or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ? - Page 25

post #721 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotto View Post

So what happened to all the "Stars" of the thread.....seems like the shows over and everyone is just waxing philosophic at this point smile.gif Maybe it's just a case of audio burn out.

Maybe they're fully burned in.
post #722 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

How could you forget his deification of Ingvar Öhman?

Indeed, one of the more bizarre members in the constellation of stars.

I suspect that he got there by saying the right things to bolster the current ongoing argument.
post #723 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Maybe they're fully burned in.

Barrrruum..tsssschhhhh. smile.gif
post #724 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Indeed, one of the more bizarre members in the constellation of stars.
I suspect that he got there by saying the right things to bolster the current ongoing argument.

Would you care to elaboreate on that statement?
Please clarify: Are you saying Ingvar Öhman is a liar?

Have you made the exact same inestigations he has done and come to a differant conclusion? Since you're going after this guy here eventhough he isn't registered on this board, I would assume you have some seriously engraving evidence of fraud?!? yeah?!?

What is your indisputible evidense that you have, that contratict anything Ingvar Öhman" has ever stated in publics?

If so, please *define* the dispute that you have *clearly*, in simple points or phrases, and we might actually get into a good discussioun out of this *god forbid*....
Edited by hevi - 7/27/12 at 3:24pm
post #725 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Would you care to elaboreate on that statement?
Please clarify: Are you saying Ingvar Öhman is a liar?

Not at all. I suspect that he is unaware of the inherent difficulties of sighted evaluations and therefore has biases that reflect excess optimism about the sensitivity of the human ear.

Notice please that many of the other "stars" that were mentioned were not out-and-out charlatans.
Quote:
Have you made the exact same inestigations he has done and come to a differant conclusion?

Yes and no. For example his loudspeaker simulator has many design features that are similar to one that I designed. OTOH some of his conclusions about bi wiring, well not so much!

Your comments suggesting that I have accused these people of intentional fraud are beneath contempt and will not be discussed by me. Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and should thus be extended some grace based on a lack of understanding of my posts.
post #726 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Not at all. I suspect that he is...

Ok... You *suspect*. Duly noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Notice please that many of the other "stars" that were mentioned were not out-and-out charlatans.
Duly noted. I take it hen, that your statemens are taken out of thin air, then, and that is all OK...I guess...
post #727 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Ok... You *suspect*. Duly noted.
Duly noted. I take it then, that your statemens are taken out of thin air, then, and that is all OK...I guess...

Again you are misinterpreting what I wrote. It appears that you should study up on properly interpreting posts written in English.

If you need to be so dismissive to get you through the day, then do what you must!
post #728 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Not at all. I suspect that he is unaware of the inherent difficulties of sighted evaluations and therefore has biases that reflect excess optimism about the sensitivity of the human ear.
Notice please that many of the other "stars" that were mentioned were not out-and-out charlatans.
Yes and no. For example his loudspeaker simulator has many design features that are similar to one that I designed. OTOH some of his conclusions about bi wiring, well not so much!
Your comments suggesting that I have accused these people of intentional fraud are beneath contempt and will not be discussed by me. Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English and should thus be extended some grace based on a lack of understanding of my posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Again you are misinterpreting what I wrote. It appears that you should study up on properly interpreting posts written in English.
If you need to be so dismissive to get you through the day, then do what you must!

No, I am pretty much as fluent in English as any emmigrant living in the US. How is you Swedish? Mine is fluent. I know what Ingvar has staded.

Amuse me, pinpont what he has said that does not concurr with what you have staded. Give us a failing statement, as said by him, prefereably with some kind of reasonable reference, and I'll be all ears. All Ears…


edit: allow me to reitrate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevi View Post

Would you care to elaboreate on that statement?

What is your indisputible evidense that you have, that contratict anything Ingvar Öhman" has ever stated in publics?
If so, please *define* the dispute that you have *clearly*, in simple points or phrases, and we might actually get into a good discussioun out of this *god forbid*....

Edited by hevi - 7/27/12 at 4:33pm
post #729 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

He seems to get star struck. Fielder, Toole, and Dunn pretty well cover the last six or more months.
They do? Here a list of experts quoted in this thread as best i can recall:

Amir
1. Professor John Vanderkooy
2. Professor Stanely Lipschitz
3. Professor Brian Moore
4. Professor Brian Glasberg
5. Professor Trevor Cox
6. Dr. John Bradley
7. Dr. Floyd Toole
8. Dr. Harvey Fletcher
9. Dr. Sean Olive
10. Dr. Peter D'Antonio
11. Dr. Søren Bech
12. Don Davis
13. David Clark
14. Alan Devantier
15. Keith Yates
16. FHG Research team: Andreas Silzle, Stefan Geyersberger, Gerd Brohasga, Dieter Weninger, and Michael Leistner
17. Indirect References (Bilsen, Zurek, Krumbholtz, Barron, Case, Moulton, Griesinger, Blauert, Litovsky, Colburn, Yost, Guzman, Shinn-Cunningham, Divenyi, Djelani, Rakerd, Hartmann, Watkins, Makin)


Anry
[None]

Audiophilesavant
[None]

Bigus
[None]

Locahost127
Dr. Toole
Indirect: Heyser

Dragonfyr:
Dr. Toole
Dr. D'Antonio
Don Davis
Indirect: Kuttruff, Blauert's, Heyser
Quote:
Stars are often from the distant past, one is dead.
One is dead? Distant Past? I assume you don't believe in gravity or theory relativity because neither researcher who come up with those concepts is alive. rolleyes.gif Hope you feel good about the fact that quite a few of the researchers I have quoted in this thread are alive and well.
post #730 of 871
Your recall sucks.

And its funny, as the one that your first two unsuccessfully tried to discredit was dead at the time.

