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 28

post #811 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I think part of the problem is an apparent lack of hands-on experience.
Arny I asked a question in which you have hands-on experience. Dragon has repeatedly put down listening tests as "surveys and polls" 'not to be used as basis of what we believe in audio. Do you believe that is the correct assessment of the value of listening tests? I have asked this question repeatedly. You have made a career highlighting values of such tests over other ways of evaluating equipment performance. Why are you silent on this issue leaving me as the only one defending their value?
post #812 of 871
Book report boy, again you are a bold faced liar.

I have absolutely NO objection to listening, and no one I have ever known has ever denigrated listening - in fact it has ALWAYS been the ultimate arbiter - unlike your BS claims.

I object to your fascist dictatorial use of listening surveys where you then use them as a club to tell everyone that they must forego their own listening experience and capitulate to your interpretation.

So how about dropping the blatant misrepresentation predicated upon the fact that you have nothing more to base your opinions than having read a book and having experienced an epiphany as you have become a lame Paul to your savior Toole.

Not only do you painfully misrepresent Toole, but you cannot even characterize what I have said correctly with your lame one trick pony paraphrasing that makes a mockery of everything you claim to represent.



And that is all in addition to the other thing that IS readily apparent to all: Your utter lack of any practical experience.

Sadly you are but a poor parody of Tudor (Tooter) Turtle - the hapless wannabe who, like yourself, always gets into trouble and has to call on "Mr. Wizard" to save his scrawny posterior.



Heaven forbid our hapless reader of A book ever watches Family Feud on television, As he will be citing their surveys and demanding we adopt the same worldview as those participants!

.
Edited by dragonfyr - 8/2/12 at 9:07am
post #813 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

I object to your fascist dictatorial use of listening surveys where you then use them as a club to tell everyone that they must forego their own listening experience and capitulate to your interpretation.
I like to ask again if I may, for Arny to comment on this. Arny?
Quote:
Not only do you painfully misrepresent Toole, but you cannot even characterize what I have said correctly with your lame one trick pony paraphrasing that makes a mockery of everything you claim to represent.
I ask again then: do you think Dr. Toole agrees with your use of ETC?
post #814 of 871
Mr. Wizard! Mr. Wizard! Help me Mr. Wizard!
post #815 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by omholt View Post

It's also ironic that on one hand Toole talks about thin absorption that alters the spectral content and should be avoided and on the other hand he advices the use of shallow diffusors. Where's the logic in that?

+1

and nevermind the fact that the bandwidth is reduced even further with the reflection phase gratings mounted in that fashion such that the ingress signals are non-normal incidence.

or their use of 'single' polys...

you'll notice you continue to see anyone more than a select few actually comprehending the fact that there are other means to attenuation of an indirect specular reflection without resorting to broadband absorption or other highly lossy 'treatments' wink.giftongue.gif
post #816 of 871
Actually, Toole on p. 504 of his book recommends:

"If one chooses to eliminate the reflection, one look at Figure 21.9 should be enough evidence that much more than 2-in. (50 mm) panels are necessary. If absorption is chosen, all of the sound down to 200–300 Hz should be absorbed.If only part is absorbed, then the performance of the loudspeakers is compromised, and some of the reflection remains; there is just no point. Doing it correctly requires not less than 3–4 in. (76–101 mm) of depth...

To reduce the level of the reflection, use diffusers. Like absorbers, to be effective at lower frequencies, they need to be thick. Even properly engineered surfaces may need to be about 8 inches (0.2 m) thick."



And one should note that "8 inches" is a general minimum for such diffusers to function in an effectively broadband manner with sufficient low frequency extension. In addition, the actual thickness is a function of the material characteristics and of the particular design, so Toole's figures should be taken only as a guideline while the actual material and design configuration will determine the actual dimensions affording effectiveness. And Toole's figures tend to be slightly low approximations.

A fact that is obviously lost on those who only write book reports while being unfamiliar with the behavioral and design concepts of Schroeder diffusors, as he repeatedly posts his room that violates just about all of Toole's precepts.
Edited by dragonfyr - 8/2/12 at 10:55am
post #817 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Arny I asked a question in which you have hands-on experience. Dragon has repeatedly put down listening tests as "surveys and polls" 'not to be used as basis of what we believe in audio. Do you believe that is the correct assessment of the value of listening tests?

