Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 871 Old 06-20-2012, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Much of what we know in psychoacoustics comes from the frequency domain. Let's go back to mother of such research with Fletcher-Munson equal loudness graphs (circa 1930s):

400px-Lindos4.svg.png.

sorry, but the above graph in the frequency-domain has zero relevancy to the psycho-acoustics of intelligibility, localization, and imaging.

NEXT!
localhost127 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 871 Old 06-20-2012, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I will come to Blackbird bit later. Trust me, I will smile.gif.

oh, great - the guy who wasn't even aware the acoustical model (Amebchoic) or the room concept even existed before i introduced it to him is going to make an attempt to discuss it with authority - especially as he's never set foot in the room NOR has any clue as to the design requirements of a critically accurate reproduction space (eg, a mixing/mastering control room). your experience with home/consumer pleasing listening spaces isn't going to weigh very heavily in this field. good luck! anxiously awaiting your mickey-mouse conclusions and napkin analysis!
localhost127 is online now  
post #93 of 871 Old 06-20-2012, 12:28 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 localhost127 View Post

sorry, but the above graph in the frequency-domain has zero relevancy to the psycho-acoustics of intelligibility, localization, and imaging.
NEXT!

Well, other than whether the external sounds have sufficient gain to be intelligible over the internal voices...wink.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #94 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 06:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Martycool007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 153
I just wanted to thank Dragonfyr for taking the time, (his own personal time), to explain some things and answering some of my questions, yesterday. Very nice guy, and we are indeed lucky to have such a knowledgeable man who is willing to take the time needed to explain some of this stuff to us novices!

On another note, I am getting ready to order a mic pre-amp, (already have my mic-Behringer ECM-8000), and a new sound card, in order to start taking measurements via ARTA. I am waiting on Cross Spectrum Labs to open for the day so that I can also arrange to have them calibrate my mic. I can't wait to see how my room measures! In the mean time, I will probably look into building a few absorption panels and perhaps even some diffusion panels as well. That way I can surgically slice into the problem areas in my room.
Martycool007 is offline  
post #95 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 11:08 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Oh geesh! rolleyes.gif

I work hard building my reputation as a curmudgeon who kicks dogs and eats children (or is that kicks children and eats dogs...its so hard to keep the story straight...) and I certainly don't need THAT kind of stuff posted online!

Just to correct the record... I think I had been drinking all afternoon before he found me, so I am (was) not responsible for my actions.... wink.gif

...Now bring on those dogs/children.... biggrin.gif
dragonfyr is offline  
post #96 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 01:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,079
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

May I suggest that you go 'back to the future' and progress to where the rest of the acoustics world was more than 30 years ago ....In other words, your observations were old news then..and only further reinforce just how out of touch you are now...But as has been the case for many months now, this fact will conveniently be ignored as it does not mesh well with his one dimensional cut and paste campaign based upon limited understanding and experience that eschews the reality that there are multiple response models and that not all - especially in the trained ear community - prefer Toole's amorphous indistinct 'big' image based upon lowest common denominator polling data. So while many of Toole's observations that you merely parrot duly constitute what are merely footnotes in a larger body of knowledge, as opposed to the 'one and only definitive correct' response option, the fact is that while allot of folks may like the Bose sound, NOT ALL DO! ...As easily evidenced specifically at Blackbird Studio....And then how about explaining why the ultimate early reflection environment created at Blackbird has been effectively converted to a response closer to the LEDE by the covering of the side diffusors with quilts, effectively rendering them absorbers, as the engineers in the facility prefer a more tightly defined image as opposed to your amorphous 'large' image so longingly preferred by those who listen only to surround and worry about the sense of envelopment during FX and exploding suns.
Boy, there was a lot of screaming and kicking of "children and dogs" in that post smile.gif. I cherish the fact though that I am now elevated from the status of office products to that of young Homo sapiens and canines. biggrin.gif

OK, as promised, here is my response to your Blackbird Studio comment. They say all roads lead to Rome. It seems that as inevitable as taxes and death are, all conversations with you and Local get to this proof point. We seem to be asked to worship at this meca of acoustic design. And the man behind it, Dr. D’Antonio who collaborated with George Massenburg to build this room for John McBride (husband of singer Martina McBride). If you don't know these individuals, Dr. D'Antonio is a renowned and well respected acoustics researcher and president of RPG, the most well-know company that produces acoustic products. George is likewise a distinguished recording engineer. You could do a lot worse than referencing the work of these two people smile.gif. The project is unique in its use of massive diffusers that are *4 foot* deep. It is a breathtaking place, going in a very unique direction. Here is a picture of it:

GM_Fig-4.jpg
As I said, you could do far worse than reference this design smile.gifsmile.gif.

Let's pull up a few notches and examine the disagreement. How should one deal with reflections? Dr. Tool goes through the full analysis of science there in his 30+ page AES presentations. I could quote them but I would get told I am a scanner and I like being a kid or a dog better. biggrin.gif So I am going to instead quote Dr. D'Antonio himself and not generically but as he directly explains how this project came about. Crossing my fingers that such evidence is acceptable to our resident experts. If it is not, well, I am going to give up on audio and take on underwater basket weaving as my new hobby. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

Fortunately for everyone, the information is there for all to read online and no AES membership or book fees involved. Here is the presentation: http://www.rpginc.com/docs%5CTechnology%5CPresentations%5CStudio%20Design%20From%20Mono2Surround.pdf

Dr. D'Antonio has a great history of the evolution of thinking with respect to reflections at the start of his presentation. I think it is highly instructive to look them together here as he goes through the decades. I won't bore you with all of them but let's look at the interesting ones starting with 1970s:
i-tXbpPn6-X2.png
So right away we see the reference to origins of LEDE style of room design that Dragon mentions. Let's note that the era was 1970s.

Next he turns the clock to 1980s school of thought:
i-VW9GQxb-X2.png
Here we see the mention of “Non-environmental” or NE Room style of design that Local likes to mention. But more notable is the mention of psychoacoustics by likes of Dr. Tool and Martens re-examining then then conventional wisdom as to the effects of reflection and preference of humans as opposed to a meter and a graph.

1990s was a slow news decade for acoustics smile.gif. So let's skip over to the next and last slide in this sequence, covering the current century starting at year 2000:
i-BBRP9Hr-X2.png
What do you know? Dr. D’Antonio saying that reflections according to Dr. Toole can be beneficial? Seems like Dr. D’Antonio is clearly accepting and highlighting views of Dr. Toole as being significant *and* some of the most modern thinking in this area of research into acoustics science. As if there were some doubt here, this is how he summarizes all of these decades:
i-XFHWr3v-X2.png
As I have highlighted, he most definitely is putting emphasis on “perceptual importance” of reflections as I have been talking about and Dr. Toole writing about. So the notion that we should use a meter to find reflections and go after them without due attention to what psychoacoustics tells us is just wrong. It ignores so much learning over the decades.

The presentation *ends* with this slide:
i-45H4Xpv-X2.png
Look at the footnote: “Toole, AES 8th Conference, 1980.” That is the massive white paper by Dr. Toole where he goes through every bit of research on reflections and audibility thereof and finds no evidence of them being negative. The graph itself is the result of his research assistant, Dr. Sean Olive who actually tested a lot of these hypothesis when he was working under Dr. Toole at the non-profit National Research Council.

