Originally Posted by dragonfyr
LMAO!!! First, such carte blanche statements as the first is utterly and completely BS. "Comb filtering is not audible". Not some comb filtering depending upon the width of the notch, or even the spacing (density) of the notches is not audible...or indeed, seeing as how comb filtering does NOT even exist in nature but instead refers to the spacing of spatial polar lobing on the distribution of a signal - a FUNDAMENTAL concept about which you still have no grasp as you continue to think that a pattern on a frequency response MEASUREMENT is REAL!!!!!
In the context we are talking about, comb filtering caused by side reflections, study after study shows it to be a beneficial effect. Both frequency and time domain measurements lie relative to what we hear. Don’t be a slave to a dumb meter lest you want to be the same place it is.
Your assertion is WRONG.
It is not my position. It is the position of top experts in the industry. I assume you know that clearly but use this as a debating tactic as you know you can’t set yourself up to be superior to them (although you do try – see the end of my post below). As I said to Bigus, if there is something wrong, you need a) establish you know more than these experts, b) show your own data and experiment results, c) your own references. You do none of this other than come back with another emotional response insisting that these top experts are wrong. That doesn’t amount to anything nor does it add any information to the thread. Your intimidation tactic seems to have worked with Bigus and I assume others but it has no effect on me. The fact that you keep trying demonstrates lack of commonsense.
But keep reading your book, whose conclusion has morphed all over the spectrum, ranging from telling us how we NEED to treat a room to now where no treatment is necessary except for a trip to IKEA..
Another tired, repeated attempt at misstating Dr. Toole’s position. Just yesterday I explained how we face two situations: 1) a multi-use room such as a living room or 2) dedicated space. The former does not call for filling it with acoustic devices especially the extreme versions you all recommend. If you are single, and don't care about what the room looks like, sure, go and fill it with acoustic products. No one will stop you. What I and Dr. Toole are trying to stop is people pretending that unless you do that, you can't get good sound. You absolutely can. Furniture will help tremendously with reducing late reflections. Carpets for example, if you understand psychoacoustics and are not slave to a dumb meter, help with first reflection there just the same. Talking about that, what is your excuse for ignoring my question to you in that area multiple times? How did you make the carpet broadband?
I have also asked repeatedly to see how your camp has treated their living room with such products. None of you produce any pictures. Turns out Localhost doesn't even have a listening space -- living room or otherwise. So we know his recommendations to others which he himself does not follow doesn’t count. What is your excuse for not posting pictures of your living room showing us that you shop at RPG for decoration instead of IKEA?
When you have a dedicated space where the look can be that of a listening space, then sure, you use acoustic products as we have. One has to be aware of customer requirements. A 70 year old who just wants a reliable car to go to the store cannot be told to buy a sports car because it handles better than the Camry he is trying to buy. Telling him otherwise shows that you don't live in the real world taking in full requirements of the customer. I have to live in one. We have real customers we have to serve. And I assume when someone in this forum posts questions, it is a real situation too and not a made up world where absorbers can be put on windows instead of curtains. Note the title of the thread. Can furniture improve the sound of a room? Of course it can. Compare an empty room with one having furniture in it. If you have never done that comparison, then you have missed the ABCs of this business.
Another thirty rounds will go by but at the end the facts are as I stated. You dispute the work of top experts in this industry which unlike you, have to earn a living this way. Unlike you they published their work in respected journals and books. Unlike you they have access to test environments such as anechoic chamber so that they can test single effects such as reflections. Unlike you they write under their real name so if they are wrong, it soils their reputation and prospect for making a living. Unlike you, they stick with facts rather than thinking we get scared of insults and buzzwords. Unlike you, they are honest brokers. They don't say Bigus knows nothing about acoustics, lies about what is being said, then come here and try to defend his fantastical views of fixing speakers with what goes on the wall. (You honestly bought his version of building a car to drive to work with tootpicks with his membrane idea?) And then fail just like him to answer two specific speakers put forward with more detail than anyone usually has and comes back instead with this kind of diatribe.
As Dr. Toole says, what is presented is a biased view. The view is not commercially motivated but is rooted in real science. That science is explained in hundreds of pages of documentation. Heaven knows Dr. Toole could say what it is and call folks like you who disagree stupid with a "LMAO" and move on. He certainly has gained enough respect to do that. But instead, his book goes on for many, many chapters in full detail documenting and proving his point of view. Even if you don't agree at the end, you learn a ton about audio and it heavily puts doubt if not downright dispel the myths people throw around in these threads, believing their dumb meters instead of how we hear. If I told people here that two CD players have frequency response that varies by 0.1db and hence they would sound different, they would go nuts, demanding listening tests. And their position would be that listening tests trump measurements. Yet the same people in this thread, in post after post, and in agitated mood no less, argue that we should keep chasing measurements like ETC over how we hear. They seem completely oblivious to how inconsistent they are being. It has fallen on my shoulders and my shoulders alone to justify that we should care about what we hear. And what we hear is different than what we measure and sometimes by a mile.