IF only the result of word searches were integral to the issue at hand and IF they equated to an understanding of what was returned...
Edited by dragonfyr - 7/27/12 at 6:31pm
post #731 of 871
Amir, beside the appeal to authority entry in Wikipedia is a picture of you. wink.gif

Besides, your list is incorrect. I used many of the exact quotes you posted in this thread to show the error in your statements. tongue.gif
post #732 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Amir, beside the appeal to authority entry in Wikipedia is a picture of you. wink.gif

There are situations where appealing to authority makes sense but there are guidelines that should be followed:

(1) The authority's point should be non-controversial in this area.
(2) The authority should be cited with quotes that have an appropriate context.
(3) The authority should be cited in a way that is consistent with the authority's general thinking in the area.
(4) The authority should be cited in a way that does not distort or extend the context of his opinion in this area.
Quote:
Besides, your list is incorrect. I used many of the exact quotes you posted in this thread to show the error in your statements. tongue.gif

Right. This happens when people routinely violate the 4 reasonable guidelines posted above.

The above guidelines number 1 and only number 1 can be violated when the purpose of the post is to criticize the authority or his thinking in this area.
post #733 of 871
Nobody denies you cited numerous authorities. The issue has always been with your interpretation of the quotations, your spin on their positions, and the conclusions you draw from their work. The fact that you do not recognize the validity of expert opinions which are at odds with those of your heroes, you think in black and white, you evade direct questions, and you do not tolerate any dissent do not help your cause. Of course, your arrogance, misrepresentation of other posters comments and positions, and passive-aggressive behavior also poison the discussion. You have a lot to offer, but as long as your behavior continues in this vein, every discussion you participate in will inevitably devolve into a food fight. Nobody can stand a know-it-all.
post #734 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Amir, beside the appeal to authority entry in Wikipedia is a picture of you. wink.gif
I assume you say that because you have the misconception that "appeal to authority" is automatically a negative thing. This is what Wikipedia says about that topic:

"The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:
1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion."


It then goes on to say:

"Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]"


So we see right away that your implication is wrong on this being a negative thing. Let's examine the factors mentioned:

#1: Is Dr. Toole a legitimate authority on the subject? Let's review his qualifications in this regard:

Honors and Awards:
Audio Engineering Society Fellowship Award: 1986
Audio Engineering Society Publications Awards: 1988 and 1990
Audio Engineering Society Silver Medal Award: 1996
Acoustical Society of America Fellowship Award: 2002
CEDIA Lifetime Achievement Award: 2008
Past President Audio Engineering Society
Beryllium Driver Award for Lifetime Achievement - ALMA The International Loudspeaker Association 2011


Here is the graphics from Dr. D'Antonio -- someone who has been positioned as having differing views than Dr. Toole -- :

i-BBRP9Hr-X2.png

A quick search online for his background shows nothing but superlatives for the subject matter that we are discussing: http://www.elsevierdirect.com/author.jsp?authorcode=1018118

"Floyd is a leading industry expert in acoustics and psychoacoustics. Past AES president, he is known for his research completed during his 25-year tenure at Canada’s National Research Council and his role as Corporate Vice President and Director of R&D at Harman International Industries. Floyd is a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society and of the Acoustical Society of America."

http://www.aes.org/technical/heyser/aes125.cfm

"Heyser Memorial Lecture
AES 125th Convention
Moscone Center - San Francisco, CA, USA
Friday, October 3, 2008, 7:00 pm — 8:30 pm
Sound Reproduction: Where We Are and Where We Need to Go
by Floyd Toole

AbstractFloyd-Toole.jpg

The Richard C. Heyser distinguished lecturer for the 125thAES Convention is Floyd Toole. Toole studied electrical engineering at the University of New Brunswick and at the Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London, where he received a Ph.D. In 1965 he joined the National Research Council of Canada, where he reached the position of Senior Research Officer in the Acoustics and Signal Processing Group. In 1991, he joined Harman International Industries, Inc. as Corporate Vice President – Acoustical Engineering. In this position he worked with all Harman International companies, and directed the Harman Research and Development Group, a central resource for technology development and subjective measurements, retiring in 2007.

Toole’s research has focused on the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction in small rooms, directed to improving engineering measurements, objectives for loudspeaker design and evaluation, and techniques for reducing variability at the loudspeaker/room/listener interface. For papers on these subjects he has received two AES Publications Awards and the AES Silver Medal. He is a Fellow and Past President of the AES and a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America. In September, 2008, he was awarded the CEDIA Lifetime Achievement Award. He has just completed a book Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms (Focal Press, 2008). The title of his lecture is, “Sound Reproduction: Where We Are and Where We Need to Go.”

Over the past twenty years scientific research has made considerable progress in identifying the significant variables in sound reproduction and in clarifying the psychoacoustic relationships between measurements and perceptions. However, this knowledge is not widespread, and the audio industry remains burdened by unsubstantiated practices and folklore. Oft repeated beliefs can have status and influence commensurate with scientific facts.

One problem has been that much of the essential data was obscured by disorder: the knowledge was buried in papers in numerous books and journals, indexed under many different topics, and sometimes a key point was peripheral to the main subject of the paper. Assembling and organizing the information was the purpose of my recent book, Sound Reproduction (Focal Press, 2008). It turns out that we know a great deal about the acoustics and psychoacoustics of loudspeakers in small rooms, and this knowledge provides substantial guidance about designing and integrating systems to provide high quality sound reproduction.

However, what we hear over these installations is of variable sound quality and, more importantly, not always what was intended by the artists. Inconsistent and imperfect devices and practices in both the professional and consumer domains result in mismatches between recording and playback. Standards exist but are not often used. Many of them are fundamentally flawed. If we in the audio industry are serious about our mission to deliver the aural art in music and movies, as it was created, to consumers, there is work to be done. It begins with agreeing on the objectives, and is followed by an application of the science we know."


His work and that of his research team is routinely references by other researchers and papers. Folks can disagree with them but you won't find a single person in the industry who would tell you that it he is not a "legitimate expert."

