There has been some potential for more than one topic to go sideways as of late*.
Let's do it here instead, OK?
Remember this is HA. It should be expected that all replies be subject to our TOS.
(*)
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=108950 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=108950)
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110486 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110486)
NB: If you've been directed to this topic, it may mean someone thinks it may be happening all over again.
To spare some of you from the tediousness, we're essentially contrasting this:
http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)
with the paper discussed here:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110109 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110109)
There has been some potential for more than one topic to go sideways as of late.
Let's do it here instead, OK?
Remember this is HA. It should be expected that all replies be subject to our TOS.
Well, bit loaded question IMO.
Perhaps "Room 'treatment' products (including 'traps'), are they really a panacea as claimed by the choir on every freaking audiophile/studiophile forum?"
cheers,
AJ
You called it nonsense bullshit, IIRC (and I'm just being nice by saying IIRC, because I am R-ingC).
I call the whole notion of room "treatments" being constantly parroted as a panacea, BS.
It is almost automatic on every audio (Home and Studio) forum now, for someone, often unsolicited, to tell others that room "treatment" products are mandatory for "better" sound.
I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course.
There has been some potential for more than one topic to go sideways as of late.
Let's do it here instead, OK?
Remember this is HA. It should be expected that all replies be subject to our TOS.
Room acoustics vary all over the place and can strongly affect sound quality. They can also be very difficult to quantify and idealize.
Any concept or parameter can be overemphasized.
I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course.
Just move your equipment to a very 'live' room (like most bathrooms are) to experience the most live end of the scale. That kind of liveness is probably not what you want. The very other end of the scale is when you listen to music with (open) headphones, then you get a very dead sound, because there's no room acoustics at all. There's probably an optimum somewhere, that's personal preference. I happen to like a very dead room, as close to headphone listening as is possible.
Beside being live or dead, rooms can have resonances. Those resonances 'amplify' certain frequencies over others. This is what bass traps are for: partly to deaden a room, but more specifically to eliminate certain resonances. So, they do not only deaden a room, they make the frequency response of a room more even. That's why one would need bass traps.
Of course, it could be one likes such resonances. In that case, you do not need treatment. However, most people do not like them and prefer a more even frequency response, so treatment would be an improvement.
I also happen to like a mostly dead room, some of the best listening rooms I've been in have had lots of soft furniture etc. to really suck up reflected sound, so that's the metric I go by. A completely dead room is no good, but any reflections etc. should be evenly attenuated, any reverberation should be very brief and controlled. I also prefer near-field listening and headphones FWIW, but the louder you play, the bigger the influence from the room.
As anyone with one or more subwoofers have found out, placement is crucial in order to tame standing waves. But there's only so much you can do with placement alone, especially since some of the optimal positions end up being non-optimal in relation to furniture etc.
So that's where bass traps in particular come in, to tame the nodes where standing waves create a peak in the frequency response, which is a lot easier than trying to cancel out an antinode where the sound is 'sucked' away. You can do this with EQ as well, but then that affects the entire listening room and not just the problematic area. Room correction software can only do so much, and it works best if you give it a good (acoustically sound) room to work with.
Mischaracterizing room treatment as a panacea to all problems is obviously wrong (there's only so much you can do by focusing on a single parameter), but going in the complete opposite direction and claiming it completely worthless is even more disingenuous. No, I don't have a double blind test to beat you over the head with, but as anyone who has ever heard any kind of music in more than one location can tell you, acoustics mean a lot to the overall sound. The room and the speakers have to work together to create the overall sound, and if one of those is lacking, it drags the whole thing down.
Obviously the ideal solution is to construct the room to be as acoustically ideal as possible from the start, but very few people have that kind of resources. Properly treating a room after the fact is maybe not 100% ideal, but it's a hell of a lot less expensive.
...to tame the nodes where standing waves create a peak in the frequency response, which is a lot easier than trying to cancel out an antinode where the sound is 'sucked' away....
"Node" is a contraction of "no displacement", i.e. a null and an antinode is the opposite, where two waves add to maximum effect. I'm not entirely sure I'm reading your explanation correctly but do you have them the wrong way around? It's a very common misconception that a node is a point of maximum rather than minimum.
Room acoustics vary all over the place and can strongly affect sound quality. They can also be very difficult to quantify and idealize.
Toole, Olive, McGill et al, had no such difficulty with the
audible consequences and can easily meet TOS #8.
"Studiophiles", rely on tried and true audiophile sighted, biased hearsay, beliefs, elitist snobbery and personal attacks on research scientists(link) (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)...the opposite of TOS #8.
There's probably an optimum somewhere, that's personal preference.
Is that how the peddlers and shills frame the situation?
I happen to like a very dead room
Sighted or blind?
So, they do not only deaden a room, they make the frequency response of a room more even. That's why one would need bass traps.
What makes them optimum compared to gradient bass/multiple subs/eq, etc? Where are the blind tests of their efficacy?
However, most people do not like them and prefer a more even frequency response, so treatment would be an improvement.
TOS #8
No, I don't have a double blind test to beat you over the head with
Then read TOS #8 audiophile.
Room acoustics vary all over the place and can strongly affect sound quality. They can also be very difficult to quantify and idealize.
Toole, Olive, McGill et al, had no such difficulty with the audible consequences and can easily meet TOS #8.
"Studiophiles", rely on tried and true audiophile sighted, biased hearsay, beliefs, elitist snobbery and personal attacks on research scientists(link) (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)...the opposite of TOS #8.
As you needlessly point out, not everybody is Toole and Olive. They don't
perfectly agree with Winer. But they seem to share from the same basic sources of reliable information.
McGill is usually taken to be the name of a university in Montreal, not an acoustics authority. https://www.mcgill.ca/ (https://www.mcgill.ca/)
It's perfectly obvious to me that there's a difference between the view points of all three men, and many of their critics
The measurable and audible effects of the influences and structures that they work with are more useful and reliable then that of say the purveyors of magic cables, exotic speaker drivers and crossovers, or acoustic balderdash such as acoustic structures that are too small to be acoustically significant.
...to tame the nodes where standing waves create a peak in the frequency response, which is a lot easier than trying to cancel out an antinode where the sound is 'sucked' away....
"Node" is a contraction of "no displacement", i.e. a null and an antinode is the opposite, where two waves add to maximum effect. I'm not entirely sure I'm reading your explanation correctly but do you have them the wrong way around? It's a very common misconception that a node is a point of maximum rather than minimum.
Durr, my mistake. You're right, of course.
No, I don't have a double blind test to beat you over the head with
Then read TOS #8 audiophile.
There's no need for harsh language and name-calling.
But honestly, if you need a double-blind test to notice the changes in sound with different subwoofer placement, I'm not really sure how to reply to that. If anyone thinks the differences are so small as to need double blind tests to verify that there actually is a difference, I am very sorry to hear about their complete loss of hearing
and feeling. Nulls and nodes (thanks for the correction, antz) are pretty much immediately obvious.
And Toole et. al. agree with this, because it is pretty much the most basic fact of all when it comes to speaker placement and acoustics. The funny thing is that Ethan Winer seems to agree like 99% with Toole et. al., yet because he disagrees (not even fully!) on one particular specific subject (early reflections), you decide to blow it all out of proportion. Not cool, man.
As you needlessly point out, not everybody is Toole and Olive.
Right. As Greynol and I needlessly need to point out, TOS #8 is the difference here. Studiophile believers like Winer dismiss controlled blind tests in favor of sighted, biased woo beliefs, whenever it suits them/their business model.
McGill is..
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110109 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110109)
You should read it here like Ethan has. Then continue to apply denialism all you want.
It's perfectly obvious to me that there's a difference between the view points of all three men, and many of their critics
Me too. Two of those men are research scientists who rely on blind tests for supporting evidence, one isn't. The "critics" fall along the old believer divide.
The measurable and audible effects of the influences and structures that they work with are more useful and reliable then that of say the purveyors of magic cables, exotic speaker drivers and crossovers, or acoustic balderdash such as acoustic structures that are too small to be acoustically significant.
Red Herring. TOS #8 still applies and thus we can expect nothing more from believers.
But honestly, if you need a double-blind test..
Read TOS #8 audiophile. This has nothing to do with "my" needs.
But honestly, if you need a double-blind test..
Read TOS #8 audiophile. This has nothing to do with "my" needs.
Again with the pointless and rude name calling. It's rather insulting, to be honest.
Keep writing your screeds, I'm sure someone will read them. I'm going to a concert.
So there, you've won. Congratulations, I hope it makes you happy.
Again with the pointless and rude name calling. It's rather insulting, to be honest.
Moan and dance all you want, but I find belief trumping science to be the far bigger insult. Fully expected that TOS #8 applied to a subject of belief like "treatments" would result in crying and diversion, rather than any DBT evidence. Still waiting.
It's perfectly obvious to me that there's a difference between the view points of all three men, and many of their critics
Me too. Two of those men are research scientists who rely on blind tests for supporting evidence, one isn't. The "critics" fall along the old believer divide.
Take Toole's book for example. While a few DBTs are cited, the vast majority of its contents are based on sighted evaluations.
Toole's shufflers are among the very few extant tools for doing DBT's involving acoustics. They represented an investment that very few could fund.
The constant whining about anybody's lack of room acoustics DBTs seems therefore seems to be more deflection than thoughtful criticism.
Take Toole's book for example. While a few DBTs are cited, the vast majority of its contents are based on sighted evaluations.
Toole's shufflers are among the very few extant tools for doing DBT's involving acoustics. They represented an investment that very few could fund.
Toole et al (lots of references) evaluations are mostly sighted?? Arnold, adding two sequential, incredibly dumb statements together, don't sum to a smart one. Worse when things are already linked: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640).
Oh but please continue your shuffling, I enjoy it.
The constant whining about anybody's lack of room acoustics DBTs seems therefore seems to be more deflection than thoughtful criticism.
Coming from the self-anointed godfather of ABX.....
But honestly, if you need a double-blind test to notice the changes in sound with different subwoofer placement, I'm not really sure how to reply to that.
Not just differences, there are double blind test protocols for establishing preferences.
This forum relies on both.
Why should the subject in the topic title deserve a pass? That certain "authorities" appear to support the need for bias controls for most other things isn't a compelling argument.
Take Toole's book for example. While a few DBTs are cited, the vast majority of its contents are based on sighted evaluations.
Toole's shufflers are among the very few extant tools for doing DBT's involving acoustics. They represented an investment that very few could fund.
Toole et al (lots of references) evaluations are mostly sighted?? Arnold, adding two sequential, incredibly dumb statements together, don't sum to a smart one. Worse when things are already linked: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640).
Oh but please continue your shuffling, I enjoy it.
The constant whining about anybody's lack of room acoustics DBTs seems therefore seems to be more deflection than thoughtful criticism.
Coming from the self-anointed godfather of ABX.....
Just insults. When you have some reliable evidence...
Fact is I was re reading Toole a few months back and was struck how much of the evidence could and was gathered using sighted evaluations.
One of the greatest audio pioneers was Helmholtz. Cite just one of his DBT tests. He's the rule, not the exception.
That AES paper you just quoted doesn't count as reliable evidence?
- Clearly it's impractical for the vast majority of people to put together the equipment to conduct fast-switching listening tests of *any* type involving real room acoustics
- Even recording the sound in a room before and after treatment (e.g. binaurally) to provide samples for a listening test would be a lot of work for a small payoff although may be useful if anyone felt like doing it
- Treating even a small room can measurably affect decay times in different audible/midrange frequency ranges by several tenths of a second
- Either by measuring pink noise within the room or mathematically calculating the reverberant component of the sound power level, treatment can be demonstrated to reduce the level of the corresponding frequency ranges within a room by several dB
- It's well established that this order of magnitude of change in frequency balance can be perceived
Of course, reverberation isn't the same as just increasing the level (and becomes even more complex if the decay curve isn't linear) so if anything any changes caused by room treatment ought to be *more* perceptible than a simple level change of certain frequency ranges would be.
I happen to like a very dead room
Sighted or blind?
Sighted, of course. You expect me to have an personal preference based on blind tests, when conducting such blind tests is non-trivial? Does it even matter? I clearly stated it is
my opinion, right?
So, they do not only deaden a room, they make the frequency response of a room more even. That's why one would need bass traps.
What makes them optimum compared to gradient bass/multiple subs/eq, etc?
Nothing. Application is obviously very specific to a room, so depending on the room, I'd think multiple subs could be a better or worse solution depending on the room.
However, most people do not like them and prefer a more even frequency response, so treatment would be an improvement.
TOS #8
Sure, you're right. I can't prove that. I can just say that I prefer not to listen to my music in a bathroom, that's all. It's just that I've never come across someone who does, but indeed, that is no proof.
Since I already said something to the same effect earlier, I doubt the following will discourage similar posts like that which was made two posts back; but alas, I'll try it again...
NO ONE[/b] is saying treatment can't make audible differences. The point of interest is whether expressed preferences are ever backed by bias-controlled testing.
The only test brought forth so far doesn't support what the lot of you are espousing.
I clearly stated it is my opinion, right?
Expressing something as an opinion does not absolve you from TOS #8.
Sure, you're right. I can't prove that. I can just say that I prefer not to listen to my music in a bathroom, that's all. It's just that I've never come across someone who does, but indeed, that is no proof.
Nice straw-man.
Since I already said something to the same effect earlier, I doubt the following will discourage similar posts like that which was made two posts back; but alas, I'll try it again...
NO ONE[/b] is saying treatment can't make audible differences. The point of interest is whether expressed preferences are ever backed by bias-controlled testing.
The topic is "Are [bass traps] Snake Oil"? My response: no, because they clearly do something significant.
The only test brought forth so far doesn't support what the lot of you are espousing.
In a later post you mention the need double-blind preference testing. My response: almost no one can do this (myself including) has the capability to do this with real acoustics in real time. But we can measure the effects of the treatment, and assess those effects and to some extent simulate them artificially in terms of frequency balance and reverberation
If the question is "does room treatment make music sound better" then, given that it can make a significant change, I don't see how the answer could be anything other than "sometimes". E.g.
- If the music recording itself is too dry for a given listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a more live/less treated room.
- If the music recording already has the ideal amount of reverb for a given listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a more dead/more treated room.
- If the music recording itself has a frequency balance that aligns perfectly with the listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a room with a flat response.
- If the music recording itself has a frequency balance where certain ranges are too low in level for the listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a room that emphasises those frequencies.
- To take things to extremes, if the room is currently hugely reverberant with a very uneven response (e.g. "bathroom" situation) or an anechoic chamber, then it's likely to align with few or no people's preferences.
If that's not the question at hand, and nor is the topic title, then what is?
Oh cool, another subjective listening test free post, confirming pillows make "a difference". Yay.
I call the whole notion of room "treatments" being constantly parroted as a panacea, BS.
Panaceas are at their core generalizations, and all generalizations are false. So what we have here might be meaningless truisms.
It is almost automatic on every audio (Home and Studio) forum now, for someone, often unsolicited, to tell others that room "treatment" products are mandatory for "better" sound.
"There is one in every crowd'
I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course.
Requiring DBTs to support every claim of an audible difference is not my mission. It isn't even possible in every case. DBTs were first applied when the question of audibility was controversial.
Do we really need DBTs to agree that 20 dB SPL level differences @ 1 KHz are audible?
Not wanting to derail another thread, I'll post my response here.
Played out in public on the AVS forum maybe a year ago.
Jeez Arnie, guess both our memories are going, since 1) I had no recollection of that 2) I've been banned there for longer than that, ironically, for blasting "authorities" who claim their fully sighted subjectivist impressions of "treatments" trumped any blind tests...while simultaneously pointing out that AVS was not impartial
being a seller of such products, which like cables, have rather high mark ups. That didn't go over too well.
I searched and assume you mean this "treatments" thread (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1420393-speaker-questions-newbie-his-first-home.html)...which was
more than 3 yrs ago.
Do we really need DBTs to agree that 20 dB SPL level differences @ 1 KHz are audible?
I would suggest you look up Red Herring as Greynol has warned against multiple times.
Do we really need DBTs to agree that 20 dB SPL level differences @ 1 KHz are audible?
I would suggest you look up Red Herring as Greynol has warned against multiple times.
Based on DBTs, my former comment is not a red herring.
This is all theoretical for me because I mostly use headphones at the moment, but whatever.
OK - there is no question that room treatment can cause audible differences.
