Side Wall, Floor and Ceiling Reflections - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
desperation is a stinky cologne.
localhost127 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 11:39 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Poor amirm. It is interesting to note how he fails to understand the origin of the ETC and just who developed and of the others who have been prominent in its use - as well as their anything but trivial accomplishments utilizing it (among other measurements). But i am sure he would be glad to assemble a list of rooms designed and treated by Toole and associates in comparison to just a few of those designed and constructed by advocates of the technology.

Yes, the ETC response is MINE. ALL mine. I invented it. It all began with ME.
It is ironic that folks like you have been either as a result of ignorance or political jealousy (in the case of Lipshitz and Vandekooy) taking aim at he who DID develop it and he who is the ONLY acoustician to have his collected works published by AES.

Nope, that's not Toole, who is not even in the same ballpark.

So while Amirm thinks he is somehow impugning me as he displays his ignorance of the ETC as he wanders aimlessly attacking not the response itself, but the manner (of several available) that it may be derived in any of several software platforms, he might want to go try reading some of Dick Heyser's work.

And what is absolutely ludicrous is to doubt the role of hearing in relation to measurements expressed by Dick, as it is with respect to Dick that his fundamental argument is aimed. Or, more properly, it would be if he understood what he was trying to say.

Reading your commentary in comparison to Heyser's is perhaps the easiest way to obtain a notion of the breadth, completeness and grasp of the concept available. So while you sadly are want to defame me, how about taking on he who is directly responsible for the response. After you do a few word searches to find out who he was. Especially as your estimation of Dr. D'Antonio is simply as a marketer of room treatments! You would do well in the process to familiarize yourself with the additional whose its in the industry who are similarly students of Heyser's and easily eclipse your hero in the field. The irony is that they are all too classy to engage in your pissing contest by which you try to elevate yourself at the expense of both they and Toole.

And while you are at it, how about doing searches to discover how Don Davis located and remediated a persistent problem at DisneyWorld. ...Not bad for something that is as worthless as you claim...but about which others of much more stature than yourself disagree.
Please - tell us about it.

And after all is said and done, you still do not understand the role and place of binaural measurements and why they are not practically needed for basic analysis. And you still haven't a clue as to the Analytic and to what the ETC corresponds. In fact, he hasn't even mentioned the doublet response ONCE in any substantial manner.

Nor is he aware how the technology is utilized in much 'higher' tech applications beyond simple acoustics. But one would have to be aware of that to comment on it, wouldn't you. And please, tell us how the technology is used in advanced sonar as well as optical imaging analysis. Apparently he thinks its foundation and application is limited to room analysis.

And nothing has been mentioned at ALL unless it is a result of some incomplete derivative word search and cut and paste exercise as he attempts to find something - anything - to criticize it. And after all is said and done, amirm still lacks an understanding of what it is and the context in which it exists.

But remember folks, how dare anyone disagree with someone who has spent ALL of "several days" becoming an 'expert' and who depends on others to frame an issue so that he can perform word searches in lieu of being able to discuss the issue from first principles himself....
dragonfyr is offline  
post #123 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 11:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Poor amirm.
Appreciate your concern for my well being and thank you for the history lesson on ETC. I don't know who asked for that though. And at any rate, that data is available for us to find and read online (I suggest reading Heyser's two part AES paper). What is not online is your application of it. Why is it so difficult to get you two to provide any example of actually using this knowledge for your own use?

Specifically, I like to see how you have deployed bandpass ETC. I think you told us this has been around for decades. Would you mind sharing measurements of such you have performed? Or tell us that you never have?

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 offline  
post #124 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 12:31 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Wow! Heyser has TWO whole papers available on the Internet!? THAT is the extent of your familiarity???? Its telling...rolleyes.gif

Tell you what, since it is a fundamental tool of every major acoustical analytical platform, and that it has been available since the first iteration of TEF, how about you showing us ANY measurements that you have taken.

Apparently you have a plethora of personally compiled data to conclusively disprove 45+ years of practical experience by the leading practitioners in the field.data.

Oh wait, from the list presented earlier you apparently have NO acoustical analysis tools (and please don't trot out Audio Precision) to compliment your exhaustive "several days" spent learning about acoustics.