Now note the highlighted text at the end where they started to actually evaluate the room from both measurement and subjective points of view. So he is not at all presenting this room as a proven path to deal with reflections but rather, a concept that is yet to be tried and proven. And who is he asking to do that? Dr. Martens at McGill University. Guess what? Dr. Olive went to the same school and has actually published papers with professor Martens:

Title: Interaction between Loudspeakers and Room Acoustics Influences Loudspeaker Preferences in Multichannel Audio Reproduction Audio Engineering Society, October 2007
Authors: Sean Olive, William Martens
“The physical interaction between loudspeakers and the acoustics of the room in which they are positioned has been well established; however, the influence on listener preferences for loudspeakers that results from such variation in room acoustics has received little experimental verification. If listeners adapt to listening room acoustics relatively quickly, then room acoustic variation should not significantly influence loudspeaker preferences. In the current study, two groups of listeners were given differential exposure to listening room acoustics via a binaural room scanning (BRS) measurement and playback system. Although no significant difference in loudspeaker preference was found between these two groups of listeners, the room acoustic variation to which they were exposed did significantly influence loudspeaker preferences. “


Any way you skin this, you can’t escape the reality of the significance of Dr. Toole and his team’s research. It is the most modern instantiation of our thinking in this space. Anyone who compares his opinions in this regard in the same sentence as Bose, etc. is simply throwing stuff at us hoping it sticks. And it is not me that is saying that but the author of the very project you wanted us to look at.

To be sure, not everyone agrees with the same research. so if you still dress like this:
223154284.jpg
by all means ignore psychoacoustics and use 1970s alphabet of room "models." smile.gif Go ahead and run ETC to find said reflections and do away with them even though no such analysis was done for the Blackbird room as they decided to treat most of it with diffusers...

Sincerely,
snoopy-loves-drawing-21333288.jpg

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #97 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 02:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Let's pull up a few notches and examine the disagreement. How should one deal with reflections? Dr. Tool goes through the full analysis of science there in his 30+ page AES presentations. I could quote them but I would get told I am a scanner and I like being a kid or a dog better. biggrin.gif So I am going to instead quote Dr. D'Antonio himself

yes please!!! - hunt down and give us toole's analysis of effectively anechoic, highly diffused broadband reflections. please post everything he says on the subject!!
i want to hear all the analysis and quotes with respect to this room model and these types of reflections.
i wasn't aware any research from toole existed on such types of reflections - please prove me wrong!

and i still don't see anywhere within your commentary where you state how toole was integral to the ambechoic room model? how, exactly, was he involved?

toole hasn't even stepped food in blackbird C nor performed any type of testing in the well mixed diffuse effectively anechoic diffuse sound-field, has he?
can you produce anything that he has stated regarding this?

no?



the sad fact, amir, is that even after all of this time, you still haven't learned yet that maybe, just maybe, not all "reflections" are the same as other "reflections". you seem to insist that the high-gain, sparse sidewall reflections in your company's sales room are the same type of reflections as the well mixed energy in the highly diffused, effectively anechoic ambechoic room model. especially as the low-gain (-30dB) diffused reflections in blackbird are not keyed on in the ear-brain for localization and imaging. what, exactly, has toole stated regarding effectively anechoic sidewall reflections? please copy-paste from his book - im quite curious what his thoughts are!

unfortunately, physics and psycho-acoustics dictate that they are two entirely different responses!
but to you, any sidewall reflection is the same as other sidewall reflections. reflections are reflections are reflections.

and the key element with regards to blackbird is that the diffusers are broadband. thus, not filtering/EQ'ing coloring the reflection.

this, from your company's sales floor, is not a broadband diffuser.

iEKCo.jpg


this is a broadband diffuser:
YD767.jpg
iw5of.jpg[IMG]qzKO7.jpg


basic physics, amir - objects must be large with respect to wavelength.
and even worse still, toole explicitly states that treatments should be broadband such that they don't color/filter the reflection! but just look at your little micro-diffusers and scatterers that you have in your company's showroom! for how much you praise toole, you sure as heck don't heed his advice and recomendations. as evident by your small diffusers and thin porous rugs/carpet.



and funny that you reference blackbird C with NER and LEDE (RFZ) - as those are 2channel stereo control room models. blackbird C (amebchoic) is a surround sound control room model. the fact that you still haven't noticed this slight, yet quite significant difference speaks volumes.

and we're still waiting for quotes where, apparently, we have been talking about LF modal energy with respect to the ETC - were you able to find anything yet?
localhost127 is online now  
post #98 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 03:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,079
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

aww, cute little history on blackbird C and the designers, implying you are versed on it...
Sorry but why are you responding? I was answering Dragon, not you. Do you know more than Dragon? From my read of his posts and yours, I think he can school you easily in these topics. So why not let him answer? He is just as good as you on insults too. So you are covered on both fronts.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #99 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
here's the ETC for blackbird:

q104Q.jpg

it's effectively anechoic!! first-order reflections are -30dB down !! i thought toole said we all hate anechoic-type rooms; that it was not pleasurble? not "prefferred" - yet george massenburg clearly has other things to say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by george massenburg 
those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came).

how can that be?
localhost127 is online now  
post #100 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 03:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Go ahead and run ETC to find said reflections and do away with them even though no such analysis was done for the Blackbird room as they decided to treat most of it with diffusers...

why on earth would you apply such methodology to a room that is planned and designed from inception to utilize such diffusers.
there exists such a thing called a "planing phase", when designing dedicated control rooms.

you seem to confuse such methods of treating an existing residential room with internal treatments (since physical room modification is not possible), and the planning and design of a dedicated room built from the ground up. rolleyes.gif
localhost127 is online now  
post #101 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 04:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,079
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

here's the ETC for blackbird:

it's effectively anechoic!! first-order reflections are -30dB down !!
Ah, victory for instruments! Yippee biggrin.gif.
Quote:
i thought toole said we all hate anechoic-type rooms; that it was not pleasurble? not "prefferred" - yet george massenburg clearly has other things to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by george massenburg 
those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came).
how can that be?
Maybe we should read all that George wrote in that post: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/bass-traps-acoustic-panels-foam-etc/621300-what-would-room-100-diffusion-sound-like-2.html#post6834790

"the room is hardly anechoic, though. just listening to music in there is extraordinary; ensemble musicians report that it's easier to play live in the room because it's easier to hear in the room.

those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came). unfortunately, Nashville's short-sighted and inept "music" industry will not tolerate innovation of any kind, and i'm told that the room now has heavy curtains hung in front of the diffusors."


Oh brother. Folks didn't like the sound and put a curtain in front of those massive diffusers? Tell me it ain't so. I am ready to jump off a cliff. Oh wait. I got my sanity back. smile.gif

From the same thread, here is a lovely recording of Dawn Langstroth recording in the same studio. Pay attention to where she is singing, which is frozen in the thumbnail of the video and then around 1:45 mark:

Hmmm, she is standing *outside* of the said studio and all of its diffusion and there is a piece of glass right in front of her! Not to mention the thin "non-broadband" foam. Wonder if it sounds so good to be in there why she is outside of it with these mods. And do notice the blankets taped to things and such elsewhere in the video.

So do you have ETCs for where she is singing and the studio with curtains in front of its diffusers?

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #102 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 04:20 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
And the personal ignorance coupled with the personality cult of Toole continues.

