Originally Posted by MSBob
Your ETC tool is useless in (the) low frequency region
Thank you for the laugh! And here we have a grand display that demonstrates without a doubt that he is without a clue as to the proper application of the tool! For you see, the ETC is optimal for use in evaluating SPECULAR behavior. And what do we have below the specular region in the "low frequency region"?
OK... now everyone together! Let's help ol' MSBob out!: That's right, The MODAL region!
And what tools are optimal for displaying such behavior, everyone: The waterfall and /or cumulative spectral decay responses.
Its always nice when we are afforded the opportunity to push the distant limits of acoustical understanding just far enough so that the MSBob is able to remove his foot from his mouth.
But to movie on to still more comedic ramblings of the marketeer...
Again, you fail to read for meaning and seek only to push that which you wish to market.
YOU, and to a degree Toole, present Toole's rich reflection model (along with the rest of the REQUIRED speakers, treatment and room correction software (that only costs, was it, ~$16,000!!!) as the ONLY acceptable response model for surround sound.
While that is great as far for marketing purposes in pushing the Harmon/JBL line of speakers (of which you also fail to tell folks feature the ONLY ACCEPTABLE power response that MUST be employed with the Room topology that you say MUST be employed along with Harmon's ROOM CORRECTION SOFTWARE!!! - don't forget to tell others that they cannot properly utilize their plain old speakers with uneven power responses and uncontrolled Q!!!
So, while you attempt to bully others into accepting that your parroted approach, of which YOU understand little of what Toole refers, via the tyranny of surveys and polls which you imagine are sufficient to render other options invalid, you might want to also refer to other statements of Toole's where he acknowledges that other approaches are not only possible and a "matter of taste" and NOT some hallucinated objective fact, but also describes what others just might feel is an advantage that other approaches have.
With reference to surround sound environments he does not here advocate reflection rich environments, but instead favors a more dead environment preferring to allow the various direct surround sources to provide the sense of envelopment:The Acoustical Design of Home Theaters
byFloyd E. Toole, Ph.D.
"Attempting to bring a little more spatial “flavor” to the reproduction process, loudspeakers are
available in directivities ranging from conventional front-firing, through bipole (bidirectional in phase),
dipole (bidirectional out-of-phase), predominantly-reflecting, to omnidirectional. These present listeners
with very different combinations of direct and reflected sounds, and in most of them the room is a major
determinant. Stereo, therefore, is not really a system at all but, rather, a basis for individual
Multichannel systems offer a partial solution in that there are more channels, and therefore more
directions from which sounds can be made to appear. This also brings a certain independence from room
acoustics, since there are more “real”, as opposed to “reflected” sources. Still, multi-directional, including
“dipole”, speakers rely on reflections, so there are instances in which one must attend to the details.
The standardization of at least some of the more obvious variables by the film industry has helped enormously in achieving some consistency in multichannel film sound tracks. Consequently, what one hears in a cinema is similar to what was heard in the dubbing stage where the sound track was assembled.
Good engineering practices and the Home THX program attempt to continue that relationship into the home.
It will be interesting to see how multichannel music develops."
Yup, one must attend to the issue of room reflections - especially in the instance when anything but diffuse "di-poles" are used. Otherwise the multiple direct sources themselves provide "a certain independence from room acoustics, since there are more “real”, as opposed to “reflected” sources."
And in instance where reflections are desired, isnt it ironic that MSBob eschews entirely the ETC, the one tool capable of displaying the reflected soundfield in complete spatial and temporal characteristics critical to the design and establishment of a well behaved indirect soundfield.
Oh wait, but in the same breadth in which he eschews the ETC, he does advocate band limited ETCs, apparently in order to expose and call attention to his flawed use of deviant acoustical boundaries and specular treatments that are not properly broadband in nature. One might suggest that he, and Toole, walk their talk and actually employ porous and diffusive treatments that are sufficiently large as to be sufficiently broadband in nature. But one must admit, those puny throw rugs, thin porous absorbers and anything but sufficiently large and deep diffusors are cute as obects d'art, if not as effective broadband treatments effectively EQing and coloring the sound!
So.... which way to Oz?, Scarecrow?
And as far as which approach is "correct", you see there are many acoustical responses, and depending upon one's application and preference, regardless of what you or I might prefer, these options are still valid approaches available for others to decide upon."The Acoustical Design of Home Theaters
By Floyd E. Toole, Ph.D.
The real solution, for professionals as well as consumers, is loudspeakers that deliver similarly good timbral accuracy in the direct, early reflected and reverberant sound fields. This can be described as a loudspeaker with a flattish, smooth, axial frequency response, with constant directivity (which together result in flattish, smooth, sound power).
Then it becomes an option, whether the room is acoustically damped, or not. If reflected sounds are absorbed, the listener is placed in a predominantly direct sound field, making the experience more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise. If the reflections are allowed to add their complexity, the overall illusion is altogether more spacious and open, to many listeners, more realistic. In part, this is a matter of taste. In either case, a room-friendly loudspeaker will yield timbral accuracy. So, at middle and high frequencies, the proper solution to getting good sound quality, is to choose good loudspeakers to begin with."
"....A matter of taste"??? But I thought that it is what we MUST prefer. That such a response is a foregone conclusion based upon the tyranny of a bunch of amorphous numbers in multiple surveys!
And now he breaks ranks and dares to admit that it is but a matter of TASTE???????????
So much for the required lockstep and a forced march to a Toole room!
You see, folks DO have valid response choices depending upon their application, be it 2 channel, hybrid music and home theater, and dedicated home theater use. But MSBob is determined that you will not have the opportunity to exercise that choice should he have HIS way.
I know, this simply chafes as he attempts to assemble a marketing approach intent on marketing the "Toole rooms" while he has so valiantly attempted to dictate what others WILL (read "MUST") prefer based upon a tyranny of cut and paste surveys and polls that no individual is dared allowed to differ. Everyone, you have heard MSBob tell you what you WILL prefer: So exercise your free will and "Get in line!"
And fortunately the book is thick enough that if he cannot simply intimidate folks into accepting his declarations of what folks WILL prefer, that he can presumably use it as a bludgeon to correct their thinking and to coerce them into preferring his foregone conclusion dependent upon "taste", to use Toole's word.
The bottom line, Toole's approach is but one of many. Some may like it. Others who prefer more accurate localization and more precise imaging and improved speech intelligibility may not.
Deal with it.
Folks have choices, both in terms of equipment and in terms of the room's response.
And the time of MSBob's marketing tyranny where he tells others what they WILL and MUST prefer is effectively over.Edited by dragonfyr - 6/20/12 at 3:03pm