And we have already told you how bandpass ETC is of use in determining and removing or augmenting non-broadband specular behavior of boundaries and/or existing treatments.

No, I have NEVER used the measurement nor any of the software platforms on which it is supported...But I did read a paper about it once...despite having spent more time actually performing measurements using just the TEF (without even referencing the other routinely used platforms...) than you have spent learning about acoustics.

And while you are at it, how about explaining the Analytic to us.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #125 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 03:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Wow! Heyser has TWO whole papers available on the Internet!? THAT is the extent of your familiarity???? Its telling...rolleyes.gif
I don't know about the Internet. I go to the AES library for my information. I prefer to pay for the work of people in this space with my AES membership. You would have to tell people what you are finding for free. The papers I mentioned are from the ones that introduce the ETC. So if one wants to learn more, that is where you start.
Quote:
Tell you what, since it is a fundamental tool of every major acoustical analytical platform, and that it has been available since the first iteration of TEF, how about you showing us ANY measurements that you have taken.
You had asked this before and I had provided it to you in other threads. But here it is again from my article in WSR:

Subwoofer-Equalization.png
I have more but am saving them for a follow up article to the WSR one.
Quote:
Apparently you have a plethora of personally compiled data to conclusively disprove 45+ years of practical experience by the leading practitioners in the field.data.
45? I got you beat! The Fletcher-Munson research that clearly showed the non-linearity of the human hearing system which can invalidate your meter readings dates back to 1937 or 75 years ago! His critical band data which directly reads on the topic at hand came about in 1940s or still 70 years ago. You want to throw history at me, you need to work a lot harder! smile.gif .
Quote:
Oh wait, from the list presented earlier you apparently have NO acoustical analysis tools (and please don't trot out Audio Precision) to compliment your exhaustive "several days" spent learning about acoustics.
Apparently? You refuse to tell us if you have a $2 audio cable yet are critical and inquisitive of what test gear I might have beyond what I listed? How come with all that gear you never show us any measurements of your room? And please quit that nonsense about me knowing what I know from "several days" of anything. I don't feel the need to defend what I know. The topic is not about me but the science of audio. And there, I am able to follow you two with ease. That I can do that should tell you that I know more than having taken a two day course. But if that is the case, think of what it says about how much you know! biggrin.gif
Quote:
And we have already told you how bandpass ETC is of use in determining and removing or augmenting non-broadband specular behavior of boundaries and/or existing treatments.
I asked for measurements that you have performed that demonstrate that. Stream of consciousness posts with buzzwords may work with others for an answer, but not for me. If you don't want to do that, how about showing a link to a thread where you have walked people through that. Surely that is not trade secrets.
Quote:
No, I have NEVER used the measurement nor any of the software platforms on which it is supported...But I did read a paper about it once...despite having spent more time actually performing measurements using just the TEF (without even referencing the other routinely used platforms...) than you have spent learning about acoustics. And while you are at it, how about explaining the Analytic to us.
At some point it doesn't matter how much bragging you do if you can't produce simple data that we are asking about. Heck, in the other thread the only person who has shared any time domain data has been me! I showed Impulse response. I showed my own ETC run with IR together. I even walked everyone through the mathematics of how ETC works and its limitations. You claim to be the expert in all of this yet other than wordy posts, we have seen nothing specific like that. Bottom line is that I know your language. I can speak it with ease. Until you learn mine, it remains that your knowledge has a massive gap called "how we hear."

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 offline  
post #126 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
"The Fletcher-Munson research that clearly showed the non-linearity of the human hearing system which can invalidate your meter readings dates back to 1937 or 75 years ago! His critical band data which directly reads on the topic at hand came about in 1940s or still 70 years ago."

still waiting for you to explain how the fletcher-munson curve is related to the "topic at hand" regarding indirect specular reflections via intelligibility, localization, imaging, etc -

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
localhost127 is online now  
post #127 of 135 Old 07-03-2012, 09:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
filecat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,497
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 88
localhost127, you are a laugh a minute!! biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

Thanks for being you!

ps: You should change from "AVS Special Member" to "All specular all the time." That is so you!