To quote Toole once again which addresses the very heart of he matter that MSBob MISSES:



"The real solution, for professionals as well as consumers, is loudspeakers that deliver similarly good timbral accuracy in the direct, early reflected and reverberant sound fields. This can be described as a loudspeaker with a flattish, smooth, axial frequency response, with constant directivity (which together result in flattish, smooth, sound power). Then it becomes an option, whether the room is acoustically damped, or not.

If reflected sounds are absorbed, the listener is placed in a predominantly direct sound field, making the experience more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise.


If the reflections are allowed to add their complexity, the overall illusion is altogether more spacious and open, to many listeners, more realistic.

In part, this is a matter of taste.

In either case, a room-friendly loudspeaker will yield timbral accuracy. So, at middle and high frequencies, the proper solution to getting good sound quality, is to choose good loudspeakers to begin with.
"




We'll go slowly......

If one wants a less precise more amorphous image, the reflection rich environment may indeed be what you will like.

IF you are dealing only with surround and primarily listening to music where the intelligibility (as in articulation loss of consonants - intelligibility as in being able to clearly understand the spoken word) or primarily impressed with big exploding stars and whatnot, Toole's biog amorphous sense of envelopment at the expense of a tightly defined precise image may be just what you like!

But the fact remains - a fact lost on MSBob, who repeatedly cites the tyranny of surveys and poles to inform you that you have the right to agree ONLY with Toole's surveys - that not all desire or prefer an amorphous image at the expense of a more tightly defined and localized image - be it for many reasons and/or purposes.

And the fact remains that most DO NOT have the proper speakers required to accommodate the response that Toole advocates (as you CANNOT use the speakers that most have!!! - but hey, I bet MSBob will find a way to SELL them to you as his goal is to market this stuff to you!), nor are they prepared to utilize the treatments and an absurdly priced processor that Toole recommends to do the job (And why do I anticipate yet ANOTHER sales pitch just waiting in the wings!?).

You see, not only are there other ways to achieve the exact same response more economically, but there are alternative acoustic response models that offer a variety of responses covering a full range of qualities that are VERY viable vetted alternatives.

For you see, he mistakenly thinks - read feels - that we outright reject the reflection rich environment. I certainly don't.

Instead I am not only intimately familiar with the various other acoustic response models, but I understand the acoustical mechanics and the psycho-acoustics that are capable of eliciting that provide alternatives that are able to compliment whatever response model one prefers.

And while I do have personal preferences regarding what I consider optimal responses for a variety of differing purposes and applications and constraints, be they monetary or physical, I am not so stupid as to try to tell others what they MUST like as does our marketing friend.

So as Toole himself acknowledges - something that you will nowhere find referenced in his continuing marketing presentation - the response you like and find most appropriate is a matter of YOUR application and your TASTE! It is NOT an absolute Single Correct way that you MUST adhere to as he keeps trying to coerce you into believing with his charts and surveys.

Sorry ....you still do not get it! But don't let that stop you from misrepresenting the points.

For you see, go back and read his focus on the studio in the previous post, as he mistakenly thinks that the diffusion does not create to the nth degree, exactly what Toole has been pushing! But you see, since the diffusors are large, he has no clue that the achieved response is EXACTLY of the sort of dense early arriving laterally arriving soundfield that Toole proposes! And since he does not realize this, and instead reacts to the presence of diffusors, he fails to understand the nature of the response that the operators are rejecting! They are rejecting exactly the response that he has been running about ignorantly proselytizing and about which he now proves to be utterly clueless. He has effectively flip flopped and unknowingly supports the 'opposite' acoustical response that favors a more defined initial signal delay ISD gap devoid of the very (early) lateral reflections that Toole advocates! And he doesn't even realize the acoustic response that was accomplished by the original design, nor what the modifications to the diffusors accomplishes! He literally, and knowingly, now presents an argument that is diametrically opposed to what he thinks he is presenting! It is literally hilarious!

And as the folks working IN the reflection rich environment of Blackbird - while the response is great for BIG AMORPHOUS but IMPRECISE imaging - they too prefer the more accurate precise imaging afforded by greater control over early reflections.

And now he says "she is standing *outside* of the said studio and all of its diffusion and there is a piece of glass right in front of her! Not to mention the thin "non-broadband" foam. Wonder if it sounds so good to be in there why she is outside of it with these mods." not realizing that his criticism is now about a REFLECTION RICH environment that he says the surveys should coerce all of us to like! He just doesn't get it! Can we say "flip flop"???? LMAO!

That fact is it DOES sound good IF you desire a big amorphous imprecise image the Toole, and he claims only by virtue of reading a book, to prefer! But the fact is the artists and the engineers DO NOT prefer that! But you see, He doesn't get that!

But not to worry, MSBob is there to tell them how stupid they are as well. But then they are only actually engineering and mixing records aren't they - You see, they aren't as experienced as one who only cuts and pastes second hand sources from a book without ANY first hand experience and then misrepresents the very concepts of which he can only cut and paste!

Sorry, but people DO have choices, contrary to your continuing attempts at telling others that any divergent "taste" is wrong.







LMAO!!! He still doesn't get that the engineers at Blackbird have rejected the lateral reflection rich environment of Toole that he has dictated is the ONLY acceptable response in lieu of a more accurate precise localized image. And he thinks that the ambechoic response is not a reflection rich environment!

Its hopeless folks when one cannot even recognize the nature of the response of the room which they variously defend and then attack, as apparently the facility is not addressed in the single book that they perpetually cite as a substitute for actually studying and understanding the underlying science of acoustics at issue.

But isn't it nice that in lieu of being able to actually address the issue we have repeatedly raised that someone is instead able to do word searches of a document and to cut and paste without having to understand the concepts to which they obtusely reply as what is posted misrepresents the nature of the ambechoic response?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oh, and ETCs ARE available for the ambechoic response model - in fact the response model is characterized precisely by the use of ETCs. I guess you missed that in your word search and cut and paste session. But then I guess that you are ALSO unaware that Dr. D'Antonio makes extensive use of ETCs as a fundamental evaluation and design tool...as he ironically (and hilariously) now flip flops and denigrates perhaps the best implementation of the early reflection rich environment on the planet.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #103 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

From the same thread, here is a lovely recording of Dawn Langstroth recording in the same studio. Pay attention to where she is singing, which is frozen in the thumbnail of the video and then around 1:45 mark:Hmmm, she is standing *outside* of the said studio and all of its diffusion and there is a piece of glass right in front of her! Not to mention the thin "non-broadband" foam. Wonder if it sounds so good to be in there why she is outside of it with these mods. And do notice the blankets taped to things and such elsewhere in the video.
So do you have ETCs for where she is singing and the studio with curtains in front of its diffusers?

amir, listen to this carefully. recording (eg, tracking) - is subjective. that means, you record in any environment that gives you the sound you want. you can even record drums in a 5' x 7' bathroom - as long as that is the sound you're after (do we need to referenceled zeppelin?). recording rooms (tracking rooms) have zero relevancy with respect to critically accurate reproduction rooms (read: control rooms). stick to the consumer market, amir - you're clearly oblivious to how things work in the recording world. maybe you should direct your questions to the audio engineer for that particular recording to see why he made those recording decisions? hmm? tell me, was the mixing/mastering setup utilizing that very same piece of glass? rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
So do you have ETCs for where she is singing and the studio with curtains in front of its diffusers?