Depends on the listening test.

The alleged listening tests commonly found in audio's high end often fail to conform to the dictionary meaning of the world test. They are usually falsified before they even start taking data!

Evaluations of rooms and speakers generally involve differences that are generally huge as compared to those encountered with electronics.

For subtle differences it appears to be very difficult or impossible to train listeners to be unbiased. However, when the differences are large enough, it appears to be possible to train effective listeners.
post #818 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Depends on the listening test.
Take that of your partner Clark's listening test into the validity of time and frequency domain measurements with respect to human perception of room acoustics/comb filtering. Is that a survey and a poll to be discarded or valued?
Quote:
The alleged listening tests commonly found in audio's high end often fail to conform to the dictionary meaning of the world test. They are usually falsified before they even start taking data!
Thankfully no one here is talking about "high end" tests whatever that may mean. It is listening tests published in the journal of AES and ASA.
Quote:
Evaluations of rooms and speakers generally involve differences that are generally huge as compared to those encountered with electronics.
That is not a topic being discussed.
Quote:
For subtle differences it appears to be very difficult or impossible to train listeners to be unbiased. However, when the differences are large enough, it appears to be possible to train effective listeners.
That is not a topic being discussed either.
post #819 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Take that of your partner Clark's listening test into the validity of time and frequency domain measurements with respect to human perception of room acoustics/comb filtering. Is that a survey and a poll to be discarded or valued?

No citations, no recollections.

Clark isn't my business partner today or for several decades, just an old friend.
post #820 of 871
Arny, are you an acoustician?
post #821 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

No citations, no recollections.
So you have not read the thread yet are full of conclusions about my conduct? Here it is: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1413173/does-sound-sounds-better-in-a-room-full-of-furniture-and-stuff-or-without/330#post_22193639
Quote:
Clark isn't my business partner today or for several decades, just an old friend.
Interesting. Just a week or two ago you were bragging about him being your business partner to bolster your case:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&p=1787111&viewfull=1#post1787111

"I have known Lipshitz and Vanderkooy personally for decades, have sat with them in DBTs whose results they subsequently published in the JAES, and they think no such thing, and engage in no such practices.
[....]
Clark's (Clark is a decades-long personal friend, one time business partner, AES Fellow and past AES national officer, a highly -respected and internationally known audio expert) primary tool for listener training is a collection of music from regular commercial soruces, much highly appreciated by other listening test advocates both sighted and blind, that is known as the LTT. "


Is he all of that or just a guy who is no longer your partner and just an old friend?
post #822 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by omholt View Post

Your questions were actually answered vey early in this thread, either you didn't read the answers properly or you didn't understand it. Your continued example with the carpet is an example and it becomes quite meaningless to repeat the same thing over and over again when it's been refuted many times. Toole hasn't brought anything new here. What he proposed has been well known for many years and was therefore received by a yawn, as dragonfyr puts it, by the acoustic community. The problem is that you don't seem to grasp this and you are also totally misinterpreting Toole in many ways. Many of the question you ask are simply wrong questions or shows that you miss the basic understanding. To debate with someone who doesn't understand the ABC becomes meaningless. You seriously need to start to read something else then Toole. Maybe then you will understand why so many here get frustated by your comments. Quite honestly, it's becoming embarrasing not only for yourself but also for your company. There's nothing wrong with lacking knowledge, but there's a problem when one believes he knows what he's talking about, but actually he's rather clueless and debates constantly on wrong premises agains people who on the contrary know their subject. You're the one that should pay attention to what dragonfyr says and ask in order to learn, not the other way around. Your head is stuck in misinterpretation of Toole and also in Toole's doubtful "new info". Read something else!
That’s an interesting answer on multiple fronts. First and foremost, I asked a simple question of whether your stance on ETC is in agreement with Dr. Toole. That answer would be devoid of who I am and what I have said. You either know what Dr. Toole has said or not. If you do then it is simple to say you agree or disagree. If you don’t, then you can’t be in a position to keep saying that my interpretation is wrong. You need to go and read his work and research and then come back and demonstrate that.

