Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ? - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hd_newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 2,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Please don't follow these guys into the gutter. You and I debate a lot on this forum. But I would hope you share my goal in making this forum as professional as it can be. Piling on insults and posting nothing else substantive on the topic is counterproductive in that regard.
No more arny_insults.txt?
hd_newbie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 01:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

No more arny_insults.txt?

Good example of professional behavior, eh? ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #453 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 03:22 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
About as professional as digging up insults from another thread, another topic, another time, another poster solely as a character assassination, and simultaneously crying about personally directed non-constructive posting from others. You know, if you want to insult someone, at least have the guts to do it yourself. biggrin.gif

As for whose question begot whose, I may come back to that distraction later. I'm growing tired of trying to drag him back to the technical arguments and specific questions I have asked.

Bigus is offline  
post #454 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 03:59 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Erm? What the heck is that? Did you understand that advice? You couldn’t say anything more constructive than "Erm?"
Erm, I didn't have to say anything more constructive. You already had, as the following quote showed, thus the purpose if the Erm. Its your favorite word now isn't it. wink.gif
Quote:
But no, apparently if the answer is not so complicated as to have you be lost in it as you try to explain it in your posts, it must not be good.
I'm all in favor of things being as simple as possible... without becoming inaccurate.
Quote:
And narrow range of frequencies? What kind of comment is that?
An accurate one. wink.gif
Quote:
What do the frequencies have to do with the level of general absorption in the room? This is a time decay metric. Its narrow range of frequency has no bearing on its application here.
Erm...
Quote:
How can you continue to confuse the use of ETC to demonstrate the randomness and decay of late reflections for its general applicability in dealing with strong early reflections?
No one has made any such confusion. And did you just affirm two uses of time domain measurements in one sentence!?!
Quote:
And here are the rest of the comments in that thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

ETC can certainly identify where specular reflections of sufficient gain are occurring. That is without doubt valuable information to have. But despite many suggestions to the contrary, ETC doesn't tell you what to do with those locations. It can confirm that your treatment did what you wanted it to in that location, but the bigger problem remains that knowing what you want to do isn't well defined.
Thanks for posting that. I've been quite consistent in my take on all of this. That one quote reiterates numerous points I've made in this thread.
Quote:
I have given you the path to salvation.
I know you like the arguement from authority tactic, but wow! biggrin.gif

Bigus is offline  
post #455 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 04:06 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 hd_newbie View Post

No more arny_insults.txt?
What decade of computing are you stuck in? This is not 1980s. txt file? Why not ask me what I use for my DOS prompt? As a minimum you should have asked which XML schema I am using for it.

But no, I don't keep them on my client system at all. There is this thing called the Internet and the cloud. I store it all on Google servers. Indexed by them so that I can use them on any device I use.

Welcome to 2012!

wink.gifsmile.gif

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #456 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 06:26 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 arnyk View Post

Good example of professional behavior, eh? ;-)
Hardly. Professional behavior would call standing by the side of the truth, and not the opposite of the guy you don't like wink.gif.

I wrote in my last post to you asking why you stood silent while Dragon soiled the reputation of Clark and professors Lipshitz and Vanderkooy . Even after that reminder you have nothing to say but this one-liner complaint. Yet just a few days ago when the work of these people in the area of double blind testing was called into question in a far more professional manner, you joined that forum, and resurrected a two year old thread (which was linked to from AVS) to post this: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&p=1787111&viewfull=1#post1787111

"I have known Lipshitz and Vanderkooy personally for decades, have sat with them in DBTs whose results they subsequently published in the JAES, and they think no such thing, and engage in no such practices.
[....]
Clark's (Clark is a decades-long personal friend, one time business partner, AES Fellow and past AES national officer, a highly -respected and internationally known audio expert) primary tool for listener training is a collection of music from regular commercial soruces, much highly appreciated by other listening test advocates both sighted and blind, that is known as the LTT. "


Yet in this thread, neither deserved any such support from you. You sat quiet let it all go down even post my reminder. It took me to come to their defense and praise of their accomplishments. This is on top of letting listening tests being thrown under the bus relative to measurements. Dragon and Local called them "polls and surveys" and Arny sits there calm and quiet as if to tacitly agree with them.

The Internet has long memory Arny. I once did a Google looking for my last name and found a recipe from my wife on making cookies posted in early 1980s! Hope you like what it is recording regarding what you are baking smile.gif.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #457 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 07:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,620
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1219 Post(s)
Liked: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

Isn't this really the only interesting question? What reflections are beneficial for a *listening* room, and why.
Yes, and there's already been lots of research on that subject. First, you have to decide what "beneficial" means to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

The models like RFZ offer up one set of solutions - but they are for studios and mixing rooms, and how much that is applicable to multichannel home theater at home is very much an open question.
In order to address that open question, you have to be willing to make the distinction between mixing studios and home theatres. Not everyone agrees that professional listening environments are (or should be) different from recreational listening spaces.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #458 of 871 Old 07-09-2012, 09:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kromkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 4,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yes, and there's already been lots of research on that subject. First, you have to decide what "beneficial" means to you. In order to address that open question, you have to be willing to make the distinction between mixing studios and home theaters. Not everyone agrees that professional listening environments are (or should be) different from recreational listening spaces.

