Originally Posted by Bigus
My ECM8000 and MAudio cards are in storage, I had to sell my dbx386.
Storage? A mic? And selling the pre-amp? What tool did you use with them when you had them? REW?
Of course this is just a way to divert attention from the question at hand. Answer this, do that, calculate this, find that...
So what you saying? I should not ever ask you to share personal data which in this instance you asked me to provide? I.e. measurement of US homes?
Dude, I chose that number on purpose after looking at the data you posted previously. I chose a value on the lower end of the measured range of untreated rooms which forces a closer look at the problem, and is completely consistent with the room description I gave.
Closer look at the problem? What problem? As I just noted, you picked opposing factors. As a result you had no idea how to determine if the given answer was the right one. Faced with that dilemma you declared “you didn't answer my question." No. Answers were given but the inconsistent situation presented did not allow for a useful and reliable conclusion. You walked into issues that could have been caused by poor speaker performance as opposed to room acoustics.
The Canadian graph showed an average of 0.4 and an SD of 0.1. That isn't a target, that is measured range. Not a mistake.
Please let me remind you what you said when I asked you about the value being curious:
Originally Posted by Bigus 0.3s is curious? It's within the target accepted range, and as you quoted Toole as saying, it isn't completely unexpected for a well furnished room like this. .
The research into the room values came from Bradley, not Dr. Toole. Dr. Toole the provided the target as you said in this other post. That range is from 0.3 to 0.5. At 0.2 the room starts to become overly dead. Above .5 it becomes too live with the late reflections becoming a negative. If you are in this range, and your 0.3 was, your speech should be high quality and indeed, as I have said, can be a substitute for RT measurements. Here is Dr. Toole:"Conventional acoustical design would have had us calculating reverberation time (RT), measuring it, and fussing to get it right. If we were designing a concert hall, that would be justified, but in the context of home listening spaces, the correct RT is a generous target, ranging from “too dead” (below about 0.2 s) to “too live” (above about 0.5 s), both of which are easily recognizable by walking into the room and carrying on a conversation."
And that "small minority" represents perhaps 20 million living rooms in the US alone.
First of all, we are not dealing with the entire population wanting to go and measure their living rooms and optimize them for audio. In your medical field the 15% stat may mean that kind of population but it has no relevance here. But importantly as I have noted repeatedly, the problem was selection of conflicting data which you then compounded a scenario that relates to only 15% of the members here on the basis of RT value alone."
Once you consider that per above they should not have any speech problems, then the population slips down to ~zero. If you wanted me to show you the general process, then you should pick the middle of the bell curve, not the extreme shoulders.
I don't think that is "small" or unusual or atypical or curious. You trying to pass it off as that is diversionary.
I didn’t say it was diversionary or any other debating tactic. I simply pointed out that the scenario as constructed was an odd one. I provided that bit of feedback first. If you had realized what was going on, you could have changed that value then. But you left it there. So I ran with it. I did not use that as a reason to not answer your questions.
I didn't ask you to analyze the room or symptoms. Confusion persists. Or more likely, our answer is unchanged.
How can anyone NOT be confused with this kind of wording you used?"The "symptoms" could be anything. I said poor speech intelligibility, ringing bass (those often go hand in hand), soundstage collapsing to one side, etc. It could be HF harshness, amorphous image, lack of soundstage depth, or whatever subjective descriptors you wish to apply. Doesn't matter. You have a room and an RT60 value. How do I proceed?"
The symptoms could be anything? But then you list them? Why would you list them? If I had not answered them then you would have surely said I avoided them. So I took them as written, one by one, and addressed them. The answer was long, detailed and specific. It covered process, the reasoning and tools. This, despite the super confusing way you put forward your scenario and mistakes in creating it.
Maybe that's because that's exactly what you have done in the past, and have done in this case as well? If you are good at predicting that I don't accept diversionary debating tactics as an answer, congratulations, and I'm proud of being predictable.
The amount of protests you file dwarfs your technical points by a mile. There are what, three of them in this short post alone? Why don't you see the value of discussing audio more, and less of such personal bickering?