You say you are frustrated by my posts. I apologize for that. It is not my goal to frustrate anyone. I simply enjoy discussing the science of audio. When that discussion goes counter to other poster’s beliefs, or when the poster just doesn’t like me, it is bound to create frustration. I wish there was a way to avoid it but it is the nature of humans to react as you do. Your implied response that I should accept your summary point of view though is a non-starter. In a court trial, you don’t defend your client by turning to the opposing lawyer and say he doesn’t know the law! You focus on the facts of your case and let that speak to you being a better lawyer.

While you did not answer my question directly, you seem to imply that Dr. Toole is wrong. Sadly you do so with faulty recollection and assumptions that simply are not reliable. Take your recount of carpet as it relates to Dr. Toole. His research as I cited there was not about the carpet but had to do with use of a 2 inch absorber. He showed that in frequency response domain it reflected what the subjects heard in the listening tests (i.e. barely audible reflection in both instances – a wall or the absorber). But the ETC display showed 20 dB differential and in the wrong direction! You instead say that point had something to do with the carpet. This, despite the fact that I have repeated that research multiple times. Sad conclusion is that it appears you have not read the original research or my summary of it here.

As your proof point you are relying on Dragon saying the research was received with a yawn. Who says? An anonymous poster who routinely resorts to derogatory and exaggerated terms as a substitute for technical answers? If there was such a cool reception, why is there no evidence provided for it? Letters to Journal of AES would have been a good start. People write and complain if you write papers that don’t rise up to the standard. Here is that reference: ”Olive, S.E., and Toole, F.E. (1989a). “The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., 37, pp. 539–553” Is it your position that the Journal peer review let in something that would be received as a “yawn?”

Of course not. That paper is an incredible review of the science of room reflections and speaker performance. It was updated and republished years later with the same conclusions. To say its research was received as a “yawn” is absurd and shows that Dragon had not even bothered to note the title of that research let alone be aware of its history years ago.

You talk about me frustrating you. How much frustration does Dragon cause with posts like this to Bigus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Yeah, and it is available where? Look bigus toolus, the qualification regarding both minimum phase systems was mentioned how many times? I'm tired of ms. congeniality constantly following me around like one other lost puppy dog some may know and trying to make points that simply do not exist had someone actually bothered to read the entire post for meaning. I am tired of this. blah blah blah. More social commentary from one who has yet to offer any contribution to the subject of acoustics. But just as with acoustics, don't let facts confuse you! ...But just keep repeating the Big Lie as you posture as Mr. Congeniality. What would be a radical change would be if you spent just one fraction of the time you spend sanctimoniously criticizing others delivery and actually attempted to pursue some of the information that has been presented that you claim to want so badly. JUST ONCE.

Or this to Arny:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Its not up to me to convince you. I really don't care what what you fantasize. I merely have to mention the actual basis by which such behavior is gauged. Maybe you can find a grade schooler who can help you navigate the scary library sufficient to access the reference desk in order to obtain the book via the inter-libary loan program without having to pay the money that others have had to in order to become more familiar with concepts about which you are obviously not familiar - and whom did not whine that it is others responsibility to read and learn for them.

LOL! Actually, you are wrong once again as I have made no recent reference to any of the models or to the actual researchers who have done the original research.

And here you sit on your posterior whining that others have not done YOUR due diligence that you now demand of them while absolving yourself of any and all responsibility, the least of which is to even discover the pertinence of a concept. But its cute to see that you are now reduced to personal attacks devoid of any reference to any acoustical concepts. You're done.
The only thing worse than him saying such things is the few of you copying his debating tactics. “Oh, you don’t know the ABCs of acoustics.” Why not demonstrate that with your science of audio? Why the need to talk like Dragon? Look at my response to you and yours back to me. I quoted research, dug into the topic, and did not focus on you personally. Why do you feel the urge to do otherwise? Is your technical answer that weak as to require this kind of "boost?" And do you think the observers take it as such?

