Side Wall, Floor and Ceiling Reflections - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 135 Old 07-02-2012, 05:25 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 dragonfyr View Post

Let me back up a bit, as what is done in one room may not be the only choices available in another. Let me try to briefly explain...
Depending upon the actual specular behavioral characteristics in the room (as one would properly deal with modal behavior earlier...), you have several potential choices.
Since we are properly dealing with an assortment of possible combinations and permutations of room topology, equipment Qs/dispersions and desired room responses, you have choices in treatment configurations.
The first two are generally reserved for larger rooms and higher ceilng surfaces.
These are redirection and diffusion.
Limitations that must be considered are spacing from the boundary, as diffusors require a minimum spacing for a sufficiently mixed diffuse field to developed lest one be exposed to slightly modified specular polar lobing replacing one problem with another.
On the other hand, if sufficient spacing is available, 2D 3space diffusors such as the 2D QRD/PRD 'RPG skyline' style of diffusor has the advantage of preserving and dispersing said energy in multiple directions, with a portion of the energy being redirected favorably to the side - lateral- surfaces.
Likewise geometric surfaces can be used to similarly redirect energy away from the listening position toward lateral surfaces where it may be further diffused and returned.
The general limitations are proximity due to room topology and cost. The advantage is that the energy is largely preserved in the space for return in a more advantageous manner.
This leaves absorption. A brute force tool that removes precious finite energy in a small space that we would prefer to retain and use in a more productive manner if such was possible. Thus absorption being a 'last resort', but commonly used treatment.
In order to use absorption optimally, you would identify the actual anomalous high gain early arriving specular behavior and resolve it to its point of incidence. (Some use the ETC response for this, others guess...) In this manner one can then apply properly broadband absorption only to the area sufficient to effectively damp the high gain arrival while minimizing its effects on additional incident energies. In other words, you surgically apply only as much broadband absorption as is necessary in order to address early high gain reflections while limiting and preserving any detrimental overdamping of the finite specular energies in small acoustical space.
Typically, if velocity based porous absorption is the means chosen, that would involve constructing a suitably sized (~4 foot for extension down to ~300 Hz) panel of 3 to (ideally) 4" thick ~3lb/ft^3 Fiberglass or ~4 lb/ft^3 mineral wool suspended an amount equal to the panel thickness from the ceiling surface, resulting in a panel that has the effective thickness of a panel as thick as the porous materiel thickness plus the spacing. This would be placed such that it intercepted only the anomalous high gain early reflections. The total planar surface area would also be moderated such that it was large enough to be broadband, but not so large as to needlessly absorb energy that does not negatively impinge upon the listening area that can otherwise be used productively.

I understand it can be complicated. But I asked a simple question. What did you do in your room? Bonus points for explaining why.

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 135 Old 07-02-2012, 05:45 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

+1; many of hours (days) could have been saved in my undergrad years if only i had been made aware earlier...
FWIW I met my wife in a complex variables class. Somehow it seems appropriate wink.gif

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  
post #93 of 135 Old 07-02-2012, 05:45 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post

arnyk, amirm, and others
How did you treat the ceiling first reflection points in your room?
My personal theater is under construction. For our showroom home theater as I implied pretty earlier on Keith Yates spec'ed diffusers. I don't have a good pictures of that end of it. But here is one from part-way through the construction:

1177377832_6Mnyq-M.jpg

By the way, you can see one of our subs in the ceiling (in addition to a few on these walls)! eek.gif
amirm is offline  
post #94 of 135 Old 07-02-2012, 05:57 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 amirm View Post

My personal theater is under construction. For our showroom home theater as I implied pretty earlier on Keith Yates spec'ed diffusers. I don't have a good pictures of that end of it. But here is one from part-way through the construction:
1177377832_6Mnyq-M.jpg
By the way, you can see one of our subs in the ceiling (in addition to a few on these walls)! eek.gif

So you choose diffusion in the ceiling. Why?