No offense, but I just don't find that answer to be satisfying smile.gif I'd like the question to be answered in the general sense, to the extent it is possible. In other words, I would hope at some point there would be some attempt to try to nail down either: an assumed "ideal" environment that the source material is designed to be played back in (more applicable to HT), or an environment that is statistically preferred by many educated listeners. I just find no comfort in this idea of letting the user choose from the entire spectrum of possible listening rooms, when it is nearly impossible for the user to experiment to determine what they like best.

Lets construct an example - lets say a client hired 10 home theater designers who were all very well regarded and knew their stuff when it came to the acoustic design of a room. Lets suppose the client was an audiophile and a music/movie lover, but had no acoustical knowledge whatsoever. What might you expect the most common acoustical design choices would be, and why?

I think it would also be interesting to hear whether or not you believe the acoustics of a mixing studio should be the same as a recreational listening space, and why.
kromkamp is offline  
post #459 of 871 Old 07-10-2012, 12:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 67
All my HT gears are in the main living hall. My family members prefer the minimalistic design, minimum furniture if possible. No shelves, bookcases or drawers. How to make everything sound nice yet with minimum furniture?
Skylinestar is offline  
post #460 of 871 Old 07-10-2012, 08:40 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 Skylinestar View Post

All my HT gears are in the main living hall. My family members prefer the minimalistic design, minimum furniture if possible. No shelves, bookcases or drawers. How to make everything sound nice yet with minimum furniture?
Are you able to put in acoustic products in the room or is that off limit?

Regardless, I would try to optimize the bass. This will make a big difference. Solutions include using more than one sub and high resolution EQ. See my guide for that: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/BassOptimization.html.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #461 of 871 Old 07-10-2012, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hd_newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 2,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

What decade of computing are you stuck in? This is not 1980s. txt file? Why not ask me what I use for my DOS prompt? As a minimum you should have asked which XML schema I am using for it.
But no, I don't keep them on my client system at all. There is this thing called the Internet and the cloud. I store it all on Google servers. Indexed by them so that I can use them on any device I use.
Welcome to 2012!
wink.gifsmile.gif
What is google? smile.gif
hd_newbie is offline  
post #462 of 871 Old 07-11-2012, 03:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,620
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1219 Post(s)
Liked: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

No offense, but I just don't find that answer to be satisfying smile.gif I'd like the question to be answered in the general sense, to the extent it is possible. In other words, I would hope at some point there would be some attempt to try to nail down either: an assumed "ideal" environment that the source material is designed to be played back in (more applicable to HT), or an environment that is statistically preferred by many educated listeners. I just find no comfort in this idea of letting the user choose from the entire spectrum of possible listening rooms, when it is nearly impossible for the user to experiment to determine what they like best.
Likewise, no offense but how could you not know what you like? I might not know anything else, but there is one thing I am an expert on: what I like. You might not find it satisfying to use your individual preference as a starting point, but I can't think of a better one. As for an assumed 'ideal' environment: if there was some sort of universal consensus, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So that leaves statistical preference. As I pointed out in another thread, knowing what is generally preferred makes for a good starting point. If that is where you want to start from, you know where to look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

Lets construct an example - lets say a client hired 10 home theater designers who were all very well regarded and knew their stuff when it came to the acoustic design of a room. Lets suppose the client was an audiophile and a music/movie lover, but had no acoustical knowledge whatsoever. What might you expect the most common acoustical design choices would be, and why?
Since I'm not a theatre designer, you'd have to get the answer from those that are. A Rives room sounds different from an Erskine room which sounds different from a Yates room. The latter two designers try to keep everything (speakers, treatments, electronics) hidden from view, so it's difficult to see what acoustical design choices they have in common.

If I were to guess, the most likely one would be the use of multiple subs and equalization to get smooth AND consistent bass across the entire seating area. That and probably heavy absorbtion on the front wall (behind the screen). Based just on listening, each of those designers seems to treat the L/C/R early lateral reflections a little differently (hear more in an Erskine room), so I don't think that is a common design choice.

Most good designers talk to their customers to find out what their preferences are, so they can be incorporated into the design. As for your example of the audiophile client: IF he has "no acoustical knowledge whatsoever", then he'll have to accept whatever his hired expert delivers, and learn to like it. The alternative is to get some listening experience in a variety of rooms, at least enough to find out what you like and what you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

I think it would also be interesting to hear whether or not you believe the acoustics of a mixing studio should be the same as a recreational listening space, and why.
Not for my tastes. Whenever I (or the local home theatre group I belong to) get a chance to visit a studio, I bring along familiar material. I have yet to hear a studio where music sounds as enjoyable to me as it does on home systems, even ones that aren't in dedicated rooms. Professional listening environments typically sound too dampened for my tastes, missing the big wide soundstage that I like.