You said that your views were formed due to comments from Earl regarding Dr. Toole. Here is what he has said about his book: "His book is excellent and the only place where Floyd and I disgree is in the first 10 ms. Other than that we are completely on the same page."

We see how flowery his endorsement of Dr. Toole’s book he is other than the one area? And your reaction was the “yawn” comment? Really? You call this objective debating of the points?

You say I have not bothered to read anything but Dr. Toole’s book. How did I manage to quote the work of 17+ other experts in this thread? You don’t think I have researched and read a ton of research papers in that area? All of those AES papers cited were imaginary? Who just explained Earl’s position, content of his white paper, etc.? You brought up his name yet it was me who gave that information. How did I know all of that? Because Earl used to be an invited expert on our forum and I would read all of his posts. And had read all of his white papers prior to that. In that regard, I am not smarter than you but simply better situated as far as access to industry experts.

To wit, I contacted Dr. Toole to get his reaction to statement Earl had made. This is his kind reply I have permission to post: ” I think it is sufficient to say that there is no known record of experimental results of controlled listening tests or of in-room measurements supporting that point of view. “If you go back and read my reply you see that I said the same thing before I received Dr. Toole’s response. That Earl doesn’t provide backup data to his statements there. If he does, I would be happy to review it as would Dr. Toole.

So you see, I am fortunate enough based on my industry credentials, past relationships and ability to hold an intelligent conversation in this area and be a good student, to get information that is otherwise hard if not impossible for forum members to get. What I am trying to do share what I have learned. You stomping your feet and insisting on conclusions not supported by anything you have said specifically is neither here nor there. In the case of ETC alone, I have shown extensively with mathematical explanation, proof points, listening tests, expert testimony, etc. that what it reports is faulty. It doesn’t get any simpler than what I quoted to you from Dr. Toole. Your own expert witness, Dragon, said that you have to be an idiot to not believe that surfaces that do anything to modify the frequency response generate meaningless and “whacky” data as he called it. Yet you chime in to say that just because you heard people using the tool in acoustic circles all of this must be wrong? Really? That is the proof point? Some unknown number of people using some tool overrides what it really does and what the math and science says?

Anyway, if you wish you keep arguing me instead of the science of audio, I can’t stop you. My wish in return is that you don’t stay there because doing so just raises the noise floor of the forum. It does nothing to advance the technical discussion. No one is waking up tomorrow knowing more about how to optimize your room because they read what you post. As the line in the movie Contact goes, ”that, continues to be my wish.” smile.gif

Edit: fixed the spelling error. Too hungry for lunch. smile.gif
Edited by amirm - 8/2/12 at 12:34pm
post #823 of 871
Unbelievable nonsense.

Unfortunately that is exactly the sum to which his ramblings total.

The irony is that even what he calls failed ETC results describing the reflections off surfaces of varying acoustical impedance are INDEED CORRECT! They simply need to be normalized in order to be compared.

Where one is not trying to measure a bounded space with non-broadband treatment, no such normalization is necessary and the results can be compared. This along with a larger knowledge of acoustical room response models and of the mechanics of acoustical physics, and one should have sufficient understanding to objectively create a n environment that will subjectively stimulate the psycho-acoustic response desired.one should have

But book report boy is still hung up that if one starts with an INCORRECTLY treated space, that the results will NATURALLY reflect (pun intended) the nature of the improper non-broadband treatment.

And unless one is as willfully ignorant as he is, one can actually use that ETC information to gain a functional knowledge of how the non-broadband (or broadband for that matter) treatment functions in both the time AND frequency domains.

Pretty amazing for a technique that he continues to insist is useless. And it indeed is useless to someone so clueless and unaware of acoustical physics - and physics in general.

So, the bottom line is, If you choose to not follow best practices and begin with a baseline evaluation of a bounded space, and then proceed to employ appropriate broadband treatments in order to develop an acoustical response system,whereby normalization of ETC results are not required; but instead choose to start with an already treated room with treatments that are not broadband and that effectively EQ and color the indirect signal, then you use bandwidth limited ETCs to identify the degree of corruption of the indirect signals resulting from the effective EQing of the incident direct signal. And, if you want to do things the hard way, you can use the normalized measurements. Or, you can simply remove the inappropriate treatments and replace them with the proper appropriately designed and functioning broadband treatment.