My question is, why should I trust a DBT preference test to tell me whether or not to make a change to my audio system (assuming the change in question is already established to make an audible difference)?
What's to stop the participants in the preference test from picking the version with +3dB bass, because it's sounds more "fun"?
Wouldn't it be better to make a recording from the listening position, with and without the room treatment, and use whichever has a flatter FR and/or less distortion?
Why should I trust a
DBT preference test to tell me whether or not to buy a $500 bottle of wine over a $40 bottle of wine?
What's to stop the participants in the preference test from picking the less expensive bottle, because it's tastes more "fun"?
Wouldn't it be better to make a recording from the listening position, with and without the room treatment, and use whichever has a flatter FR and/or less distortion?
You're making an assumption that flatter and/or less distortion will sound better instead of establishing this with a properly controlled preference test.
My question is, why should I trust a DBT preference test to tell me whether or not to make a change to my audio system (assuming the change in question is already established to make an audible difference)?
No reason that I can think of.
What's to stop the participants in the preference test from picking the version with +3dB bass, because it's sounds more "fun"?
No reason that I can think of.
Wouldn't it be better to make a recording from the listening position, with and without the room treatment, and use whichever has a flatter FR and/or less distortion?
That is the essence of most procedures that are used to treat rooms by means of measurements.
One refinement is to create a non-flat target curve and attempt to match that.
One might do some deeper thinking about the meaning of flat system response. For electronic components. it is easy to know what that means. For complete systems including instruments, playing and recording, maybe not so much.
Based on DBTs, my former comment is not a red herring.
Then you're to dense to comprehend only your strawman claims there is no "difference".
That is the essence of most procedures that are used to treat rooms by means of measurements.
Which leads us here http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640)
Ooops.
One might do some deeper thinking about the meaning of flat system response. For electronic components. it is easy to know what that means. For complete systems including instruments, playing and recording, maybe not so much.
In which case, I would suggest bias controlled testing would be important, but since the hoards aren't blessing the idea then it
must be preposterous.
No reason that I can think of.
yet another reason why I no longer take you seriously ... jus' sayin'
Well, to give you some credit, you did also say this within the hour (to which others in this discussion should take note):
poorer technical performance can be preferred by some (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110528&view=findpost&p=910940)
...and
how exactly do we arrive at a true* preference by some (/few/many/masses), again?
I'm not about to guess why such sensibility has been lost in this discussion.
(*) as in not skewed by a-priori bias. Hopefully I don't have to dig up quotes by "authorities" saying even authorities are not immune to a-priori bias.
Ooops.
Shhh. Let's not acknowledge the gorilla.
My question is, why should I trust a DBT preference test to tell me whether or not to make a change to my audio system (assuming the change in question is already established to make an audible difference)
No reason that I can think of.
yet another reason why I no longer take you seriously ... jus' sayin'
You should have never taken me seriously. :-)
Well, to give you some credit, you did also say this within the hour (to which others in this discussion should take note):
poorer technical performance can be preferred by some (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110528&view=findpost&p=910940)
I'm not about to guess why such sensibility has been lost in this discussion.
Because I didn't say it?
Now I know why AJ calls you Amir.
I did read somewhere that DSD is being used as an archival format by record labels. So, the "master" is in DSD format. and CD quality PCM is generated from that master. But that may just be because the equipment being used to master is Sony.
SACD is a solution looking for a problem, pure and simple/
I have often wondered, since SACDs contain a Red Book audio layer also, if that layer is purposely messed with to make the SACD layer sound better.
The layers are separate and independent. They don't even have to be the same musical work.
Remember, Better or worse in this context can relate to preference, not global fact.
The common preference for vinyl shows that poorer technical performance can be preferred by some.
Sigh.
Toole and Olive and the AES authors generally, employing standard scientific language, report results as tendencies among populations, not infallible predictions applying to every listener. Neither claims that , e.g., listeners will *always* prefer EQ curve X or loudspeaker Y or room treatment Z.
So yes, individual mileage can vary. No one says otherwise.
Beyond that, yes, physical room treatments have virtually never been subjected to preference (or even difference) DBTs. But to the extent a treatment brings room measurements into the ranges and curve shapes that *have* been shown to correlate to population preferences, you can predict they'd *probably* be reported as beneficial on average, if the comparison could be blinded.
Personally, I would take that sort of evidence-from-measurement as 'good enough' to guide my purchases, absent actual DBTs. (I use that reasonign for loudspeaker buying.) But even that data doesn't seem to exist in any handy form...not for many loudspeakers, and certainly not for many room treatments.
It's a dilemma.
(And who among the audiophiles herd considers himself 'average'? )
Gosh ... too bad I have just caught a cold, so popcorn doesn't even taste good.
Gosh ... too bad I have just caught a cold, so popcorn doesn't even taste good.
You and me both. Perhaps some room treatments will help alleviate my stuffy ears
I said I was out of this discussion, but I think it has become abundantly clear that we're arguing about personal preference here. Some people prefer a more 'live' listening room, and some people (around a third, according to the AES paper AJ has linked a couple of time) prefer a 'deader' listening room with fewer early reflections.
As this is a question of preference, there obviously is no 'correct' answer, and as Toole's paper shows, it is possibly to master recordings well in a relative 'live' control room, as long as you're accustomed to it, just as you need to be accustomed to your particular speakers for the mix to translate well to other systems.
Of course, there's also a question of whether people's stated preferences actually jive with their actual preferences, which is a much more interesting question.
But I still think bass traps are definitely not snake oil. The do
something, the question is just whether you
like what they do, or not.
Toole and Olive and the AES authors generally, employing standard scientific language, report results...
Blind, controlled listening test results. The opposite of studiophiles "I heard it I said so" sighted biased "results".
But to the extent a treatment brings room measurements into the ranges and curve shapes that *have* been shown to correlate to population preferences, you can predict they'd *probably* be reported as beneficial on average, if the comparison could be blinded.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640) Ooops.
You willfully ignore what Toole also says, microphones are not 2 ears+brain....and thus
listening tests are mandatory.
Otherwise you spew ignorant nonsense like this (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm).
Btw, EQ (often already owned) can "shape curves" too.
Personally, I would take that sort of evidence-from-measurement as 'good enough' to guide my purchases, absent actual DBTs. (I use that reasonign for loudspeaker buying.) But even that data doesn't seem to exist in any handy form...not for many loudspeakers, and certainly not for many room treatments.
It's a dilemma.
Yeah it is (http://htthttp://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640p://). For believers.
cheers,
AJ
I said I was out of this discussion, but I think it has become abundantly clear that we're arguing about personal preference here.
Yes, sighted vs blind, Studiophile believer vs informed rational. Believers prefer sighted, uncontrolled "listening" and those trump ears only testing, which are to be dismissed/ignored when they conflict with beliefs. Just like their "audiophile" cousins.
Now I know why AJ calls you Amir.
Probably because he calls names when the discussion is over his head.
It has been conclusively proven that casual sighted listening evaluations are 100% susceptible to false positives and false negatives
What do you call this? What's the name I'm looking for here now, hmmm....
Probably because he calls names when the discussion is over his head.
This is the kind of response that might prompt the invocation of the name Dunning.
I said I was out of this discussion, but I think it has become abundantly clear that we're arguing about personal preference here.
Yes, sighted vs blind, Studiophile believer vs informed rational. Believers prefer sighted, uncontrolled "listening" and those trump ears only testing, which are to be dismissed/ignored when they conflict with beliefs. Just like their "audiophile" cousins.
No.
We can all agree that bass traps do
something that changes the overall sound in a listening room, right? And we can also agree that it comes down to preference whether you like a 'live' room or a 'dead' room, as evidenced the 1/3rd to 2/3rds split in the AES paper you linked?
It's hard to define which is "better" when talking about personal preference. I prefer a slightly more 'dead' room, which you obviously do not. Toole shows in his paper that neither is a detriment to producing good results, as long as one is accustomed to the room+speakers.
So why are we arguing about personal preference here? Bass traps work, they change the sound. You don't like the result of what they do, but that doesn't make it objectively wrong to use them, no matter how one gauges their performance.
The issue at hand is whether expressed preferences that are not backed by objective test results deserve the same credibility as those that are. That you can actually hear a difference is irrelevant.
I'll be happy to change the topic title if it will keep the discussion from regressing to "these amps go to eleven."
It's kinda hard to put a credibility value on personal preference, though. When the much-linked Floyd E. Toole paper shows that either preference is valid, based on personal preference, it's kinda silly to argue that one of them is objectively wrong.
Yes, sighted vs blind, Studiophile believer vs informed rational. Believers prefer sighted, uncontrolled "listening" and those trump ears only testing, which are to be dismissed/ignored when they conflict with beliefs. Just like their "audiophile" cousins.
No.
Ok, let's hear the specifics of your controlled blind tests where you determined
your preference for "treatments" vs ?
We can all agree that bass traps do something that changes the overall sound in a listening room, right?
...which you obviously do not.
...You don't like the result of what they do
We can agree you'll never comprehend what a red herring is.
I prefer a slightly more 'dead' room
Yes, you believe treatments are "better" and then prefer rooms after you treat them and listen sighted.
No one cares what you prefer. You aren't the issue. The efficacy of so called "treatments" is and so far, the reality ears only tests are not looking good for your beliefs.
It's kinda hard to put a credibility value on personal preference
There is no credibility when the efficacy of products is based purely on sighted, biased believer preference
You're chasing your own tail, AJ. You're arguing in circles.
What exactly are you asking about? Do acoustic treatment products (audiophile woo-woo tiny cubes glued to the walls excluded) make an audible difference? I'm pretty sure the Floyd E. Toole paper you keep linking says that they do, and that people could tell the difference in a double blind test.
Is the end result better or worse? That's up to personal taste, but they do make a difference to the sound, and thus by definition they cannot be 'snake oil'. And purely subjectively, I prefer a populated room to a bare one (and a full concert hall to an empty one, for that matter). The difference is measurable, and has been measured many times, that's how you design a good concert venue.
Double blind tests are fine for a lot of things, but they are not the end-all, be-all answer when considering subjective preferences.
They are important when there is a reason to call common belief into question. The linked article provides reason.
...and as such these posts continuing to champion sighted preference ring hollow.
...and as such these posts continuing to champion sighted preference ring hollow.
Can I interest you in some fine room treatment products to reduce that hollow ringing?
The linked article shows that there is an audible difference, and that in a blind test, some people prefer untreated rooms, while others prefer treated rooms.
I think maybe it would be a good idea to have a concise, neutrally worded summation of what the actual question stated in this thread is, because it has obviously been lost in the name-calling.
Is the common belief that treated rooms sound 'better'? The paper says that about 1/3rd of the people in the test expressed a preference for a treated room. So in that sense, technically the untreated (or less treated) room is 'better' because more people preferred it. But it doesn't actually disprove the efficacy of room treatments, just that more people preferred the 'untreated' sound.
How would one go about properly proving a preference for a treated room versus a bare or untreated room? Probably no one except mr. Floyd has access to a fancy moving DBT rig like his, so what would the test parameters be?
The paper says that about 1/3rd of the people in the test expressed a preference for a treated room.
Blind.Not "people".
Studio pros. To quote the "authority"
you linked, unsolicited:
MUSICAL TASTE AND SOPHISTICATION
This next part might seem offensive and condescending, but I assure you that's not my intent! I'm convinced that most professional recording and mixing engineers have better "learned hearing acuity" than the general population, and many probably have more refined musical taste as well. I mention "professional" listeners because I believe they have a better grasp on quality and clarity, and can more readily identify when something sounds "better" versus merely different. Many audiophiles also have very good auditory taste. Of course, taste is subjective so this is just my opinion.
When mixing music you need to hear everything as clearly as possible. If music or dialog is obscured by reflections and other room anomalies, mixes you think sound good may not sound so good later, or in your car, or on other systems. When reflections are allowed, moving your head even an inch or two changes the tonality as shown in THIS article. When listening without early reflections, imaging and frequency response are more stable versus position, making it easier to nail down a pleasing mix.
Over time mix engineers learn to appreciate things that affect clarity, and avoiding early reflections is one of these things. Mixing in a reflection-free environment also lets you hear much smaller changes in applied reverb and EQ. Even at my age (67 in 2015) I can easily hear EQ changes of half a dB at midrange frequencies through my two music systems.
Ooops.
How would one go about properly proving a preference for a treated room versus a bare or untreated room? Probably no one except mr. Floyd has access to a fancy moving DBT rig like his, so what would the test parameters be?
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640)
The one you just referenced.
So in that sense, technically the untreated (or less treated) room is 'better' because more people preferred it. But it doesn't actually disprove the efficacy of room treatments, just that more people preferred the 'untreated' sound.
..and you've determined which 1/3 you're in how???
Oh yes, by believing, implementing and staring.
Insult calling you audiophile? Please....
I'm always fine with neutal wording, especially when dealing with assumed "facts" which are not born from empirical evidence. Hopefully people will consider doing so next time they make recommendations about how someone should spend his money.
As for my use of loaded language, it was completely intentional (as well as effective; moreso if Ethan joins in to say something over than I disagree with the results of that study so the study must be wrong).
Since I'm replying via smartphone edits/additions will more than likely be forthcoming (per usual).
..and you've determined which 1/3 you're in how???
Oh yes, by believing, implementing and staring.
Insult calling you audiophile? Please....
I haven't placed myself into any one particular group because unlike others, I am not quick to jump the gun and pass "final" judgement. However, I did express a subjective preference for listening rooms with some amount of soft surfaces (carpets, furniture etc.) over a relatively bare room with many hard surfaces.
I'm not sure why you keep wanting to 'disprove' me, I have only expressed my own preferences and referred to the person who IMO has had the most pleasant discourse combined with apparently quite deep knowledge of the subjects he covers. I'm sorry if that offended you, I just wish this could be discussed in a polite manner, instead of having to resort to name-calling and "BZZT WRONG!" type replies, which do not further the discussion in any constructive fashion at all.
If that's how this "discussion" is going to continue, I have no interest in participating.
I'm simply looking for acknowledgement that expressed preferences could be influenced by things other than actual quality of sound.
So, yeah, if people can't manage to do this I would prefer they not participate (or make recommendations on the subject, for that matter).
For giggles, let's see who is using the word "wrong" in the discussion...
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...ghlite=%2Bwrong (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=cff5a178037046d8ce65fb3ebb6a0174&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=%2Bwrong)
I'm simply looking for acknowledgement that expressed preferences could be influenced by things other than actual quality of sound.
So, yeah, if people can't manage to do this I would prefer they not participate (or make recommendations on the subject, for that matter).
Fully acknowledged, both explicitly and implicitly. It has never been my intention to deceive anyone into thinking otherwise.
It's not like I look at a couch and think "mmm, that would be great for the sound in my living room", if that's what anyone was thinking.
For giggles, let's see who is using the word "wrong" in the discussion...
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...ghlite=%2Bwrong (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=cff5a178037046d8ce65fb3ebb6a0174&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=%2Bwrong)
Context matters.
I did not say or even imply anyone was wrong; full of shit, perhaps (and not so much you), but not wrong.
I haven't placed myself into any one particular group
You have repeatedly placed yourself in the "prefer treatment" group, despite never participating in a blind test.
I have only expressed my own preferences
Sighted yes. You have no clue which group you would have been in the McGill test.
But perhaps this all all beyond your ability understand. A "studiophile".
I call the whole notion of room "treatments" being constantly parroted as a panacea, BS.
It is almost automatic on every audio (Home and Studio) forum now, for someone, often unsolicited, to tell others that room "treatment" products are mandatory for "better" sound.
I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course.
You are very inexperienced
If you can afford it and have the space treating your room is the best thing other than getting a 40X40X40 space and not worrying about it
You are very inexperienced
Any more useless replies from the peanut gallery?
If you can afford it and have the space treating your room is the best thing other than getting a 40X40X40 space and not worrying about it
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910873 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910873)
You are very inexperienced
Any more useless replies from the peanut gallery?
Please tell me about your room and speakers with size
My room and speakers are totally irrelevant.
Please tell me how you arrived at your conclusion:
If you can afford it and have the space treating your room is the best thing other than getting a 40X40X40 space and not worrying about it
Make sure it complies with our Terms of Service (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974), which you agreed to follow upon registering.
There has been some potential for more than one topic to go sideways as of late.
Let's do it here instead, OK?
Remember this is HA. It should be expected that all replies be subject to our TOS.