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  
post #95 of 135 Old 07-02-2012, 06:07 PM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post

So you choose diffusion in the ceiling. Why?
I didn't. Keith did. If I were to put it there, I would do the same. Please see one of the first posts where I gave the motivations.
amirm is offline  
post #96 of 135 Old 07-02-2012, 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 amirm View Post

I didn't. Keith did. If I were to put it there, I would do the same. Please see one of the first posts where I gave the motivations.
I'm having a hard time finding the post you refer to. I am in the middle of reading http://www.**************.com/Showroom/HomeTheater.html
though. Perhaps the reason is in there?
Have you compared absorption to diffusion, or, are you just going by what Keith recommended? I'm really tempted to try diffusion instead
or absorption. But that would cost me time and money. There are good arguments for both.

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  
post #97 of 135 Old 07-02-2012, 08:50 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I didn't. Keith did. If I were to put it there, I would do the same. Please see one of the first posts where I gave the motivations.
I'm having a hard time finding the post you refer to. I am in the middle of reading http://www.**************.com/Showroom/HomeTheater.html
though. Perhaps the reason is in there?
Have you compared absorption to diffusion, or, are you just going by what Keith recommended? I'm really tempted to try diffusion instead
or absorption. But that would cost me time and money. There are good arguments for both.

Rather simple really...

What is the separation between your ceiling and the listeners head?

Are you aware of the minimum spacing requirements in order to be in the well mixed far Field of a diffusor rather than in the near field dominated by specular reflections?

Are the diffusors you are imagining to use broadband? Really? I might suggest modelling a few in QRDude and actually verifying this...

Do you have ~9 feet of separation? Most do not.

While "there (may) be good arguments for both" there are even more substantial factors that determine the answer aside from one's feelings.

PM me and I will provide much more substantial information for you.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #98 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 12:30 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

He makes the OBVIOUS observation apparent to everyone with the apparent exception of you, who is the only one who seems to need this pointed out.
You mean it is obvious to you that a human is able to do things that an instrument cannot? Because that is what he said. And it was a cautionary note, coming right before describing what an ETC is. Danger Will Robinson! Danger! biggrin.gif
Quote:
The rest of us use measurements as diagnostic tools to examine aspects of behavior as one might use a microscope or telescope, to augment the observation and analysis of that which is beyond the solution of our senses to discreetly discern and examine. But I feel pretty safe is assuming that there were folks like yourself around to denigrate the practical uses of the microscope and telescope as well.
Oh, I use measurements all the time. I have a $25,000 audio precision analyzer. A $12,000 color spectrometer (for video). $3,000 HDMI analyzer. The list goes on. So you don't need to lecture me on what measurements are and their value. The difference between us then is that I don't fool myself about the capabilties of the equipment. I know how the product is designed, what it really measures and whehter it correlates to perceived performance. In acoustics, above transition frequency, the two ears hear two different signals. There is no way a single mic captures that. But you keep thinking it does. Thereofore it is not the microphone's fault or the computer. It is the fault of the person sitting behind the machines we are talking about. That person is going against years of research showing sharp difference between measurements of acoustics and real performance. So the "rest of us" doesn't include some of the top researchers in this field. In this case, the author of the book you want us to read is also absent from your camp.
amirm is offline  
post #99 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 02:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
In my fantasy design for a future home theater (several years away, sadly), I would probably strongly consider reflective ceiling treatment. That is, use geometry just as in splayed walls to redirect reflections above the listeners heads where they can then be absorbed, diffused, whatever along with other sound energy in the room. This isn't that hard to accomplish. The angle of incidence is shallow for the ceiling reflection, and thus only a shallow angling of the ceiling is needed to sufficiently redirect the reflection. It also isn't hard to extend this to work for all speakers and all listeners in a multichannel environment.

Think of it as a tray ceiling, with a wide and gradual sloped transition instead of a vertical step.

