Originally Posted by amirm
As I post from the Dr. D'Antonio presentation slide, they commissioned perceptual tests of that room. Yet, I have seen no published results. Maybe they are having a hard time because said diffusers now have curtains in front of them!
Heck, we don't even have measurements anymore of that room with said curtains. So there is really no "there there" anymore.
Blackbird is considered to be the finest example of the reflection rich environment in existence. PERIOD.
It was designed to be such and the results were indeed achieved!
And yes, SOME of us, to the notable exception of the one who seems to do the most talking, have indeed heard it. And it works VERY WELL INDEED for a reflection rich environment. Ironically it seems that ever he who does so much talking has even been able, through searches, to cut and paste George Massenburg's comments to that effect.
And apparently (apparently???) our learned friend who has invested "several days" becoming familiar with this 'stuff' is not familiar with the best practices proof of performance procedure and how Peter D'Antonio and others of his caliber operate. ...As if they would simply declare it finished as soon as the polyurethane dried and walk off. One really could have benefited substantially by allocating 1 or 2 more days to the effort...
But as is so common here, the original intent of the room has, BY VIRTUE OF THE PREFERENCES OF THOSE USING THE ROOM, been effectively rejected. Toole's proffered response that we are told is SO completely preferred , not by a unanimous tally, but by a majority of listeners, has been REJECTED by the trained ears of both engineers and performers operating in the room and effectively converted to a quasi-LEDE response by the conversion of the lateral diffusors to absorbers by the application of blankets placed over the diffusors (and if one are not familiar with this technique of using quadratic diffusors as absorbers, please read chapter 9 of Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusors and spare us the repeated astonishment at how such devices operate).
Apparently what most confuses our friend is that - instead of generating panels and surveys and all sorts of listening preference survey results in order to support their preference, that the professionals have simply covered the diffusors, converted them to absorbers, and then upon listening decided they prefer the response - all without setting up panels and surveys boards and conducting formal listening tests. In stead they have had the unmitigated audacity to simply do it and to trust their own ears, and have, to the chagrin of a few, rejected what they and Toole maintain they should, will, must prefer.
And I think it is understandable that those who have made the case that one WILL and MUST prefer a reflection rich response, that some , for what must be very confusing reasons, have freely chosen an alternative response. The heresy!
The fact that continues to be confused and misrepresented is that while a Toole consistent reflection rich environment was indeed designed and delivered, that the preponderance of the "professional trained ears" REJECT the large amorphous imprecise image that we are repeatedly told folks will , and in fact, must like, and they have instead rather soundly REJECTED such a response and in converting the lateral diffusors into absorbers, reduced the early reflection rich response and effectively achieved - contrary to the designed goal - imposed their taste upon the room - to the chagrin of the Toole disciples who are having one heck of a time accepting this rather dramatic real life case of professionals taking a exception to their claims!
For let's review the situation and choices one has as is well described by Toole himself:The Acoustical Design of Home Theaters
By Floyd E. Toole, Ph.D.
The real solution, for professionals as well as consumers, is loudspeakers that deliver similarly good timbral accuracy in the direct, early reflected and reverberant sound fields. This can be described as a loudspeaker with a flattish, smooth, axial frequency response, with constant directivity (which together result in flattish, smooth, sound power).
Then it becomes an option, whether the room is acoustically damped, or not.
If reflected sounds are absorbed, the listener is placed in a predominantly direct sound field, making the experience more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise.
If the reflections are allowed to add their complexity, the overall illusion is altogether more spacious and open, to many listeners, more realistic.
In part, this is a matter of taste.
In either case, a room-friendly loudspeaker will yield timbral accuracy.
So, it is indeed a mater of choice, as to the degree that the timbral accuracy is maintained, BOTH are acknowledged to be valid choices which are in fact a "matter of choice".
And thus the ONLY REAL point of actual contention here that sticks in the craw of Toole's disciples is the FACT that the trained professionals have REJECTED the assertion that the reflection rich environment will be found "by many, (to be) more realistic".
