Originally Posted by omholt
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:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr
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:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr
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.”
Edit: fixed the spelling error. Too hungry for lunch. Edited by amirm - 8/2/12 at 12:34pm