Originally Posted by rnrgagne
That is an outright lie.
No acoustic treatment retailer that I know of has ever proclaimed the above
. Most take a very practical approach to the whole sound enchilada. Even if that's just an analogy, the reality is that the ones participating on these forums tend to be very practical, and in fact even help out people trying to build their own treatments.
I don't know where you got this bug in your butt about acoustic treatment retailers, or if it's just you being petty for being challenged by them, but this infantile rhetoric is wearing thin and just douses anything credible you might have to say.
You are funny Rick
. If I told you that I ate in a restaurant and hated it, you can’t come here and say you loved it and hence what I said is a “lie.” Unless you are in my head and have all the experiences I have had with those members, you can’t question my views of them. You can of course share yours as you did and I will address that.
Answering your question first, yes, I have seen them use that line so often that it is as good as “eat here or to go” from a fast food place.
It is to their advantage to talk you out of other audio purchases as to funnel the maximum $$$ toward them. And I don’t say in a derogatory manner. While it is good for their business, for the most part, I think they believe what they say. But fact is that there are many other powerful techniques for improving the sound in our room, some of which cost nothing (not putting anything in side-wall first reflections), or do far better (better designed speakers, subwoofers, Electronic correction, etc.). If you exclude them as these posters do, then it becomes clear that the intent is what I said: to convince you spend all of your money with them, the audio science be damned.
For an example of what I said, click on the first link in this google search to see an organized debate where I had to give the same answer I gave to Kraut: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awhatsbestforum.com+Audible+Jitter%2Famirm+vs+Ethan+Winer&rlz=1C1SNNT_enUS374US375&oq=site%3Awhatsbestforum.com+Audible+Jitter%2Famirm+vs+Ethan+Winer&aqs=chrome.0.57j58j60l3.10185&sugexp=chrome,mod=8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
. Go to post #4. BTW, that poster later conceded I was right about HDMI jitter being potentially audible and even mentions it in his book.
I suspect you are still unconvinced. Here is the problem and there is no getting around it: when it comes to acoustics, you guys are 100% subjectivists. You are. You never ask for proof using listening tests or any kind of verification. Your guard is completely down. A person therefore can put forward what looks to be technical data and if it jives with your gut feeling, and enough people repeat it on a forum, you believe it. No different than anyone believing in cable differences, amps, etc. Only the subject matter is different.
I realize it is hard to accept that thousands of posts on a forum repeating what you know to be facts isn't. The explanation for that is simple: the industry researchers, of which there are countless with impeccable credentials who oppose them, do not post here. Or any other forum for that matter. They “post” their research in AES and ASA and in industry gatherings. So if your only source of information is reading forums, you only get the one side of the story – one that is devoid of understanding psychoacoustics and real research in the field. It is the version of room acoustics that existed in 1970s. Not what we know now after countless listening tests and research.
I know where you are because I used to be in the same place with the forum as my only source of knowledge in this area. Even when I read research from time to time that conflicted it, I did not want to believe. There was then a defining moment:
in a meeting with Dr. Toole, he said that if we emulate the exact same distortion that occurs due to room early reflection *electronically*, i.e. upstream of the speaker, the effect in listening tests is negative. But if we let it happen in the room, it is positive!
This seemed like an impossibility and I could not rationalize it at all. How can that be? Distortion is distortion. How could it be different let alone shift from negative to positive?
My first reaction just like you, was to dismiss that as valid even though it came from a person I respected so much and one who clearly knew more than I did. Dr. Toole did not provide a reference to where that research came from. It took fair amount of effort but I found it to be the research from Clark published in his AES paper. I outline it in my article in simpler language in my WSR article on this topic: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/RoomReflections.html
As you see in my article, the reasoning requires a) listening tests and b) knowledge of psychoacoustics. Both of these are absent from any notion put forward by these people. More on this later. Finishing the story, that moment led to me unlearning everything I had read on forums and starting fresh. Instead of reading here, I went and read literally hundreds of research papers. It all started to make sense in a much more integrated and cohesive manner. What sealed it for me was sitting in double blind listening tests, and spending literally days talking and exchanging information with these researchers. At the end, it is a compelling story that hangs together, that has a start and ending, all backed by real research. It doesn't answer everything, but it answers a lot. That answer, unfortunately conflicts with the mass belief on this forum. But that does not deter me. It is what it is as they say
I suspect you are still full of emotions and denial about this. In the movie Matrix, Neo has to take the red pill to snap out of the artificial computer world. For me the red pill was the Clark experiment. Assuming that has not worked for you, how about this simple experiment
Listen to a loved one talking in the same room to you. I assume we can agree that audio experience represents the ideal: 100% fidelity. You hear them exactly the way you imagine them to sound. If I recorded them and then played it using speakers, it will degrade no matter how good the system. Nothing as real as well, the real thing
Now consider that as you were doing that, neither you or your loved one had your heads in a vice. Without realizing it, you were both moving a few inches relative to each other. But go ahead and test that consciously. Move your head a few inches as you listen to them. I hope you agree that nothing changed as far as your perception. You still heard them with utmost fidelity bettering any audio reproduction system. They sounded as real as you remember them sounding regardless of the movements.