Room acoustics vary all over the place and can strongly affect sound quality. They can also be very difficult to quantify and idealize.
Any concept or parameter can be overemphasized.
Amen
You're chasing your own tail, AJ. You're arguing in circles.
What exactly are you asking about? Do acoustic treatment products (audiophile woo-woo tiny cubes glued to the walls excluded) make an audible difference? I'm pretty sure the Floyd E. Toole paper you keep linking says that they do, and that people could tell the difference in a double blind test.
The article I see AJ linking to frequently on this thread isn't by Floyd Toole.
It's:
The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments
Authors: King, Richard; Leonard, Brett; Sikora, Grzegorz
I haven't placed myself into any one particular group
You have repeatedly placed yourself in the "prefer treatment" group, despite never participating in a blind test.
If that's how you look at it, then I have also placed myself in the "prefers Indian food to Chinese food" group, without ever doing a blind test.
I have only expressed my own preferences
Sighted yes. You have no clue which group you would have been in the McGill test.
But perhaps this all all beyond your ability understand. A "studiophile".
I have a reasonable assumption on which group I would place in, based on previous experience, but I cannot be 100% sure.
And again with the completely pointless insults. That is not how you win people to your side of an argument.
The article I see AJ linking to frequently on this thread isn't by Floyd Toole.
It's:
The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments
Authors: King, Richard; Leonard, Brett; Sikora, Grzegorz
Yes, I was getting mixed up. Both papers are relevant to the discussion.
The article I see AJ linking to frequently on this thread isn't by Floyd Toole.
It was abundantly clear from the beginning he's not reading any of the articles, nor has any interest, since they are blind tests. It doesn't matter what the Studio participants believe they prefer in Tooles, McGill etc tests, since that does not affect the results. Believers will always dismiss the results as not applicable to them, or just plain wrong.
As a studiophile, he "knows" what he prefers, belief and sighted biases etc be damned.
Typical audiophile twilight zone stuff with zero cognizance.
As I've said all along, these are rhetorical questions, don't expect any valid scientific evidence in support of "treatments", just "I prefer Chinese food, therefore Chinese food works".
cheers,
AJ
I think my posting history on this site (and every other forum I'm a member of) proves that I understand and appreciate blind testing, so there's absolutely no need for your repeated baseless insults and name-calling.
I have in fact read the paper (althought I must apologize for erroneously stating that Floyd Toole authored it, his work is merely referred to in it). As you mention, it is often assumed that "critical" listeners need treated rooms, whereas the test showed that a little less than half of them actually preferred an untreated room, and the level differences in the blind test were quite consistent between the different setups. I'd say that's inconclusive at best. Yes, it's a nail in the coffin of "everyone must have a treated room!", but it's not an outright condemnation of room treatments as a whole.
Tt does show that using rooms similar to what you would find in a normal home is not necessarily a detriment to the quality of the final mix, but conversely it also shows that room treatments are not a detriment either.
E: I also noticed that Bang & Olufsen are affiliated with the paper, which was what made my decision to purchase it, as I used to work there.
Your belief that you prefer "treated" rooms is irrelevant to the topic of their efficacy.
Tt does show that using rooms similar to what you would find in a normal home is not necessarily a detriment to the quality of the final mix, but conversely it also shows that room treatments are not a detriment either.
But what studiophiles never mention is that is
can be detrimental. From your authority
Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial
When mixing music you need to hear everything as clearly as possible. If music or dialog is obscured by reflections and other room anomalies, mixes you think sound good may not sound so good later, or in your car, or on other systems. When reflections are allowed, moving your head even an inch or two changes the tonality as shown in THIS article. When listening without early reflections, imaging and frequency response are more stable versus position, making it easier to nail down a pleasing mix.
Over time mix engineers learn to appreciate things that affect clarity, and avoiding early reflections is one of these things.
Dr Toole + all the researchers he references, the stereo LR phantom center image created has lots of lobing interference:
This coloration cannot be ignored in a situation where the direct sound is strong. Early reflections from different directions tend to fill the interference dip, making the spectrum more pleasantly neutral......Not to be ignored in any situation in which reflected sounds have been removed is the fact that the acoustical crosstalk that plagues stereo phantom images is present in its naked ugliness, without any compensation from reflected sounds
Another paper by Vickers (http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/FixingThePhantomCenter.pdf):
Yet another reason we do not consciously notice these comb filter notches is that room reflections and reverberation from all directions, while creating new cancellations of their own, nevertheless tend to smooth out the magnitude responses, filling in some of the missing information.
As mentioned, early reflections perceptually fuse with the direct sound, adding more useful energy and increasing the intelligibility of speech [19]. The ability of room reflections to fill in the phantom center notches may be another reason for the improved intelligibility.
It does not matter what you, Ethan and other studiophiles believe you prefer. What matters is scientific evidence that these products do improve
perceptually what they are touted to do. In terms of (real) stereo clarity, it may be the exact opposite of what you believe/espouse for lateral "treatments".
Yet it may also be completely correct. Toole et. al. are not the ultimate authorities on the matter, and the discussed papers are not final evidence either way. While they may be compelling, they may also be flawed, have poorly designed tests and are (as everything else) subject to random chance and variation.
For instance, I found the test task to be rather simplistic, consisting of adjusting the volume level of 3 samples from a piece of classical music consisting of soprano voice and orchestra while in rooms randomly fitted with one set of either absorbing, diffusing or reflective panels. First off, this is rather far from a normal mixing/mastering workflow, or alternatively, it's the laziest and best-paid job in the world in relation to actual effort (which it isn't).
Secondly, only one genre of music was tested, consisting of natural human voice and acoustic instruments. How about music with completely different spectral content and 'busier' overall sound, synthesizers, square waves, electric guitars and so on?
You can't just say than Ethan et. al. are wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong based on just this paper and a few others. Nothing has been conclusively proven or disproven, but there is definitely basis for further research and testing. The room treatment products may very well do exactly what they claim to do, but the human ear+brain may also very well be able to subconsciously account for the presence (or lack) of early reflections etc. and still be able to properly assess the overall sound of the recording and create a good result.
And I'll note than Ethan specifically mentions his great respect for Toole and the vast majority of his work, despite disagreeing with him on the subject of early reflections.
No but at least it is evidence, as opposed to...
Toole et. al. are not the ultimate authorities on the matter
They present valid evidence, controlled blind test results, with references. Which despite your denials, you obviously reject.
it may also be completely correct.
Valid evidence?
Studiophiles endlessly chanting their sighted beliefs on every forum, doesn't count on this one, sorry.
No but at least it is evidence, as opposed to...
True, it is evidence that points in a specific direction.
AJ seems hell-bent on twisting everything I write into a complete denial of Toole et. al., but it really isn't. It's certainly opened my eyes to some important points. But while the evidence is very interesting, there is a lot left out of it. That is absolutely not evidence of the opposite hypothesis (that room treatments are the only salvation), but I think the evidence is not exactly 100% solid and that it is too early to proclaim anything with certainty. More research is obviously needed.
Wild assumptions not based in factual evidence should obviously not be trusted blindly, but neither should very limited-scope tests with extremely small numbers of test subjects and test variations.
Personally, I'm interested in seeing what the room treatment proponents have to answer with.
And please note that I recommended Ethan because I found what he had to say compelling and convincing. Now after reading these papers, maybe not quite as much. But one should also keep in mind regarding Toole and others, that JBL once somehow found speaker phase to be completely irrelevant. Researchers and the papers they produce are not infallible. I am not dismissing the work of Toole and the authors of the McGill paper, but every bit of evidence should be taken with a grain of salt. I should probably have had a slightly bigger grain of salt for Ethan's articles and videos, even if they still contain a lot of valuable info.
Personally, I'm interested in seeing what the room treatment proponents have to answer with.
Well, we've had 4 pages of crazy dance moves, frantic hand waving and the old fallback of negative proof/absolutes, etc.
But as predicted, zero valid evidence. None. It is not the task of skeptical people to "disprove" the efficacy of "treatments".
The burden of proof, falls squarely on you/your ilk.
I should probably have had a slightly bigger grain of salt for Ethan's articles and videos, even if they still contain a lot of valuable info.
Regarding
valid evidence for the efficacy of "treatments" other than "million dollar studios do it, you should too!" (my fave) and daydreams about "'accuracy and hearing what the producers heard", etc, etc.?
Like what?
Personally, I'm interested in seeing what the room treatment proponents have to answer with.
Based on my experience with Ethan's involvement in scientific discussions I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'm curious about what a few select people have to say on the subject by have not yet posted here, though with the exception of one or two individuals, I'm sure they've seen it but have not decided to say anything and I strongly suspect it is because it wouldn't meet the bar set by the AES paper, as imperfect as it may be.
In a way I'm happy beek decided to say something, as it really gets to the essence of the typical level of discourse on the topic as AJ and I see it. The only difference between what he's saying and what others have said is the lack of ego, bluster and puffery.
E: Removed junk, because no one seems to care.
I should probably have had a slightly bigger grain of salt for Ethan's articles and videos, even if they still contain a lot of valuable info.
Regarding valid evidence for the efficacy of "treatments" other than "million dollar studios do it, you should too!" (my fave) and daydreams about "'accuracy and hearing what the producers heard", etc, etc.?
Like what?
I was referring mostly to his videos on audio myths etc., which I have found quite enlightening. So by extrapolation, since those are factual, I trust that there is the same degree of factual information in his other videos/writing.
Honestly, I think we're in agreement on mostly everything here, but the confrontational tone of conversation is getting in the way. I am
not disparaging the McGill paper (or the work of Floyd Toole), but I do think it is rather unfortunately limited in its scope. It's not iron-clad proof, but I'll definitely accept it as a solid point against room treatments as they are commonly recommended. And as counter-proof doesn't seem to be forthcoming, that probably counts as another point.
And to keep greynol happy, I'll try to use more neutral language in future recommendations, as I cannot edit the original post and the OP was probably scared away long ago.
E2: And by referring to AJ's post, we can answer the current thread title question: Why are room treatment so often considered necessary? Because the big million-dollar studios use them, of course. But why do they do that? Beats me.
And to keep greynol happy, I'll try to use more neutral language in future recommendations, as I cannot edit the original post and the OP was probably scared away long ago.
It wasn't just you. The fact that you are willing to discuss says something about your interest in advancing a topic as opposed to littering the forum with links and shirking all accountability by running away.
The article I see AJ linking to frequently on this thread isn't by Floyd Toole.
It was abundantly clear from the beginning he's not reading any of the articles, nor has any interest, since they are blind tests. It doesn't matter what the Studio participants believe they prefer in Tooles, McGill etc tests, since that does not affect the results. Believers will always dismiss the results as not applicable to them, or just plain wrong.
As a studiophile, he "knows" what he prefers, belief and sighted biases etc be damned.
Typical audiophile twilight zone stuff with zero cognizance.
As I've said all along, these are rhetorical questions, don't expect any valid scientific evidence in support of "treatments", just "I prefer Chinese food, therefore Chinese food works".
cheers,
AJ
This article makes nice companion to the McGill one (especially as the 'task' that the McGill study gave to its subjects was mixing). It notes how preference for reflections differs between mixing and mastering engineers.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17241 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17241).
Preferences of Critical Listening Environments Among Sound Engineers
SAKARI TERVO, PERTTU LAUKKANEN, , JUKKA PA¨ TYNEN, AND TAPIO LOKKI,
You can't just say than Ethan et. al. are wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong based on just this paper and a few others. Nothing has been conclusively proven or disproven, but there is definitely basis for further research and testing.
Indeed...as Floyd Toole not too long ago (June 2014) wrote:
At frequencies above the transition or
Schroeder frequency (about 300 Hz in
domestic and control room spaces) the
choices for addressing first reflections are:
• Absorb the sound completely, not partially,
at the specific angle of incidence
that applies (very thick, low-density
fibrous tangle).
• Attenuate the sound by a uniform
amount (a good diffuser?).
• Reflect the sound (a hard flat surface).
The last option might not sound like
acoustical treatment, but to two ears and
a brain that are well adapted to listening
in rooms, it is the best choice in some
situations. Obviously, there are many
opportunities for serious research.
italics and bolding mine
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17338 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17338)
Sorry, I'm TOTALLY LOST!
AJ, can you summarize the point you're tying to make?
I think I may have started this discussion in another thread where someone was asking about monitors for producing music and I said something like, "Acoustics are are equally important..."
Sorry, I'm TOTALLY LOST!
AJ, can you summarize the point you're tying to make?
I think I may have started this discussion in another thread where someone was asking about monitors for producing music and I said something like, "Acoustics are are equally important..."
This thread is an offshoot of a gear recommendation thread where I (among other advice) said to get in touch with Ethan Winer regarding room acoustics and possibly recommendations for room treatment. AJ disagrees quite strongly with Ethan's, shall we say "more subjective" approach to room treatment, and despite what you may gather from this thread, I fully understand why. There are some decent papers out there (some of which have been linked in this thread), that back up the "less is more" approach, in that room treatment products are probably overused and over-enthusiastically prescribed as a must-have for a good listening room. I just like to make the point that the existence of
some proof does not give 100% certainty.
Somewhere in the process, I think we managed to scare away the original poster, which is a shame.
I for one am awfully glad that the topic of room acoustics is receiving some "mainstream" attention these days. There's what seems like an endless supply of acoustically awful rooms - in fact, what's optically fashionable these days is just about aiming for the worst possible acoustics, between the hard floors and sparse furniture. Not to forget big window surfaces (typically on just one side of the listening space). And don't even get me started about how stuff is built on the outside. What do you expect when walls are running in parallel for many, many meters at significant height? Yup, an echo-y mess. It's infuriating. Architects should be required to take a basic course in acoustics IMO - common sense level stuff would often do. [/soapbox]
Of course something like bass traps should never be blindly recommend before taking house construction into account, and/or looking at decay (CSD) measurements, which meanwhile are being conducted on an encouragingly regular basis. It's always good if you can get away with conventional furniture and interior decoration items that serve some other purpose - but if you happen to be stuck with something like your average basement home cinema, there's only so much you can do about the bass. Converting the room into an irregular pentagonal shape with non-parallel floor and ceiling tends not to be an option either. (And I agree something like that would be a bit of a nightmare to build.)
BTW, is there any age statistic for preferences in room treatment? I reckon a lot of younger people who have grown up with good headphones (that would be about 35yo and under) would lean towards the "treated" end while results for the previous generation are likely to be less clear, but it would be good to see my gut feeling backed up in numbers.
There's what seems like an endless supply of acoustically awful rooms - in fact, what's optically fashionable these days is just about aiming for the worst possible acoustics, between the hard floors and sparse furniture. Not to forget big window surfaces (typically on just one side of the listening space).
For some of the most blatant examples of this, take a look at Bang & Olufsen's promotional photos.
(http://i.imgur.com/AHJEUVrl.jpg)
It looks super awesome and high-end in a Bond villain kind of way, but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete, glass and hardwood, it probably sounds like shit. And that's a $50K setup, for just the speakers.
It's the same here:
(http://i.imgur.com/X5djLDUl.jpg)
I love Scandinavian minimalism, but it has some serious drawbacks. And I can tell you from personal experience that Bang & Olufsen's actual listening rooms and demo setups look nothing like that.
but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete,
Those grey surfaces are surely sheets covering bass traps.
glass
Thouse white surfaces to the left must be paper, Japanese style. (Denmark doesn't get
that cold in the winter ...)
and hardwood
Uh-oh. Now I am running out of excuses. Need more of those footstools.
AJ, can you summarize the point you're tying to make?
Yes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html)
I said something like (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=108950&view=findpost&p=910747)
Valid evidence for the efficacy of this approach? Cost effectiveness vs _?
Are any studiophiles aware of things like Harmans perceptually based optimization EQ (Arcos/Synthesis) being measurably non-flat below 1khz and why that would be?
This article makes nice companion to the McGill one (especially as the 'task' that the McGill study gave to its subjects was mixing). It notes how preference for reflections differs between mixing and mastering engineers.
I'll download it later, but it seems to be a simulated approach much like KEFs Eureka/Archimedes project way back.
cheers,
AJ
it would be good to see my gut feeling backed up in numbers.
Actually, that was purportedly the purpose of the thread, actual valid perceptual evidence per HA TOS rules.
Not what you "see" with your ears or speculate about "CSD" etc.
It looks super awesome and high-end in a Bond villain kind of way, but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete, glass and hardwood, it probably sounds like shit.