Seeing as how you lack any formal training in actual acoustical physics, one can only imagine what will happen when you read a second book.
Formal training? I have formal training. You are the one who lacks it. I am trained by the top experts that I quote here. I am trained in the latest understanding of this science. Your training on the other hand seems to be from Navy work on light as if that is the same as how our two ears and a brain hear sound. Outside of that, you have been in some ancient seminars on how to use tools like ETC. That's cool. You have done more than others. And you can spell more words. But in no way does that approach the work and knowledge of the experts I quote who have been my teachers. Or make your understanding of science more accurate when you have been completely sleep when the science of how we hear was taught. That is why you talk about "actual *physics*" as the important bit, rather than science of psychoacoustics. Instead of that, you need to study how our hearing system works. How its bandwidth is variable and hence can’t hear comb filtering due to notches being too small as soon as its frequency starts to go up above 500 Hz. This is the science that I know and not from any seminar but work experience and managing 20+ PhDs whose job was to advance this area for more than a decade. While not big on putting my name on patents, if you look me up you will see my name in such area (http://www.patentmaps.com/inventor/Amir_H_Majidimehr_1.html
I also have three decades of experience in audio and signal processing. Again, my job required it as did my degree program. So what you know I can know in fine detail. There is a reason I have explained more about how ETC works than you have by a mile.
None of this makes me a better or smarter person than you. It simply means I am more up to date and have read and understood more relevant research than the few of you have. I have also had the pleasure of spending considerable amount of time with the experts who are leading this area of research. Again, my job, in this case the company I founded, Madrona Digital, gives me that privilege. You keep quoting Dr. Toole where convenient. But of course you have not spend any time with Dr. Toole or you would immediately know that he would not tolerate one second with you talking the way you do. His expertise like mine started with psychoacoustics. He has no patience for anyone who throws out that science at the starting point as you do.
My guess is schizophrenia as you tear yourself apart trying desperately to reconcile the differences, having no foundation of physics upon which to evaluate and qualify the various physical behaviors described.
That is your dilemma, not mine. You are the one that has to explain why what we hear is not what we measure when you are so slaved to dumb meters. I used to be that way relying on forums for my net knowledge. The reason is that little of what Dr. Toole makes it into these discussions and what does gets stomped on by people like you. What I like about Dr. Toole’s teachings is that it all “hangs together.” He discusses everything, your point of view and his. He then connects it all in a comprehensive and authoritative way. Best of all, he shows you how to move forward without having to understand much of the complexity. Those are all proof points. The final job is dead easy. No need to go and brush up on band limiting of ETC I am afraid. That is the sign of a good teacher. He is able to distill the knowledge to where it is useful. I quoted Dr. Olive’s summary earlier. Wasn’t that dead easy to follow? If you have to obfuscate your solution so much with fancy words, maybe there is a problem with your approach.
And we haven't even gotten to your audacious claims about fixing an anomaly in a speakers response of which we are provided no information as to the baseline response, crossover information, and as such cannot easily separate what is a driver-driver speaker sourced anomaly and what is speaker-room based as you sling your crap about without qualification, effectively dumping a child's toy box onto the floor and demanding to know which toy hit the floor first.
Here is the other thing you do. You don’t read the posts. My position is what you just stated. That you cannot know any of this, so therefore you can’t even begin to claim you can fix speakers with acoustic products. Yet Mr. Bigus says you do exactly that in his post with wall treatments. I say he cannot, and even in my response to you say the same thing about lack of off-axis data. Yet here you come pretending my position the opposite after I had the identical interchange with Localhost where I clarified the same.
So put please aside your angst long enough for the blood to clear from your eyes and read what is written. You waste my time and that of the forum with these information free emotional outbursts.
My suggestion is for one to read Toole yourself. What he proposes is not really radically new. Many of he ideas have been around for many years, without having gained substantial traction.
Says who? A guy who is not in the industry and is stuck with a 1970s measurement? You are in that room by yourself. There is not one top industry acoustician who doesn’t quote Dr. Toole from time to time. Their research into using multiple subs is universally accepted for managing low frequency response. You yourself quote him left and right. But boy, quote him one bit after that and he is not a guy anyone follows? Why not say the sun comes out west while you are at it.
Didn’t I quote Dr. D’Antonio’s slides talking about his work and finishing his presentation on your
case study of blackbird studio that he looks up to his teachings? Here is the slide again since you have forgotten about it again:
Where does he park your ideas of LEDE, etc? Here:
He recognizes Dr. Toole’s work as the most modern instantiation of what we know. You advocate in 1970s school of thinking and claim everyone stuck in your wagon wheel era still? Please give us some credit for intelligence to see through debating tactics devoid of proof points.
And as I said previously, its time for responsible people who DO seek to actually learn more about acoustics and who hope to apply the concepts - and who also want to be able to objectively and subjectively verify the effects of such behavior, to ignore you and your one trick dictatorial BS pony.
It is a shame we have no evidence of you two practicing any of this seeing how you have shared no data, no list of equipment, no list of acoustic products, no measurements, and no pictures of anything you do that has to do with audio or this topic. Real shame….