Unusual? Hardly. Turns out my tastes are about as common as it gets. A couple decades back, Wolfgang Klippel did some blind listening tests comparing narrow dispersion speakers against wide dispersion speakers that had crappy off-axis response. Listeners preferred the latter, craving spaciousness so much that they were willing to take an uneven and coloured version over too little of it. Apparently I fall into this category.

The wide soundstage that sounds pleasing to me would likely sound cartoonish to an industry professional (musician, mixing engineer, acoustician, speaker designer), who can be up to seven times more sensitive to reflections than a typical consumer (me) according to research by Professor Yoichi Ando. Explains why Kevin Voecks (designer of Revel speakers) would prefer absorbtion along the side walls, much to the contrary of his Harman brethren.

So not only do I think professional listening environments sound different from recreational listening environments, but mixing engineers who work in those studios hear differently than the rest of us. When you've spent years dialing in reverb and ambience into recordings, how can you avoid becoming more sensitive to those type of things than the general public. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's been my general experience.

The mixing engineers that I've met need to be in the direct field of their nearfield monitors, so they can hear details and flaws in the recording that the rest of us might never pick up. There's work at stake, not to mention that's how they earn their pay. By comparison, there is nothing anywhere near that critical going on in my listening room. Just sculpting the sound to my personal preferences. And even then, nothing that requires surgical precision.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #463 of 871 Old 07-11-2012, 05:08 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post


Lets construct an example - lets say a client hired 10 home theater designers who were all very well regarded and knew their stuff when it came to the acoustic design of a room. Lets suppose the client was an audiophile and a music/movie lover, but had no acoustical knowledge whatsoever. What might you expect the most common acoustical design choices would be, and why?

Since some of these designers post pictures of their best work on the web, what do we see?

I went to google images and typed in "home theatre design" (no quotes).

Common features:

Overstuffed furniture
Thick carpeting, sometimes with a thick rug on top of the thick carpeting
Side walls and ceilings with diffusers and/or absorbers

Generally, they appear to me to show more absorption then the general run of pictures I've seen on this subforum.
arnyk is offline  
post #464 of 871 Old 07-11-2012, 06:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kromkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 4,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 25
First of all - great post. Lots of meat here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Likewise, no offense but how could you not know what you like? I might not know anything else, but there is one thing I am an expert on: what I like.

Very simply actually - how can you know if you like something if you haven't experienced it? Could you possibly ever guess what Blackbird C sounds like from the superlatives heaped upon it? I think not. And if you did get a chance to listen there how wrong would you be? *That's* the dilemma here. My own experience informs me: I recently installed abfusion-type treatments in my room from an Erskine group design. Prior to that my experience was only with absorption. I certainly could not have imagined what the room would sound like prior to installation. It's like imaging the sound of a great concert hall when all you've ever experienced was the local community theatre. (Not comparing my room in any way to a great concert hall!)

Quote:
So that leaves statistical preference. As I pointed out in another thread, knowing what is generally preferred makes for a good starting point. If that is where you want to start from, you know where to look. Since I'm not a theatre designer, you'd have to get the answer from those that are. A Rives room sounds different from an Erskine room which sounds different from a Yates room. The latter two designers try to keep everything (speakers, treatments, electronics) hidden from view, so it's difficult to see what acoustical design choices they have in common.
Difficult indeed - it's certainly difficult to ask a theater designer to give up their secrets smile.gif
Quote:
I have yet to hear a studio where music sounds as enjoyable to me as it does on home systems, even ones that aren't in dedicated rooms. Professional listening environments typically sound too dampened for my tastes, missing the big wide soundstage that I like.
Unusual? Hardly. Turns out my tastes are about as common as it gets. A couple decades back, Wolfgang Klippel did some blind listening tests comparing narrow dispersion speakers against wide dispersion speakers that had crappy off-axis response. Listeners preferred the latter, craving spaciousness so much that they were willing to take an uneven and coloured version over too little of it. Apparently I fall into this category.
The wide soundstage that sounds pleasing to me would likely sound cartoonish to an industry professional (musician, mixing engineer, acoustician, speaker designer), who can be up to seven times more sensitive to reflections than a typical consumer (me) according to research by Professor Yoichi Ando. Explains why Kevin Voecks (designer of Revel speakers) would prefer absorbtion along the side walls, much to the contrary of his Harman brethren.
So not only do I think professional listening environments sound different from recreational listening environments, but mixing engineers who work in those studios hear differently than the rest of us. When you've spent years dialing in reverb and ambience into recordings, how can you avoid becoming more sensitive to those type of things than the general public. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's been my general experience.
The mixing engineers that I've met need to be in the direct field of their nearfield monitors, so they can hear details and flaws in the recording that the rest of us might never pick up. There's work at stake, not to mention that's how they earn their pay.