uhh, why would those be required for a tracking space? hello?
you're only proving that you not only 1) don't understand the tool and what it represents, but 2) where and how the tool is to be utilized in the first place.

wasn't it only a few posts back you were attempting to insist that we were applying the ETC with respect to LF modal region? tell me, amir - did you ever find any quotes where i have referenced the ETC with respect to modal region? no? didn't think so. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
Let's pull up a few notches and examine the disagreement. How should one deal with reflections? Dr. Tool goes through the full analysis of science there in his 30+ page AES presentations. I could quote them but I would get told I am a scanner and I like being a kid or a dog better. biggrin.gif So I am going to instead quote Dr. D'Antonio himself

yep - still waiting on those toole quotes of his subjective research on blackbird C or any other well mixed, highly diffused sidewall reflection acoustical space.
please provide direct toole commentary so we can see what toole has to say!
surely you can find something to copy-paste within those 30+ AES pages?? no?
localhost127 is online now  
post #104 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Ah, victory for instruments! Yippee biggrin.gif.
Maybe we should read all that George wrote in that post: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/bass-traps-acoustic-panels-foam-etc/621300-what-would-room-100-diffusion-sound-like-2.html#post6834790
"the room is hardly anechoic, though. just listening to music in there is extraordinary; ensemble musicians report that it's easier to play live in the room because it's easier to hear in the room.
those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came). unfortunately, Nashville's short-sighted and inept "music" industry will not tolerate innovation of any kind, and i'm told that the room now has heavy curtains hung in front of the diffusors."

yep - i dont see how george's self-commentary about the room and his production within it is altered by whatever the hell has happened afterwards.
nice logic, lol smile.gif
and you're basically arguing that others preferred absorbers at sidewalls vs the reflection rich environment. hmm, doesn't that go directly against what you are attempting to argue??? people in that room "preferred" the heavy curtains over the diffusers - essentially rendering them absorbers at the sidewall points. you're arguing against yourself!

let me reiterate george's commentary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GML 
"the room is hardly anechoic, though. just listening to music in there is extraordinary; ensemble musicians report that it's easier to play live in the room because it's easier to hear in the room.
those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came).

smile.gifsmile.gif

tell me, where is toole's commentary on such a room? you have anything to copy-paste from toole?
localhost127 is online now  
post #105 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 07:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
let's reiterate.

toole says to utilize BROADBAND treatments.

amir's micro-diffusers in his salesroom:

iEKCo.jpg


this is a broadband diffuser:
YD767.jpg
iw5of.jpg[IMG]qzKO7.jpg

instead of arguing against the ambechoic control room model, amir - why don't you explain yourself on why there are such HF coloring diffusers in your company's showroom?
why not utilize broadband diffusers as toole insists should be done?
localhost127 is online now  
post #106 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 07:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Go ahead and run ETC to find said reflections and do away with them even though no such analysis was done for the Blackbird room as they decided to treat most of it with diffusers...

why on earth would you apply such methodology to a room that is planned and designed from inception to utilize such diffusers.
there exists such a thing called a "planing phase", when designing dedicated control rooms.

you seem to confuse such methods of treating an existing residential room with internal treatments (since physical room modification is not possible), and the planning and design of a dedicated room built from the ground up. rolleyes.gif
localhost127 is online now  
post #107 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Much of what we know in psychoacoustics comes from the frequency domain. Let's go back to mother of such research with Fletcher-Munson equal loudness graphs (circa 1930s):

400px-Lindos4.svg.png.

sorry, but the above graph in the frequency-domain has zero relevancy to the psycho-acoustics of intelligibility, localization, and imaging.
localhost127 is online now  
post #108 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 07:47 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

Go ahead and run ETC to find said reflections and do away with them even though no such analysis was done for the Blackbird room as they decided to treat most of it with diffusers...

I will have to admit that it took a while to regain my composure after laughing so hard at the fundamental lack of understanding expressed here...as if after the design, treatment and proof of performance was complete one would then start to perform analysis in order to begin treating the space.... Calling Bill Murray, calling Bill Murray in order to re-shoot a few scenes from Groundhog Day...
If one is going to engage in a discussion pretending to analyze a design process, one should at least have a rudimentary conception of what that process is! Oh yeah, and the diffusors were an afterthought, as were the corner mounted RPG VPR based resonant Modex modules covered with BAD diffusors...And let's simply overlook the fact that the diffusors will not fit through a door and must be moved by forklift. Yup, pure serendipity! rolleyes.gif


What is really hilarious and exposes the fact that Amirm is not aware of what is happening in Blackbird (as evidenced by his unwitting criticism of the facility!) is that they (D'Antonio, Massenburg, McBride, et al) have gone to the greatest degree yet (literally in the world!) to create the most advanced uniformly diffuse reflection rich environment consistent with Toole's (and others) proposals - with the net result being that the recording engineers and performers at Blackbird have (rather dramatically!) rejected in favor of turning the lateral (side) diffusors into absorbers by applying packing blankets over them and thus reducing the diffuse lateral early reflections; effectively tightening up the large amorphous image in favor of a more precise and tightly defined image - exactly what Amirm has been repeatedly cutting and pasting that "trained listeners" do NOT prefer.

...Sort of puts all those surveys and polls into perspective, doesn't it? wink.gif

So let's recap:


“Then it becomes an option, whether the room is acoustically damped, or not.

If reflected sounds are absorbed, the listener is placed in a predominantly direct sound field, making the experience more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise.

If the reflections are allowed to add their complexity, the overall illusion is altogether more spacious and open, to many listeners, more realistic.

In part, this is a matter of taste.

In either case, a room-friendly loudspeaker will yield timbral accuracy. So, at middle and high frequencies, the proper solution to getting good sound quality, is to choose good loudspeakers to begin with.”


Floyd Toole, in The Acoustical Design of Home Theaters



So…If you want Toole’s reflection rich environment, just buy Bose direct reflecting speakers - and enjoy the amorphous imprecise BIG image favored by Toole and his surveys that have been rejected by the engineers and artists at Blackbird in favor of a "tighter and more precise" image.

After all, a tighter more precise image versus a more amorphous and less precise ‘big’ image is just a “matter of taste”.

And despite Amirm's marketing efforts, the 'pros' who must pay to use such a facility just say "no".

You too have a choice!!!!


...After all, Toole says so.biggrin.gif


I wonder... does amirm owe the engineers and performers a refund on Toole's book?



"Much of what we know in psychoacoustics comes from the frequency domain": statement overheard from a long forgotten Flatlander as they banged on their RTA...
.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #109 of 871 Old 06-21-2012, 09:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,079
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

But the fact remains - a fact lost on MSBob, who repeatedly cites the tyranny of surveys and poles to inform you that you have the right to agree ONLY with Toole's surveys...
Not at all. If you had actually read any of Dr. Toole's research you would have realized that he utilizes and analyzes research/listening tests by others extensively in his proof points. Here are some examples from his AES paper:

Title: Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction—A Scientific Review*

"Recent research [6], [18]–[21] suggests that the precedence effect is cognitive, meaning that it occurs at a high level in the brain, not at a peripheral auditory level. Its purpose appears to be to allow us to localize sound sources in reflective environments where the sound field is so complicated by multiple reflections that sounds at the ears cannot be continuously relied upon for accurate directional information. This leads to the concept of “plausibility” wherein we accumulate data we can trust—such as occasional high-frequency transients or visual cues—and persist in localizing sounds to those locations at times when the auditory cues at our ears are contradictory [22]."