#2: Conclusion does not follow unconditionally, i.e. by inductive proof. Well, as you see from my posts, they are full of data and references to other expert's work. That is the style that Dr. Toole uses as do any other proper researcher. You put all the evidence out there and if it triangulates and triangulates well, then it is the compelling view to rely on. Is it 100% right in 100% of the time? No. Question becomes what i said earlier. How do you know you are part of the exception and not the rule? If some drug is effective in 80% of the patients, are you going to avoid it by assuming you are in the 20%? And on what basis? Because you feel like saying so? Or believing in some in an online forum with no industry or academic qualifications whatsoever and with zero shared experience in the subject matter?

I really didn't need to tell you any of this. You know well that when someone writes a paper they quote the work of other researchers to back their point of view and data. In no case does anyone accuse them of "appealing to authority." Indeed, that is what is expected for you to do: lending more weight to your opinion by citing previous work. What they won’t do is to say, “this guy under an alias on an Internet forum said so.” Yet that is what you are doing by endorsing the views of Dragon/Local, neither one of whom has any standing whatsoever in the industry.

That phrase is used here because the other poster doesn't know how to counter the work of the experts so he dismisses the whole notion out of hand. Other variations are also used like "cut and paste, the expert is dead, the expert is old, the expert is an idiot, no one follows the expert, this is the only expert you use, etc." All of these have been put forward by the few of you in this context. They are all silly assertions that raise the noise floor of the forum and add nothing to the conversation. If you are right about any of that then you should be able to prove your point with technical arguments. That you repeatedly focus as this post shows on the poster and not the post, shows you lack such data or conviction in the same.
Quote:
Besides, your list is incorrect. I used many of the exact quotes you posted in this thread to show the error in your statements. tongue.gif
Oh that old defense: "Judge, I didn't defraud the insurance company but if I did, they deserved it" defense! smile.gif You can’t in one breath say if I quote Dr. Toole is a bad thing and in the next breath say you used him to make your point.

The argument backfires on you anyway as it is best form of selective quoting when you disagree with just about everything the man has to say but a paragraph or two.

So you see, even your meta-arguments fall victim to lack of research which you yourself put forward. I don't know a person in the medical field such as yourself would put down someone proving their point with quotes and data from research in this area with commentary like this. This dual universe set of rules may work in movies but doesn’t in real life. In real life folks want to read more than your opinion that you are right and external references lend significant weight to the argument when the experts are so qualified in the field relative to anonymous posters in these threads. Not doing so is the height of silliness.
post #735 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

Nobody denies you cited numerous authorities. The issue has always been with your interpretation of the quotations, your spin on their positions, and the conclusions you draw from their work.
You mean nobody other you and Arny? This is what you said to him when he claimed I only quoted 3-4 experts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

How could you forget his deification of Ingvar Öhman?

So even when the data is black and white in front of you, you either don't read it, or read it and outright distort it as you two did. And how do you know I am spinning anything? Didn't you refuse to answer Bigus questions by saying you lack expertise to do so? If you do, how do you the good answer from bad answer? You don't think you need expertise to judge something?

But let's go with that. How do you prove your case? Just say that I am doing that? That should be enough? Or do you have the responsibility to show your own research data that disproves the point? It is not like I am quoting secret documents. The 500 page book is there for you to read and quote at will.
Quote:
The fact that you do not recognize the validity of expert opinions which are at odds with those of your heroes, you think in black and white, you evade direct questions, and you do not tolerate any dissent do not help your cause.
Which expert opinions? You are asking me to agree with two Internet posters, as you have. If they could prove their point I would actually but they can't. But by all means in your next post quote said experts. If you are so convinced you should be able to do that in a heart beat.
Quote:
Of course, your arrogance, misrepresentation of other posters comments and positions, and passive-aggressive behavior also poison the discussion. You have a lot to offer, but as long as your behavior continues in this vein, every discussion you participate in will inevitably devolve into a food fight. Nobody can stand a know-it-all.
The only poison is information free posts like yours and that of your cohorts that are motivated by personal fights than anything else. I stayed quiet for the last couple of days. What happened? Folks like Kromp and Sanjay talked about audio. What did the few of you do? Nonsense like what I am responding to. You have no passion for discussing audio. I am pretty sure what most people can't stand in an audio forum is that....
post #736 of 871
What is hilarious is the juxtaposition of your claims and your abject ignorance of that which you reference.

You cite the fact that Toole is a "Richard C. Heyser distinguished lecturer", yet in SO MANY ways as soon as you open your mouth you display an abject ignorance of what Heyser said and actively denigrate the very concepts and work that he and so many others specifically built upon.

The fact is that while you can take quotes out of context of history as you THINK you prove a point, you do more to prove your almost total ignorance of acoustics and much more.

All you prove is that you can perform word searches, all the while remaining so supremely ignorant of so much that you inadvertently reference that it is tragically hilarious. And yet you have no clue as to what I refer.

Part of learning is to recognize that which you do not know. And to that end, you know nothing.
post #737 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


The only poison is information free posts like yours and that of your cohorts that are motivated by personal fights than anything else.

I see considerable harm that can come from misrepresentations of relevant true facts. When these arise due to well-meant but actual misinterpretations of well-known authorities and presentations of controversial or obsolete information as if they were the only true facts, the danger is greatly increased.

What I know for sure is that there are people here who habitually misinterpret the thoughts of other posters and authoritative sources. After all, when it is my posts that are being given the pretzel treatment, I am the world's authority on what I meant when I made them.

When I converse extensively and at length with people who consistently reflect my post's true intended meaning, I know that the problem with misinterpretation is not my poor writing skills.
post #738 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
I assume you say that because you have the misconception that "appeal to authority" is automatically a negative thing.
Yes, you make a lot of assumptions.