Bigus is offline  
post #100 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 03:40 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

He makes the OBVIOUS observation apparent to everyone with the apparent exception of you, who is the only one who seems to need this pointed out.
You mean it is obvious to you that a human is able to do things that an instrument cannot? Because that is what he said. And it was a cautionary note, coming right before describing what an ETC is. Danger Will Robinson! Danger! biggrin.gif

So all you have here is your amazement that measurements are used to compliment what our ears hear - and in many cases augment what they cannot adequately resolve? And unfortunately the human ear cannot resolve individual reflections within the Haas interval. LMAO
You have nothing. ..well, except for the ability to do word searches and a grand several day exposure to concepts about which you can only cut and paste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

The rest of us use measurements as diagnostic tools to examine aspects of behavior as one might use a microscope or telescope, to augment the observation and analysis of that which is beyond the solution of our senses to discreetly discern and examine. But I feel pretty safe is assuming that there were folks like yourself around to denigrate the practical uses of the microscope and telescope as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Oh, I use measurements all the time. I have a $25,000 audio precision analyzer. A $12,000 color spectrometer (for video). $3,000 HDMI analyzer. The list goes on. So you don't need to lecture me on what measurements are and their value. The difference between us then is that I don't fool myself about the capabilties of the equipment. I know how the product is designed, what it really measures and whehter it correlates to perceived performance. In acoustics, above transition frequency, the two ears hear two different signals. There is no way a single mic captures that. But you keep thinking it does. Thereofore it is not the microphone's fault or the computer. It is the fault of the person sitting behind the machines we are talking about. That person is going against years of research showing sharp difference between measurements of acoustics and real performance. So the "rest of us" doesn't include some of the top researchers in this field. In this case, the author of the book you want us to read is also absent from your camp.

Oh my, he uses measurements ever day!
This has gotten old, nor only do you FRAUDULENTLY misstate what others say, but the best you can do is keep repeating that a single mic cannot hear what two ears hear. It doesn't always need to. But then you understanding is limited to what a word search reveals perused for anything that you may interpret with your "several day" exposure to what you think contradicts other mainstream opinions.

YOU are completely ignorant of years of research, despite your imagined state of omniscience as a result of reading a severely abbreviated Reader's Digest INTERPRETATION of others research by someone else! The platforms I use ALL support binaural and interaural measurements. And routinely taking binaural measurements accomplishes nothing. But you MIGHT know hat if you ever made such measurements of which you have only heard 2nd hand reference. The fact is that YOU have never made any nor participated in anything but a word search of someone else's attempt to make sense of the various studies. YOU have done NOTHING. The fact is that you weren't even aware of the "transition frequency" - and attribute it to he whom deserves it - Manfred Schroeder - until you read Toole's book and then proceeded to confuse it with the Schroeder Large Room frequency above which a reverberant field is supported. But by all means, try again to explain them. and the operative characteristic above the modal region is called "specular". tongue.gif

Has anyone noticed that the cut and paste charts that he posts do not provide binaural interpretations for each bit of results he purports has significance? In fact one can hardly find ANYTHING he quotes that does! There is a reason for this, for as far as the use most of make of the various measurements, we don't need to go to the trouble to provide frequency shaded measurements offset by ~.5ms. We already know the effect an addition 6 inches and a blockage of approximately a 10 inch partition complete with diffraction effects makes. I am sorry if such simply physics confounds you as you jump from issue to issue desperately trying to find ANYTHING via word searches that might be sufficient to try to cast doubt on anything - much of which you have absolutely no theoretical NOR first hand knowledge.

The research has been done. Some of it I even participated in. You come along 30 years later, wide eyed having spent "several days" obtaining anything but complete information and simply prove that you are capable of hysterics and confusing the Schroeder transition frequency with the Schroeder Large Room frequency.

Frankly, at this point, responding to you is simply a game of watching one desperate to grasp for any straw as you UTTERLY fail to address the FACT that you continue to misrepresent a special purpose response model that, even by Toole's own admission, is but a matter of taste, and which features a response which, according to Toole, features a larger more amorphous image compared to that of a more accurate and precise image.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #101 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 04:08 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dknightd View Post


I understand it can be complicated. But I asked a simple question. What did you do in your room? Bonus points for explaining why.

Which room? Be more specific.