Thanks. You articulate my thoughts exactly. And yet, when you think about it (and what I'm about to say may be perceived as tossing a hand grenade but I mean it honestly and without malice) the kind of treatment philosophy advocated by several individuals here, in terms of treating early reflections with heavy broadband absorption (or reflector panels) comes *directly* from studio-treatment models.

I think your taste is similar to my taste is similar to most peoples taste (not everyone's of course) - so why is this strategy recommended if it does not serve the average person's taste?
kromkamp is offline  
post #465 of 871 Old 07-11-2012, 07:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani 
So not only do I think professional listening environments sound different from recreational listening environments, but mixing engineers who work in those studios hear differently than the rest of us. When you've spent years dialing in reverb and ambience into recordings, how can you avoid becoming more sensitive to those type of things than the general public. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's been my general experience.

There's no doubt in my mind as a recordist and production guy that the sonic requirements for mixing and other kinds of production are vastly different than those for listening for pleasure at home.

One place in the professional world where home listening meets listening for production is mastering.

During production, most listen for what's wrong with the music and fix that.

During listening for pleasure, most people are far more interested in what's right about the music.
Quote:
The mixing engineers that I've met need to be in the direct field of their nearfield monitors, so they can hear details and flaws in the recording that the rest of us might never pick up.

unh, huh!
Quote:
Their work is at stake, not to mention that's how they earn their pay.

Good insight.
Quote:
By comparison, there is nothing anywhere near that critical going on in my listening room.

Most home listeners don't have any of the really effective tools for making music more likable. They don't get multitrack masters to start with, and they don't usually have a decent collection of signal processors.

So listening in a truly critical way is a waste of their time and effort from the standpoint of listening pleasure.
Quote:
Just sculpting the sound to my personal preferences. And even then, nothing that requires surgical precision.

At that point in the production chain, what few effective tools that even still apply are few, far between, and hobbled.
arnyk is offline  
post #466 of 871 Old 07-12-2012, 10:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,620
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1219 Post(s)
Liked: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

...how can you know if you like something if you haven't experienced it?.
Hence my saying "get some listening experience in a variety of rooms, at least enough to find out what you like and what you don't". But my point wasn't so much about preference of specific room models as much as it was about personal tastes. Using your audiophile client example, if he describes to you what a thrill he gets with certain recordings when the soundstage images outside his L/R speakers, asthough it was somthing magical to him, then you'll know what he likes and can design an experience to get those results more consistently. Likewise if he never mentions soundstage width but loves to go on an on about etched imaging and hearing deep into the details of the recording. I'm not expecting him to know what an abfusor does to reflections or what room C at Blackbird Studios sounds like, but it's not unreasonable to expect him to know at least his own preferences when it comes to music listening.

If the challenge is to design a listening space for someone that has no experience with how rooms sound AND doesn't know what he likes, then the designer has to resort to using his own (hopefully tasteful) choices and/or statistical preferences (hoping the client has the same tastes as most of us). Considering the premise of the challenge, the client will likely not know any better and will probably be happy with the results of any competent design (barring any glaring problems, and even then, it's amazing what people will accept as 'good sound' if they don't know any better).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

...(and what I'm about to say may be perceived as tossing a hand grenade but I mean it honestly and without malice) the kind of treatment philosophy advocated by several individuals here, in terms of treating early reflections with heavy broadband absorption (or reflector panels) comes *directly* from studio-treatment models.
Sure. But like I mentioned earler, not everyone feels there's a distinction between professional and recreational listening spaces. Nothing wrong with that. So your comment is not a hand grenede (that is until Pete & Repeat show up and bully you in condescending game of Gearslutz Trivial Pursuit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

I think your taste is similar to my taste is similar to most peoples taste (not everyone's of course) - so why is this strategy recommended if it does not serve the average person's taste?
Whether addressiing video or audio, home theatre enthusiasts have come to rely on the notion of reference standards, even where they don't exist (music). So it isn't unreasonable to find recommendations based on how the audio was "intended" to be heard. By comparison, the notion of designing for statistical preference (and tweaking from there) is a newer concept. Old habits die hard, so expect it to take a while before people are comfortable designing an experience around what they like.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #467 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 05:49 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 kromkamp 
the kind of treatment philosophy advocated by several individuals here, in terms of treating early reflections with heavy broadband absorption (or reflector panels) comes *directly* from studio-treatment models.

critically accurate reproduction spaces, not simply "studio-treatment" models. the studio (tv/broadcasting/control) world is but a driver of such requirements; so it's quite natural and expected for such solutions to be born from those environments. and such critically accurate spaces can quickly display the flaws of a particular loudspeaker and/or poor mastering/mix job of the source. some people prefer to allow their speaker-room response to make such factors less obvious, while others may wish to clearly 'hear' such flaws...