Quote:
Well, as you see from my posts, they are full of data and references to other expert's work. That is the style that Dr. Toole uses as do any other proper researcher.
I have some experience in "proper research" (funny term smile.gif ). In case there was any concern that I might count your posts as anything resembling such, let me lay that fear to rest now.

Quote:
Yet that is what you are doing by endorsing the views of Dragon/Local
I don't 'endorse' the views of them, I endorse my own views.

Quote:
If you are right about any of that then you should be able to prove your point with technical arguments.
I have proved my point with technical arguments. Arguments you have been unable to disprove with all of your authoratative quoting. Hell, many you haven't even addressed.

Quote:
You can’t in one breath say if I quote Dr. Toole is a bad thing and in the next breath say you used him to make your point.
But you apparently can say that, as so far you are the only one who has.

Quote:
The argument backfires on you anyway as it is best form of selective quoting when you disagree with just about everything the man has to say but a paragraph or two.
I agree with just about everything the man has to say but a paragraph or two you over-zealously misinterpret. The world must look really strange through your eyes Amir.

Quote:
I don't know a person in the medical field such as yourself would put down someone proving their point with quotes and data from research in this area with commentary like this.
The quotes and data you post often don't prove your point as you believe them to. That is the point.

And fyi, as far as the medical field goes, part of my daily job is critiquing research. I even have to know what a sample is. wink.gif
Edited by Bigus - 7/28/12 at 10:36pm
post #739 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 
I see considerable harm that can come from misrepresentations of relevant true facts. When these arise due to well-meant but actual misinterpretations of well-known authorities and presentations of controversial or obsolete information as if they were the only true facts, the danger is greatly increased.

What I know for sure is that there are people here who habitually misinterpret the thoughts of other posters and authoritative sources. After all, when it is my posts that are being given the pretzel treatment, I am the world's authority on what I meant when I made them.

When I converse extensively and at length with people who consistently reflect my post's true intended meaning, I know that the problem with misinterpretation is not my poor writing skills.
Amen.
post #740 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
Well, as you see from my posts, they are full of data and references to other expert's work. That is the style that Dr. Toole uses as do any other proper researcher.

I have some experience in "proper research" (funny term ). In case there was any concern that I might count your posts as anything resembling such, let me lay that fear to rest now.

The difference between Amir and Toole as a researcher is stupendous. Toole had decades of experience and generally respected success. Does everybody agree with every little thing he said? No!

That Amir would compare himself to Toole like this says it all. :-(

When Toole does academic research, it gets filtered by all of that experience which is validated by his tremendous accomplishments.

Academic research is not a machine that works the same no matter who turns the crank!
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
If you are right about any of that then you should be able to prove your point with technical arguments.

I have proved my point with technical arguments. Arguments you have been unable to disprove with all of your authoratative quoting. Hell, many you haven't even addressed.

This is a key point. I've never seen anybody who has sloughed off as much good evidence and logic and reason as Amir. If debate was a war, Amir would win not with superior weapons or strategy, but by waiting it out in an impregnable bunker that sloughs off all good evidence and logic, and simply bides his time until everybody else dies of old age. ;-)
Edited by arnyk - 7/29/12 at 2:34am
post #741 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

You cite the fact that Toole is a "Richard C. Heyser distinguished lecturer", yet in SO MANY ways as soon as you open your mouth you display an abject ignorance of what Heyser said and actively denigrate the very concepts and work that he and so many others specifically built upon.
There is a huge difference between me quoting published research papers disputing ETC showing true energy of a signal and an anonymous poster like yourself who is not in the industry doing the same to Dr. Toole and a dozen or more researchers whose work I have quoted here. I quoted paper by Don Keele which was titled: "The Analytic Impulse and the Energy-Time Curve: The Debate Continues." This is someone you quote very frequently as an authority yet he has written a paper which walks thought the math and simulation and demonstrates that "E" in ETC cannot stand for "energy." The tile of Lipshitz and Vanderkooy paper was, "Uses and Abuses of the Energy-Time Curve." Again, the paper is full of proof and mathematics and not a layman opinion on a forum that both Clark and Dr. Toole are idiots and don't know how to run an audio measurement tool.

Talking about that, the issues around ETC as a measurement tool for energy computation is a minor one as I have repeatedly said. The major issue is the gross misapplication by the few of you on this forum to examine room behavior with differing surfaces. This argument was put to rest on page 18 of this thread and not by me, but your clear concession that what I and other experts like Dr. Toole had been saying was 100% correct:http://www.avsforum.com/t/1413173/does-sound-sounds-better-in-a-room-full-of-furniture-and-stuff-or-without/510#post_22223617
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

[From Dr. Toole's book] The message is that we need to know the spectrum level of reflections to be able to gauge their relative audible effects. This can be done using time-domain representations, like ETC or impulse responses, but it must be done using a method that equates the spectra in all of the spikes in the display, such as bandpass filtering. Examining the “slices” of a waterfall would also be to the point, as would performing FFTs on individual reflections isolated by time windowing of an impulse response. Such processes need to be done with care because of the trade-off between time and frequency resolution, as explained in Section 13.5. It is quite possible to generate meaningless data. All of this is especially relevant in room acoustics because acoustical materials, absorbers, and diffusers routinely modify the spectra of reflected sounds. Whenever the direct and reflected sounds have different spectra, simple broadband ETCs or impulse responses are not trustworthy indicators of audible effects". p. 93

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif If you need a text to explain this to you, the book won't help! It's too late! ... Combine that with the fact that existing treatments may indeed effectively EQ the incident energy and act as equalization, effecting some frequencies more than others.

Thus if one uses live material as a stimulus that may feature varying spectral content at differing times of the program, and you have boundaries or boundary treatments that do not behave in a broadband manner and may indeed effectively EQ the incident and reflected energy, you may indeed end up with whacked data. And anyone who conducts a test in such a manner is an idiot.