If you had bothered to read the criterion by which the treatment was selected, it would be apparent as well as the reasons why.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #102 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 05:11 AM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,530
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1215
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr 
Typically, if velocity based porous absorption is the means chosen, that would involve constructing a suitably sized (~4 foot for extension down to ~300 Hz) panel of 3 to (ideally) 4" thick ~3lb/ft^3 Fiberglass or ~4 lb/ft^3 mineral wool suspended an amount equal to the panel thickness from the ceiling surface, resulting in a panel that has the effective thickness of a panel as thick as the porous materiel thickness plus the spacing. This would be placed such that it intercepted only the anomalous high gain early reflections. The total planar surface area would also be moderated such that it was large enough to be broadband, but not so large as to needlessly absorb energy that does not negatively impinge upon the listening area that can otherwise be used productively.

I've seen a repeated trend that disagrees with my own experiences. Basically, it is the apparent presumption that if a sound absorber has absorption that is less than say, 0.3, that it cannot be highly effective.

I designed an absorber for the back wall of my church's sanctuary to address a severe problem with standing waves at 100 Hz. The absorber is basically composed of 2" of 705 spaced about 2" from the wall. A strip about 6 feet high the 45 foot width of the 27 foot high back wall was covered.

The absorber was as effective at 100Hz as could be hoped for almost completely eliminating audible peaks and nulls near the wall and dozens of feet away. But, it starts loosing effectiveness at 50 Hz.

If you plug this absorber into Whealy's Rigid Back Porous Absorber calculator, it shows up as having overall absorption at 0 degrees of 0.10 @100 Hz. People have told me here that it therefore can't work.

The evidence of my ears (and microphones) is vastly different.

I currently conclude that the percentage of the wall that is covered is also a relevant parameter. This is really just common sense.

Other experiences suggest to me that a distributed absorber covering 20-25% of a wall, ceiling or floor can multiply the effectiveness of an absorber at low frequencies.
arnyk is offline  
post #103 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 06:18 AM
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 dragonfyr View Post

Do you have ~9 feet of separation?

8' ceilings - so no. Guess I'll stick to absorption

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  
post #104 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 06:22 AM
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 dragonfyr View Post

Which room? Be more specific.
your home listening room

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  
post #105 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 06:56 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

So all you have here is your amazement that measurements are used to compliment what our ears hear - and in many cases augment what they cannot adequately resolve? And unfortunately the human ear cannot resolve individual reflections within the Haas interval. LMAO
So you have use for the listening tests and results in the top graph here:
i-45H4Xpv-X2.png

But not anything below it. Is that what you are saying?
amirm is offline  
post #106 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 07:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
does anyone know if diffused lateral reflections were simulated in toole's anechoic chamber - and if so, what was the methodology?

testing (simulating) sparse reflections via a single loud-speaker (delayed signal) is an easy and straight-forward task. how was the anechoic listening tests performed with simulated broadband diffused reflections? or have these not been done?

also - how did toole calibrate his electronic delay setup? did they take actual measurements at the receiver (listening position) to validate that the simulated reflection was arriving at the exact time the electronic delay was set to? what tool did they use to verify this?
localhost127 is offline  
post #107 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Oh, I use measurements all the time. .

what binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms are you familiar with? or is your acoustical analysis experience limited to 'single mic' measurements?
localhost127 is offline  
post #108 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 07:41 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

what binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms are you familiar with? or is your acoustical analysis experience limited to 'single mic' measurements?
For low frequencies indeed single mic is perfectly fine. That is why for bass optimization, you can do that. And a simple frequency response measurement tells you what is broken and needs fixing: http://www.**************.com/Library/BassOptimization.html

Room-Speaker-Effect.png

You see the wild swings to the left of transition frequency? You can trust all of that as being problem areas. You don't need to look at any listening tests or psychoacoustics to know that.

As I said, it is a matter of knowing when the tool is accurate vs when it is not. The meter is accurate there at the levels of response variations shown.