[6] J. Blauert, Spatial Hearing—The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization, rev. ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997).
[18] R. Y. Litovsky, H. S. Colburn, W. A. Yost, and S. J. Guzman, “The Precedence Effect,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 106, pp. 1633–1654 (1999).
[19] R. Y. Litovsky and B. G. Shinn-Cunningham, “Investigation of the Relationship among Three Common Measures of Precedence: Fusion, Localization Dominance, and Discrimination Suppression,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 109, pp. 346–358 (2001).
[20] J. Blauert and P. L. Divenyi, “Spectral Selectivity in Binaural Contralateral Inhibition,” Acustica, vol. 66, pp. 267–274 (1988).
[21] T. Djelani and J. Blauert, “Investigations into the Build-up and Breakdown of the Precedence Effect,” Acta Acustica—Acustica, vol. 87, pp. 253–261 (2001).
[22] B. Rakerd and W. M. Hartmann, “Localization of Sound in Rooms, II: The Effects of a Single Reflecting Surface,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 78, pp. 524–533 (1985).

"Fortunately such events are rare. Most reflections arrive from directions different from the direct sound, and perceptions vary considerably. Two ears and a brain have advantages over a microphone and an analyzer. The fact that the perceived spectrum is the result of a central (brain) summation of the slightly different spectra at the two ears attenuates the potential coloration from lateral reflections significantly [34]."

[34] P. M. Zurek, “Measurements of Binaural Echo Suppression,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 66, pp. 1750–1757 (1979).

"Superimposed on all of this is a cognitive learning effect, a form of “spectral compensation” wherein listeners appear to be able to adapt to these situations, and to hear “through and around” reflections to perceive the true nature of the sound source [36]–[38]. Put differently, it seems humans have some ability to separate a spectrum that is changing (the program) from one that is stationary (the transmission channel/propagation path). It is evident that we do not yet have all the answers, but it seems clear that the human auditory system is well adapted to dealing with reflective listening spaces."

[36] A. J. Watkins, “Central, Auditory Mechanism of Perceptual Compensation for Spectral-Envelope Distortion,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 90, pp. 2942–2955 (1991).
[37] A. J. Watkins and S. J. Makin, “Some Effects of Filtered Contexts on the Perception of Vowels and Fricatives,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 99, pp. 588–594 (1996).
[38] A. J. Watkins, “The Influence of Early Reflections on the Identification and Lateralization of Vowels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 106, pp. 2933–2944 (1999).

I will stop here. But the paper has a list of *76* references! Of course, some very important tests were performed by Dr. Toole and his team while at Canadian non-profit NRC and later at Harman but I excluded those from above so that you don't file a protest on that.

Honestly,it is tiring to do your homework for you. Get a copy of these articles and read them. It doesn't take long and cost the same as a lunch. Your own hero Dr. D'Antonio values them repeatedly in his presentation. Least you can do is read what he has read (and understood).

And oh, please don't put down listening tests as "poles" and surveys. It reflects very poorly on you making it look like you don't know what a listening test is and the critical role it plays in verifying our understanding fidelity issues in audio. But maybe you think we rate MP3 encoders with their THD spec as opposed to listening tests....

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #110 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 01:12 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Congratulations on another fine job of cutting and pasting that succeeds in listing a number of papers and reference materials that you have never personally read nor understood while again obfuscating the point and failing to in any way address the point at hand.

But hey, why should your behavior change at this point.

The fact is that I not only possess, and have read many of the sources listed, but I have actually studied with some of the sources listed.

And while it is useful to have a book which attempts to collect many of the cited works together in a Cliff's Notes compendium, merely reading that ONE book and performing word searches and cut and pastes is not a substitution for actually having read and understood the behavior about which they are concerned. A fact that has been demonstrated rather conclusively over and over, not the least of which was demonstrated in the utterly hilarious accounting of Blackbird as you utterly failed to understand the significance of so many professional engineers and performers literally opting out of the premier reflection rich environment in order to revert to a haphazard, anything but tuned approximation of an 'LEDE' in order to re-establish some semblance of a precise accurate image rather than your amorphous indistinct BIG image so beloved by those who value the equivalent of the Bose direct reflecting soundfield introduced back in the early 1970s and so soundly rejected then as well.

But as your fetish Toole states, it is a subjective "matter of taste", not of objective certitude as you falsely assert that the trained ears have soundly rejected.

And none of us has attempted to state that a reflection rich environment is not one option available to people amongst others that are long since vetted and established and studied. Only YOU are so unaware of the broader work of acoustics as to assert that Toole's preference is the one and only correct model. And if you want to believe that, noting the origins of he word "believe" as in "to wish it to be so", be my guest. But please cease to misrepresent such a ludicrous opinion as somehow being supported and justified by other prominent acousticians such as Blauert, as you are objectively incorrect in your assertion.

And it must confuse you all to hell that notables such as D'Antonio are open to explore such variant response models without asserting that they have supplanted or rendered others obsolete. Quite the contrary. And if you would bother to actually read his PDF presentation that you cut and pasted and performed nothing more than word searches on, you would discover that he merely presented a chronology of various proposed response models predicated upon the work performed in other positions with the specif conclusion that there was no one approach that took exclusive precedence over the others and marveled that they all still posses aspects considered current and viable!

Sorry to shock someone who has not actually read any of the referenced materials, but Toole does not supplant anyone. And few accept his work as authoritative regarding the 20 years he spent trying to posit the oxymoronic "room correction software" as a major replacement for acoustic analysis and treatment despite his attempts at Harmon to push it as a viable product. Least of all his advocacy for averaged EQ in a critical listening environment! Heck, even the SIM folks recognized the limitations of this and the base requirement for zoned systems and level adjustments, etc., if anything related was to be performed. Regarding his PREFERENCE for a reflection rich environment, he merely posits what he feels is a superior response model for SURROUND sound which ultimately is a "MATTER OF TASTE" - to use HIS words. And this fails if ones preference is for a more precise and defined image.

And many of us who are trained in critical listening do NOT prefer the amorphous 'big' image that is great only for special FX that many of us first encountered with BOSE 901 speakers and who do not prefer it any more now than we did back then. Deal with it. And this opinon will not be swayed on the basis of some zealot running about objecting to anyone who dares deviate from his born again second hand Ephiphany who does little more than blindly dump word searches on us rather than coherently and in a parallel manner respond specifically to the basic acoustical issues in a manner that illustrates that they, and not some copied book, actually have any semblance of a grasp of the material at issue.

The bottom line is that you either fail completely to even respond in a coherent parallel manner to issues raised or you literally do not understand the issue raised, with the result being little more than non sequitur word search dumps. And presenting virtual bibliographies of reference material with absolutely no conception of what any of them address or say is not even considered a legitimate or anything but a failing response in high school where one is expected to present a reasonable response to a topic.

