Originally Posted by sdurani
You're welcome. Believe it or not, that's Toole's approach as well. If you read his book, you'll see that it's all about direction, not destination.
I don't know how you could say that Sanjay. If you sit through a presentation with him, or speak to him, you see that the case he presents is anything but directional. He will demonstrate his case to you with extreme conviction. He will tell you in extremely direct manner how many of the current assumptions about acoustics are flat wrong. And he doesn't just preach, he practices what he says. Take a look at Sean Olive's AES paper on the reference listening room they built. It is a complete mirror of the recommendations in the AES paper and book. He allocates considerable amount of time to this topic in his presentations and frankly, you can't leave the room until you concede
. As to the book, there are a ton of that in there too with this topic taking more than one chapter. Here are some choice comments from it:"9.1 THE AUDIBILITY OF ACOUSTICAL INTERFERENCE—COMB FILTERING
The term comb filtering just in itself sounds ugly. And its physical appearance,
a succession of deep notches, looks ugly. And ugly is bad, so comb filtering must
be bad. But if this is the prosecution’s argument, they lose! The defense can call
witnesses, many who will have impressive academic credentials, and many,
many more who are just ordinary listeners but can attest to the audible innocence
of this phenomenon. Many of them will claim that, in some situations,
comb filtering sounds good—and under oath, too!"
How could anyone take this as directional? It is not directional. He is saying that the current positions such as what Ethan took earlier in this thread that reflections cause comb filtering and hence have to be done away with are wrong.
In another section he says this:"The upshot is that, in any normal room, audible comb filtering is highly
improbable. The less “live” the room, the more likely it will be that even a single
reflection can be audible as coloration. This is a good point to look at again in
Figure 9.3. Measurements don’t lie, but some of them, like these, are not the
most direct path to the truth that matters: what we hear. The reflections that
cause comb filtering are the same refl ections that result in the almost entirely
pleasant, pleasurable, and preferable impressions of spaciousness discussed in
the previous two chapters."
I didn't want to post all of this before when you first made the statement as someone said not to but please, let's not change the man's stance for the sake of it. And it is not just him. If you sit through presentations from other Harman researchers, you see the same conviction here. Alan Devantier will tell you the same thing. Here is Sean Olive in his AES paper on the design of their reference room:"The placement of the acoustical panels in the reference
listening room shown in Figs. 4 (a) and (b) is based on
the scientific rationale proposed by Toole . In order
to encourage spaciousness (broadening of the apparent
source width) the sidewalls are left untreated at the
point where the first lateral reflections produced by the
front channels arrive at the listening location."
So maybe you have a different definition of "directional" than I do. I don't consider any of this directional. Perhaps you mean that they leave room for someone doing different. Yes, they do. They will tell you that they are wrong but that there is no reason to call the police on them
I have repeatedly said that it is fine to disagree. But let's disagree after we familiarize ourselves with the research data as it exists. Let's not go by our intuition which can't possibly predict how our hearing and brain work. Let's not stick our head in the sand and ignore the research because we like to think it is less definite than it really is. The evidence is highly compelling and strongly presented -- more strongly than I have seen just about anyone do.
And why the resistance? It is not like he is saying unless you put up diamonds on your wall you are going to get bad sound. He is saying you can put furniture in a room and have it nicely approximate what would happen with acoustic products. He says you don't have to stick fiberglass on the side walls of your living room. It says we don't have to go and learn new tools like ETC. The answer is that there is a ton of goodness here for us as consumers. The resistance then comes from us not wanting our previously stated convictions demonstrated to be wrong. Fine. That is how we act as humans. But if we want to search for the truth, we want to reserve the right to get smarter
. I did that. Not sure why it is so hard for others to do the same. I know you are most of the way there with these thoughts. I just want to make sure people don't go using your statement above as an excuse to ignore what is being taught here as I see Audiosavant doing already. Anyone who doubts any of this can buy the $44 book and see for themselves.
So no, he doesn't call the police on you if you go and absorb first reflections, run ETC, etc. If that is what you mean by "directional," sure. It is not my definition of the word however.