You have awesome eyeball hearing. Any valid perceptual data per HA TOS?
It looks super awesome and high-end in a Bond villain kind of way, but unless they've invented some kind of amazing acoustic concrete, glass and hardwood, it probably sounds like shit.
You have awesome eyeball hearing. Any valid perceptual data per HA TOS?
Give it a rest. Invoking TOS and demanding a double blind test of everything is pointless when the room in question is
blatantly constructed from some of the most reflective building materials around. It will probably sound OK at low volumes, but turn it up to a decent level where echo and reverberation starts to really happen, and it's going to fall apart quickly. This is not something subtle that needs to be ferreted out through lengthy tests, this is several orders of magnitude removed from that. We're talking absolute base-level textbook Acoustics 101 stuff.
Or even better, give me a single good reason why that particular room is
not a ridiculous echo-y mess. That said, it could be interesting to use that room for playing back church organ recordings, if you could find some that didn't have the (proper) reverberation from a church etc. already on the recording.
(Hint: It's at the Bang & Olufsen headquarters in Struer, Denmark. I've been there, and the acoustics are terrible. They
never demo their speakers in rooms that are anything like that.)
Give it a rest.
No audiophile. Go back to school, take logic, learn about red herrings and burden of proof, etc, learn to read, then check out the TOS here at HA, mentioned early in the thread for its purpose.
the Bang & Olufsen headquarters in Struer, Denmark. I've been there, and the acoustics are terrible.
You saw this, you heard that, you're "insulted" for being an audiophile....
E2: And by referring to AJ's post, we can answer the current thread title question: Why are room treatment so often considered necessary? Because the big million-dollar studios use them, of course. But why do they do that? Beats me.
Room treatments are band aids. Listening rooms are supposed to be designed to have the function of room treatments inherently built in.
There appear to be some designers who can actually build rooms that fully exploit the audio gear housed therein without visible room treatments.
In the case of recording studios, the room treatments are often part of the marketing of the room. A well-designed room with no visible treatments (which is possible if not desirable) would not impress the visiting firemen and therefore not be as commercially attractive.
the Bang & Olufsen headquarters in Struer, Denmark. I've been there, and the acoustics are terrible.
You saw this, you heard that, you're "insulted" for being an audiophile....
I fail to see what is so controversial about me stating that I have actually been in that room and have actually listened to music (and speeches, live piano etc.) there, and that my experience is that it was a terrible room, acoustically.
E2: And by referring to AJ's post, we can answer the current thread title question: Why are room treatment so often considered necessary? Because the big million-dollar studios use them, of course. But why do they do that? Beats me.
Room treatments are band aids. Listening rooms are supposed to be designed to have the function of room treatments inherently built in.
There appear to be some designers who can actually build rooms that fully exploit the audio gear housed therein without visible room treatments.
In the case of recording studios, the room treatments are often part of the marketing of the room. A well-designed room with no visible treatments (which is possible if not desirable) would not impress the visiting firemen and therefore not be as commercially attractive.
One thing I did note about the papers that were discussed here (the McGill paper in particular), is that the listening tests happened in rooms that were presumably well-designed from the beginning, and thus the effect of introducing their chosen acoustic panels into the room would be different compared to peoples' listening rooms at home. Now obviously the test focused on professional sound techs, so the test was representative of the rooms they generally work in, but it does speak to the rather limited scope of the paper and the testing.
And you're completely right that one should not discount the marketing value of large and very obvious acoustic treatment panels, to impress the easily-impressed bosses and managers (who usually carry the largest wallets).
Expressing something as an opinion does not absolve you from TOS #8.
I fail to see what is so controversial about me stating that I have actually been in that room and have actually listened to music (and speeches, live piano etc.) there, and that my experience is that it was a terrible room, acoustically.
Add basic reading comprehension to your suggested further education.
One thing I did note about the papers that were discussed here (the McGill paper in particular), is that the listening tests..
..were done blind. Controlled. Statistically analyzed. It didn't matter what the studiophiles "knew" about treatments, rooms, etc. It didn't matter what they believed, saw/heard at B&O or in some ad copy. This, you seem incapable to comprehend.
5 pages, much blathering, zero evidence for efficacy of "treatments".
Expressing something as an opinion does not absolve you from TOS #8.
I fail to see what is so controversial about me stating that I have actually been in that room and have actually listened to music (and speeches, live piano etc.) there, and that my experience is that it was a terrible room, acoustically.
Add basic reading comprehension to your suggested further education.
And I suggest you enroll in the very same classes you keep pestering me to join.
I stated quite clearly that my real-world experience of the room in question was that I thought was a terrible room, sound-wise. Is that really so hard to understand?
One thing I did note about the papers that were discussed here (the McGill paper in particular), is that the listening tests..
..were done blind. Controlled. Statistically analyzed. It didn't matter what the studiophiles "knew" about treatments, rooms, etc. It didn't matter what they believed, saw/heard at B&O or in some ad copy. This, you seem incapable to comprehend.
5 pages, much blathering, zero evidence for efficacy of "treatments".
You didn't actually bother to include the interesting part of my post, that the rooms in question were most likely well-designed in the first place. It gives a good baseline for professional listening rooms, but not so much for anywhere else.
But that's OK. You're obviously only interested in being as belligerent and abrasive as possible while shouting "TOS TOS!" and demanding blind tests of things that are either impossible or extremely hard for people without dedicated sound labs to test.
I've said what I need to say in this thread. Anyone who reads through it will draw their own conclusions.
Anyone who reads through it will draw their own conclusions.
Yep. I predicted zero evidence of "treatments" efficacy from the choir of believers.
Got: I believe...I saw this, I saw that, I was there, I have first hand experience, I heard this, I heard that, I can dance, I can wave hands frantically, strawmen, red herrings, the burden of proof lies elsewhere, etc, etc.
IOW, same ol' audiophile....and still no evidence.
The only treatments in that B&O room is the 'room eq' function built in to each of those robo-speakers.
I don't expect that would do much to ameliorate the massive reverb times I *predict* would exist in that room.
But who knows, someone sitting in the sweet spot might think it sounds great. Maybe because it 'really does', or maybe because they spent a sh*tload on it.
The only treatments in that B&O room is the 'room eq' function built in to each of those robo-speakers.
I don't expect that would do much to ameliorate the massive reverb times I *predict* would exist in that room.
I'm sure that could be measured. Is it perceived negatively? When the spectrum of the reverberation is near carbon copy of direct?
You do realize those are "omni" speakers, at least in the lateral sense. I would hardly think that specific polar pattern was developed...to have it "treated", or at least absorbed.
But who knows, someone sitting in the sweet spot might think it sounds great. Maybe because it 'really does', or maybe because they spent a sh*tload on it.
Maybe. IIRC, Moulton was involved with those and did some demos, though can't recall if blind, although the effect on studiophiles sighted, would have been interesting also.
cheers,
AJ
Maybe. IIRC, Moulton was involved with those and did some demos, though can't recall if blind, although the effect on studiophiles sighted, would have been interesting also.
As in, "Wow! I can't believe they could possibly sound so good given everything I
know about room treatments. I would spend even ten times the price if it meant my room wouldn't look like this (http://ethanwiner.com/living_room2.jpg)."?
I would spend even ten times the price if it meant my room wouldn't look like this (http://ethanwiner.com/living_room2.jpg)."?
I personally would rather not have mattresses on my ceiling and may have poked a wee bit of fun at Ethan on AVS (which Arny still holds a grudge about apparently), but to each their own. These are personal preferences, why can't they be held as such and not try to have real science like Toole et al dismissed?
What always puzzled me, if studiophiles crave that studio/treatments/ "accuracy" business, why aren't the (completely different) speakers mounted much higher and the massive reflective elephant....excuse me, mixing board, not shown on Ethans floor between speakers and LP?? What am I missing here?
(http://www.mason-uk.co.uk/images/SARM%201.jpg)
cheers,
AJ
I would spend even ten times the price if it meant my room wouldn't look like this (http://ethanwiner.com/living_room2.jpg)."?
I personally would rather not have mattresses on my ceiling
..and the author of this has the guts to complain about straw men.
and may have poked a wee bit of fun at Ethan on AVS (which Arny still holds a grudge about apparently),
No grudge here about your war with Ethan. Just observing the facts - it existed. Now your ongoing campaign of lies, deceptions and misrepresentations of me and my words - different matter.
but to each their own. These are personal preferences, why can't they be held as such and not try to have real science like Toole et al dismissed?
????
So Toole proved that all room treatments were snake oil with DBTs?
LOL!
What always puzzled me, if studiophiles crave that studio/treatments/ "accuracy" business, why aren't the (completely different) speakers mounted much higher and the massive reflective elephant....excuse me, mixing board, not shown on Ethans floor between speakers and LP?? What am I missing here?
Obviously, real world experience with recording.
(http://www.mason-uk.co.uk/images/SARM%201.jpg)
For the record, the above picture not even vaguely related to Ethan's actual workspace to the point of just being another deception.
Furthermore, the target acoustics of an Ethan Winer style studio are completely OT in any reasonable discussion of listening room acoustics.
So the alleged evidence presented here by AJ is itself OT squared.
How do you test something for its 'audio playback' properties in terms of human preference if it affects more than the audio playback? What if it's the feel, or even the smell, of the new carpet that the listener likes, not just its effect on the sound? The acoustics of a room affect all sounds made in it, not just what comes out of the speakers. How do we know the listeners aren't responding to the room's 'liveliness' in terms of what it does to their own voices etc. before the music even starts? Even if we cleverly managed to eliminate all that in our tests the results would be meaningless as soon as real listeners entered a real room and found that, for example, the anechoic chamber they voted as top was a profoundly unpleasant place to be in.
For the umpteenth time you're wondering aimlessly about the neighborhood again Arny. Let me take your hand again and bring you home.
I personally would rather not have mattresses on my ceiling
..and the author of this has the guts to complain about straw men.
(http://ethanwiner.com/living_room2.jpg)
You really should learn meanings of word first Arny. Or are you constantly forgetting things, unable to see links, etc?
No grudge here about your war with Ethan. Just observing the facts - it existed. Now your ongoing campaign of lies, deceptions and misrepresentations of me and my words - different matter.
Oh, you meaning pointing out you both make absurd studiophile believer claims?
Let me help again Arnie, from your authority (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1420393-speaker-questions-newbie-his-first-home.html#post22236350):
Again, the best way to hear what the mix engineers heard is to have the same setup. This applies for two-channel music as well as HT surround.
Arny, how do you reconcile that with the studio pictured above and Ethans room? That's what I'm saying and the bull seeing red is unable to comprehend, unsurprisingly.
So Toole proved that all room treatments were snake oil with DBTs?
Toole used DBTs to reach his conclusions while studiophile believers like Ethan and ABX Arny reject them in favor of sighted "experience"
Floyd's statements about early reflections defy my own personal experience, and the experience of almost every other audio engineer I know.
What always puzzled me, if studiophiles crave that studio/treatments/ "accuracy" business, why aren't the (completely different) speakers mounted much higher and the massive reflective elephant....excuse me, mixing board, not shown on Ethans floor between speakers and LP?? What am I missing here?
Obviously, real world experience with recording.
That would make me blind to the existence of the mixing board and too dumb to know it reflects, despite the "treated" room around the speakers?? Interesting.
For the record, the above picture not even vaguely related to Ethan's actual workspace to the point of just being another deception.
That's what makes his "treated"/holodeck room all the more amazing! How he would "hear what the mix engineers heard is to have the same setup"...with something completely different!
Furthermore, the target acoustics of an Ethan Winer style studio are completely OT in any reasonable discussion of listening room acoustics.
Finally! So now Arnold ABX. Krueger will tell us how to "treat", based on reliable evidence as provided by DBTs like Toole does.
Arny?
I would spend even ten times the price if it meant my room wouldn't look like this (http://ethanwiner.com/living_room2.jpg)."?
I personally would rather not have mattresses on my ceiling
..and the author of this has the guts to complain about straw men.
I'm not sure who, exactly, you think is the "author," but if you believe it was I, then have a gander at the full quote in order to see that I was merely suggesting something a "studiophile" might say...
Maybe. IIRC, Moulton was involved with those and did some demos, though can't recall if blind, although the effect on studiophiles sighted, would have been interesting also.
As in, "Wow! I can't believe they could possibly sound so good given everything I know about room treatments. I would spend even ten times the price if it meant my room wouldn't look like this (http://ethanwiner.com/living_room2.jpg)."?
bolding added for emphasis.
I would spend even ten times the price if it meant my room wouldn't look like this (http://ethanwiner.com/living_room2.jpg)."?
I personally would rather not have mattresses on my ceiling
..and the author of this has the guts to complain about straw men.
I'm not sure who, exactly, you think is the "author," but if you believe it was I, then have a gander at the full quote in order to see that I was merely suggesting something a "studiophile" might say...
I would hope that for most humans with normal perceptual capabilities, a simple count of quotes would lead to the conclusion that I thought I was quoting AJ.
That you seem to think otherwise, could raise some serious concerns.
For the record, I thought I was quoting AJ, and that should be clear from both the context and the analysis of the quotes.
Now I see why you have all these misapprehensions.
Furthermore, the target acoustics of an Ethan Winer style studio are completely OT in any reasonable discussion of listening room acoustics.
Finally! So now Arnold ABX. Krueger will tell us how to "treat", based on reliable evidence as provided by DBTs like Toole does.
Arny?
Hard to reply to someone who obviously lives in a different universe.
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
The second problem appears to be your (AJ) inability to understand that the desired target acoustics of spaces varies with their function. They are drastically different for:
(1) large performance venues
(2) Small studios used for mulititrack recording
(3) Typical residential listening rooms
There are no "perfect book answers" for any of these. People with equally good understandings of the technology don't always or even often agree on what is best.
Then there is the slight problem of personal preferences. Anybody who expects them to converge with any degree of precision in these days is naive.
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
Sayers, B. McA. And F.E. Toole, "Acoustica Image Lateralization Judgments with Binaural Transients", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 36, pp. 1199-1205, (1964).
F.E. Toole and B. McA. Sayers, "Laterization Judgments and the nature of Binaural Acoustic Images", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 319-324 (1965).
F.E. Toole and B. McA. Sayers, "Inferences of Neural Activity Associated with Binaural Acoustic Images", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 769-779 (1965).
F.E. Toole, "In-Head Localization of Acoustic Images", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 48, 943-949 (1970).
F.E. Toole, "Listening Tests, Turning Opinion Into Fact", J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 30, pp. 431-445 (1982 June).
F.E. Toole, "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Headphones", 2nd International Conference, Audio Eng. Soc. , preprint C1006 (1984 May).
F.E. Toole, "Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance", J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 January/February)
**F.E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences", J. Audio Eng, Soc., vol. 34, pt.1 pp.227-235 (1986 April), pt. 2, pp. 323-348 (1986 May).
**F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement", J. Audio Eng, Soc., vol. 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
F.E. Toole, "Principles of Sound and Hearing", in K.B. Benson, ed. "Audio Engineering Handbook", chap. 1 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988).
S.E. Olive and F.E. Toole, "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms", J. Audio Eng, Soc., vol. 37, pp. 539-553 (1989 July/August).
S.E. Olive and F.E. Toole, "The Evaluation of Microphones - Part1: Measurements", 87th Convention, Audio Eng, Soc., preprint no. 2837 (1989 October).
F.E. Toole, "Listening Tests - Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, Audio Eng, Soc. (1990 May).
F.E. Toole, "Loudspeakers and Rooms for Stereophonic Sound Reproduction", Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, Audio Eng, Soc. (1990 May).
F.E. Toole, "Binaural Record/Reproduction Systems and Their Use in Psychoacoustic Investigations", 91st Convention, Audio Eng, Soc., preprint no. 3179. (1991 October).
P. L. Schuck, S. Olive, J. Ryan, F. E. Toole, S Sally, M. Bonneville, E. Verreault, Kathy Momtahan, "Perception of Reproduced Sound in Rooms: Some Results from the Athena Project", pp.49-73, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, Audio Eng. Soc. (1993 June).
F.E. Toole, "Subjective Evaluation", in J. Borwick, ed. "Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook - Edition", chap. 11 (Focal Press, London, 1994).
**S.E. Olive, P. Schuck, S. Sally, M. Bonneville, "The Effects of Loudspeaker Placement on Listener Preference Ratings", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 42, pp. 651-669 (1994 September).