Which is really not surprising at all when you think of the response that is being generated by each approach.
Toole is playing to a crowd listening FOR PLEASURE to SURROUND music and movies. Here they like BIG FXs and a Large image. Things seem larger and they feel a sense of greater envelopment, which I can imagine would be a great way to experience a star exploding of if you are on a ride at 6 Flags.
However, is it really a surprise that trained professionals might prefer an "experience (that is) more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise"?
You see, it IS a matter of preference. And what may be considered optimal by some for SURROUND music and movie watching, may NOT be the preferred response for all.
The fundamental difference between the party advocating the Toole reflection rich response and myself, is that I acknowledge the matter of Preference, taste and choice. And I, in particular, understand the preference for an "experience (that is) more intimate, and the imaging tighter and more precise",
I also acknowledge that many may actually like the more amorphous 'large' imprecise image as well. (And I would encourage them to pursue the realization of such a response in their establishment.)
I am just not here berating you with survey results and cut and past charts in an attempt to coerce you into freely choosing the preference that has apparently already been made FOR you by others and by virtue of some surveys.
Instead, as with the additional available responses, we are here with the idea that one does have choice and that one is free to choose among a variety of vetted acoustical responses. And to my mind it then seems incumbent that one, instead of being berated and bullied into deciding what they MUST prefer, that they should avail themselves of the opportunities to become familiar with the array of response choices, and after THEY freely decide upon which response they prefer and which is most practical to achieve given their particular circumstances, to understand the mechanics by which a desired response may be achieved, and to employ the available tools and techniques in order to best achieve such a response.
The fundamental difference? Ironically Devo captured the concept well. I advocate an informed freedom of choice, where others, citing the tyranny of surveys and what they maintain is the incontrovertible preference of the majority, advocate a pre-ordained one size fits all 'freedom From choice'.
Oh, and as far as the ETC, YES, the available manner in which the information may be graphically displayed is, to my mind, rather remarkable. And to cite a rather arcane addendum, I spent too many years as an undergrad and grad student manipulating 'imaginary' numbers, memorizing that which we were told they corresponded and NEVER receiving useful clarification as to what in hell an "imaginary" number really was, or to what it corresponded in a "real" world.
The moment I saw a 3 space depiction of the Analytic complete with its constituent parts displayed the lights went ON and what had previously been rendered "imaginary" became apparent to be anything BUT imaginary, and their significance was instantly not only rather obvious, but, and feel free to doubt this, useful!
I have quite a bit of information and there is more in the 3rd edition of Sound System Engineering.
If anyone is serious to pursue what I personally find to be a very useful and interesting topic (no, sorry, I do NOT have any surveys conducted by others with which I will attempt to tell you that YOU MUST also find the subject fascinating...) but you are welcome to PM me with an email address and I can send you some additional info as I am able...)
Also, for another view of but a tip of the proverbial iceburg, may I suggest folks query Dick Heyser's review of the Klipschhorn published in Audio Magazine. It is able to be found online, but if you can't , PM me... You will see that the information that is able to ascertained from the Analytic goes FAR beyond what many imagine and which has been even alluded to here. The amazing aspect is that so many are still so ignore-ant of both the measurements and what they are able to render understandable. (And for the benefit of the few here still confused over the role of measurements - they provide additional information in, ideally, a form that augments one's ability to make informed decisions. They are NOT,as some imagine, a substitute for the experience, or of listening, or, as apparently is the case with many, thinking
In fact, I wouldn't mind there being a thread where the measurements can be presented in a more thorough manner, from theory to some of the more common, and even uncommon, applications...but if another forum is an indication, such attempts quickly become dominated by those who lack any understanding of what it is who assert that there is no place for such nonsense and the thread simply devolves into another typical thread.Edited by dragonfyr - 7/1/12 at 2:50pm