what's comical is just how many people were attenuating "first order reflections" via the mirror well before i came along, essentially performing "step 1" of said "studio models" (establishing ISD-gap) - and ignoring (or completely oblivious) as to the importance of, for example, the high-gain (as possible), laterally arriving, exponentially decaying (semi)diffused-soundfield which sharply delineates the ISD. there was no communication or discussion at all that i've seen with regards to the management of the re-introduction of the indirect energy back to the listening position - it was only: "absorb first-reflections and you're done" with regards to the specular region. there wasn't even any recommendations for actual acoustical analysis for said user requirements - just the use of a "mirror". rolleyes.gif

another factor i have yet to see addressed just yet is with regards to someone's subjective preferences whether they would prefer the room to be perceived as acoustically larger than the natural boundaries restrict. the longer the ISD, the larger the perceived size of the room. attenuation of 'early arriving' indirect signals artificially extends the ISD; something that comes naturally as the physical room itself becomes larger and larger in size.

how many poor souls do you know who are stuck in (relatively) large residential rooms who installed lateral reflector panels to induce earlier arriving sidewall reflections to the listening position than the room's boundaries would naturally allow...
localhost127 is offline  
post #468 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 06:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kromkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 4,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Hence my saying "get some listening experience in a variety of rooms, at least enough to find out what you like and what you don't".

But I hope you realize that is impossible to do for 99% of the general population, and probably 75% of AVSForum users. It's simply not practical to suggest to people that they need to do that. I know I have a hard enough time just tracking down speakers to audition!
Quote:
Sure. But like I mentioned earlier, not everyone feels there's a distinction between professional and recreational listening spaces. Nothing wrong with that.

Not *everyone*, but I think a very large majority do. Like I (and Arny) said, I think your opinion is the majority opinion.
Quote:
Whether addressing video or audio, home theatre enthusiasts have come to rely on the notion of reference standards, even where they don't exist (music). So it isn't unreasonable to find recommendations based on how the audio was "intended" to be heard.

I got into this a little bit in another thread - I see very little evidence that the how the audio was intended to be heard = how the audio sounded in the mixing studio.

Cheers
kromkamp is offline  
post #469 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 06:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kromkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 4,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

what's comical is just how many people were attenuating "first order reflections" via the mirror well before i came along, essentially performing "step 1" of said "studio models"

Well sure - 1)because most people (Amir I believe would dissent smile.gif ) would agree that hanging some form of treatment, broadband or otherwise, at those reflection points sounds better than having nothing at all. And 2) absorption is cheap and plentiful. But I'm still convinced at this point it's not the preferred solution for most people.
kromkamp is offline  
post #470 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 07:01 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 kromkamp View Post

But I'm still convinced at this point it's not the preferred solution for most people.

i prefer to let the marketers and salesman deal with "most people" who may or may not otherwise know what "they want" smile.gif

but once someone makes a decision based on the end-state response they desire to achieve, then by all means the appropriate tools can be provided to help them "get there".
localhost127 is offline  
post #471 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 07:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

Well sure - 1)because most people (Amir I believe would dissent smile.gif ) would agree that hanging some form of treatment, broadband or otherwise, at those reflection points sounds better than having nothing at all. And 2) absorption is cheap and plentiful. But I'm still convinced at this point it's not the preferred solution for most people.

It is my fear that the preferred solution for most people is to sit and watch the self-appointed experts (sometimes valid, sometimes not) duke it out.

Meanwhile, the acoustics of their listening room is unchanged, and they are still lusting after that new DAC with 0.00000001% THD rather than their existing one with 0.00000002% THD.
arnyk is offline  
post #472 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 09:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kromkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 4,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

but once someone makes a decision based on the end-state response they desire to achieve

Same question - how is someone supposed to do that? For example, I recall you saying you would not use Perf-Sorber because you prefer temporal diffusion. So, like, how is anyone supposed to know what that sounds like to be able to decide if that's what they want?
kromkamp is offline  
post #473 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 10:00 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 kromkamp View Post

Same question - how is someone supposed to do that? For example, I recall you saying you would not use Perf-Sorber because you prefer temporal diffusion. So, like, how is anyone supposed to know what that sounds like to be able to decide if that's what they want?
I am pretty sure he developed the preference for that not because he heard them, but because the technical explanation of one ("temporal diffusion") literally sounded better to him! That is the basis of much of the advice people take from these forums. Unfortunately there is often little basis for such things when it comes to our actual perception. We don't have good intuition when it comes to the complex way our two ears and brain interpret these "mixed messages."

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #474 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 10:09 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,323
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

(that is until Pete & Repeat show up and bully you in condescending game of Gearslutz Trivial Pursuit).
"I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there" biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #475 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 11:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,620
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1219 Post(s)
Liked: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

I hope you realize that is impossible to do for 99% of the general population, and probably 75% of AVSForum users.
Sure, and that's why I mentioned alternatives that the designer could do, like attempting to draw out the tastes of the client (e.g., what he likes or doesn't like about his current system). Failing that, the designer has to use his own best practices.

One high tech approach would be to use binaural room scans to give the client the experience of listening in different types of rooms. The Smyth Realiser is one such solution for around $3K. The demo I heard at AIX Records was uncanny in its ability to image an externalized multi-channel set-up just using headphones, made all the more real with their use of a head tracker (small involuntary head movements we automatically make end up reinforcing the illusion). It would require the designer to have several room profiles for the client to experience, which might no be that easy.