F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things", 97th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint No. 3894 (1994 Nov.).
F.E Toole and S.E. Olive, "Listening Test Methods for Computer Workstation Audio Systems", 99th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., No Preprint (1995).
F.E. Toole, "The Future of Stereo", Part 1, Audio, Vol.81, No.5, pp. 126-142 (1997, May), Part 2, Audio, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 34-39 (1997 June).
F.E. Toole, "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Workstation Audio Systems", 16th International Congress on Acoustics and 135th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Seattle, WA, Session 4pSP, (1998 June).
S.E. Olive, B. Castro and F.E. Toole, " A New Laboratory For Evaluating Multichannel Systems and Audio Components", 105th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., preprint no. 4842 (1998 Sept).
S.E. Olive, B. Castro and F.E. Toole, "A New Laboratory and Methodology for the Subjective Evaluation of Workstation Audio Systems" presented at the 106th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Munich, (1999 May).
F.E.Toole, "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future", an invited paper at the 109th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint no. 5201 (2000 Sept.).
F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Subjective Evaluation", in J. Borwick, ed. "Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook - Third Edition", (Focal Press, London, 2001).
F.E. Toole, "Sound Reproducing Systems", in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 9th edition (2002).
Sure studiophile Arny, sure.
So his listen tests and McGills follow up, etc, on par with your/Ethan et al "experiences" yes?
There are no "perfect book answers" for any of these.
Ummm, Arnymir "ABX" Kruger, how about
any reliable evidence supporting the efficacy of you suggested "treatments"? You know, of the non-sighted variety?? Maybe using ABX? Any recollection why you "invented" this?
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
Sayers, B. McA. And F.E. Toole, "Acoustica Image Lateralization Judgments with Binaural Transients", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 36, pp. 1199-1205, (1964).
F.E. Toole and B. McA. Sayers, "Laterization Judgments and the nature of Binaural Acoustic Images", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 319-324 (1965).
F.E. Toole and B. McA. Sayers, "Inferences of Neural Activity Associated with Binaural Acoustic Images", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 769-779 (1965).
F.E. Toole, "In-Head Localization of Acoustic Images", J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 48, 943-949 (1970).
F.E. Toole, "Listening Tests, Turning Opinion Into Fact", J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 30, pp. 431-445 (1982 June).
F.E. Toole, "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Headphones", 2nd International Conference, Audio Eng. Soc. , preprint C1006 (1984 May).
F.E. Toole, "Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance", J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 January/February)
**F.E. Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences", J. Audio Eng, Soc., vol. 34, pt.1 pp.227-235 (1986 April), pt. 2, pp. 323-348 (1986 May).
**F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement", J. Audio Eng, Soc., vol. 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
F.E. Toole, "Principles of Sound and Hearing", in K.B. Benson, ed. "Audio Engineering Handbook", chap. 1 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988).
S.E. Olive and F.E. Toole, "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms", J. Audio Eng, Soc., vol. 37, pp. 539-553 (1989 July/August).
S.E. Olive and F.E. Toole, "The Evaluation of Microphones - Part1: Measurements", 87th Convention, Audio Eng, Soc., preprint no. 2837 (1989 October).
F.E. Toole, "Listening Tests - Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, Audio Eng, Soc. (1990 May).
F.E. Toole, "Loudspeakers and Rooms for Stereophonic Sound Reproduction", Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, Audio Eng, Soc. (1990 May).
F.E. Toole, "Binaural Record/Reproduction Systems and Their Use in Psychoacoustic Investigations", 91st Convention, Audio Eng, Soc., preprint no. 3179. (1991 October).
P. L. Schuck, S. Olive, J. Ryan, F. E. Toole, S Sally, M. Bonneville, E. Verreault, Kathy Momtahan, "Perception of Reproduced Sound in Rooms: Some Results from the Athena Project", pp.49-73, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, Audio Eng. Soc. (1993 June).
F.E. Toole, "Subjective Evaluation", in J. Borwick, ed. "Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook - Edition", chap. 11 (Focal Press, London, 1994).
**S.E. Olive, P. Schuck, S. Sally, M. Bonneville, "The Effects of Loudspeaker Placement on Listener Preference Ratings", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 42, pp. 651-669 (1994 September).
F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things", 97th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint No. 3894 (1994 Nov.).
F.E Toole and S.E. Olive, "Listening Test Methods for Computer Workstation Audio Systems", 99th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., No Preprint (1995).
F.E. Toole, "The Future of Stereo", Part 1, Audio, Vol.81, No.5, pp. 126-142 (1997, May), Part 2, Audio, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 34-39 (1997 June).
F.E. Toole, "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Workstation Audio Systems", 16th International Congress on Acoustics and 135th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Seattle, WA, Session 4pSP, (1998 June).
S.E. Olive, B. Castro and F.E. Toole, " A New Laboratory For Evaluating Multichannel Systems and Audio Components", 105th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., preprint no. 4842 (1998 Sept).
S.E. Olive, B. Castro and F.E. Toole, "A New Laboratory and Methodology for the Subjective Evaluation of Workstation Audio Systems" presented at the 106th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Munich, (1999 May).
F.E.Toole, "The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms - The Stereo Past and the Multichannel Future", an invited paper at the 109th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint no. 5201 (2000 Sept.).
F.E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Subjective Evaluation", in J. Borwick, ed. "Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook - Third Edition", (Focal Press, London, 2001).
F.E. Toole, "Sound Reproducing Systems", in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 9th edition (2002).
Any fool can google the web and list the titles of a bunch of papers. What's missing is a solid technical analysis of each and every one showing conclusively that their conclusions are solely based on DBTs.
I've read at least a few of them and wish you all the luck in the world, AJ.
If nothing else you'll be busy for a while! ;-) I daresay it will be the first time you actually read some of them. Whether you are capable of reliably performing the required analysis is an open question.
I'm not sure who, exactly, you think is the "author," but if you believe it was I, then have a gander at the full quote in order to see that I was merely suggesting something a "studiophile" might say...
I would hope that for most humans with normal perceptual capabilities, a simple count of quotes would lead to the conclusion that I thought I was quoting AJ.
Again, see what is in bold above.
I said if.
AJ used the term red herring throughout the discussion. It was I who used the term straw-man.
He is clearly calling the ceiling panels mattresses in jest, though they are every bit as much an eyesore. It's not exactly the straw man you wish to make it appear; rather it is a real-world example for the entire world to see. It would be hilarious if a blind test showed they worsened Ethan's experience and I would not bet against such an outcome.
What's missing is a solid technical analysis of each and every one showing conclusively that their conclusions are solely based on DBTs.
Like your "treatments"? Where are the DBTs?
What's missing is a solid technical analysis of each and every one showing conclusively that their conclusions are solely based on DBTs.
Like your "treatments"? Where are the DBTs?
Just Amir-like deflections.
Fact is most likely that AJ can't produce meaningful evidence that all of the papers whose titles he has listed are solely based on DBTs.
He would likely be heavily stressed to simply obtain all the papers, let alone read them and properly comprehend them. It is no mean task for any human being.
What's missing is a solid technical analysis of each and every one showing conclusively that their conclusions are solely based on DBTs.
Like your "treatments"? Where are the DBTs?
Which of my room treatments are you talking about, AJ?
Please list them. If you can't then your credibility just went down another big notch.
Which of my room treatments are you talking about, AJ?
Any room treatments Arnymir. Like the ones you authority Ethan peddles. The ones you said might be better money spent.
Naughty naughty, Arnymir, no DBTs? Just sighted belief?
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
So you claim studiophile. Evidence to support this belief?
He is clearly calling the ceiling panels mattresses in jest, though they are every bit as much as an eyesore.
So much of what AJ posts is fictional that its hard to tell what is jest what is about the misapprehensions he seems to want to promote.
It's not exactly the straw man you wish to make it appear.
Gosh I wish I could get the conference management to do my back-pedaling for me. Wait, I rarely post anything that needs back-pedalling. What a concept?
It is a real-world example for the entire world to see.
Real world examples can easily trace back to Ethan himself, as they are easy enough to find. Ignoring them and using false substitutes is clear evidence of intention.
It would be hilarious if a blind test showed they worsened Ethan's experience and I would not bet against such an outcome.
I have a lot more faith in sighted evaluations of things that are as clearly audible as acoustical effects can be, than that. Most of the audio industry does and that faith pays off in improved sound quality fairly often.
Yes there are a lot of acoustical products that are snake oil. We all know where to read about them. I think that we can mostly identify them without doing our own DBTs. But the bad examples don't prove that room acoustics technology is all bad.
I'm not what AJ's axe to grind against them is.
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
So you claim studiophile. Evidence to support this belief?
Since AFAIK studiophile is not a standard audio term, I don't know what you are talking about AJ.
Was it developed based on sighted evaluations? High probability.
For example we know that audio DBTs were first published by Bell Labs in the early 1950s, we know that the rest of audio technology dating back to Helmholtz and beyond was based on sighted evaluations.
Since you won't explain why you think the papers you cited were all based on DBTs, we know that you are pretty unsure yourself.
I have a lot more faith in sighted evaluations of things that are as clearly audible as acoustical effects can be, than that.
This isn't a faith based forum.
Most of the audio industry does and that faith pays off in improved sound quality fairly often.
TOS #8.
Put up or shut up.
I have a lot more faith in sighted evaluations of things that are as clearly audible as acoustical effects can be, than that.
This isn't a faith based forum.
Ever study epistemology? ;-)
Most of the audio industry does and that faith pays off in improved sound quality fairly often.
TOS #8.
Put up or shut up.
As soon as you demonstrate the TOS #8 compliance of the papers you glibly post titles of (but have probably never actually personally read). You mentioned them first, so you owe the forum the explanations first.
Wait, I rarely post anything that needs back-pedalling.
Wait, I rarely post anything that needs back-pedalling.
Be prepared to see a little bit of back pedaling given that the AES paper hat AJ has been pushing around here does not seem to contain the word blind or any common synonyms. It is most likely based on sighted evaluations.
You're chasing your own tail, AJ. You're arguing in circles.
What exactly are you asking about? Do acoustic treatment products (audiophile woo-woo tiny cubes glued to the walls excluded) make an audible difference? I'm pretty sure the Floyd E. Toole paper you keep linking says that they do, and that people could tell the difference in a double blind test.
The article I see AJ linking to frequently on this thread isn't by Floyd Toole.
It's:
The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments
Authors: King, Richard; Leonard, Brett; Sikora, Grzegorz
I've got it - it is freely downloadable by any AES member because it was in the Journal since 12/2001.
No mention of blind testing that I can see.
I have that paper here before me. As an AES member I have free access to any journal paper published since 12/2001 and I have the earlier ones as part of a library the AES published on a number of CDs.
Please quote the text that you find in that paper that indicates that the listening tests were DBTs.
Hint: The word blind or any common synonym for it does not seem to appear in the paper.
(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc73/AJinFLA/AES16640.jpg)
Wow. First Tooles tests are sighted and now this. Absolutely pathetic.
I've got it - it is freely downloadable by any AES member because it was in the Journal since 12/2001.
No mention of blind testing that I can see.
Looks like your Hail Mary was intercepted and returned for a touchdown:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=911261 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110486&view=findpost&p=911261)
EDIT: The above link is dead. The post has been moved and now appears above this one. For reference, this is the new URL:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=911261 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=911261)
I've got it - it is freely downloadable by any AES member because it was in the Journal since 12/2001.
The paper was published Dec 2012.
You're wandering the neighborhood aimlessly again.
I've got it - it is freely downloadable by any AES member because it was in the Journal since 12/2001.
The paper was published Dec 2012.
So what is your point, that I don't really have the paper in hand because 12/2013 isn't after 12/2001?
New math in your alternative universe?
You're wandering the neighborhood aimlessly again.
You are again deflecting. You can't quote it because it is not there. There is no mention of blind testing in the paper.
Treatments are screened as a matter of convention, but if the screening is acoustically transparent it is almost always visually transparent as well. It takes special lighting to conceal it, none of which is in evidence.
Plus you have still provided no evidence about the rest of your references.
Your score is still zero.
Looks like your Hail Mary was intercepted and returned for a touchdown:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=911261 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110486&view=findpost&p=911261)
Nice job - close the thread to quash comments you don't want to hear.
Read the first post of this discussion. I told you about TOS5 earlier. Do I need to tell you about TOS6 and 7 as well?!?
You are free to respond here about the topic at hand. Matters concerning moderation are to be had privately. Discussing them further here won't be tolerated.
For your convenience I have moved the post into this topic:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=911261 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=911261)
I (and am sure others) very much look forward to hearing your comments.
What a fun thread… from the very first post, it is meant to be a trap, but with clear rules to avoid getting caught. I hope my points below on the difficulty threading just a fine needle is in the spirit of the thread!
There has been some potential for more than one topic to go sideways as of late.
Let's do it here instead, OK?
Remember this is HA. It should be expected that all replies be subject to our TOS.
The tension is even higher because:
NO ONE[/b] is saying treatment can't make audible differences. The point of interest is whether expressed preferences are ever backed by bias-controlled testing.
we accept that treatments could make audible differences, but we need to have “bias-controlled testing” of “preferences”, even though my thesaurus says “bias” and “preference” are synonyms. I’m not dense; I know exactly what you mean: “preference for a sound” should be demonstrated without “biases” like sight/knowledge of the DUT, but the bar is set high. We need to pay special attention to definitions and usage.
I clearly stated it is my opinion, right?
Expressing something as an opinion does not absolve you from TOS #8.
Well TOS8 says: "All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective
sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims.
Acceptable means of support are
double blind[/b] listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support." (I added some emphasis: italics, etc.)
So I
cannot say “in my opinion, everyone who’s not deaf knows paper cones sound good and natural, while plastic cones sound bad, hard, synthetic”. But can I say “I prefer blue speakers to pink ones, even though they sound the same, cuz I’m a boy”? That doesn’t violate TOS8, right? Of course, my poking you could get me into TOS2 plus TOS7 trouble. I’m trying to civilly make a couple of relevant points… apologies in advance if I’m failing.
But as predicted, zero valid evidence. None. It is not the task of skeptical people to "disprove" the efficacy of "treatments".
The burden of proof, falls squarely on you/your ilk.
First, greynol says “
NO ONE[/b] is saying treatment can't make audible differences.” and the dictionary says
"efficacy |?efik?s?|
noun
the ability to produce a desired or intended result."
…so if the desired or intended result
IS[/b] “audible differences”, Q.E.D.
Second, what do you call “valid evidence”? Is there a facility on the planet to
validly DBT room treatments?
FYI, the article that you repeatedly, multiply, redundantly cite does
NOT[/b] comply with TOS8: it is not a DBT AND it is neither ABX nor ABC/HR.
What's missing is a solid technical analysis of each and every one showing conclusively that their conclusions are solely based on DBTs.
Like your "treatments"? Where are the DBTs?
As soon as you demonstrate the TOS #8 compliance of the papers you glibly post titles of (but have probably never actually personally read). You mentioned them first, so you owe the forum the explanations first.
AJ, you have to admit this is a good point.
No mention of blind testing that I can see.
Let me help you with that: on the second page (p.998), the middle of the 5th paragraph of section 1.1, it says: “Variations of absorptive, diffusive, and reflective material was applied to the room and, while the subjects were aware that a change had been made, acoustically transparent fabric covered the treatment area, obscuring the exact nature of the change from the subject (Fig. 1).” {King et al. JAES v60:997} AJ included Fig. 1 above.
That means it was blind. Nonsense about “acoustically transparent” usually also being visually transparent without “special lights” is weak.
So, can we all agree treatments do
something, but whether they make things "better" is
subjective and therefore violates TOS8?
edit: added ref.
There is no mention of blind testing in the paper.
I've got it - it is freely downloadable by any AES member because it was in the Journal since 12/2001.
The paper was published Dec 2012.
So what is your point?
You've made it quite well for me . Might be a new low for faith based believers.
I have a lot more faith in sighted evaluations
Most of the audio industry does and that faith pays off in improved sound quality fairly often.
Your faith and belief as a studiophile believer and what "most of the industry" believe, have never been in/the question.
Here it is:
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Kruger, where is the valid, reliable evidence for "improved sound" fairly often?
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
And your evidence of this lowly, studiophile, specious claim?
..but whether they make things "better" is subjective and therefore violates TOS8?
You spent an awful lot of time waffling to get there Bob.