But doing things right is never an option for the writer of A book report who, after hearing of someone proceeding INCORRECTLY and making a MISTAKE, assumes that the only way to do this is the MISTAKEN way. Interestingly, he learns the MISTAKEN procedure in just a moment - to the utter exclusion of learning from others mistakes to simply avoid the mistakes and to do things following a best practices proper procedure that would either eliminate the mistake, or at last resort, correct for it..

And to add insult to injury, he then deflects every objection to his own inaccurate BS as being a disagreement with Toole! rolleyes.gif

So you guys have fun. Reason and logic are pointless when arguing with a zealot. And that is exactly what he is. One who perverts the message of the one he claims to follow while demonstrating an uncanny ability to spin and skew evidence in whatever manner is necessary to prove that he is absolutely correct in every respect. And he lacks the discipline and the emotional maturity to accept that not only is the reflection rich environment NOT the only acceptable or preferred acoustical environment, but he lacks the knowledge to even represent that which he champions accurately.


.
Edited by dragonfyr - 8/2/12 at 1:05pm
post #824 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 

You said that your views were formed due to comments from Earl regarding Dr. Toole. Here is what he has said about his book:

"His book is excellent and the only place where Floyd and I disgree is in the first 10 ms. Other than that we are completely on the same page."

We see how flowery his endorsement of Dr. Toole’s book he is other than the one area?

Well, since the topic of conversation for the last 20+ pages has been how to deal with floor, ceiling and sidewall reflections, which in normal size listening rooms occur in the first 10ms, I would hardly call the Geddes quotation a flowery endorsement of Toole's position.
 
Edited by audiophilesavant - 8/2/12 at 2:24pm
post #825 of 871
Amir-

I have lost respect for you. It does no good to tell you why as you will just manipulate.

Randy
post #826 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

Amir-
I have lost respect for you. It does no good to tell you why as you will just manipulate.
Randy
So you think this saves you from manipulation? Thats what i call wishful thinking.

You already gave him more than enough ammunition!
post #827 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

So you think this saves you from manipulation? Thats what i call wishful thinking.
You already gave him more than enough ammunition!
No, I am just not interested in his views. Nothing wishful about it.
post #828 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

Well, since the topic of conversation for the last 20+ pages has been how to deal with floor, ceiling and sidewall reflections, which in normal size listening rooms occur in the first 10ms, I would hardly call the Geddes quotation a flowery endorsement of Toole's position.
 
Tool's position? I said Toole's book. On his position, I gave you Dr. Toole's answer. You need something better, you are on your own.
post #829 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

Amir-
I have lost respect for you. It does no good to tell you why as you will just manipulate.
Randy
Well, for me, it is never personal so you are not going get me to think of you the same way. While I know you disagree with me on my audio views, I value the fact that you are polite and cordial. Sadly you just left that attribute behind with this post.

I trust you at least feel something got done by me asking Dr. Toole to comment on Earl's post. If that is your reason for saying what you just did, I encourage you to ask Dr. Toole the same question when you take his class. I suspect once you do, you will reconsider what you just said smile.gif.
post #830 of 871
Personal? Like you being unable to resist posting irrelevant out of context old quotes once again for no good reason (passive aggressive character assassination and your elation at seeing someone else called names does not count)?

BTW, please stop spreading misinformation about measurement tools. You proved no such things as you claimed to have a few posts ago (can't quote it as your post crashes tapatalk). I will continue reporting posts in which you spread damaging lies.
post #831 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

Amir-

I have lost respect for you. It does no good to tell you why as you will just manipulate.