BTW, one set of recommendations I've really liked in recent years is the Mellor/Hedback paper, especially their creative use of ETC measurements (band limited and highly smoothed) to check consistency more than shape the sound. Well worth reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

I see very little evidence that the how the audio was intended to be heard = how the audio sounded in the mixing studio.
Yeah, I have no idea how some people insist they know what the original intent was. I have something like 2500 CDs and don't know what they sounded like during mixing or mastering, let alone whether that was the artists' intent. Which is why I started paying more attention to my preference years ago rather than what the music "should" sound like. It's also the reason that an approach based on statistical preference is starting to catch on, as people become more comfortable admitting that (unlike video) there is no 'reference' for the music they're listening to.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #476 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 11:38 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by kromkamp View Post

Same question - how is someone supposed to do that? For example, I recall you saying you would not use Perf-Sorber because you prefer temporal diffusion. So, like, how is anyone supposed to know what that sounds like to be able to decide if that's what they want?

I am pretty sure he developed the preference for that not because he heard them, but because the technical explanation of one ("temporal diffusion") literally sounded better to him! That is the basis of much of the advice people take from these forums. Unfortunately there is often little basis for such things when it comes to our actual perception. We don't have good intuition when it comes to the complex way our two ears and brain interpret these "mixed messages."

Just keep dishing out the nonsense based upon your ignorance of what was ACTUALLY done.

Here, let me quote Phillip Newell from Recording Studio Design - and note the emphasis on what the measurements and analysis was focused around! And yes, Puddie Rodgers was also a member of the consortium!:

"In the late 1970s, Don and Carolyn Davis were keenly investigating many acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomena with the then newly developed Time Energy Frequency/Time Delay Spectrometry (TEF/TDS) measurement systems. TDS measurements made at Wally Heider Studios, Los Angeles, USA, and at RCA and Capitol Records, in Hollywood, had given them a lot to think about, leading them to the concept of the ‘Reflection Free Zone’ and the ‘Live-End, Dead-End’ (LEDE) control rooms.

Concurrently, Carolyn (Puddie) Rodgers was presenting new ideas about how certain room reflection characteristics could confuse the ear by giving rise to response filtering which closely mimicked the pinnae (outer ear) transformations used by the brain to facilitate spacial localization.1 This work gave some very explicit explanations of the psycho acoustic relevance of the Energy/Time Curve (ETC) responses in the above-mentioned room measurements, and reinforced the concepts of the Davis’ LEDE principles. Don Davis and Chips Davis (no relation) then wrote their seminal paper on the ‘LEDE’ concept of control room design,2 and these rooms came into very widespread use in the subsequent years. The concepts were further developed by Jack Wrightson, Russell Berger, and other notable designers."



You will find that they led the charge with regards to psycho-acoustic testing with the advent of the time based tools which allowed for a much greater acuity in testing the psycho-acoustic effects of early arriving signals with respect to not only the Haas interval but to directivity as well as binaural effects, But then one would have to know and be aware of the working and collaborative relationships between such folks as Schroeder, D'Antonio, Berger, Davis, VMA Peutz, Peter Mapp, Don Keele, and a WHOLE RAFT of world class acoustical personages.

The scope and degree of collaboration as well as advancements in understanding has not come close to being duplicated since - with a preponderance of the relationships ongoing today..

The irony is that I personally have over 20 years of very detailed psycho-acoustic testing results relating EXACTLY measurements with psycho-acoustic subjective perception conducted by this group and others, much of which was not posted to the public domain but was distributed among the colloquium of the participants And Don was presented with Leo Beranek's PERSONAL private measurement and psycho acoustic evaluations of ALL of the major European concert halls - something no one else enjoyed based specifically on the scope of the psycho acoustic research for which Don and Carolyn served as the lightning rods.

And while I realize that you seem to think that the study of psycho-acoustics begins and ends with a Reader's digest compilation of various sources, the fact of the matter is that measurements were NEVER made simply for the sake of measurements, but they were in the spirit of Heyser, made in order to correlate physical behavior specifically with the subjective psycho-acoustic perception.

Its time to put this nonsensical mischaracterization of measurements solely for the sake of measurements spread by someone who it utterly clueless about the actual events into the trash where it belongs.

But its always interesting(sic) to hear one who is totally and utterly ignorant of both the technological history as well as the important social history of so many of the developments comment about that which they have absolutely no knowledge and even less awareness of what was discovered during this extremely fruitful period lasting over 25 years.

But hey, why should the facts get in the way of someone's personal agenda and attempt to market a product? especially one who has gleened the vast preponderance of his so called understanding, not for ANY actual involvement in testing and trial and error research, but simply from reading ONE book. Now that's what i would call an authority! LMAO!