As to your first question, I have answered that repeatedly in the other thread. Did you miss it?
amirm is offline  
post #109 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 07:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
so what binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms are you familiar and experienced with regarding acoustical analysis of your or your customer's listening rooms? you failed to answer the simple question in your last response and instead choose to go off on a tangent (distraction) about the LF modal region. (FYI - it's called the MODAL region not the ROOM region).
localhost127 is offline  
post #110 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 08:25 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

so what binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms are you familiar and experienced with regarding acoustical analysis of your or your customer's listening rooms? you failed to answer the simple question in your last response and instead choose to go off on a tangent (distraction) about the LF modal region. (FYI - it's called the MODAL region not the ROOM region).
I make you a deal. You give us pictures of your room and its measurements, and then I answer more of your demands. Is there a reason you are refusing to provide that?
amirm is offline  
post #111 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
no - you keep using this "one mic vs two ears" statement as the basis of your commentary. it only leads one to assume the Fact that you are simply either not aware that such binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms exist (IACC polar ETC), or that you are simply have zero experience actually utilizing them. which is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
In acoustics, above transition frequency, the two ears hear two different signals. There is no way a single mic captures that. But you keep thinking it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
If you show me a chart with spikes in it as in your ETC, I can't tell you how the two ears and a brain react to that. You lack the response for each ear and the processing performed by the brain to determine what, if anything, is being shown to be bad in that graph.

either you have your head in the sand regarding the available tools available for many decades, or you can claim ignorance - which is it?
rolleyes.gif
localhost127 is offline  
post #112 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 09:05 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

no - you keep using this "one mic vs two ears" statement as the basis of your commentary. it only leads one to assume the Fact that you are simply either not aware that such binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms exist (IACC polar ETC), or that you are simply have zero experience actually utilizing them. which is it?
I tell you which it is: I said that I won't answer more of your demands until you show us a modicum of evidence that you are more than a random poster on a forum wasting our time where the sum total of what you know comes from living on forums. You talk big. You say you know more than top experts in the industry. You have insight that the NRC and Harman research teams do not. Enough is enough. Please put forward some evidence of that.

Multiple people have asked you and Dragon to share with us how *you* have put this advice to good use for yourself. It is incredible that you have gotten way with not answering this given the status you have given yourself.

Let's stop here until you produce that. Or tell us at least that you have read the question but refusing to answer.
amirm is offline  
post #113 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

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

where are the associated quotes to go along with these "claims"? are you that desperate that you're resorting to such nonsense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You have insight that the NRC and Harman research teams do not.

lol - the NRC test that deals with speech intelligibility issues when the direct signal is impaired beyond intelligibility due to the high noise floor? seriously? this is a problem in your home theater? if so, you may want to focus on sound isolation issues before internal room acoustics. you've got bigger fish to fry.

some of us here deal with AMPLIFIED systems of which come with a handy volume knob - but please, tell us more about these "unamplified speech room" tests where early reflections are *required* to achieve a perceived increase in GAIN such that the speech is intelligible over the high noise floor - and as if gain is the only value with regards to speech intelligibility. dragon actually eluded you to a few more 'keywords' that you should now be free to google search on and report back on your findings wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Enough is enough. Please put forward some evidence of that.
Multiple people have asked you and Dragon to share with us how *you* have put this advice to good use for yourself. It is incredible that you have gotten way with not answering this given the status you have given yourself.
Let's stop here until you produce that. Or tell us at least that you have read the question but refusing to answer.

i will as soon as i start my own company and come here to market and sell like yourself - that's the difference; one of us here does not work in sales/marketing. what's in your signature, again? rolleyes.gif

tell me again what binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms are you familiar with? - since you continue to distract from answering the question. tell me more about just who is limited to "single mic measurements"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
In acoustics, above transition frequency, the two ears hear two different signals. There is no way a single mic captures that. But you keep thinking it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
If you show me a chart with spikes in it as in your ETC, I can't tell you how the two ears and a brain react to that. You lack the response for each ear and the processing performed by the brain to determine what, if anything, is being shown to be bad in that graph.