Best practices require that we evaluate the behavior of the boundaries and /or treatments specifically to ascertain their behavior over the full specular spectrum. Such boundaries that do not exhibit such a broadband response should be corrected. ... Of course boundaries that are not broadband and which do not function in a linear fashion will effectively EQ the incident energy! And attempting to compare unlike stimuli which by definition consist of non-equivalent energy content, is so whacked as to render the label of a “mistake” an understatement!!!

As the tool can be used for a near limitless array of applications, (including a plethora of well designed variations) with regards to boundary investigations a simple rule of thumb implies that one:
1.) Ascertain the spectral nature of the boundaries followed by the behavior of any existing treatments. This will most probably require that one remove any treatments and first establish a baseline of performance for the boundaries.
2.) Once this is established and any lack of uniform broadband behavior rectified, insure that any treatments employed (assuming they are necessary and perform the desired function) are also broadband.
And except for the purposes of selectively ascertaining degrees of deficiency, identical broadband sweeps should generally be used for testing, with any tests intended to be directly compared conducted with equivalent stimuli under equivalent conditions. And if broadband sweeps are not employed, care MUST be exercised in comparing any results generated by dissimilar stimuli! Depending upon the nature of the behavior to be examined, sweeps maybe be bandwidth limited in a narrow fashion, realizing the reduction in resolution, or 'bandwidth limited' in the broadband, increasing the resulting resolution and generally employed..

You could not have agreed any better with Dr. Toole than you have done here. What is remarkable is that it took multiple threads and 500 posts here to get you to accept this simple matter of mathematics. Something that Heyser would accept in a heartbeat just the same. In my reply to you I showed you how Localhost was telling people to use ETC in rooms with treatment already in place including thin wall covering which was clearly non-broadband. I gave the example of carpet being routinely used in people's homes which again is "non-broadband." And how you two routinely criticize poster's treatment as not being broadband yet insisting that they run ETC anyway.

Now, we could accept that as being past sins. What can we expect moving forward? Well, as luck would have it yet another discussion ensued on this topic while we were in this thread on use of ETC: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1421599/etc-isd-gap-question

I was pleased to see Dragon being careful this time around to footnote the above issue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Again, we need to know more about the room. If this is a fully treated room, there are no guarantees that what is up is valid unless all is effectively broadband.

This was the one and only post before that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

You are going to want to address the very early diffraction/reflection issues occurring between ~0-2ms, as the indirect arrival at ~2ms is your first significant reflection.
Also, as I doubt your room is 25 feet long, you might also re-window your display to roughly 2x your room length in feet (e.g., if it is 15 feet deep, window the time axis to about 30ms for increased visible resolution. yes...an ISD of ~13ms is fine..
But you would also want to use treatment (preferably 2D diffusion) redirecting energy to address the later anomalous peak at ~22.5ms as you want the decay to be as dense and smooth (following an exponential curve) as you can after the ISD is terminated, as a late sparse reflections can cause localization (etc.) issues..
We see an immediate full dive and belief in validity of the measurement. There was no question about the room despite what is implied by your word "again" in the post after this. OP responds with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

1000700
The Room
Imagine the brown panels as QRD, and Black as Absorption.
The Absorption Panels are:
beside each speaker are 12" thick, R19
Rear corners, 8.5" thick R19
Ceiling cloud (not shown) 2" OC703 with 6" R19 above that. Cover entire area between listening position and speakers.
Front left corner - 4" OC703 24" across corner with outward facing FRK
Front right corner 2" OC703 14" across corner (all the room their is with the door in the way) with 4-6" R19 behind also with outward facing FRK.
The QRD panels are:
single N7 throughout (12"Wx48"H) except flanking the listener where those are N17's (28"Wx24"H).
My "fixing" was changing the angles on some flat panels on side walls that redirect energy to the rear (not shown) to the left and right of listener.
1000

Clearly he has all manner of material that affect the spectrum of the reflections. So per the science, extensive research quoted here and your own statement, ETC should not have been relied upon to show the correct amplitude. OP then posts this as a result of a private discussion with you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

I did have a lengthy discussion with Dragonfyr. Had it been notated and put in this thread, it would have been over 100 pages. But I can generalize the keys points (imo)

1) The first 2-3ms are very important. I have a -15db peak from the floor there. Still cant figure out how to deal with it other than putting an absorption panel on the floor that I would likely trip over. I know its a floor reflection cause when I do put a scrap piece of OC703 there, the peak goes to -21db.

You had a lengthy discussion with him but didn't bother to tell him that he can't rely on that spike to be "-15 db" because his carpet filtered that spectrum? And that the OC 703 would filter it differently so the two numbers are not comparable? And that research into what we hear says that original carpet treatment likely did the job and the rest is making a meter happy and not a person? Thankfully Bigus chimes in with that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

When you place something absorptive on the floor, does it sound better? If not, you may be treating the numbers and not the sound. The Fraunhofer Institute in Germany detailed the design of a reference room in which the contribution of floor reflection was investigated. They found that eliminating a high gain spike as measured by ETC using thick absorption had a negative perceptual efffect. ETC identifies the reflections but you must still choose what to do with them.

Where did he get that information? From this thread. Does he link to the source of the research here? Nope. If he had, OP would have read the rest of the context potentially realizing that he is being led down the garden path with ETC.

So no, all the protests in the world don't change the fact that what was stated here and in other threads about unreliability of ETC in almost all the circumstances used in this forum was true and conceded to be true. Yet people still walk around pretending it isn't. Bad advice is dispensed and blind eye turned toward it in the hope of continuing to look like the expert rather than be on the side of audio truth. These are the perils of listening to anonymous posters rather than reading the published work of top experts in this field.
post #742 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Bad advice is dispensed and blind eye turned toward it in the hope of continuing to look like the expert rather than be on the side of audio truth.