And bandwidth limited ETCs. Yup, now THERE'S a new technology! Available from day one with TEF, the use of the technique has NEVER been ignored. But its nice to see a few discover it based upon their utter ignorance of the tool as well as their new found reference in Toole only literally 45 years after it was made available. But its nice to see a few wake up and become aware of what the users of the tools have been VERY aware of for longer than what most have even been involved in the industry - including Toole.
But yet, seeing as they have newly discovered such a radically NEW tool, they can now rightly claim to define its proper use and application. LOL!

One can't seem to put ANYTHING past these guys! And this was OLD news when Toole first presented a paper on the technique in 1987, when the response was a huge yawn, not because the concept or use was invalid, but because it was already 20 years old and OLD NEWS then.

So, Welcome to 1967!!!!!, or if you were one, like Russ Berger, who in 1977 actually assembled the $40,000 worth of GenRad and HP gear required to assemble a TEF under license, prior to Techron (and also B&K) actually assembling and manufacturing an all in one TEF in 1983.
Yup, its fascinating from the perspective of one who personally did not personally begin so early with the TEF but who has personally been intimate with the measure for 30 years to find a few who in their exuberance fancy themselves the discoverers of a new technology.

News flash, the internal combustion engine stands poised to threaten the dominance of the HORSE!

To paraphrase Don Davis: "The ancients keep stealing all of our inventions!" But ain't revisionist history and completely nonsensical assertions and conclusions fun!

But it is nice to see a few begin to become aware of technology, techniques and the implications thereof of that was well understood 30-45 years ago. And I might suggest withholding the over-exhuberant claims of new-found discovery for just a bit...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #477 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 12:00 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

Just keep dishing out the nonsense based upon your ignorance of what was ACTUALLY done.
What do you mean what was actually done? This is what Localhost has "done:"
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

"Originally Posted by localhost127
.......yes, but some of us are stuck in small city condos with no such space for properly building a listening room w/ a particular specular response frown.gif . hence, i currently have all the time in the world for theory. it's a bit like owning a sports-car but not being able to get it out of the driveway. frustrating."
That reads to you like someone who has tested the concept of "temporal diffusion" with his ears as opposed to reading forum posts and then repeating them here? Since you are big on what someone has "ACTUALLY done," how about telling us what you think of Localhost? How much of this stuff has he done in your opinion?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
post #478 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 12:08 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Yup avoid the larger references that render your puny hearsay insights just that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

That reads to you like someone who has tested the concept of "temporal diffusion" with his ears as opposed to reading forum posts and then repeating them here? Since you are big on what someone has "ACTUALLY done," how about telling us what you think of Localhost? How much of this stuff has he done in your opinion?

The fact that he has actively sought out original sources of information, experimented and attempted to learn from the wide array of actual sources of which you continually display your ignorance and mischaraterization which places him light years ahead of someone such as yourself who has done even LESS!

And definitely more than ANOTHER who has done literally NOTHING except read a Reader's Digest compendium of old research who now claims to speak For Toole and yet has never done ANYTHING related to that for which you fault others.

Oh!!! But hey everyone! NEWSFLASH!!! I read a reference to a reference from 1987 that tells us that an ETC can be bandwidth limited about which everyone familiar with the TEF and ETC was intimidate decades before!!

Yawn...


.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #479 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 12:32 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
i bet he's more than willing to sell me some of the Auralex T'fusors he has in his company's "show room" - LOL

t'fusors? seriously? seriously?!
localhost127 is offline  
post #480 of 871 Old 07-13-2012, 12:48 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

Here, let me quote Phillip Newell from Recording Studio Design - and note the emphasis on what the measurements and analysis was focused around! And yes, Puddie Rodgers was also a member of the consortium!:

"In the late 1970s, Don and Carolyn Davis were keenly investigating many acoustic and psycho-acoustic phenomena with the then newly developed Time Energy Frequency/Time Delay Spectrometry (TEF/TDS) measurement systems. TDS measurements made at Wally Heider Studios, Los Angeles, USA, and at RCA and Capitol Records, in Hollywood, had given them a lot to think about, leading them to the concept of the ‘Reflection Free Zone’ and the ‘Live-End, Dead-End’ (LEDE) control rooms.
Concurrently, Carolyn (Puddie) Rodgers was presenting new ideas about how certain room reflection characteristics could confuse the ear by giving rise to response filtering which closely mimicked the pinnae (outer ear) transformations used by the brain to facilitate spacial localization.1 This work gave some very explicit explanations of the psycho acoustic relevance of the Energy/Time Curve (ETC) responses in the above-mentioned room measurements, and reinforced the concepts of the Davis’ LEDE principles. Don Davis and Chips Davis (no relation) then wrote their seminal paper on the ‘LEDE’ concept of control room design,2 and these rooms came into very widespread use in the subsequent years. The concepts were further developed by Jack Wrightson, Russell Berger, and other notable designers."