What I can afford, when I can afford it...
filecat13 is offline  
post #128 of 135 Old 07-04-2012, 12:17 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
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"?????? rolleyes.gif

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.... rolleyes.gif 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.....rolleyes.gif

Watch out folks, the next tool he will present will be a RS SPL meter...tongue.gif



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..
dragonfyr is offline  
post #129 of 135 Old 07-04-2012, 07:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Local, why bother....
All he has is what his word searches provide.
He has NO first hand knowledge of ANYTHING about which we discuss.
And Local does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

For your part, you are still hesitant as is your partner in sharing with us how you have applied what we are talking about in any measure. Fortunately the Internet is there for all to see. And when folks are not under the pressure to look right, they let out the facts: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/bass-traps-acoustic-panels-foam-etc/639773-fundamentals-between-prds-qrds.html#post6944679

"Originally Posted by localhost127
.......yes, but some of us are stuck in small city condos with no such space for properly building a listening room w/ a particular specular response frown.gif . hence, i currently have all the time in the world for theory. it's a bit like owning a sports-car but not being able to get it out of the driveway. frustrating."


You know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being in your situation. Some of the best movie experiences I used to have were on Hi8 tapes playing on United airline's transatlantic flights on a foggy crappy 8 inch LCD! eek.gif The art comes ahead of the gear in my book.

That said, this part is puzzling if one clicks on the link where the above quote should be:
"^^^^"

No, it is not a typo. That is all that remains of Localhost’s post which the other person had originally quoted. Clearly the post was changed after the fact to make sure the information doesn't sit out there.

I tell you. These Internet forums have terrible effect on people at times. Sigh.

Anyway, I hope you will no longer ridicule other people's hard work and dedication they demonstrate to this hobby when they show you what they have, as modest, grand, or imperfect as they might be. It is their pride and joy and from what you have post, is something you aspire to have.

I will now focus on some technical responses in my backlog as time permits.

As to the rest of your comments, another wordy post goes by where you were unable to provide us even a single measurement you have performed or a link to a discussion of instructing others on the point I asked about. Yet you demanded that I show you the same and I instantly provided it. So let's move on to discussion of technical topics please as you are not doing well with these deabting tactics. This dog don't hunt. Really don't.

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 offline  
post #130 of 135 Old 07-04-2012, 08:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

...Fletcher Munson curves.....rolleyes.gif
Watch out folks, the next tool he will present will be a RS SPL meter...tongue.gif
It is so ironic for you to mention SPL meter and Fletcher Munson in the same sentence as my article I recently wrote for WSR magazine uses both to show how our listening spaces can be ~40 dB quieter than we think once you consider psychoacoustics! No, that is not a typo. Your meter reading can be off that much. The fact that it is frequency blind and doesn't take into account how the ear+brain works leads you into the ditch that way. The proof uses Fletcher Munson curves and a couple of other psychoacoustics factors to demonstrate it.

In other words, a single ear and a brain beat the meter and beat it good. Imagine how much better two ears and a brain do relative to your meter readings. It will clean its chronometers as the line went in the movie Star Trek! biggrin.gif

I may have missed the deadline for publication if so, I will go ahead and put it online in a few days. Otherwise, once the magazine is out for a bit, I will do the same. I think you will find that a fun and educational read and very much to the point we are discussing.

Net, net, ignore psychoacoustics and spectrum at your own peril.
Quote:
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..
Nah. The only imposition is to get folks to consider that a single microphone can be way off relative to how our hearing system works when we go above transition frequencies. Learn that and then choose your path. Personal choices are just fine. Lecturing us about this field without taking into account how we hear, not so much 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 offline  
post #131 of 135 Old 07-05-2012, 12:56 AM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Not ironic at all, if one understands WHY I mentioned them.

So, of course you would find it ironic.

Its a shame you are unaware of other tools that make the adjustments you mention rather than leaving it to folks unaware of them in addition to hardware that already exhibits substantial internal error.