Randy
You increased my respect due to the polite and cordial way you were able to make this statement. I am not always able to prevent myself from being dragged into the mud.
post #832 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

BTW, please stop spreading misinformation about measurement tools. You proved no such things as you claimed to have a few posts ago (can't quote it as your post crashes tapatalk). I will continue reporting posts in which you spread damaging lies.
Here is the response to you from the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

His absorption panels are fairly broadband being 8-12" thick, and thus the differences in broadband ETC measurements as a result if differing spectral content is minimized.
Minimized how? Where do you have the frequency dependent absorption of his diffuser? Here it is for an RPG product:

i-TTDmMvK-X2.png

How does that compare to his naked wall, carpet, a thick absorber, etc? He has a 4 inch absrober distanced from the wall on the corners. Here is a rough simulation of that:

i-GXX8zzp-X2.png

You think this product and the diffuser filter the direct sound spectrum the same because they are both "broadband?" They are not the same of course and as such you have no idea how far off the values are. You are shooting blind and with both feet tied smile.gif.

Again my apology to OP if he wants to continue down this path. I have explained all of this in the other thread and hate to repeat them again here. smile.gif

This was your answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Please stop spreading misinformation.
You can. Please stop spreading misinformation.
This is not what the research shows.
You cannot.
Yes, you do.
Protests and stomping your feet is not a technical answer. Show how those two surfaces do not filter the reflection differently.

Then when you are done explain this graph from OP in that thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post

I do think the spectral content is important, so here are 200us smoothed 1 octave ETC's
Blue = 4.2k
Green = 2.6k
Yellow = 1.6k
Orange = 1k
Red = 668hz

At the 11.6ms ISD terminatiion, all the frequencies are present and at the same magnitude. This I think is good smile.gif
This unfortunately isnt the case across the entire time domain. Not sure how much I can fix that, but this is my next area to look at.

He goes on to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim19611961 View Post


Looking at the area I have circled in orange, this is the floor area between the listener and the speaker. I have carpeted floors and this is just the kind of response you would expect from carpet. Muted highs and less lower midrange attenuation. The blue circled area is the side wall reflection where I have 12" deep R19. See how much closer together everything is?
You can look all over this plot and see where it seems that carpet is the primary reflection surface. In other areas, where the different 1 octave plots converge, it seems obvious this is a broadband absorption or diffusion panel reflection.

I mentioned that the carpet would change the spectrum and it indeed has. At the 4 msec point, the difference shown is a whopping ~20 dB between 4.2 K filtering and 0.6 K filtering! Still think you can trust your broadband measurement as being reliable? Being off by 20 dB is no big deal in full scale that is hardly larger than that? Even in the case of 12 inches of absorption, fails to give identical response. Look at the one spot where all the responses converge -- likely a bare wall. You think you can compare the response at that point to the carpet? Or the 12 inches of absorption? Why don't you point to where his diffiusion is?

Let's say you succeed in explaining all of this. Then what? OP is already telling us what is what. He knows he has a floor reflection. He knows he has a reflection from where he had put his absorption. What matters then is not some number telling us what our eyes and simple geometry tools tell us but what the treatment strategy should be. There, we can use the science of pyschacoustics and listening tests that tell us what matters. And in the case of floor reflections what matters is mid to high frequencies. Therefore, despite all the concern the graph raises in his mind in that region, the carpet had done the job of taking care of the negative effect. Likewise it matters not what the dial is telling you for the sidewall reflection through that 12 inches of absorption. We know the effect of that type of treatment irrespective of what value this tool shows.

Once you make these decisions, what is the point of further chasing a graph? You can see where the thread ended: nowhere. Ironically that is the right place to be! There is nothing you would want to do with that data. The decisions of what to do was done well in advance of that with material and treatment positions he had selected.

You want to keep stomping your feet do. But at the end of the day none of that matters unless you can perform this type of analysis and help OP there. I promised him that I would not post there anymore. What was your excuse for having no other suggestions for him?
post #833 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Personal? Like you being unable to resist posting irrelevant out of context old quotes once again for no good reason (passive aggressive character assassination and your elation at seeing someone else called names does not count)?
What??? I was being sympathetic to your plight there. I was showing that if omholt cared about people's feelings/frustrations the last person he should be backing is Dragon. I quoted those posts to show how painful he can be in this regard and the oddness of omholt copying him just the same by claiming I am clueless just the same. I am genuinely sorry if you read that as another jab at you. It was not my intention at all. Please re-read it again with this context and you will hopefully see what I mean.