So, with all due respect, I am done with you.
If I want to hear what Toole says, I can (and have) read just about all of his materials. I don't need to read someone who misrepresents what he has written and who himself is incapable of presenting a coherent response to any issues that attempt to address any of the various topics that may or may not be related to what Toole has written. and you might want to consider both spending some time actually learning a bit about basic acoustical mechanics, and THEN reading a few additional texts on psycho-acoustics - of which Blauert would not be a bad start. ...No, not a Reader's Digest condensed synopsis as you have done, but the actual acoustics texts from the sources.

And then you might dare to branch out and read the works of someone like Heyser before a Flatlander such as yourself (look up the work before you think it inappropriate!) dares to presume to declare entire domains inappropriate for acoustical analysis - especially as almost ALL of the psycho-acoustic research that has been performed in the last 40 years have literally been predicated specifically on the very measurements you assert have no value. Ooops!

But ultimately, this has ceased to have either entertainment value and even less acoustics value, as you do not discuss an idea. You are not even personally familiar with the topics at hand (as evidenced by Blackbird and the fact that local had to explain to you what it was!). And simply having a text copied and pasted in what is easily in excess of ANY legitimate fair use regulations when any of us can easily reference the text ourselves has become a joke. Especially when NO additional insight or amplification is provided except to cite selections from the bibliography of the book. And worse, to have aspects of it utterly misrepresented. And having spent far too many years in graduate school, where I went to school they expected that on occasion SOME degree of original thought and analysis was at least supposed to be ATTEMPTED! And I can't remember when I or anyone else considered our understanding increased by merely spending time reading card catalog entries, let alone presenting papers that consisted of little more than word search dumps of matching isolated terms without any necessary nexus between the context of the word, its usage, or even the topic at hand.

But again, if you PREFER what Toole PREFERS, fine. But at least stop misrepresenting Toole as positing the only legitimate acoustic response model and recognize the limits upon it that even he places and recognize that it is but ONE possible response model that may or may NOT satisfy ones TASTE/preference depending upon ones purposes and application. And you don't have to agree with me! Just go back and reread Toole regarding that very issue as he is very clear as presented in his own quotes.

And then do yourself and All of us a favor and get out and actually read some actual acoustics and then some REAL psychoacoustics texts AFTER you establish a baseline understanding of acoustical mechanics.. The REAL accomplishment of Toole is to pass his book off as an actual text regarding psycho-acoustics without a single substantial reference to math which unfortunately relegates his text to the psychoacoustics equivalent of Everest's Master Handbook of Acoustics. Heaven forbid you tackle something like Blauert's Spatial Hearing or anything by Long or Kuttruff.

But for those looking for a book that is not all math and that provides an incredible depth and breadth of material in amazingly approachable manner, due in large measure to his adept use of exceptional use of graphics, imaging and modelling, you should check out Bob McCarthy's Sound Systems: Design and Optimization - as it will clarify both the fundamental mechanics while providing a strong basis for understanding the various applied variations which depend on that information to appreciate (even if he IS a Meyer Simster! wink.gif ). And before anyone dismiss it with out examining it, you NEED to examine its breadth and scope. ...Truly a significant manual that perhaps, building upon the concepts introduced in Davis' Sound System Engineering, is perhaps the best 'all in one text' available to clarify complex topics in a clear and concise manner augmented brilliantly with truly amazing graphics for the average to advanced individual for conceptual and applied acoustics. ...Oh, and did I mention the use of graphics!?!? And if anyone has trouble locating it, send a PM...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #111 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 09:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,079
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Ah, victory for instruments! Yippee biggrin.gif.
Maybe we should read all that George wrote in that post: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/bass-traps-acoustic-panels-foam-etc/621300-what-would-room-100-diffusion-sound-like-2.html#post6834790
"the room is hardly anechoic, though. just listening to music in there is extraordinary; ensemble musicians report that it's easier to play live in the room because it's easier to hear in the room.
those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came). unfortunately, Nashville's short-sighted and inept "music" industry will not tolerate innovation of any kind, and i'm told that the room now has heavy curtains hung in front of the diffusors."
yep - i dont see how george's self-commentary about the room and his production within it is altered by whatever the hell has happened afterwards.

The "hell" that happened was that the people who paid to have the room acoustics designed and built by RPG/Dr. D'Antonio and George completely "remodeled" the place after they left and put curtains in front of said diffusers. In other words, the customer did not like the results. The pretty ETC graphs meant nothing compared to their preference for the type of room they wanted. If we ran ETC with said curtains in place, I think you would agree it would no longer look the way you keep showing. So if we are to believe what Pros do, we should all be putting curtains in front of our 48 inch diffusers. I am pretty sure you don't want to advocate that smile.gif.

The second "hell" that happened is how the room is used. In the other thread you went on about how the bare floors are perfectly fine because the console blocks the reflection. Now take a look at how the room is used in that video:

i-f8Cvmzd-X2.png
How does your school of acoustics explains the use of that partition? How are the floor reflections still masked from those instruments? Where is the so called broadband absrober you said should be on the floor? How pretty is the ETC as seen by those instrument mics? Not pretty, right? Yet, it is preferred that way by the "pros."

Earlier I showed where the singer is. Your explanation was that singers always go in voice recording booths so it is alright for her to be standing in a corner, with a piece of glass behind the mic and foam stuffed sideways. That is a voice recording booth? What science went into that configuration other than what sounded good to them? And the fact that we live in reflection rich environments and that if you fully diffuse them as they did there, it seems unnatural. Somehow you are saying that a singer can have such a preference but that if researchers perform listening tests of the same and find that ordinary people think the same, it should be dismissed as such. And we should still advocate that we go after strong reflections with military precision of a guided missile and destroy them smile.gif.
Quote:
let me reiterate george's commentary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GML 
"the room is hardly anechoic, though. just listening to music in there is extraordinary; ensemble musicians report that it's easier to play live in the room because it's easier to hear in the room.
those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came).
Let's not leave out full context the second time around. This is what he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gml 
those that appreciate it use it to it's utmost. the "sound" is more or less like an "acoustic white-out", and the decay is extraordinarily linear with higher frequencies (the Schroeder curves are remarkably linear) having more decay than any other room i've ever experienced. i made the best record i ever made in my life in there (from which that video clip came). unfortunately, Nashville's short-sighted and inept "music" industry will not tolerate innovation of any kind, and i'm told that the room now has heavy curtains hung in front of the diffusors.
Notice the underline? That is how it was in the *original post*! But you thought members here should not see what he has emphasized there. Why?
Quote:
tell me, where is toole's commentary on such a room? you have anything to copy-paste from toole?
The cut and paste police will degrade my title to that of an insect if I provided that answer. biggrin.gif For now, you should settle by answering the simple commentary from me. The hope is that it will relieve us from the two of you trying to impress folks with references to this room which neither one of your have been in, or apparently know the motivations behind its design and its current usage.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #112 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 10:21 AM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 211
Wow,...great song,...still singing it in my head.