But isn't your precious Flatland limited to only the frequency domain grand, lacking as you do the awareness and insight into the almost complete complimentary relationship of time and frequency that you fail to appreciate. As, for instance - amazing how little one must search - the time domain illustrates behavior in the Haas interval and the myriad ways that the response can be modified that neither your ears with their limited resolution nor the frequency domain can account.
dragonfyr is offline  
post #132 of 135 Old 07-05-2012, 11:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,083
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 755 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Not ironic at all, if one understands WHY I mentioned them.
Oh I know why you mentioned it. Problem is that it backfired against you because you don't know the science of how we hear. Why else would you put it forward if you knew that wink.gif.
Quote:
Its a shame you are unaware of other tools that make the adjustments you mention rather than leaving it to folks unaware of them in addition to hardware that already exhibits substantial internal error.
The floor is all yours. Whatever you show, needs to be your own measurements. Be a bit careful though: the research I draw upon there comes from ex-president of Audio Engineering Society. So do your best.
Quote:
But isn't your precious Flatland limited to only the frequency domain grand, lacking as you do the awareness and insight into the almost complete complimentary relationship of time and frequency that you fail to appreciate.
I do? Who said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Hi Bob. Mathematics tells us that time domain and frequency domain are 100% linked. They are two representations of the same thing. Fix frequency domain and time domain follows. It has to. It has no choice . Here is a quick proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

"The Fourier transform is a mathematical operation with many applications in physics and engineering that expresses a mathematical function of time as a function of frequency, known as its frequency spectrum; Fourier's theorem guarantees that this can always be done."

Nice thing about frequency domain is that it is intuitive. You can see a peak at 30 Hz. But if I showed you a set of digital samples which by definition embodies all frequencies, you would have no easy way to do that.

And your answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfyr View Post

Time and frequency.

A mathematician will argue that time and frequency are really two views of the same phenomenon. But only on a typical acoustics forum will such a simple practical relationship fail to evoke an understanding of the fundamental functional relationship that is responsible for much of the acoustic distortion about which we are routinely concerned and of the tools used to ascertain the function of each.
I let people decide who has more conviction in this smile.gif.
Quote:
As, for instance - amazing how little one must search - the time domain illustrates behavior in the Haas interval and the myriad ways that the response can be modified that neither your ears with their limited resolution nor the frequency domain can account.
The Haas effect was discovered by listening tests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect.

"Haas found that humans localize sound sources in the direction of the first arriving sound despite the presence of a single reflection from a different direction."

Your time domain analysis illustrated nothing. After the fact, we can indeed plot Haas effect as a function of propagation delay of the reflection. That is then a diagram showing those two factors. Once you have that, then you can use ETC or simple measurements of distance to determine which area of that effect you fall into. So nice try in spinning this as a victory for time domain measurements. It is not that.

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 offline  
post #133 of 135 Old 07-05-2012, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
"Your time domain analysis illustrated nothing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia Haas Effect 
A reflection arriving later than 1 ms after the direct sound increases the perceived level and spaciousness (more precisely the perceived width of the sound source). A single reflection arriving within 5 to 30 ms can be up to 10 dB louder than the direct sound without being perceived as a secondary auditory event

time and gain.

what tool can i use to determine the time arrival and gain of an indirect specular reflection - hmm, if only there was some tool out there that detailed Gain vs Time.
localhost127 is online now  
post #134 of 135 Old 07-05-2012, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
localhost127's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
"Once you have that, then you can use ETC or simple measurements of distance to determine which area of that effect you fall into. So nice try in spinning this as a victory for time domain measurements. It is not that."

is this guy for real?

he literally JUST learned that the x-axis on ETC can be used to identify indirect specular reflection path distance.

and now he ADMITS you "can use ETC" for identifying reflection gain and arrival time? LOL - bigus was pressing him what tool he could use for days! now he casually insists it can be done!
localhost127 is online now  
post #135 of 135 Old 07-05-2012, 01:01 PM
 
dragonfyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Ah, be nice.

If you push him further he will assert that Haas used frequency responses to determine that the critical factors involved time and gain.

And whatever you do, don't ask him to explain how the Haas effect can be extended in duration (and to help him out, "duration" refers to 'time' as well...)
dragonfyr 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