That should go in your signature, right under where you announce to the world that you were an HD-DVD industry insider until 2007, as if that is any claim to fame.
post #743 of 871
I have not read further than than skimming a few sentences. What is the point of reading the same BS presented ad nauseum by someone who not only has no understanding of the foundational material, let alone peripheral comments about it?

But hey, what we seem to have encountered is a remarkable implementation similar to that of Goebbels' modification to Hilter's "Big Lie" philosophy where if you restate the same lie myriad times, people will accept it as being the truth.: "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

And one might say that the repeated behavior is closer to a description printed by the US Office of Strategic Services stating that the "primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."


But I did catch the fascinating mistaken interpretation made with the assertion that : "You could not have agreed any better with Dr. Toole than you have done here. "

Genius, are you aware that what I proposed was SOP for 10 years BEFORE Toole made his earthshaking observations that were received with a big "Yawn" by the rest of the world actively using the ETC????????????? There was no new news there! We already we were WELL aware of such issues, and by utilizing proper procedure had long since addressed any improper processes! But you, being not 10 years, but more like 25 years late AFTER Toole's late to the party observations, run about like Chicken Little exposing your laughable ignorance as if you have just discovered that the earth is round!

Which if you had ANY clue as to the PROPER procedure would completely invalidate your strawman:

"You had a lengthy discussion with him but didn't bother to tell him that he can't rely on that spike to be "-15 db" because his carpet filtered that spectrum? And that the OC 703 would filter it differently so the two numbers are not comparable?

If he replaces the thin inadequate 'source of coloration' absorption with a broadband absorber that would actually address the low-mids that constitute the non-uniform polar response of the speaker's polar dispersion in the near field that actually reflect off the floor (instead of using a thin non-broadband absorber that addresses only the high frequencies that due to the non-uniform power response beam and are not incident on the floor!), you now have an environment where ETC measurements do indeed measure arriving energy that is near identical to the direct signal! And as such, can be compared with other indirect signals that result from incidence with sufficiently resistive walls and broadband treatments!

In other words, while you indeed do NOT want to be comparing apples and oranges, if the proper process is followed, that is not an issue! But only our book report boy proposes measuring rooms treated with improper non-broadband treatments solely with his trusty "ETC meter" and then acting upon it - as if the "ETC will tell him what to do"! We do not agree with this flawed process - which confuses him to no end!

But its interesting to see that he posits an incorrect process demonstrated by Toole as the proper method by which to use his trusty "ETC meter" which I suspect he got along with the rest of his Roy Rogers outfit complete with boots and a six shooter. ...And we will spare him the emotional shock of explaining that the stick horse he received was similarly NOT the real Trigger! DUH!!!

And regarding your continuing issue with the ETC...

First of all, "E" does NOT stand for "energy", but I find it humorous that you are still tilting at that 30 year old windmill.

Obviously you are not aware of the other earth shaking discovery that the proper term for the ETC is the ENVELOP Time Curve. A modification made, not by Toole, but by Dr. Patronis and Don Davis MANY years ago, much in the same way that they corrected we early participants in the seminars that the term "time alignment" is improper slang, seeing as how one cannot align time but that we can only align signals with respect to time, hence the proper terminology being "signal alignment".

"To quote Don Davis quoting Dr. Eugene Patronis (I will let you do a few searches in order to determine HIS credentials!), who along with Don Davis had previously retitled the response the ENVELOPE Time Curve :

The Envelope Time Curve, ETC, is on firm theoretical ground.

Dr. Patronis states: "It is related to the well established concept of communications theory known as the modulation envelope. In the acoustical measurement case let I represent the impulse response which is a real function of time and let I 'prime' (since the editor does not support symbolic notation) represent the Hilbert Transform of the impulse response. Let I sub A represent the analytic impulse response.

Then I subA = I + j Iprime

Now consider the quantity

20 log { (sqrt ( I^2 + I prime^2)) / (2 x 10^ -5) =

20 log { |I subA| / 92 x 10^ -5)}

This is the quantity plotted versus time in forming the cure known as the ETC. This is a smoothed (and more complete) version of the impulse squared response.""



And anyone using the term 'energy time curve' hopefully is aware of their use of the term as slang, just as a knowledgeable person may use the term "time alignment" as slang as well - with the full knowledge of what the term actually applies! If not, they are incorrect. Just like the folks who continue to misuse the term 'reverberant sound field" and "time aligned", and more....

And yes, this unknown nobody learned about the concept DIRECTLY from not only Dick Heyser, but also Don Davis, Dr. Eugene Patronis Don Keele and such folks as Dr. Peter D'Antonio, Russ Berger and others who already had years of experience actually using the technique. In addition to studying if formally and then employing it extensively professionally in applied acoustic and optical imaging research* in addition to extensive acoustical analysis and design work - for you see, SOME of us have not only read a book - MANY in fact, formally studied the concepts in MUCH depth, and then actually employed it professionally in a myriad number of applications - most of which far exceeded any of the demands imposed by analyzing a small room!; as well as also using it not only for room analysis and studio, speaker, SR speaker systems, and acoustical space analysis and design, as well as in such applications as the design and optimization of such issues as horn throat design. (You see, it confuses him to think that such concepts might actually be applied as well outside of the 'very advanced'(sic) application of small room analysis!)

So you will pardon me that I am not overly concerned that someone who is amazed that others can indeed agree with MANY of the concepts proposed by Toole and indeed a GREAT many others while finding book report boy's misinterpretations, quotes taken out of context, and other tragically flawed conclusions as you vainly perform word searches for ANYTHING that can be misconstrued to fit your own warped foregone conclusions formed of an almost total ignorance of the greater world of physical acoustics as well as psycho-acoustics. Oh to have the certainty that can only be supported by such a limited understanding of acoustical physics... But then children always seem to think that they have ALL of the ABSOLUTE answers, only to discover as they grow older and become more experienced in the world that such limited world views cannot be so adamantly or absolutely supported....