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is online now  
post #113 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
let's continue to game of invalidating his commentary, shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The "hell" that happened was that the people who paid to have the room acoustics designed and built by RPG/Dr. D'Antonio and George completely "remodeled" the place after they left and put curtains in front of said diffusers. In other words, the customer did not like the results.

citation for "remodeling"? what does it look like the last time you were there?
those that did prefer the curtains (rendering the diffusers absorbers) - seemed to "prefer" absorption at the sidewalls for their accurate reproduction space - EXACTLY the opposite of what you are attempting to argue here!! so it seems real world engineers and what they "prefer" trump your home residential subjective studies. way to invalidate your own statements with your very own commentary rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The second "hell" that happened is how the room is used. In the other thread you went on about how the bare floors are perfectly fine because the console blocks the reflection. Now take a look at how the room is used in that video:

How does your school of acoustics explains the use of that partition? How are the floor reflections still masked from those instruments? Where is the so called broadband absrober you said should be on the floor? How pretty is the ETC as seen by those instrument mics? Not pretty, right? Yet, it is preferred that way by the "pros."

incredible! he STILL don't get the differences between tracking (recording) space and a control (reproduction) space!

again, here are the differences - since you clearly did not absorb the information last time:
a tracking/recording room is a subjective recording space. you can modify the room or mic or instruments or anything you want to get the 'sound' you want. a critically accurate reproduction setup has ZERO bearing when recording. you can record your drums in a stairwell if that's the sound you like, but you sure as hell wouldn't mix/master (reproduce) in the stairwell. see the difference? tongue.gif

the control room is a critically accurate reproduction space such that mixing/mastering decisions can be made without the room artificially influencing said decisions (eg, localization and imaging). these are what those funny little "acronyms" you refer to with regards to control room acoustical models are. you know - room designs whose primary design requirement is maintaining accuracy with respect to the direct signal.

the floor reflection has nothing to do with the instruments or recording - as that is a tracking situation, not a reproduction situation. attenuating the floor reflection or not is a subjective decision. it has no bearing on reproduction. what's even funnier still - is it was YOU who brought up the FHG study regarding how the subjects didn't "prefer" the attenuation of the floor reflection - yet your company's listening spaces all seem to have thin rugs/carpet! you present information, and then you do exactly the opposite! funny that. and that FHG test was for subjectively pleasing, not a test of accurate with respect to the direct signal.

how on earth you can confuse the two type of acoustical environments is beyond me. it should be very clear. recording and mixing are two entirely different steps and two entirely different set of design requirements! the former being subjective, the latter being with respect to objectionable accuracy.

so no, there is no *reason* to attenuate the floor reflection in your erroneous example because it's a recording space! blackbird C is multi-functional - you can track as well as mix within the room. but you're so inexperienced within this field you don't even understand the differences between such steps of the recording process.

what's next, are you going to insist the audio engineers should be mixing/mastering in a concert hall ?? tongue.gif:cool: NEXT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Earlier I showed where the singer is. Your explanation was that singers always go in voice recording booths so it is alright for her to be standing in a corner, with a piece of glass behind the mic and foam stuffed sideways.

try and quote my commentary next time before making these blanket statements and using the word "always". as ive stated in the past, recording a signer in a dead (highly damped) vocal booth is a very inexpensive, DIY/easy way to track vocals! especially for home recordists! but by no means has any statements been made about singers "always go in voice recording booths" - lol. read my last paragraph about how recording is "subjective". NEXT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

What science went into that configuration other than what sounded good to them? And the fact that we live in reflection rich environments and that if you fully diffuse them as they did there, it seems unnatural. Somehow you are saying that a singer can have such a preference but that if researchers perform listening tests of the same and find that ordinary people think the same, it should be dismissed as such. And we should still advocate that we go after strong reflections with military precision of a guided missile and destroy them

failure again to understand the differences between tracking (recording) and reproducing (mixing/mastering). this has already been addressed above. NEXT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Notice the underline? That is how it was in the *original post*! But you thought members here should not see what he has emphasized there. Why?

yep - other people "prefferred" absorption at the sidewalls for doing critical (accurate) mixing/mastering. exactly the opposite of what you attempt to state here with respect to toole's subjective listening preferences. again, you invalidate your own commentary !! thanks for making it easy for me!

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The cut and paste police will degrade my title to that of an insect if I provided that answer. biggrin.gif For now, you should settle by answering the simple commentary from me. The hope is that it will relieve us from the two of you trying to impress folks with references to this room which neither one of your have been in, or apparently know the motivations behind its design and its current usage.

so you're saying your utterly incapable of finding ANY of toole's commentary where he has spoken about or performed subjective listening tests in an acoustical space with dense, highly diffused sidewall reflections? surely toole, in his infinite wisdom in acoustics, has SOMETHING to say on this matter? surely toole, who has been doing this for years and has his own book, has participated in listening tests in such an acoustical space? surely you can find SOMETHING to copy-paste?

no?
localhost127 is online now  
post #114 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 10:41 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Earth to MSBob... Earth to MSBob...

Yup folks, he KNOWS what's going on!

First, he has no conception regarding the difference between a mix suite and a live recording space and the how/why regarding those 'partitions' (which are called GOBOs!!!) are used to provide a degree of isolation from an adjacent source! Duh! But NOTHING gets by him! LOL!

And even more fundamentally, what he TOTALLY misses is that what was designed and delivered was a WORLD CLASS Reflection rich environment of the sort that Toole and others who favor that environment desire! There was NO problem with the room from the point of view as to whether it delivered on the design goals! In fact it worked so well in that regards that those working in it had to go to the lengths they did to effectively convert the Schroeder diffusors into absorbers. But then MSBob would be intimate with that process had he ever bothered to read chapter 7.2 entitled "Absorbers from Schroeder diffusors" in Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusors.

So much for utilizing that fundamental tenet regarding the use of Schroeder diffusors resident in that extensive knowledge of acoustics...

You see, MSBob seems to 'think' that the ROOM was flawed (now THERE's an inappropriate term given the fact that he does not even understand the nature of the original acoustical response the room was designed to generate, let alone what the specific effect achieved by the covering and modification of the behavior of diffusors!).

Yeah, I guess the room 'was flawed'. LOL!
...Seeing as it provided your favored reflection rich environment on steroids complete with your favored amorphous imprecise imaging!!
The room provides a world class example of exactly the response it was designed to provide! And it is a response that exceeds even the specs suggested by Toole! ( a slight giveaway should be the comparison of of Blackbirds mega QRD/PRDs and MSBobs use of anything but broadband toy diffusors.)

The fact that he utterly misses is that the engineers and performers have exercised their PREFERENCE for the LACK of early reflections and a PREFERENCE for tighter more precise imaging! Exactly the opposite acoustical response that MSBob and his cut and paste toys repeatedly tell us that trained ears do NOT prefer!

You see, the "trained ears" REJECTED the reflection rich environment that resulted in the big amorphous imprecise imaging that YOU keep insisting the we MUST ALL like!

Ironically, when not in sales mode, Toole admits this is a "matter of taste", as has been quoted earlier. In this case an objective difference in the subjective preference exists in the nature of the desired imaging.

Its pretty bad when we have to take the time to explain to you not only the problems with your illogic, but ALSO what your argument SHOULD be as you just don't get what the purpose of the room was! We shouldn't have to carry BOTH sides of this clown car of a 'debate'.