The evidence of "better" as claimed by faith based believers/science denialists like Ethan, Kruger et al, is where?
As soon as you demonstrate the TOS #8 compliance of the papers you glibly post titles of (but have probably never actually personally read). You mentioned them first, so you owe the forum the explanations first.
AJ, you have to admit this is a good point.
No mention of blind testing that I can see.
Let me help you with that: on the second page (p.998), the middle of the 5th paragraph of section 1.1, it says: “Variations of absorptive, diffusive, and reflective material was applied to the room and, while the subjects were aware that a change had been made, acoustically transparent fabric covered the treatment area, obscuring the exact nature of the change from the subject (Fig. 1).” {King et al. JAES v60:997} AJ included Fig. 1 above.
That means it was blind. Nonsense about “acoustically transparent” usually also being visually transparent without “special lights” is weak.
One of the things that I'm acutely aware of is that very few people around here are what one might call seasoned experimentalists.
I've done experiments like this myself and done them with others. First and foremost this experiment does not represent itself as a DBT. There are examples of such things in the AES annals and they have been discussed here recently. So people arund here should know what the write up of a DBT in the AES world looks like. There are big differences between the write up of this experiment and experiments in the same context that purported to be a DBT. I'll be charitable and call it a blind experiment because its possible that the listeners didn't know what they were listening to, and its possible that they did.
Thanks for revealing your prejudices against me with this statement: "Nonsense about “acoustically transparent” usually also being visually transparent without “special lights” is weak." The word "nonsense" is insulting and dismissive and if that's your state of mind, enjoy it.
Secondly the paper itself does not represent itself as being definiitive. Here's the abstract:
"Limited information exists on the practical effects of lateral reflections in small rooms
designed for high-quality sound reproduction and critical listening.
A pilot study is undertaken
to determine what effect specular and diffuse lateral reflections have on a trained listener. A
task-based methodology is employed in which a highly trained subject is asked to perform
a task commonly encountered in their daily work. The physical conditions of the listening
environment are altered to minimize, maximize, and diffuse side-wall reflections. Results
correlate the presence of strong lateral energy with an initial reduction of subjects ability to
complete the task within normal tolerances, but adaptation soon occurs, restoring the subjects
to practically normal pace and accuracy."
So it is a "pilot study" performed by some students and their instructor. Fine and dandy, but weak evidence for making global proclamations about the effectiveness of room treatments.
Thirdly the tests were run in a single listening environment that does not represent the usual listening room. For example the listeners were 1.7 meters from the speakers, and 1.8 meters from the room treatments. It appears that only room treatments on the sidewalls was studied. For example the relevant dimensions in my listening room are more than twice these. When I mix I sometimes mix in a near field situation were the listening distance is a about a meter. What are the rules for extrapolating results?
Forthly, only three types of the many posssible types of test surfaces were used.
It was also mentioned in the article that the room treatments did not affect the reverb time of the room. Room treatments often affect the reverb time of the rooms they are applied to.
How do we extrapolate the experimental results that were presented to real world situations when there are all these limitations and asymmetries?
So, can we all agree treatments do something, but whether they make things "better" is subjective and therefore violates TOS8?
edit: added ref.
I think that we can conclude that the paper cited does not pretend to be either a DBT or an experiment with global consequences. As it describes itself it was an worthwhile interesting student project that might stimulate further study.
I very purposefully and thoughtfully excluded preference testing when I devised the ABX tests that we started using in the late 1970s. 'Nuff said at this point.
One of the things that I'm acutely aware of is that very few people around here are what one might call seasoned experimentalists. I've done experiments like this myself and done them with others.
I can't find any on the AES site. Can you link the ones regarding "improved sound" using "treatments"?
TIA.
I very purposefully and thoughtfully excluded preference testing when I devised the ABX tests that we started using in the late 1970s.
Why did you purportedly devise ABX, if have "a lot more faith in sighted evaluations", by "most of the audio industry"??
Did you do any for "improved sound" using "treatments"?
You spent an awful lot of time waffling to get there Bob.
Waffling? WTF are you talking about? I made the point that if one is going to require careful parsing of words, one has to also live by that. You require care in others, but are not careful yourself.
The evidence of "better" as claimed by faith based believers/science denialists like Ethan, Kruger et al, is where?
How should I know? There's a thing called Google you may want to use. I don't represent or speak for science denialists (cool word). Saying "whether they make things better is subjective" doesn't say a thing about my subjective view. This is HA with TOS8: I'm not stating a subjective view. (which is good because I have none w.r.t. treatments; I'm ignorant and therefore agnostic)
One of the things that I'm acutely aware of is that very few people around here are what one might call seasoned experimentalists. I've done experiments like this myself and done them with others.
I can't find any on the AES site. Can you link the ones regarding "improved sound" using "treatments"?
TIA.
Not my area of interest. But thanks for finally admitting that its very hard or impossible to find DBTs relating to acoustic treatments.
I very purposefully and thoughtfully excluded preference testing when I devised the ABX tests that we started using in the late 1970s.
Why did you purportedly devise ABX, if have "a lot more faith in sighted evaluations", by "most of the audio industry"??
ABX was contrived in the late 1970s by my associates and myself for determining whether certain changes that were subtle and controversial were reliably audible.
There was never an intention of it being required to prove every hypothesis. For example if someone comes to me and says that they can hear a broadband 5 dB level shift, I'm willing to accept that at face value.
The sort of differences that we were being faced with back in the 1970s were either unmeasurable by conventional means or measurable but the measurements had a lot of leading zeroes (e.g. 0.000x%).
Did you do any for "improved sound" using "treatments"?
Asked and answered, but when dealing with highly biased people...
We've tried, but for the zillionth time ABX as we currently try to use it is probably too sensitive to random and uninteresting systematic variations when dealing with acoustical effects. If we could ABX speakers that were nominally identical with null results as easily as we do it with DACs and amps we would be very happy campers.
(my wife is making a drink for herself with our new Bullet blender, so I can anticipate with AJ will do with these words ;-) )
Waffling?
Yes, we've had your second serving now.
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?Mr Baker?
As soon as you demonstrate the TOS #8 compliance of the papers you glibly post titles of (but have probably never actually personally read). You mentioned them first, so you owe the forum the explanations first.
AJ, you have to admit this is a good point.
Thanks for revealing your prejudices against me with this statement: "Nonsense about “acoustically transparent” usually also being visually transparent without “special lights” is weak." The word "nonsense" is insulting and dismissive and if that's your state of mind, enjoy it.
I give you credit when you make good points, but I call BS when you say:
Treatments are screened as a matter of convention, but if the screening is acoustically transparent it is almost always visually transparent as well. It takes special lighting to conceal it, none of which is in evidence.
Please justify. It’s not my habit to be insulting, but look at what you wrote. I’m not prejudiced against you, but against silly statements.
So it is a "pilot study" performed by some students and their instructor.
It is written by one professor (1st author), one published professional recording engineer and a student in a peer-reviewed journal. Almost all the papers I’m most familiar with include student authors. It’s a nice little paper.
Thirdly the tests were run in a single listening environment that does not represent the usual listening room.
Did you read the paper? There were 2 listening environments: 17 subjects were tested at McGill and 9 were tested at Tanglewood Music Centre.
I think that we can conclude that the paper cited does not pretend to be either a DBT or an experiment with global consequences.
I didn’t say it did. AJ parades it as a valid (TOS8 worthy) study…
Waffling?
Yes, we've had your second serving now.
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Mr Baker?
To answer the question:
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Bass Traps and Other Treatments are so frequently assumed to be necessary because they are often perceived to be very helpful, even when applied more or less casually or randomly.
Effective acoustical measurement tools have become relatively economical and easy to use, and often demonstrate their benefits.
Not my area of interest. But thanks for finally admitting that its very hard or impossible to find DBTs relating to acoustic treatments.
I see. So what is the basis of your claimed "sound improvements"?
What is the basis of your boy Ethans (who you defend fiercely) claims about "clarity, blah, blah" and what is his entire business built upon?
We've tried, but for the zillionth time ABX as we currently try to use it is probably too sensitive to random and uninteresting systematic variations when dealing with acoustical effects.
(my wife is making a drink for herself )
You sure she's not making waffles for you? What does that have to do with using say, ABX, to generate reliable evidence for whether there is "improved sound" as you claim, using "treatments"? As opposed to "faith"?
Waffling?
Yes, we've had your second serving now.
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Mr Baker?
Wow, bold and bigger! I read the thread title (both of them) before writing. Maybe I'm dense (usually not), but explain "waffling". How am I failing to make up my mind? Please clarify.
To answer the question:
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Bass Traps and Other Treatments are so frequently assumed to be necessary because they are often perceived to be very helpful, even when applied more or less casually or randomly.
Effective acoustical measurement tools have become relatively economical and easy to use, and often demonstrate their benefits.
TOS #8 x2
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
How am I failing to make up my mind? Please clarify.
Mr Baker?
What does that have to do with using say, ABX, to generate reliable evidence for whether there is "improved sound" as you claim, using "treatments"? As opposed to "faith"?
I feel like a one-eyed man in the land of he blind:
ABX was never intended to deal with questions of "Improved sound" and in fact the issue was identified early on and carefully avoided. The issue we intentionally and thoughtfully limited ABX to was audible differences. The basic idea is that if there are audible differences then issues of preference need to be dealt with some other way that we leave to others with interest and expertise in the area. If there are no audible differences then preference is illusory, which is to say also not our interest.
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
How am I failing to make up my mind? Please clarify.
Mr Baker?
Mr. ajinfla? If I've stumbled into some word game... I don't know the rules or goals... so explain or drop it.
The issue we intentionally and thoughtfully limited ABX to was audible differences. The basic idea is that if there are audible differences then issues of preference need to be dealt with some other way that we leave to others with interest and expertise in the area.
So what method
did you use to determine "improved sound" from "treatments"? On what basis does Ethan et al sell products and make claims about improved "clarity", etc?
Just a quick reminder: Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)
Mr. ajinfla? If I've stumbled into some word game... I don't know the rules or goals... so explain or drop it.
Peanut gallery or tip-toeing studiophile?
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Who is saying ""necessary"? I don't have any acoustic treatment in my living room or car where I listen to music, or in my home office where I sometimes do basic audio editing.
However, I do believe as I said, "For accurate bass monitoring,
room acoustics are just as important as the woofer/subwoofer." (I mentioned bass because the bass range seems to cause the most trouble, but I also mentioned measuring the room and I didn't say that he "needs" bass traps.)
And, I also believe that most rooms do not have optimum acoustics by default. If we agree that acoustics make an audible difference, and if we agree that we can change the acoustics,
why is it controversial that we can improve (or degrade) sound quality with room treatment?If I was building a home studio for mixing or mastering, I'd start by measuring the room and although I'm not what you call a "studiophile" I would want my home studio to sound like a mixing/mastering studio. I understand the importance of blind listening tests, but I also understand the value in scientific/engineering measurements.
"For accurate bass monitoring
"Accurate" to what?
If we agree that acoustics make an audible difference, and if we agree that we can change the acoustics, why is it controversial that we can improve (or degrade) sound quality with room treatment?
Ah, so your suggestion for Realtraps, was to suggest a way for the OP to possibly degrade sound quality. Sorry, I missed that.
If I was building a home studio for mixing or mastering, I'd start by measuring the room
With a measuring tape or something else?
although I'm not what you call a "studiophile" I would want my home studio to sound like a mixing/mastering studio.
Mr. ajinfla? If I've stumbled into some word game... I don't know the rules or goals... so explain or drop it.
Peanut gallery or tip-toeing studiophile?
Ah! Okay, now I see why you give me such bizarre responses: you think you know me and you’re trying to wink and nod me into “coming clean”… sorry to disappoint, but no.
You don’t know me and I don’t like the choices you offer. I’m neither a studio-anything nor a peanut, unless…
… whew! Almost flew into an ad hom attack. Bad! …and no need.
No, you don’t know me. Argue for or against what I say, not some ghost that you think I am.
Mr. ajinfla? If I've stumbled into some word game... I don't know the rules or goals... so explain or drop it.
Peanut gallery or tip-toeing studiophile?
Ah! Okay, now I see why you give me such bizarre responses: you think you know me and you’re trying to wink and nod me into “coming clean”… sorry to disappoint, but no.
You don’t know me and I don’t like the choices you offer. I’m neither a studio-anything nor a peanut, unless…
… whew! Almost flew into an ad hom attack. Bad! …and no need.
No, you don’t know me. Argue for or against what I say, not some ghost that you think I am.
You certainly know how to type a lot and say nothing. I give full credit there.
Well, there's a topic to the thread somewhere...
The issue we intentionally and thoughtfully limited ABX to was audible differences. The basic idea is that if there are audible differences then issues of preference need to be dealt with some other way that we leave to others with interest and expertise in the area.
So what method did you use to determine "improved sound" from "treatments"?
My personal criteria for sound quality is heavily weighted towards intelligibility. Probably due to my age. This is an area where everybody makes their own choices, and YMMV.
On what basis does Ethan et al sell products and make claims about improved "clarity", etc?
I suggest that you ask him. He seems accessible enough to people who have not alienated him with incessant trolling, for example.
You certainly know how to type a lot and say nothing. I give full credit there.
Well, there's a topic to the thread somewhere...
Thanks!
As to the topic of the thread, you failed to deny the efficacy of treatments to create audible change. You failed to argue why anyone shouldn’t use changes they hear to decide for themselves what to do with their money. You correctly point out that their decision shouldn’t be shared here on HA, due to TOS8 (yay, we can agree!). But you paraded out the King et al. article 5 times, when it doesn’t meet TOS8 and you produced a long list of Toole articles with unknown relevance.
But I should aspire to match your information-filled responses to me?:
..but whether they make things "better" is subjective and therefore violates TOS8?
You spent an awful lot of time waffling to get there Bob.
The evidence of "better" as claimed by faith based believers/science denialists like Ethan, Kruger et al, is where?
Waffling?
Yes, we've had your second serving now.
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Mr Baker?
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
How am I failing to make up my mind? Please clarify.
Mr Baker?
Mr. ajinfla? If I've stumbled into some word game... I don't know the rules or goals... so explain or drop it.
Peanut gallery or tip-toeing studiophile?
bobbaker, the remedy to this situation is quite simple: go to his profile - options - ignore user.
There does seem to be a deliberate confusion of living rooms with carpets, sofa, table, curtains, bookshelves ... and new home studio rooms that are comparatively empty. In the latter case proper room treatment can cause huge measurable and audible changes, so I don't see why suggesting it is bad advice.
It's generally good advice to concern yourself with room acoustics when dealing with such a room.
There does seem to be a deliberate confusion of living rooms with carpets, sofa, table, curtains, bookshelves ... and new home studio rooms that are comparatively empty. In the latter case proper room treatment can cause huge measurable and audible changes, so I don't see why suggesting it is bad advice.
It seems more pervasive than that. Different rooms have different purposes and the optimal target acoustic for a room will very much change with changes to the purpose of the room.
Furthermore, the rock with the commandments for each type of room engraved on it seems to be pretty elusive. Opinions seem to vary among seemingly well-qualified experts. Can anybody believe that the art of audio is still a work in progress? ;-)
There is an oft-abused claim that the difference is so large that you don't need a DBT to confirm it. However this is an abused claim, not a claim that is always false.
Requiring that all posted claims of audible differences be substantiated with a DBT should not be construed into a belief that any claim that is not substantiated with a DBT is automatically false.
The extant art of audio has a large historic base of beliefs and operative principles that were never verified with a DBT. When some poor serf finally does that work, he often finds that confirmation is a simple matter of some easy if not tedious work. Been there, done that.
When some poor serf finally does that work, he often finds that confirmation is a simple matter of some easy if not tedious work.
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910951 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910951)
As to the topic of the thread, you failed to deny the efficacy of treatments to create audible change.
Now that's just idiotic Bob. I am under no obligation, logical or otherwise, to "to deny the efficacy of treatments to create audible change". Not only that, Mod made it clear that was NOT the topic (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910873). The topic of the thread sprung from those touting "treatments" as peddled by Realtraps, etc., as an elixir for "room problems" and money well spent. You might try actually reading the thread, from the beginning.
You failed to argue why anyone shouldn’t use changes they hear to decide for themselves what to do with their money.
Or
imagine hearing. Like greater "clarity" with lateral absorption, etc. You fail to comprehend why blind testing and this forum exists. We could care less what attributes to "differences" you or others imagine hearing, sighted.