I do wish at some point that you explain how he went from a position on ETC that infuriated Dragon to write those things to you, to where you are now as the staunch supporter. You don't have to of course but it is puzzling to me.
post #834 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arny 
Evaluations of rooms and speakers generally involve differences that are generally huge as compared to those encountered with electronics.
That is not a topic being discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arny 
For subtle differences it appears to be very difficult or impossible to train listeners to be unbiased. However, when the differences are large enough, it appears to be possible to train effective listeners.
That is not a topic being discussed either.
Interesting. You had no problem dragging up our months old debate about blind testing of speakers which was certainly no more relevant to that discussion than arny's above comments are here.
post #835 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
What??? I was being sympathetic to your plight there.
I think I've made my opinion of your repeated quoting of out of context irrelevant to the current technical discussion comments from one poster to another, neither involving you, quite clear. I hope others forgive me for being skeptical of your claim to have done it once again for my benefit. If I did this to you repeatedly, I seriously doubt you would view it in that way. Should I test my theory by posting comments from dragon made about/to you multiple times in multiple threads when the comments have nothing to do with the current discussion?

Quote:
I am genuinely sorry if you read that as another jab at you. It was not my intention at all.
I appreciate your apology. I really do. Actions speak much louder than words however.

Quote:
I do wish at some point that you explain how he went from a position on ETC that infuriated Dragon to write those things to you, to where you are now as the staunch supporter. You don't have to of course but it is puzzling to me.
Amir, based on your extensive posting history it is obvious that this is a concept entirely foreign to you, but I don't speak for others. I don't pretend to know how dragon works, what he thinks, or why. And it really doesn't matter to me. If it continues to puzzle you, ask him. I'll even overlook you posting his old comments once again if you must.
post #836 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
Here is the response to you from the other thread:
Quote:
Minimized how? Where do you have the frequency dependent absorption of his diffuser? Here it is for an RPG product:

i-TTDmMvK-X2.png

How does that compare to his naked wall, carpet, a thick absorber, etc? He has a 4 inch absrober distanced from the wall on the corners. Here is a rough simulation of that:

i-GXX8zzp-X2.png

You think this product and the diffuser filter the direct sound spectrum the same because they are both "broadband?" They are not the same of course and as such you have no idea how far off the values are. You are shooting blind and with both feet tied smile.gif.

Again my apology to OP if he wants to continue down this path. I have explained all of this in the other thread and hate to repeat them again here. smile.gif

This was your answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Please stop spreading misinformation.
You can. Please stop spreading misinformation.
This is not what the research shows.
You cannot.
Yes, you do.

Amir, I've endured and complained about your manipulative quoting and rewording of others posts countless times in the past, but this is enough. Please edit your post to reflect the true discourse as it occurred. My short comments were in direct response to specific statements you made, each quoted directly above my comment, and they WERE NOT in response to the stuff you posted above. Fix this, or I will report you and continue to do so.
Quote:
Protests and stomping your feet is not a technical answer.
Amir, it is clear you do not wish to learn anything new, and I have given up hope of you doing so. I didn't have the fortitude to post another technical rebuttal, yet again. I have done so multiple times and you ignored it, literally, as in failed to even respond to the majority of questions asked in return. I can continue though to remind you that spreading mistruths is damaging, and report them as such.
Quote:
Show how those two surfaces do not filter the reflection differently.

