Originally Posted by noah katz
Their measurements had to have been flawed, because what is an open window is no different than a 100% effective absorber.
The measurements aren't flawed.
Here's my room with 2 doors and 2 windows closed vs the same openings opened:
Too much here to catch up on but a couple of things:
First, regarding your "English not so good" comment. Your use of English is commendably good, enough to embarrass some posters whose 1st language is English, IMO.
Yes, regarding pressure vessel gain/air tight room vs progressively constructive reflections/boundary transmission losses, all of your posts are spot on and backed by your (and everyone else's) posted evidences, data and observations.
There is no "extensive" data available, as LTD likes to say to mislead readers. He can't show a single piece of real data from an actual room measured on planet earth.
The speed of sound increases by 5X (or, as you noticed, to infinity), the rooms ambient barometric pressure increases, the sound becomes a gas, or water, the gain begins at SOS* 2X the the rooms longest dimension, "my subs pressurize my room", room gain is proportional to how sealed your room is against air leakage, etc.
All proven wrong by data.
The only thing we can be sure of if the room is perfectly sealed is that the listener will soon pass away.
Also, I would think the decay plot might be radically different if the SOS increased by 5X <20 Hz?
Great stuff, this thread. I appreciate the hard work and your sharing it.