But you paraded out the King et al. article 5 times, when it doesn’t meet TOS8
That is up for the mods to decide, as your analysis is purely speculative. Regardless, the burden of proof still rests with "treatments" advocates such as yourself, to comply with the thread title. So far, zero evidence of efficacy, other than "because it makes a sighted/measurable 'difference' to many".
As to the topic of the thread, you failed to deny the efficacy of treatments to create audible change.
Now that's just idiotic Bob. I am under no obligation, logical or otherwise, to "to deny the efficacy of treatments to create audible change". Not only that, Mod made it clear that was NOT the topic (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910873). The topic of the thread sprung from those touting "treatments" as peddled by Realtraps, etc., as an elixir for "room problems" and money well spent. You might try actually reading the thread, from the beginning.
You failed to argue why anyone shouldn’t use changes they hear to decide for themselves what to do with their money.
Or imagine hearing. Like greater "clarity" with lateral absorption, etc. You fail to comprehend why blind testing and this forum exists. We could care less what attributes to "differences" you or others imagine hearing, sighted.
But you paraded out the King et al. article 5 times, when it doesn’t meet TOS8
That is up for the mods to decide, as your analysis is purely speculative. Regardless, the burden of proof still rests with "treatments" advocates such as yourself, to comply with the thread title. So far, zero evidence of efficacy, other than "because it makes a sighted/measurable 'difference' to many".
I’m sorry AJ. It seems to be a bad day for you… you’re a little slow picking things up. Let me help:
* I placed you under no obligation. I just reviewed what you did and didn’t do.
* I read the whole thread. No mention of Realtraps until you do so in posts 155 and 163.
* I understand quite well the purpose of blind testing and HA. How dare you assume otherwise.
* My analysis is not purely speculative: TOS8:”Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating…” and the King paper, which I like, is not a double blind test. No speculation.
* Best of all: I’m not a “treatments” advocate. I’m a let people decide themselves advocate. I support TOS8. Why are you telling people what they think or like? I very much prefer your honesty on
WTF WBF on August 5:
“Ultimately, it comes down to what you prefer via all your senses and the total experience provided. Unlike an audiophile, I'm not ashamed to admit that price, looks, pride of ownership, etc,...and sound, all play roles in my buying decisions. Ditto for cars, watches, etc.
In my world, self deception exists, there is no circular logic "self-immunization", etc....and I'm quite happy with it, while at least being cognizant.”
I agree with that!
* I read the whole thread. No mention of Realtraps until you do so in posts 155 and 163.
Try post #9:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910829 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910829)
It was was alluded to in the original post and was still very fresh in the mind of at least one of the early participants.
Please allow me to remedy it now...
* I read the whole thread. No mention of Realtraps until you do so in posts 155 and 163.
Try post #9:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910829 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910829)
It was was alluded to in the original post and was still very fresh in the mind of at least one of the early participants.
Please allow me to remedy it now...
Aha! Yes, I only skimmed some of the links, and that one was too long. Yes, my bad. Thanks for the tip. It actually clears up several posts.
No problem.
I read the whole thread.
I call the whole notion of room "treatments" being constantly parroted as a panacea, BS.
It is almost automatic on every audio (Home and Studio) forum now, for someone, often unsolicited, to tell others that room "treatment" products are mandatory for "better" sound.
I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course.
And what part of post #4 didn't you comprehend?
I read the whole thread.
I call the whole notion of room "treatments" being constantly parroted as a panacea, BS.
It is almost automatic on every audio (Home and Studio) forum now, for someone, often unsolicited, to tell others that room "treatment" products are mandatory for "better" sound.
I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course.
And what part of post #4 didn't you comprehend?
Now why do you assume I didn't comprehend it? You are a nasty man. Is it just today or always? Tomorrow's Friday, if that helps...
Post #4: I read it, digested it, comprehended it and buy it. Makes sense to me. (especially with my highlights).
Now where does that leave us with the rest of what I said? ...and the parts of what you said that I have mentioned. I didn't complain about post#4.
That's what I like about HA; it is just so polite and civilised.
Not like Comic Book Guy from 'The Simpsons' has cloned himself to have a mass argument... after all, some of you guys don't have beards and/or blue t-shirts, so totally different.
You are a nasty man. Is it just today or always?
Only when I haven't had a Snickers bar.
Post #4: I read it, digested it, comprehended it and buy it. Makes sense to me.
Great. That should be then end of story regarding "me".
Now where does that leave us with the rest of what I said?
After 8 pages and 170 posts? Still at zero. For valid evidence regarding why treatments so frequently assumed necessary.
Perhaps you could be the first? (though I'm expecting yet another post...about me)
Tomorrow's Friday, if that helps...
Oh dear. You want to talk about ideas, but the main purpose of this forum is for such discussions to be closed down. Your only purpose here is to serve as a foil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foil_(literature)) for a select group of 'experts'. They will leap on your every assumption or omission (that you made in order to keep the discussion flowing) and patronisingly 'educate' you. You will tire of this and go elsewhere. The forum will then revert to its usual long periods of silence.
Tomorrow's Friday, if that helps...
Oh dear. You want to talk about ideas, but the main purpose of this forum is for such discussions to be closed down. Your only purpose here is to serve as a foil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foil_(literature)) for a select group of 'experts'. They will leap on your every assumption or omission (that you made in order to keep the discussion flowing) and patronisingly 'educate' you. You will tire of this and go elsewhere. The forum will then revert to its usual long periods of silence.
Ah yes, the the ol' audio-studio-phile Galileo gambit....
So not a single "idea" that could further the cause for "treatments" efficacy, with reliable perceptual evidence? (Hint: try AES this time, not "Realtraps", etc)
And what part of post #4 didn't you comprehend?
Post 4 of this thread says:
"I call the whole notion of room "treatments" being constantly parroted as a panacea, BS.
It is almost automatic on every audio (Home and Studio) forum now, for someone, often unsolicited, to tell others that room "treatment" products are mandatory for "better" sound.
I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course"
As stated I had no problems with it at all.
It is also not that particularly technical or deep.
Does that somehow compromise the possibility that I understand it?
For valid evidence regarding why treatments so frequently assumed necessary.
Perhaps you could be the first? (though I'm expecting yet another post...about me)
Pretty funny, really. Technical studies of room acoustics have been going on for a couple of thousand years. For example the temples of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans included acoustic treatments. In the Enlightenment Helmholtz (1821-1894) was one of the originators of formal scientific studies of room acoustics and room acoustical treatments. The study of room acoustics has hardly flagged since then.
Against that, we have someone who seems to want to assert that all acoustic treatments are snake oil.
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio know that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations. This is how things have been for actually thousands of years.
It is true that we live in what seem to be crazier and crazier times. What should be clearly understood examples of audio snake oil products such as exotic audio cables (even for the internet!) and what should be obviously useless products like the USB Regen are purchased and praised by thousands of (call a spade a spade) deluded (or better said: illuded) audiophiles. Web sites like the Computer Audiophile exist now where they didn't some years ago.
Bottom line, in our enthusiasm to help manage audio snake oil, we can't throw the baby of valid sighted evaluations with the DBT bath water.
Does that somehow compromise the possibility that I understand it?
The world waits with baited breath while you answer your own riddle.
Ok, I give up, does it?
Against that, we have someone who seems to want to assert that all acoustic treatments are snake oil.
The strawman of yours seems like a real idiot. Ok, who is it? Related?
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio know that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations. This is how things have been for actually thousands of years.
Uh huh (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm).
Bottom line, in our enthusiasm to help manage audio snake oil, we can't throw the baby of valid sighted evaluations with the DBT bath water.
Who is this "we" you speak of ABX Arnold?
Bottom line, in our enthusiasm to help manage audio snake oil, we can't throw the baby of valid sighted evaluations with the DBT bath water.
Who is this "we" you speak of ABX Arnold?
we=rational individuals. May not be in accordance with your preferences, AJ. Making gratuitous false claims and trolling is so much fun for you, right?
we=rational individuals.
I see.
So you self assessed "rational individuals" decided after a 1000 years of valid sighted experience, to invent ABX?
"Treatments" don't need bias controlled assessment, just sighted infomercials/"experience", for valid evidence of efficacy?
Interesting.
Does this extend to speakers also and their "20db differences" that any idiot can hear, sighted?
we=rational individuals.
I see.
So you self assessed "rational individuals" decided after a 1000 years of valid sighted experience, to invent ABX?
That is exactly correct.
We were faced with
new incredible claims that were highly inconsistent with audio science as we know it.
"Treatments" don't need bias controlled assessment, just sighted infomercials/"experience", for valid evidence of efficacy?
Straw man argument.
Obviously, depends on the situation. So called room treatment products such as the Totem Audio Beak may need a DBT to help some mislead placebophlies find the truth.
OTOH AJ as much as you hate Ethan for plucking your feathers in public over at AVS, his stuff is a lot more real. DBT it if you can, it has audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ.
Interesting.
Does this extend to speakers also and their "20db differences" that any idiot can hear, sighted?
In general the differences between speakers are easy enough to hear.
One difference between you and I AJ if my 30+ years of experience with actually trying to DBT speakers.
What have you actually done other than posture about it?
If you have the cards play them AJ, but we both know who is talking out the back of their neck here.
That is exactly correct.
We were faced with new incredible claims that were highly inconsistent with audio science as we know it.
Oh, you mean like side wall absorption increasing clarity (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm), etc. and other ridiculous believer biased, sighted claims. Got it.
Now, if "treatments" only need (your ilks) "valid sighted evaluations", what idiot said this?
It has been conclusively proven that casual sighted listening evaluations are 100% susceptible to false positives and false negatives
Any idea?
Straw man argument. So called room treatment products such as the Totem Audio Beak may need a DBT to help some mislead placebophlies find the truth.
Perfect.
OTOH AJ as much as you hate Ethan for plucking your feathers in public over at AVS
Hmmm, he "plucked my feathers" here (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1420393-speaker-questions-newbie-his-first-home.html) when I pointed out his studiophile disorder had lead him to make some ridiculous statements...and
I hate
him for that?? Is this a Krugers read of that discussion? Interesting.
his stuff is a lot more real.
More real? In terms of appropriateness for treating studiophiles?
it has audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ.
TOS #8
In general the differences between speakers are easy enough to hear.
Right, so a 1000 years of "valid sighted experience" is fine. No need for bias controls per Mr ABX. Got it.
One difference between you and I AJ if my 30+ years of experience with actually trying to DBT speakers.
Trying?
I couldn't find a single one on AES. Links?
That is exactly correct.
We were faced with new incredible claims that were highly inconsistent with audio science as we know it.
Oh, you mean like side wall absorption increasing clarity (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm), etc. and other ridiculous believer biased, sighted claims. Got it.
Now, if "treatments" only need (your ilks) "valid sighted evaluations", what idiot said this?
It has been conclusively proven that casual sighted listening evaluations are 100% susceptible to false positives and false negatives
Any idea?
Someone needs to polish up on their reading skills. Significant word: casual. Second significant word: Susceptible.
Are professional evaluations by trained and experienced technicians comparable to those by credential-free amateurs such as yourself AJ?
Secondly, just because there is a susceptibility does it mean that it is realized?
That is exactly correct.
We were faced with new incredible claims that were highly inconsistent with audio science as we know it.
Oh, you mean like side wall absorption increasing clarity (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm), etc. and other ridiculous believer biased, sighted claims. Got it.
AJ why do you want to continue to flog the side wall absorption issue after it blew up in your face?
OK, so you found an JAES paper that described a preliminary sort of casual test done by some students. You ran around here for weeks claiming that it was a formal DBT that proved the issue moot for all times and all places. It is now known that it wasn't a formal DBT, and was not presented by its authors as being a formal DBT or having anything like the global relevance that you claimed.
All that had to happen is that cooler, more experienced, more professional eyes had to read it.
For example, there is a good possibility that the sidewall reflection issue is dependent on the directivity of the speakers involved. Is there a possibility speaker directivity could make a difference? What does the JAES paper say about the directivity of the speakers involved?
For another example, could the reverberency of the room make a difference? Isn't is true that the article clearly states that RT was artificially held constant?
Bottom line AJ, the sidewall absorption issue is nothing like settled, yet you run around here pretending otherwise, apparently in order to defame Ethan Winer. I get it, you have a grudge, but I think that trolling HA for the purpose of intentionally falsely defaming people might be against a TOS.
AJ why do you want to continue to flog the side wall absorption issue?
To rub it in the Krugers faces that their faith based beliefs are completely contradicted by real science...and that they have zero reliable evidence other that belief. Zero.
Arny, the AES papers showing the efficacy of "treatments" the Krugers believe in?
Where are the Krugers DBTs for treatments? Start waving frantically now.
and was not presented by its authors as being a formal DBT or having anything like the global relevance that you claimed.
Evidence of either claim, not DBT and direct quote for "global" other than by a Kruger?
DBT evidence that sidewall reflections do what the Krugers believe (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)?
Arny, where are the Krugers DBTs for treatments?
For example, there is a good possibility that the sidewall reflection issue is dependent on the directivity of the speakers involved.
Possibility? Where are the Krugers DBTs for treatments?
For another example, could the reverberency of the room make a difference?
Could? Where are the Krugers DBTs for treatments?
I get it, you have a grudge
No Kruger, I'll speak out against believers regardless of "authority", as any other rational, science believing person would (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2204833-early-reflections-not-beneficial-article-ethan-winer-2.html#post39066802), with the expected reaction of the faith based believers - lots of dancing, crying, hand waving, sobbing...but zero evidence.
To address the thread topic: Where are the Krugers DBTs for treatments?
it has audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ.
DBTs or TOS#8
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
Look, we get that you have a deep hatred for Dr Toole and his accomplishments, but defamatory statements like this by faith based believers, still require evidence.
Arny, your evidence that Tooles own work...and references to countless researchers like Clark, Bech, etc, was developed using only sighted evaluation that you favor?
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
Look, we get that you have a deep hatred for Dr Toole and his accomplishments,
Actually, I have nothing but admiration for Toole and Olive. Olive and I have conversed, but I've never had the opportunity to meet Toole.
but defamatory statements like this by faith based believers, still require evidence.
..and that includes your defamatory statements about me, AJ.
The point is that there is a ton of valid audio-realated evidence that was developed without DBTs, like just about everything in the annals of electrical engineering. Remember audio DBTs were first published in 1950, so its safe to say that everything from before that was done sighted. That includes just about everything related to the basic inventions of electricity, and audio. If you are aware of general practice in the audio industry, probably more than 99% of everything developed since was developed sighted.
Arny, your evidence that Tooles own work...and references to countless researchers like Clark, Bech, etc, was developed using only sighted evaluation that you favor?
I don't know who Bech was.
AJ, you seem to forget a few relevant details, such as the fact that I know D. L. Clark personally, have worked with him for decades, and have been business partners with him. Do I know how he developed the information that are in his AES papers? LOL! I'm not as close with say Earl Geddes, but still plenty close. I've worked with him, too.
To repeat, we developed DBTs to solve some specific problems. There was never an intention that it be a general rule.
If anybody had the time and money, I strongly suspect that one could go back and validate just about everything in the annals of electrical and audio engineering with DBTs. Please be my guest!
S/N here is way low. Maybe you should both just call it a day.
S/N here is way low. Maybe you should both just call it a day.
Damn it! We were so close to a full page of ignored posts!
a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
Actually, I have nothing but admiration for Toole
Denialism won't help, it's obvious to anyone reading both Ethan and your statements, that you hate Toole and other blind test scientists like Olive, Bech etc.
We get it, you all hold grudges against them because their blind test results conflict with your studiophile sighted beliefs and make you believers look silly.
No discounting pecuniary interests either regarding the whole "treatments" high profit margin and business potential with the sheep/mice.
Fact remains, all your dancing, sobbing and hand waving is simply par for the course studiophile smokescreen because you don't have one iota of reliable evidence to support your audiophile "I heard it, I said so" beliefs about "treatments".
Q: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?Because studiophiles, often with financial motivation, said so. Despite
zero controlled blind test science in support and now increasingly, the opposite.
Time to put up (TOS #8) or shut up with your biased sighted evaluation beliefs about "improvement" Arny.
it has audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ.
Reliable evidence or TOS#8
Arny, can you explain how treatments and loudspeakers, with their "clearly audible 20 db" differences, have transcended the need for non-sighted-casual-biased "listening" and appeal to authority?