And as such I find your misrepresentation of Toole - heck, just the fact that YOU claim to SPEAK for Toole, not only hilarious, but abhorrent. And yet you still interpret our resistance as a resistance to TOOLE! You are indeed clueless. In other words, you don't get it! It's not Toole who has proposed a particular response for those desiring a response model for Surround sound that provides maximum envelopment at the expense of a precise accurate image that is the problem. If someone prefers that response, I have absolutely no problem helping them to achieve the mechanical configuration that supports the particular desired psycho-acoustical response. What I object to is YOUR misrepresentation of it, and YOUR presumed role as arbiter of what Toole has said, seeing as how you are utterly ignorance of the work upon which it is based - and this work extends FAR beyond just what Toole says! But then you haven't even a clue as to what i refer - which IS the very crux of the problem.

Sadly, (or fortunately!) you are NOT an acoustician, and you are certainly not an arbiter of things acoustic.

You see, SOME of us are not as erudite as someone else who until 1-2 months ago did not even know what the ETC was, but who read a book where the measure is indirectly mentioned in all of about 5 pages, and then selectively dug up a paper or two - whose message ironically was that the measure IS well founded, despite your incompetent attempts to spin it otherwise.

And I will go on to say that the ETC is BUT ONE of a number of additional measurements about which you are not only utterly clueless, but about which you have absolutely NO IDEA as to how they relate to other more 'popular' responses! And yes, they are all related and they ALL provide difference perspectives of the SAME phenomena while providing an enlargement of our understanding by providing a more expansive accounting of a greater amount of differing but complimentary information about the same behavior.

And meanwhile your entire world view is spent debating the validity of a very well defined mathematical transform of a very well defined topological relationship.

If you only knew about that which you pretend to speak, you would realize that you are arguing the equivalent of the denying the existence of China on the basis that you cannot see it from where you stand. But then Flatlanders, nay, Flat Earthers, commonly waste our time with such illogical perversions.

For the few here who are actually interested in any of this - I suspect that there may be 1-3 somewhere, who are not preoccupied with debating which cable is magic or whether or not one should bi-wire, I will post the Domain Map, from which all of these relationships are defined.


1000


I would go much further and diagram and explain the 3 space behavior first described by Gabor and enlarged by Heyser upon which the symbolic relationships refer which is also extensible to a much greater understanding of impedance that transcends common contextual constraints, but at this point I question what benefit it would deliver to a site still debating what information the ETC even provides (or for that matter, what the acronym ETC even stands for!), let alone of some of the myriad ways it can be used as a tool to aid one's greater understanding of the behavior of a system. As after all, many here are still preoccupied with the literal complaint that the ETC (or any other measurement for that matter...) is somehow supposed to tell you "what to do"!

For anyone not so crippled, if you desire more information, you can PM me. I am always glad to discuss such topics with anyone seriously interested in exploring new territory who is not so crippled as to have already formulated a conclusion based upon ignorance and/or an expectation that a measurement "tells them what to do" without their evaluation and using the information in context to think.


But as far as what our poor book report 'friend'(sic) copies......quite frankly, who cares?..... And I have grown very weary of debating the proverbial fool and being expected to address his myriad misinterpretations presented as fact. The subjects are complex enough presenting them in a correct manner without having to first respond to his perversion of the ideas and to then have to represent them in a coherent manner.

If you want to know what Toole thinks, read the book yourself. And don't stop there, as there is STILL MUCH MORE to learn!


* And for anyone wishing to explore such topics, I would be glad to discuss the research (and applications) privately to the limits allowed by law.
Edited by dragonfyr - 7/29/12 at 12:49pm
post #744 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

First of all, "E" does NOT stand for "energy", but I find it humorous that you are still tilting at that 30 year old windmill.
AES paper:
The Analytic Impulse and the Energy-Time Curve: The Debate Continues
D. B. (Don) KEELE, JR.

AES Paper:
Uses and Abuses of the Energy-Time Curve*
JOHN VANDERKOOY AND STANLEY P. LIPSHITZ**

AES Paper:
USING BASIC ENERGY TIME CURVE (ETC) MEASUREMENTS
Don Davis, Joe Martinson

AES Paper:
Determining the Acoustic Position for Proper Phase Response of Transducers*
RICHARD C. HEYSER
"The amount and phase of this arrival pattern of energy is more accurate displayed in the energy-time curve[3]”

Reference "3" is the original paper where Heyser discussed the concept of ETC:
[3] R. C. Heyser, “Determination of Loudspeaker Signal Arrival Times, Parts I-III,” J. Audio Eng. Society

AES Paper:
Controlling Early Reflections Using Diffusion
JAMES A S ANGUS
"An idealised energy time curve for a room is shown in figure 1"

You were saying?
Quote:
Obviously you are not aware of the other earth shaking discovery that the proper term for the ETC is the ENVELOP Time Curve. A modification made, not by Toole, but by Dr. Patronis and Don Davis MANY years ago, much in the same way that they corrected we early participants in the seminars that the term "time alignment" is improper slang, seeing as how one cannot align time but that we can only align signals with respect to time, hence the proper terminology being "signal alignment".
You are taking tea to China. Look at the term and explanation I used in post 176 of this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

ETC is designed to make the impulse response easier for humans to interpret by filling in the valleys with the "envelop."

Now let's look at how you have been referring to it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

For energy above the Schroeder critical frequency, fc, where energy behavior changes from modal standing waves to focused specular waves, we use the impulse response convolved into the Energy time curve or ETC response
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

You mean aside from the fact that what you have posted is instead a frequency domain spectrogram and not a time domain ETC response that has absolutely nothing to do with that to which we were referring and is even more unusable for identifying and analyzing specular energy characteristics???

