Local, why bother....
All he has is what his word searches provide.
He has NO first hand knowledge of ANYTHING about which we discuss.
Oh, and how do you like the fact that he claims that I have NOT provided any practical knowledge or instructions on both the theoretical basis the measurements or practical instructions on how to use it???
In fact I have deleted more of that than he has ever read in his word searches.
Oh, and I am dependent on "my room" for measurements, despite having spent beau coups YEARS analyzing others systems (and yes, such tests are useful for evaluating and aligning SYSTEMS), as well as evaluating both large and small acoustical spaces as well as employing the tools for classified Dept of Energy and Navy research in advanced imaging systems.
Let's see, on the one hand we have someone who can extemporaneously discuss not only the theoretical underpinnings of the responses (not just this one small tool) as well as the practical implementation and evaluation of practical responses, and on the other we have one who , if his word search and cut and paste tools are removed, is rendered entirely moot - who is reduced to trotting out Fletcher Munson curves in an effort to 'prove' that our hearing is non-linear - almost as non-linear and non-sequitur as his reasoning.
What do you think? Does he even rank up there with other similar historical nay sayers who maintained that the ETC was "too advanced" for "common folks" and who demanded that the capability be removed from REW and Fuzz Measure and an alternative version reserved only for "professionals"??????
And he sources his materials DIRECTLY from AES and has only found 2 papers from Heyser when AES publishes Heyser's Collected Works in a separate volume entitled "Time Delay Spectometry - An Anthology"? We simply can't hide ANYTHING from this guy!
But that is not too surprising seeing how he has seemingly never found the supporting documentation from Toole where he delineates the option for treating a room for early reflections and its effect of creating a tighter more accurate and defined image versus a reflection rich environment that results in a larger more amorphous image that many may find "more realistic" but which is a "matter of taste" nor of where Toole similarly advocates treatment be broadband as has been a best practice since the 1970s. For you see, for one so limited, acoustics apparently begins and ends with the only book he has...
And then I learn that my knowledge of acoustics is apparently limited to my living room. Yeah... Let's see, if I would just spend all of several days to learn acoustics! Then I could go online and push stuff to sell based on having read a book and having expended much effort build a marketing site such as what literally dominates the retail consumer audio community.
Yup, so on the one hand is someone who can talk about any aspect of the measurements (the ETC and MANY others along with present how they all interrelate, be they time or frequency domain - as ALL are useful as they ALL provide useful information from differing perspectives depending upon what one is attempting to investigate) as opposed to one whose world view is limited to only 'supporting' a limited set and their theory and application - and have in the past - and can do extemporaneously without ANY need to for word searches - in fact, I encourage anyone who wants to explore this topic, as well as any aspect of the applied application - to talk by voice first person. No word searches. And as much direct application to specific situations as one prefers. No marketing, no sales.
And all because someone has no personal familiarity with that which we talk about and who imagines that he is the arbiter of what he IMAGINES, seeing as he has little or no personal experience in other response models and cannot even intelligently discuss them without relying on hearsay cut and paste word search results.
But yup folks, run to him and BUY whatever he is selling, as he KNOWS what is best because some marketing survey tell him and you what you MUST prefer.
And now we can expect some fascinating non sequitur retort consisting of "well, but you do not post your picture..." and perhaps another enlightened posting of something as erudite as the Fletcher Munson curves....
Just PLEASE spare us another view of the anything but broadband diffusive treatment in your oh so reflection rich room dominated by absorption (of which we don't know how thick it is - meaning that it is either TOO thin and effectively EQs the reflections and thus colors the direct sound, or that, instead of being reflective, it is thicker and by virtue that it predominates, results in an overly damped response - BOTH results which ironically run counter to his adopted response model that the equivalent of Pepsi-Coke challenges dictate that we MUST like...!
(...Oh, and as there is another (imagine that!) issue about which he does not understand and has accused us of being unaware - modal analysis and its best practice array of treatments is a known commodity (despite the fact that some may not be familiar with them). Thus the attention to specular behavior is an attempt to introduce and expand awareness about behavior and tools which many folks are not familiar that expands ones set of tools by which to refine the acoustical response in a space. It is NOT an attempt to focus on specular behavior to the exclusion of modal behavior! Anyone who mistakenly believes that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of BOTH behavioral regions.)
...Fletcher Munson curves.....
Watch out folks, the next tool he will present will be a RS SPL meter...
And to think that ALL of this hassle and drama is simply over the fact someone has taken one available response model and zealously attempted to impose it as the ONLY appropriate response model while willfully denying the value and understanding of availing oneself of the additional insight the time domain provides in addition to the frequency domain..