fact is you are NOT familiar with the associated tools - nor did you even know they exist! but go on, i'm ready for the next distraction.
localhost127 is offline  
post #114 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:21 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

i will as soon as i start my own company and come here to market and sell like yourself - that's the difference; one of us here does not work in sales/marketing. what's in your signature, again? rolleyes.gif
You have lost the plot or in this case, your own argument. The tactic is if you can't argue the technical topic, argue the poster. I get it. Your stance is weak so you try to say I don't know what I am talking about. As my counterpart, then you are subject to the same challenge. Please demonstrate why anyone should care what you have to say if you can't show us any evidence whatsoever that you have come within a mile of the products and technologies we are talking about. Show us at least that you know how to run ETC. That's not much to ask a flag bearer of that measurement. Is it? If so, please explain why.
amirm is offline  
post #115 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
"Your stance is weak"

and what stance is that, exactly?

you mean the stance that utilizing broadband absorption to attenuate the reflections of context place the user in a "predominantly direct sound field" for more "accurate and precise imaging" ?? hey, those are toole's words - not mine. if you have issue with his statements take it up with him at your next luncheon. eek.gifeek.gif


what binaural and inter-aural measurement platforms are you familiar with again?
localhost127 is offline  
post #116 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
"Please demonstrate why anyone should care what you have to say"

this is a joke? toole himself states it is "a matter of taste" in attenuating said reflections. that is not MY choice to make for the user. what insight i add to the conversation, is for those people who made their own personal design choice to attenuate (absorb) those reflections - and i elude them on how to take ACTUAL acoustical measurements to determine the ACTUAL high-gain early arriving indirect specular reflection paths ... and how to VERIFY they have been sufficiently attenuated once the 'treatment' has been procured and placed.

YOU are the only one here advocating what people shall and shall not do - i am not. i'm not choosing their end-state destination, but i can assist in how to "get there" --- that's the difference.
localhost127 is offline  
post #117 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:42 AM
Senior Member
 
audiophilesavant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I tell you which it is: I said that I won't answer more of your demands until you show us a modicum of evidence that you are more than a random poster on a forum wasting our time where the sum total of what you know comes from living on forums. You talk big. You say you know more than top experts in the industry. You have insight that the NRC and Harman research teams do not. Enough is enough. Please put forward some evidence of that.

amirm's credentials as acoustician:

1. Read Floyd Toole's book
2. Read Floyd Toole's AES papers
3. Attended Floyd Toole's CEDIA course
4. Chatted up Floyd Toole and associates during dealer training
5. Ignored Kevin Voeks' professional opinion because contrary to Floyd Toole's
5. Watched Keith Yates design and calibrate his company's home theater
6. Never actually did any acoustics work for his clients
7. Can perform Google searches
8. Self-proclaimed expert on acoustics (and everything else)
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #118 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:49 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

amirm's credentials as acoustician:
1. Read Floyd Toole's book
2. Read Floyd Toole's AES papers
3. Attended Floyd Toole's CEDIA course
4. Chatted up Floyd Toole and associates during dealer training
5. Ignored Kevin Voeks' professional opinion because contrary to Floyd Toole's
5. Watched Keith Yates design and calibrate his company's home theater
6. Never actually did any acoustics work for his clients
7. Can perform Google searches
8. Self-proclaimed expert on acoustics (and everything else)
Let's say that is right so that we get to the point and don't deal with misdirections. Walk us through how many applies to Local and Dragon.
amirm is offline  
post #119 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 47
"3. Attended Floyd Toole's CEDIA course"

and apparently they don't teach the students there that sound has size and objects must be physically large with respect to wavelength in order to be effective.
the way he talks about blackbird's diffusers is like they were designed for looks alone - nevermind the fact of the bandwidth requirements for said diffusers determined well before construction on the room had even begun. rolleyes.gif

but hey, it's easier to shoot the messenger than to deal with the constraints of basic physics -
localhost127 is offline  
post #120 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 10:52 AM
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

this is a joke? toole himself states it is "a matter of taste" in attenuating said reflections.
Let's see an example of your taste. Show us which way you went and why. Measurements and pictures would help.
amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

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