Localhost claiming the same:
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

. the ETC is the time-domain measurement for the specular region - to identify how specular energy is impeding the listening position. from the direct signal, to sparse high-gain reflections incident from room boundaries, to later-arriving reflections, to the eventual decay of the energy until it is fully damped. gain with respect to time.

You were saying? smile.gif As I said, the fact that energy is not computed is secondary here anyway. Why you chose to dig this grave deeper with this totally wrong argument is beyond me.
Quote:
And yes, this unknown nobody learned about the concept DIRECTLY from not only Dick Heyser, but also Don Davis, Dr. Eugene Patronis Don Keele and such folks as Dr. Peter D'Antonio, Russ Berger and others who already had years of experience actually using the technique.
"This technique" is what? Comparing reflections from dissimilar material? You yourself conceded in black and white that doing so gets you "whacked data." So are we to believe that these experts say to do that? Of course not. As I said, the problem is that you forget or have convinced yourself otherwise in the name of looking like an expert that it is OK to run the tool in a situation where it shows faulty data. It is not. The math says that. Expert testimony says. Anonymous poster under a gamer alias says that.
post #745 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
As I said, the problem is that you forget or have convinced yourself otherwise in the name of looking like an expert that it is OK to run the tool in a situation where it shows faulty data.
Stop repeating misinformation.
post #746 of 871
The Energy Time Curve as it was originally referred has indeed been changed to the Envelope Time Curve. And at least several of the people you selectively quote- erroneously thinking that they have in any way invalidated the use of the ETC - agree.

But then, again you have no idea as to exactly WHAT the ETC shows! And instead you think that debating but one of many methods of many by which the data is derived is sufficient to discredit the entire relational response.

This is like claiming that the fuzz on a tennis ball tossed into the air causing slight deviation from an assumed ideal behavior due to air resistance invalidates a demonstration of the concept of gravity. The act is, you neither understand the larger concept, and most certainly not the technicality cited in a real, as opposed to ideal electronic circuit. the larger fact is that Keele not only acknowledged the small deviation from ideal of one particular manner of convolving the response (never questioning the ideal response at all!) and yet affirmed that it was still accurate enough for practical use.

And it is humorous, and sad, to repeatedly listen to someone quote an erroneously applied procedure resulting in data that cannot be directly compared and attribute the operator error to the response that if properly applied would indeed be very comparable and useful. You illustrate the proverbial fool who upon hitting his thumb with the hammer repeats the demonstration over and over as if to prove the flaw you imagine to be fundamental to the hammer!

Bill Engvall has a sign all ready for you....

The larger fact of the Keele paper is one that you selectively ignore as it is one that you utterly fail to comprehend.

And at least a few who understand the concept properly not only understand this but understand why. So it is no wonder that you continue to be confused by this and so many other things. Especially as you are limited to word searches for your non-contextual 'data' that you desperately cherry pick for anything to support your foregone conclusions' lacking any personal understanding of the referenced concepts.But hey, who are we to question a scholar who has read a BOOK and attended a 2 day class covering the book.

I bet some here actually attended driver's ed, but I doubt many of them are so stupid as to claim that it was sufficient to be able to claim to design a car from first principles. Unlike yourself.

And yet you fails to quote:
"I have grown very weary of debating the proverbial fool and being expected to address his myriad misinterpretations presented as fact. The subjects are complex enough presenting them in a correct manner without having to first respond to his perversion of the ideas and to then have to represent them in a coherent manner."

A fool is one who does not recognize the limits of his knowledge.
And at that you excel.

Unfortunately, I am not allowed to express what I REALLY think of you and your repeated perversions of concepts about which you have little to no actual understanding. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
Edited by dragonfyr - 7/29/12 at 2:41pm
post #747 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Localhost claiming the same:
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 
the ETC is the time-domain measurement for the specular region - to identify how specular energy is impeding the listening position. from the direct signal, to sparse high-gain reflections incident from room boundaries, to later-arriving reflections, to the eventual decay of the energy until it is fully damped. gain with respect to time.

are you high?

..."to identify how specular envelope is impeding the listening position". good lord.

get a clue. you didn't even know what the x-axis on the ETC represents until this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
I have said and I will repeat again: ETC can have uses in the hands of someone skilled who knows how it can misfire.

^
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
AVS community members who are interested in enhancing the sound in their rooms have no reason to use it. Experienced or otherwise

rolleyes.gif
post #748 of 871
quick, someone sell me a 12pack of auralex t'fusors so it looks like i know what i'm talking about!

amir, you sell t'fusors, yes? they look darling in your company's showroom.
post #749 of 871
The really tragic aspect of this thread is that he still thinks we are somehow debating Toole's ideas! rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Local, one might wonder why, in a room dominated by absorption sufficient to mitigate ANY flutter echo, one would have a problem with FLUTTER echo sufficient to need the anything but broadband diffusion effective only against higher frequency flutter echo? Now THAT'S Marketing!

And one wonders how the old saw about selling refrigerators to the Eskimos originated!


wink.gifwink.gifwink.gif
post #750 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

The Energy Time Curve as it was originally referred has indeed been changed to the Envelope Time Curve.

if he actually had any insight as to the topic he would know this.

a perfect case of which the reliance on copy-paste keyword searches does not constitute an authority on the subject.
he has zero experience here. all he is able to do is copy-paste parrot via the words of others.


do you think he'll actually get around to detailing me how he can determine localization, imaging, intelligibility, etc from the frequency-response - as he states? the silence is deafening!
he attempted to "explain" it to me a few posts back, but did so without even using the words localization, imaging, and intelligibility - and instead went off on a tangent on comb-filtering.

LOL. his diversions and lack of response to direct questions speaks volumes about his lack of experience. and i personally think he has childhood daddy complex issues with respect to toole. how many lunches does it take before one is authorized to speak directly for toole? he's almost filled his punchcard; he's about due for a freebee.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Does sound sounds better in a room full of furniture and stuff or without ?