The REAL problem is simple. You just DON'T GET IT! And word searches and cut and paste are NOT an adequate substitute from a basic lack of understanding of the underlying acoustical concepts.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #115 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Earth to MSBob... Earth to MSBob...
The room provides a world class example of exactly the response it was designed to provide! And it is a response that exceeds even the specs suggested by Toole! ( a slight giveaway should be the comparison of of Blackbirds mega QRD/PRDs and MSBobs use of anything but broadband toy diffusors.).

what's hilarious is how often he attempts to make fun of how "large" the diffusers are - it's almost like he doesn't understand basic physics that the objects must be large with respect to wavelength.

it's like he's shooting the messenger for eluding him to physics 101. but im sure he thinks his micro-diffusers and auralex t'fusors he has in his company's show room / sales room are effective. funny how explicit toole is that treatments (absorbers, diffusers) be BROADBAND and not COLOR the reflections - yet he does otherwise in his room. so an example of BROADBAND diffusers is provided and look how he responds - lol tongue.gif

what tangent do you think he is going to go off on next to distract the passive readers away from the fact that everything he has presented has been utterly nullified.
localhost127 is online now  
post #116 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 10:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,079
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 751 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

So, with all due respect, I am done with you.
eek.gif Did you say respect? I thought you did smile.gif. But I assume it is figure of speech and you don't really mean it. It would not be the same discussing with you without reading more insults than information.

That said, I do want to sincerely thank you for objecting on the technical points which allowed us to discuss these important topics of high interest to members and us just the same. I would be remiss if I did not say that you do have deep knowledge in many of the topics we have discussed. And we share significant areas of agreements as I have noted in this thread with regards to RT60 and such. We differ with respect to major advancements in our understanding of psychoacoustics as it relates to acoustics and how it must change our thinking. You seem to have little room for this science and dismiss it as "poles" and surveys. Whereas major industry experts such as Martens, Olive, Toole, D'Antonio, etc. give the area considerable weight and the modern way to examine how we respond to these complex concepts. No doubt this is due to significant amount of hands on research they perform as part of their daily jobs. Having spent literally days with Dr. Toole and other researchers at Harman and experience firsthand what these concepts mean, combined with the fact that for a decade at Microsoft my job required understanding of psychoacoustics, I am compelled to be the student of modern thinking in this area. But I do accept that others substitute forum posts and online articles as their source of insight.

We also seem to differ in the importance of acoustic issues. I put major priority on low frequency optimizations which fortuitously are devoid of the need to consider psychoacoustics. One mic and a graph showing the frequency response do tell us what we need to do (at higher frequencies each ear hears a distinctly different signal so a single mic can never capture the full set of information, nor a graph or even a person staring at it able to interpret what it might mean). See a 10 dB peak? Pull it down with a DSP and you have done great good. I tell you that. Dr. Toole tells you that. As do just about anyone doing higher end theater design.

And no, such a DSP doesn't cost $16,000 as you said Dr. Toole mandates eek.gif. Many subs come with such filters in them these days and outboard DSPs are pretty cheap. You only need a filter or two, rather than the 256 that exists in that $16,000 Synthesis SDEC-4500 processor (or its 20 channels of processing). The primer for this is free as I linked to earlier: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/BassOptimization.html. As you see, the article is packed with measurements confirming the ideas put forward including the one from our theater. The article also goes beyond the teachings of Dr. Toole and brings us the science of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in predicting room response in low frequencies and with it, optimal number and placement of subs. Yes, there is one unique solution called Sound Field Management in how it changes level, timing and filter settings for subs that creates amazing results in how it evens out frequency response across multiple seats. That technology is patented by Harman so it exists in that $16K processor. But if I am not mistaken, the same is also in JBL BassQ which retails for a $1,200 MSRP and optimizes four subs. Roger has a nice thread on that product if you don't know about it: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1163240/jbl-bassq. While not necessarily cheaper, the CFD approach also accomplishes some of that.

Sadly, all of these arguments over reflections makes it look like that is the area of importance where it is not per above. We simply are not that bothered by these reflections. See how in my last post folks using that super expensive studio threw curtains over their diffusers, sat next to bare floors, etc. and all seemed fine to them. Don't confuse level of internet chatter for areas that you need to focus on. "It is the low frequencies stupid!" smile.gif Next in my book by the way is owning the right speakers. A speaker with good off-axis response will still sound good when its reflections are combined with its direct sound. Importantly, the designer if he has the right tools and measurements, can actually predict how it will sound in your room with all the reflections as they might exist. And optimize the speaker so that objectively and subjective produces good sound in need of no treatment of reflections.

And yes, if you have a bare room, you need to fill it either with furniture and acoustic material. The former is free so any accusation of someone telling you to buy something as the reason for what you are saying goes out the window.

Again, thanks a bunch for your contributions. I have to get an article out to WSR magazine before tomorrow but after that, I might post a bit more on this. Hope that is OK in your absence smile.gif.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #117 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 10:57 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Now its the "speakers" and modal response! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The diffusors are just there for decoration as the designers thought they looked nice.
And the coverings that effectively convert them into efficient absorbers are just a coincidence.

I guess Peter and George did not realize that all they had to do was to add a few chairs and a couch and maybe a coffee table or two...

You just don't get it! In the world's premier example of your desired reflection rich acoustical response model, trained ears effectively went to those extremes in the process of resoundingly REJECTING Toole's and your preference for a reflection rich environment! In your ever-important poll, they voted NO!



And don't worry, there is NO chance that we will make the mistake of assuming that you have any functional first hand knowledge of acoustics, let alone any understanding of the functional aspects of a recording studio!
dragonfyr is offline  
post #118 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Importantly, the designer if he has the right tools and measurements, can actually predict how it will sound in your room with all the reflections as they might exist. And optimize the speaker so that objectively and subjective produces good sound in need of no treatment of reflections.

but wait, earlier you stated this!
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Go ahead and run ETC to find said reflections and do away with them even though no such analysis was done for the Blackbird room as they decided to treat most of it with diffusers...

what a nice contradiction! so you're stating a designer DOES have the right tools to predict or at least model/design the room prior to construction - yet prior you seemed to insist that the "designers" of Blackbird C must have used the ETC to find reflections after the fact.

so it seems you now have conceded to the fact that there is indeed a "planning stage" for new construction of dedicated rooms VS modification of already-built residential rooms via internal treatments of which structural changes are NOT possible - whereby the ETC is used to identify how specular energy impedes the listening position.

you've dug your hole plenty deep, but this is at least one acknowledgement in the right direction!
localhost127 is online now  
post #119 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 11:20 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Importantly, the designer if he has the right tools and measurements.....

Yeah, if Peter - that is, Peter D'Antonio, PhD, ONLY had the right tools - and hopefully if he had ONLY taken a CEDIA tutorial course, he MIGHT have achieved an adequate understanding of how all of this acoustics stuff works.

Yup folks, you are benefiting from the insights of an acoustics authority who has spent "literally DAYS" becoming familiar with acoustics who doesn't understand what one of those "partitions" are or for what they are used ...

But if ONLY Peter D'Antonio (and George Massenburg!) had possessed the right tools and understanding...... (perhaps they should have spent a few days learning acoustics as well!)
And if ONLY the room had turned out 'right'....

And most significantly, if ONLY those trained ears had preferred a reflection rich environment with its amorphous imprecise imaging...

Cue the theme from the Twilight Zone....
On 2nd thought, nevermind...Rod Serling would have rejected this for being far too implausibly absurd - after he was able to stop laughing...
dragonfyr is offline  
post #120 of 871 Old 06-22-2012, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dknightd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

let's continue to game of invalidating his commentary, shall we?

I think this is the problem - instead of discussing, people call names, and play games

Everything I say here is my opinion. It is not my employers opinion, it is not my wife's opinion, it is not my neighbors opinion, it is My Opinion.
dknightd 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