You will find that they led the charge with regards to psycho-acoustic testing with the advent of the time based tools which allowed for a much greater acuity in testing the psycho-acoustic effects of early arriving signals with respect to not only the Haas interval but to directivity as well as binaural effects, But then one would have to know and be aware of the working and collaborative relationships between such folks as Schroeder, D'Antonio, Berger, Davis, VMA Peutz, Peter Mapp, Don Keele, and a WHOLE RAFT of world class acoustical personages.
The scope and degree of collaboration as well as advancements in understanding has not come close to being duplicated since - with a preponderance of the relationships ongoing today..
The irony is hat I personally have over 20 years of very detailed psycho-acoustic testing results conducted by this group and others, much of which was not posted to the public domain but was distributed among the colloquium of the participants.
Oh. They kept all of those test results secret and among select few? How come?

This the only reference to "psychoacoustics" in the LEDE paper by Don and Chip Davis: "The LEDE (TM) Concept for the Control of Acoustics and Psychoacoustic Parameters in Recording Control Room."

"The psychoacoustic effect of the LEDETM design technique is to give the mixer's ears the acoustic clues of the larger space, thus allowing the perception of hearing the studio rather than the control room."

You agree with that goal? Making the space appear larger? And what's with the trademark symbol after LEDE? Someone owned the mark and thought to make money from it?

As you say, there is no listening test in that paper. There are references to work of others, but none from the authors. The paper is from 1979. Would you agree they would have therefore not benefited from any listening tests in this regard performed after that date? The aforementioned Clark research was in 1983 for example. The Olive/Toole, 1989. I can go on and on. You would agree none of that was known when they wrote that paper and created the concept?

And say, why did you have you repeatedly put down listening tests as "surveys and polls" but here, using them to provide credibility to the work of others? If they are useless marketing material, why are you using them to make your point now? Are you a believer in listening tests now to use them to confirm what we think we know about how we hear?
Quote:
And while I realize that you seem to think that the study of psycho-acoustics begins and ends with a Reader's digest compilation of various sources, the fact of the matter is that measurements were NEVER made simply for the sake of measurements, but they were in the spirit of Heyser, made in order to correlate physical behavior specifically with the subjective psycho-acoustic perception.
You are creating history after the fact. If you are right, then Heyser would have provided listening tests at the same time as ETC measurement. But such did not happen. The work of others then to try to see if it correlates with how we hear, damns the very notion. After all, if the concept came about that way, we would have no need to prove it! Regardless, I have shown specific evidence of how ETC can be in error. So, here and now, in 2012, we know it can show incorrect data. So whatever assertion was made 40 years ago, or in 1979 as in the case of LEDE concept, was wrong anyway.
Quote:
But its always interesting(sic) to hear one who is totally and utterly ignorant of both the technological history as well as the important social history of so many of the developments comment about that which they have absolutely no knowledge and even less awareness of what was discovered during this extremely fruitful period lasting over 25 years.
I was not there when Newton articulated how gravity worked. Nor was I there when Einstein came out with theory of relativity. But I can read and understand both and know what they mean. For your part, you are a person who never posts any hands on experience in this area, doesn't work in this field professionally, has no credentials whatsoever, and is posting under an alias. By all measures then, this is an odd kind of argument to make. So what that you have been a hobbyist in this area for 20 years? And going to conferences and reading forum posts. None of that amounts to anything if you can't demonstrate your views with a single, specific listening test, or a single measurement you have made in your own room. These are the simple facts on the table ad undisputed! You can't make up for them by screaming louder. smile.gif
Quote:
But hey, why should the facts get in the way of someone's personal agenda and attempt to market a product? especially one who has gleened the vast preponderance of his so called understanding, not for ANY actual involvement in testing and trial and error research, but simply from reading ONE book. Now that's what i would call an authority! LMAO!
I have never called myself an authority. I however, quote the work of authorities and can back them with deep understanding of their views and data. You on the other hand, have declared yourself an authority yet have no hands on knowledge to share with us. You don't see the banality of that argument? But by all means, articulate what listening tests you have been in. I have asked this repeatedly but no answer has come back. Maybe today is our lucky day smile.gif.
Quote:
And bandwidth limited ETCs. Yup, now THERE'S a new technology! Available from day one with TEF, the use of the technique has NEVER been ignored.
There was no claim that such a concept was new. The point was made that if you don’t use ETC that way, it misrepresents the audible energy in the room. You do realize that neither Dr. Toole, or I say you run ETC that way. Yes? That point is made as matter of science and theory of why the measurement tool is wrong. You say you always knew that? How come you never warn members about it? I previously asked you to post a link to any discussion where you brought that up prior to talking about it after I provided this data. You have never shown any such evidence. So at least on surface, it looks like you either did not know about it, or knew about it but chose to keep it from members. Neither is good in my book.
Quote:
News flash, the internal combustion engine stands poised to threaten the dominance of the HORSE!
That's right. It is time we move past the data in a 40 year old tool to the science of what we hear. It is time we start to pay attention to what our ears do, rather than what a dumb meter and a graph show. You want to stay in 1979, by all means do. Just don't ask us to follow you there. smile.gif

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is online now  
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