Now let’s see how the acoustic man uses measurements to sell you acoustic material for a problem you did not have: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/room-treatments-calling-ethan-winer-et-al.103148/
He puts forward this graph of what happens when you move a measurement mic four inches in a room:[Kind note to moderators: the above graph is a “hot link” that the poster provided in the other forum to his company’s web site. Hot or “inline linking” is allowed under US copyright law and hence creates no liability for AVS Forum (indeed there are countless ones already here). Please see the decision in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. Summary version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_linking. As you know, Google and other search engines show copyrighted images from every site on the Internet due to this protection. So the poster’s claim that explicit permission is required to hot link to these images is without merit. Of course if you see otherwise, feel free to delete. ]
He provides this explanation to go with this graph:” In case you haven't seen the graph below, it shows the response at two locations four inches apart in an untreated room. The responses are so different you'd think they were taken in two different rooms with two different model speakers!
Adding first reflection treatment, which you have, helps reduce the difference a lot. But there's still a big change.”
So we see another example of a measurement being put forward immediately followed by, “go and buy fiberglass to treat it.” What happened to demonstrating that fixing this “problem” was necessary?
Read the rest of the posts and you see that sans one person, no one ever questions him. Everyone there, and here, would naturally accept this thesis that there is a problem that needs fixing. The measurement showed it. So no challenge was made for a listening test. No one asked, “my ears don’t work like microphones, not in response or perception. And oh, I have two ears, not one!”
The measurements showing “big differences” and the case was made in just two sentences.
Problem is, per the test I had you run, the measurement difference was immaterial. The measurement does NOT correlate with how we hear.
Just like what you say about measurement differences between amps, cables, etc. You make the mistaken assumption that just because differences are “big,” that we don’t need to verify their audibility using listening tests. Well, that is wrong and if you did the test I had you do, you would know it first hand.
Here is an extension of the exercise I gave you. Listen to your loved ones in different rooms. I bet they still sound the same as you know them to sound. Yet measurements now show even bigger differences. How is your ear able to “not hear the room” and these acoustic differences? Research and understanding of human hearing system explains it. Think of Haas effect that says reflections in the room are not echoes. That doesn't sound intuitive to you either. But that is one of the most well accepted acoustic principals. You can verify that just the same in realizing you did not hear echo in the voices of your loved ones even though the sound was reflecting/"echoing" around the room.
I know every ounce of your belly still says this can’t be – just like what I felt when I heard the Clark experiment. But please allow the data points to sink in. You don’t have to change your views yet. You just need to re-read everything with a new perspective. That maybe, just maybe, what you know may not be right. Go back and see if these people *ever* produced a listening test to back anything they say. You will find none. Instead you will find them *fighting* that notion. There are “big differences” that show up in measurements they will say. Now you know not to buy that. If the difference is big, and they are such a believer in double blind tests, constantly demanding others to go and run them for cables and such, they should apply the same to their craft.
See an example of me trying to get them to go there but they won’t: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/330#post_22425906
Reread this response I gave you: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/600#post_22471972
. Reread why their claim that EQ doesn’t work does not hold water: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/630#post_22478314
. If you don’t want to believe me, reread Sanjay’s responses to him. Don’t waste your time with pedantic back and forth as you did in that thread. Please pay attention to who is presenting research paper after research paper, listening test after listening test and who is not.
And oh, I am not at all against acoustic material or companies. We use them in our reference theater and any dedicated space we create. I am against what I have explained above.