particular frequency, the polar dispersion is not modified in the same manner.

It is similar to the difference in generating a distorted signal by over driving an amplifier into a non-linear mode, compared to a recording of a distorted amplifier being reproduced by an amplifier operating in its linear range.
And they have constructed their experiment mistaking exactly such a case of an electronically modified signal as if its reproduction results in a spatially modified distribution exhibiting polar lobing. And this is absolutely incorrect! The reproduced electronic signal complete with modified gain structure will NOT exhibit spatial polar lobing due simply to the reproduction of an electronically EQ/filtered signal.

But this is what they base their experiment on! A CLASSIC mistake as a result of EE’s not understanding acoustics and mistaking what appears on an oscilloscope with the 3 space behavior of acoustic energy distribution that results from the superposition of interacting signals.

So, in just briefly examining 2 cases, we have exposed two significant mistakes in the experiment..

But it is ironically refreshing to see that our mistaken friend is correct in one respect as he and his friends embody it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have said and I will repeat again: ETC can have uses in the hands of someone skilled who knows how it can misfire.

Unfortunately, you and your friends are no more skilled at using the tool than you are at critiquing it. And the lack of understanding in equating a2space equalized direct signal whose display manifests itself as comb filtering but which has no necessary 3 space spatially distributed polar lobing soundfield whose 3 space distribution results from the interaction/superposition of energy in 3 space is a gaff no one should ignore!

And these MISTAKES are HUGE as they point to the lack of understanding and implementation of the very foundational concepts that you claim to understand so well.

And all of this in order to continue with his absolutely absurd attempts to elevate a relative mater of preference to that of an absolute – all while causally ignoring the fact that the trained professionals dismantled the preeminent reflection rich environment in order to create a quasi-LEDE response featuring a more precise accurate and defined image and sense of localization.

And considering that the very person who claims to be able to critique that which he has NEVER used fails to understand the above FUNDAMENTAL issues that an abject beginner should be aware should give one pause as to what the rest of their case consists. Not to mention citing a paper in an attempt to discredit the ETC that never uses it and which uses as its ultimate test, hearing that CANNOT resolve the final ‘distance’ between what is perceived, and the state that it attempts to achieve. But such is a difference between EE and acoustical physics and those who are cognizant of the similarities and differences regarding which the two focus upon.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #385 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 09:50 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
Just so we don't lose track, here is where we started two days ago before amirm's little diversionary escapade:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 

A room that is too reflective is bad. The fix for that is some absorption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigus 

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?

localhost127 and dragonfyr have given detailed answers as to how they would approach the problem on multiple occasions.

So far, no response from amirm.

I don't have high hopes he will ever provide a meaningful answer, just more duck and cover.
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #386 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 09:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
q6xsj.gif

someone should inform CEDIA that one of their pupils is doing irreversible damage to their image - due to the complete and fundamental misunderstandings of even the most BASIC acoustical behavior.
localhost127 is offline  
post #387 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 09:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

localhost127 and dragonfyr have given detailed answers as to how they would approach the problem on multiple occasions.
So far, no response from amirm.
I don't have high hopes he will ever provide a meaningful answer, just more duck and cover.

has amirm actually assisted ANY AVS community forum member in utilizing ACTUAL acoustical measurements and analysis to help the user achieve their required end-state response?

what is it exactly he contributes to this community - besides slander:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Dave Clark was clever. He set out to see if the response of the ear could be wildly different than outcome of tools and demonstrated it exceptionally well to the point that our dynamic duo had to resort to putting him down personally as their one and only answer.

notice how he can't quote anything i've said referencing "dave clark"? do i need to start reporting posts for such blind slander?
he's so blinded by emotion and is now hallucinating what i have or have not said - and attempting to treat myself and dragon as the "same entity".

if only he could put forth the time and effort being used here towards learning the basic fundamentals of acoustical analysis with respect to achieving a particular response in a small acoustical space.
localhost127 is offline  
post #388 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 10:35 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 localhost127 View Post

[H]as amirm actually assisted ANY AVS community forum member in utilizing ACTUAL acoustical measurements and analysis to help the user achieve their required end-state response?

He has regurgitated Harman's freely available research to the effect that adding more than one sub can smooth variations in low frequency response in your listening room.

Unfortunately, he hasn't explained how to achieve it short of paying Keith Yates thousands of dollars to perform computational fluid dynamics analysis to tell you where to optimally place your subwoofers (ceilings being a popular spot) and then use Harman's $18,000 ARCOS room correction software and hardware to automatically set level and phase. You'll have to hire someone to do that too, adding thousands more dollars to the bill.

He has denied that a user may prefer a listening room in which, in Floyd Toole's words, "the listener is placed in a predominantly direct sound field, making the experience more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise", and further denied that a user's choice in listening environment is, in Floyd Toole's words, "largely a matter of taste."

Instead, he has insisted that everyone prefer a listening room in which "the overall illusion is altogether more spacious and open, [and] to many listeners, more realistic", and that any other preference is wrong and should not, under any circumstances, be pursued. As to how to achieve a listening room which is "open and spacious", he has offered no guidance other than to put a random assortment of sofas, arm chairs, end tables, bookcases, and knick-knacks in your room in an unspecificed arrangement, and hope for the best.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has asked him how to achieve a listening room that is "open and spacious", so all the advice he has render thus far has been unresponsive to any AVS community user's requirement, and simply gratuitous.

In a moment of inconsistency he has said that: "A room that is too reflective is bad. The fix for that is some absorption." He has so far refused to answer how one might determine whether a room is too reflective, or how or where to place such absorption, or how to determine whether the placement of such absorption has been effective. Perhaps he will simply revert to his unspecified arrangement of sofas, arm chairs, end tables, bookcases, and knick-knacks advice.
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #389 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 10:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,230
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

Just so we don't lose track, here is where we started two days ago before amirm's little diversionary escapade:
Diversionary? You mean discussing how we perceive sound is less interesting to you than bickering? You think you should play the role of score keeper than contributing to the thread? Let me know when you develop an interest in the thing we are talking about: enjoyment of audio! wink.gif
Quote:
localhost127 and dragonfyr have given detailed answers as to how they would approach the problem on multiple occasions. So far, no response from amirm. I don't have high hopes he will ever provide a meaningful answer, just more duck and cover.
Well, you flunk your job as score keeper just the same. From the *first* page of this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


"The amount of reflected sound will alter impressions of spaciousness and reverberation (sounds that persist after the source has gone quiet). There is an optimum amount of reflected sound in small listening rooms - not too live, and not too dead. Normally-furnished rooms (carpet, drapes, chairs and tables) tend to be close to optimum, but custom home theaters need to be treated.

[...]

This is one of the main reasons why a normal well-furnished room can sound so good. Combined with carpet/underlay, drapes, and seating the combination can work superbly with little tweaking."


Here is a nice graph from his book on how furnishing helps reduce reverbration time in the room:


From answering the same question to Localhost months back: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1401704/fr-vs-time-domain/180#post_21843059

" From Floyd's CEDIA seminar: "It [RT60] is useful as a measure in small, acoustically well damped rooms, but only as a means of ensuring that it is not too high or too low."

You wondered out loud how you do that? Wonder no more! smile.gif

Now let's see your answer to the same question. You promised that. Right?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #390 of 871 Old 07-06-2012, 11:06 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 
Let me know when you develop an interest in the thing we are talking about: enjoyment of audio!
I have an interest in the enjoyment of music, not in the enjoyment of audio. Let me know when you post something on the subject.
audiophilesavant 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