Then when you are done explain this graph from OP in that thread:
Sigh. More demands, more deflections. Anyone else however laughing at the irony in this latest post for Amir? Using ETC data to detail the differences in surface filtering behavior and resultant differences in reflected energy spectra, somehow in defense of his claim that ETC data is faulty because it can't account for differing surfaces? biggrin.gif
Quote:
Still think you can trust your broadband measurement as being reliable?
Used correctly in the appropriate circumstances, sure.
Quote:
Why don't you point to where his diffiusion is?
You do ask some strange questions, Amir. These questions reveal your poor insight into the higher level purpose of the tool. i.e., you don't understand the integrated process of either developing or modifying a listening space, nor the corresponding role various tools might play in that process. This question is no different than me posting a frequency response and asking you to point to the crossover frequency. Even if you managed such a feat, what is accomplished? What knowledge is gained that you didn't already have (you know the crossover point)? However, if you know the crossover point you may use a frequency response to help investigate what is happening as a result of its existence. It may provide insight into how small changes in the crossover affect the overall response. And while you might claim (and with some merit) that how it sounds is the ultimate arbiter, we all know that bias is pervasive and such small changes may be lost in the sea of perceptual influences. Having objective data that can be interpreted through the understanding of decades of research into how we perceive sounding coming from that direction, timing, gain, and spectrum might prove useful. But not to you of course. You can look around a room and immediately know all of that.
Quote:
Likewise it matters not what the dial is telling you for the sidewall reflection through that 12 inches of absorption. We know the effect of that type of treatment irrespective of what value this tool shows.
We do? You do?? Because you know it is 12" and on a sidewall where lateral reflections originate? Interesting. And 20 square feet is the same as 1 square foot? And if you move 1 sq ft of treatment a couple of inches up, down, left or right, those are all equivalent? And to moving it a couple of feet? What if you wanted to put the least amount of absorption necessary in order to preserve maximal energy in the room? You can determine that with your eyes and ears? Honestly, I'm not sure why I bothered asking again.
Quote:
I promised him that I would not post there anymore. What was your excuse for having no other suggestions for him?
For one, I honestly didn't realize more posts had been made. The thread fell off my first page without my seeing the additional replies. But more than that, I'm not going to make guesses as to what might help based on the limited data posted there. A few things can be said, and were. Going further is like trying to respond to your challenge devoid of required context and other data. He posted a rendering of the room, which helps, but many more question need to be asked and answered. Dragon spent a lot of time privately discussing his specific room, and I presume that information was exchanged. I have no illusion that my practical experience with ETC is greater than dragon's, so I don't believe my engaging in such a detailed exchange is likely to provide better or more correct advice than what was already offered.
post #837 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I have no illusion that my practical experience with ETC is greater than dragon's, so I don't believe my engaging in such a detailed exchange is likely to provide better or more correct advice than what was already offered.
That is true here also, no? He is not helpless here but full of ideas there. As you say he clearly has a better handle on this topic than you do. He is not shy about posting about it. And he is far funnier and more creative with insults than the rest of you smile.gif. OK, Arny beat him with you all washing his dirty hands but other than that, he wins. biggrin.gif

Can I count on you doing that moving forward? Let him lead please. I know secretly he cringes half the time reading you all's version of his views.....
post #838 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm 
That is true here also, no? He is not helpless here but full of ideas there. As you say he clearly has a better handle on this topic than you do.
Interesting new tactic you're auditioning here. Gotta give you credit for that at least. An obvious difference of course is that you aren't seeking advice, you are repeating misinformation. In that context I think additional members pointing out such is in fact useful. And to that end, what is relevant is that I clearly have a better handle on this topic than you.
post #839 of 871
p.s., "as you say" is not what I said. Can you not make it a single post without misquoting someone or mischaracterizing their comments? While this example is rather benign, the above one is not, and I will give you some time to correct it before reporting it.
post #840 of 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Interesting new tactic you're auditioning here. Gotta give you credit for that at least. An obvious difference of course is that you aren't seeking advice, you are repeating misinformation.
I am repeating this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Toole 
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.”

Can you explain what it is about this direct quote that is misinformation?

Also, if we had Dr. Toole examine your hypothetical room and answer your questions, would you say that he would or would not be using ETC?

Can you point to any ETCs that have you shared on this forum and analysis of the same? I know you say you don't have a measurement mic. But you did have one at some point. Yes? Which program did you use to generate ETC?

Do you own a copy of Dr. Toole's book and had read the above passages?
Quote:
In that context I think additional members pointing out such is in fact useful. And to that end, what is relevant is that I clearly have a better handle on this topic than you.
You get the opportunity to demonstrate that above.
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 ?