S/N here is way low. Maybe you should both just call it a day.
Agreed.
This is about a person on a vendetta against perceived "enemies", not an honest quest for knowledge.
Q: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?Blah blah person blah blah vendetta blah blah
Exactly as predicted.
Zero evidence.
(warning this post is too long. if you don’t like ‘em long, stop here)
Is this thread an exercise in “Terms of Service” compliance?This thread pits the philosophy of Floyd Toole against that of Ethan Winer, with regard to effect of early acoustic reflections on sound quality. It is clear that both of them (and others) express a listening preference. But what is unclear is the degree to which non-acoustic and non-auditory biases play a role in this preference.
Also this thread is on HA, a forum that is special, in particular because of its stringent requirement for bias controls (TOS#8).
In this exchange, KosmoNaut points out that he believes some sonic differences are “obvious”, such as subwoofer placement:
But honestly, if you need a double-blind test to notice the changes in sound with different subwoofer placement, I'm not really sure how to reply to that.
Not just differences, there are double blind test protocols for establishing preferences.
This forum relies on both.
Why should the subject in the topic title deserve a pass? That certain "authorities" appear to support the need for bias controls for most other things isn't a compelling argument.
greynol impressively demonstrates in this entire thread great passion for the purity of a push for proof ;-) (apologies to greynol as a little alliteration alights ;-) Indeed, I believe that were HA a gustatory science forum with something like a TOS#8, and KozmoNaut stated a preference for Indian food over Chinese, greynol would correctly ask whether racial or cultural bias plays a role in that preference. That’s an interesting question and I appreciate greynol’s point of consistent compliance with TOS#8. But nearly all other posters take the view that since we agree there can be real sonic differences, let people state a preference (and I would add) on which to spend their own money (but maybe HA isn't the right place for that). Even the notorious subjectivist krabapple says:
Beyond that, yes, physical room treatments have virtually never been subjected to preference (or even difference) DBTs. But to the extent a treatment brings room measurements into the ranges and curve shapes that *have* been shown to correlate to population preferences, you can predict they'd *probably* be reported as beneficial on average, if the comparison could be blinded.
Personally, I would take that sort of evidence-from-measurement as 'good enough' to guide my purchases, absent actual DBTs. (I use that reasoning for loudspeaker buying.) But even that data doesn't seem to exist in any handy form...not for many loudspeakers, and certainly not for many room treatments.
I would agree but I can respect greynol’s concerns yet I agree with KozmoNaut’s disclaimer:
I'm simply looking for acknowledgement that expressed preferences could be influenced by things other than actual quality of sound.
So, yeah, if people can't manage to do this I would prefer they not participate (or make recommendations on the subject, for that matter).
Fully acknowledged, both explicitly and implicitly. It has never been my intention to deceive anyone into thinking otherwise.
It's not like I look at a couch and think "mmm, that would be great for the sound in my living room", if that's what anyone was thinking.
But I have to challenge greynol on “there are double blind test protocols for establishing preferences” for room treatments. Can you name one or give a link? Let me go though a couple I know of:
ABX: when you click on the “You can read how to easily perform double blind listening tests here :” link on the Terms of Service page, Pio2001 gives a nice description of doing ABX with stats and all. But ABX is a discrimination test. It is designed to show whether a listener can distinguish A from B, not whether any quality preference can be established in a bias-controlled way.
ABC/HR and MUSHRA: (aka ITU-R BS.1116 and ITU-R BS.1534) ARE designed to measure quality preference, but with respect to an ideal
reference. They are designed to evaluate lossy compression codecs that produce small (ABC/HR) or medium to large (MUSHRA) impairments to the perfect reference.
ITU-R BS.1284: seems pretty close. “However, because the impairments being tested may not be small, it is not always essential to use a reference.” But we have 2 stumbling blocks: first, all the ITU recommendations call for 40ms to 1.5s switch times. I disagree that this is always necessary, but I haven’t created “double blind test protocols for establishing preferences” (of auditory stimuli! … other stimuli, I have). Also, all the ITU standards exclude most contributors here with wording like this: “It should be understood that the topics of experimental design, experimental execution, and statistical analysis are complex, and that only the most general guidelines can be given in a Recommendation such as this. It is recommended that professionals with expertise in experimental design and statistics should be consulted or brought in at the beginning of the planning for the listening test.”
Can you guide me greynol to known protocols appropriate for room treatments? Thanks!
Early in the thread (and often after), ajinfla brings a nice paper into the discussion. (http://“https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110109”) But, careful reading of the paper makes clear that it is not exactly what AJ wants to have. First, it’s not double blind, but that’s only an issue for rigid TOS#8 compliance. Much more important, it’s not meant as a listening test! When studying perception, sometimes one studies perception alone (e.g. a preference while listening to music for pleasure), but often, as in this case, one considers the perception component of the perception-action loop. They were looking for the influence of the 3 wall treatments on the mixing task (action). The entire paper focuses on performance: task times and chosen (adjustment) levels. I count 2 sentences that mention preference alone (without correlating to performance): “After the experiment each subject was asked which acoustic treatment created the best listening condition for mixing. Eight subjects decided it is Diffusion, seven decided Absorption, and eleven decided Reflection.” (King et al. JAES v60:997-1003) Notice even here it is their preference for “best listening condition for mixing”, not for pleasure-listening. I had hopes that the article krabapple found would be more on point, but it too looks for work environment, not pleasure listening: “Specifically, the test subjects were instructed to choose the critical listening environment in which they would prefer to work.” (Tervo et al. JAES v62:300-314)
I like both articles, but they don’t contribute to this thread, if we’re talking about music listening for pleasure.
Although I completely respect the need for TOS#8, I wonder whether it should be broadened to include language like “DBT or equivalent bias-control methods, as typically used in the scientific literature, evaluated at the discretion of the staff”.
And since we’re on TOS#8, 8 means more than 1 (actually there are 14), I would ask the moderators to read this thread and notice that one user flagrantly, consistently and blatantly violates TOS#2 with mischaracterizations, even lies, abusive language and a near pathological reaction to everyone, as if he were always answering Ethan Winer, who has not posted. It will be clear to anyone who reads the thread. CiTay explains TOS#2 like this: “Over time, Hydrogenaudio has had some issues with rude, unfriendly, or otherwise inappropriate personal comments made by some users. This is unacceptable.” Please help.
But I have to challenge greynol on "there are double blind test protocols for establishing preferences" for room treatments.
"for room treatments" are your words, not mine, though it doesn't mean that I feel that it can't or shouldn't be done.
Can you name one or give a link?
We could start here, and discuss how methods could be improved.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640)
First, it's not double blind, but that's only an issue for rigid TOS#8 compliance.
It's been argued that foobar ABX isn't double-blind either.
one user flagrantly, consistently and blatantly violates TOS#2 with mischaracterizations, even lies, abusive language and a near pathological reaction to everyone, as if he were always answering Ethan Winer, who has not posted.
There is more than one user here who isn't respecting our terms (and not just rule #2). I don't feel it has gotten so out of hand that action needs to be taken, though I am only speaking as one member of the staff.
But I have to challenge greynol on "there are double blind test protocols for establishing preferences" for room treatments.
"for room treatments" are your words, not mine, though it doesn't mean that I feel that it can't or shouldn't be done.
Room treatments are the thread topic, I thought.
Can you name one or give a link?
We could start here, and discuss how methods could be improved.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640)
First, it's not double blind, but that's only an issue for rigid TOS#8 compliance.
It's been argued that foobar ABX isn't double-blind either.
That is the King et al. paper that I mentioned too. I agree it is a good paper,
but it doesn't directly answer this thread
if we're talking about listening for pleasure. When you said, "there are double blind test protocols for establishing preferences", I assumed you meant established, ready-to-follow methods. A few small modifications of their protocol
would be fine with me AND would be publishable. That is why I mentioned modifying TOS#8 to include other types of bias-control typically found in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. foobar ABX wasn't used and couldn't be used in such a study.
one user flagrantly, consistently and blatantly violates TOS#2 with mischaracterizations, even lies, abusive language and a near pathological reaction to everyone, as if he were always answering Ethan Winer, who has not posted.
There is more than one user here who isn't respecting our terms (and not just rule #2). I don't feel it has gotten so out of hand that action needs to be taken, though I am only speaking as one member of the staff.
Well, MANY of the TOS mention the staff's discretion, so of course it's up to the staff. But I'm not alone in noticing the problem.
I'm not alone in noticing the problem.
Indeed.
I will only elaborate further as to say there is a long history with the participants and feel that it is disingenuous to single out any single individual and single out one specific rule being broken.
As was instructed earlier, this is not open for discussion in this topic.
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=911267 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=911267)
Further posts on the matter will be binned.
But I have to challenge greynol on "there are double blind test protocols for establishing preferences" for room treatments.
"for room treatments" are your words, not mine, though it doesn't mean that I feel that it can't or shouldn't be done.
Can you name one or give a link?
We could start here, and discuss how methods could be improved.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640)
Is there an extant standard along the lines of BS 1116 for testing room treatments?
That might be a good thing to use as a model.
I'm under the impression that BS 1116 can be applied to most audio hardware and software. Why not room treatments?
Why not room treatments?
I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me.
Why not room treatments?
I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me.
BS 1116 is
designed to compare small, non-obvious "impairments", when you have the
unimpaired version, the reference, available. Part of the protocol involves throwing the reference in to
test the responses. What would you propose as the reference? Live music? That
could work, but sounds like a logistical nightmare. They also specify very fast switching.
But there is nothing that requires rigid compliance. They are clear throughout that it is a
recommendation , and therefore can be modified, if appropriate, using justifiable methods.
Is there an extant standard along the lines of BS 1116 for testing room treatments?
That might be a good thing to use as a model.
I'm under the impression that BS 1116 can be applied to most audio hardware and software. Why not room treatments?
The closest I have found is ITU-R BS.1284 (https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1284-1-200312-I!!PDF-E.pdf). The title is "General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality". It is very short, and
does often refer to BS.1116. Depending on the setup, you may have to accept longer than recommended switching times.
Nov 8 2015 https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910456 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110486&view=findpost&p=910456)
Nov 12 2015 https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910735 (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=108950&view=findpost&p=910735)
http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)
As far as I know Dr. Toole is not a recording engineer, and he hasn't mixed music professionally if at all. I don't think he's a musician either, so that probably affect his opinions. Floyd's statements about early reflections defy my own personal experience, and the experience of almost every other audio engineer I know. Floyd claims that early reflections increase clarity, and cites research that proves "people" prefer the sound of music with early reflections present. But of those tested, how many were experienced listeners and how many were regular folk with no particular interest in audio and music? If the tests included "civilians" who don't listen for a living or even as a hobby, it's difficult to accept the results.
MUSICAL TASTE AND SOPHISTICATION
This next part might seem offensive and condescending, but I assure you that's not my intent! I'm convinced that most professional recording and mixing engineers have better "learned hearing acuity" than the general population, and many probably have more refined musical taste as well. I mention "professional" listeners because I believe they have a better grasp on quality and clarity, and can more readily identify when something sounds "better" versus merely different. Many audiophiles also have very good auditory taste. Of course, taste is subjective so this is just my opinion.
When mixing music you need to hear everything as clearly as possible. If music or dialog is obscured by reflections and other room anomalies, mixes you think sound good may not sound so good later, or in your car, or on other systems. When reflections are allowed, moving your head even an inch or two changes the tonality due to comb filtering, as shown in THIS article. When listening without early reflections, imaging and frequency response are more stable versus position, making it easier to nail down a pleasing mix.
Over time mix engineers learn to appreciate things that affect clarity, and avoiding early reflections is one of these things. Mixing in a reflection-free environment also lets you hear much smaller changes in applied reverb and EQ. Even at my age (67 in 2015) I can easily hear EQ changes of half a dB at midrange frequencies through my two music systems.
This thread pits the philosophy of Floyd Toole against that of Ethan Winer
Utterly false premise, repeated ad nauseam on "audiophile" sites (like AVS et al).
Dr Floyd Tooles position is based on a mountain of blind perceptual research, that he constantly cites, or has been performed by himself/team over his lengthy career as a researcher. Ethan Winer is a studiophile, who posits his lifelong sighted, biased, uncontrolled evaluation beliefs as facts. The real dichotomy is not "philosophical" in nature, except perhaps, for fellow evidence free believers.
This thread is a follow up to the 2 above (although the topic goes way further back than that), both of which reference "Realtraps".
The thread title
clearly spells out what the thread should be about, though related to above.
The entire paper focuses on performance: task times and chosen (adjustment) levels.
The Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments
Limited information exists on the practical effects of lateral reflections in small rooms designed for high-quality sound reproduction and critical listening. A pilot study is undertaken to determine what effect specular and diffuse lateral reflections have on a trained listener.
The impetus for this research was provided by research conducted by F. E. Toole. In his recent book Sound Reproduction, he concludes that the listener can adapt to reflections in a room and can also clearly distinguish between acoustic comb filtering in the listening room (caused by differences of arrival between the direct and reflected sound) from the direct sound itself [1]. This is not the case for any comb filtering that is part of the direct signal, i.e., a strong reflection that was electronically combined with the direct signal during the recording process and is, therefore, part of the reproduced sound from the loudspeaker. It is well established that reflections, and more specifically early reflections, add power to the direct sound and help to shape timbre and spaciousness [3] [4] [5]. of reflections is particularly dependent upon the frequency response of the reflected sound [6]. These acoustic enhancements are generally considered to be positive attributes. In contrast, anechoic listening is described as “not particularly pleasant” and unnatural [7]. There is also evidence that early reflections in the room can help to smooth comb filtering caused by inter-aural crosstalk (two loudspeaker signals being received by one ear) [8]. The general consensus that the listener can adapt to the listening environment suggests that there is no need to make such a constrained effort to reduce reflections when designing control rooms.
The test is not for JND.
if we’re talking about music listening for pleasure.
If we were, it gets worse for studiophiles, not better.
if we’re talking about music listening for pleasure.
If we were, it gets worse for studiophiles, not better.
Pleasure is subjective. Some like live rooms, some will prefer dead rooms. Others will like to hear other sounds where others are super annoyed by other sounds and would only like to hear the music and not the world around them. And some just don't care at all.
Some may have a different preference depending on whether they allowed to operate from bias.
Is this really that hard to understand?!?
Is there an extant standard along the lines of BS 1116 for testing room treatments?
That might be a good thing to use as a model.
I'm under the impression that BS 1116 can be applied to most audio hardware and software. Why not room treatments?
The closest I have found is ITU-R BS.1284 (https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1284-1-200312-I!!PDF-E.pdf). The title is "General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality". It is very short, and does often refer to BS.1116. Depending on the setup, you may have to accept longer than recommended switching times.
There are so many references to BS 1116 in it that it seems to anticipate my recent suggestion that BS 1116 be referenced.
It's vague.
It may address part of the test conditions relating to the listeners and listening, but it does not seem to address the technical test conditions.
You might actually put a little serious work into your project. Remember, this is not my project but yours.
Dr Floyd Tooles position is based on a mountain of blind perceptual research, that he constantly cites, or has been performed by himself/team over his lengthy career as a researcher.
A specific paper that you claimed to be based on DBTs was given barely more than casual inspection, and found to fall well short of being a formal DBT. I suspect that if we inspected many other papers that you cited, the same would be true. In short, without additional evidence, the above statement is personal speculation at best.
Toole is aware of and cites research about the distinct preferences of 'mixing engineers' versus consumer listeners as regards reflections, so I don't know WTF Winer is talking about. But I am *quite sure* Toole has a better grasp of the research literature than Winer does.
The closest I have found is ITU-R BS.1284 (https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1284-1-200312-I!!PDF-E.pdf). The title is "General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality". It is very short, and does often refer to BS.1116. Depending on the setup, you may have to accept longer than recommended switching times.
There are so many references to BS 1116 in it that it seems to anticipate my recent suggestion that BS 1116 be referenced.
It's vague.
It may address part of the test conditions relating to the listeners and listening, but it does not seem to address the technical test conditions.
You might actually put a little serious work into your project. Remember, this is not my project but yours.
Project? I have no project w.r.t. this topic. I'm guessing when I said "A few small modifications of their protocol would be fine with me", you thought I plan to actually do this. Thanks for the encouragement(?), but I get paid for my serious work, and no one has offer to pay me for this!
BS.1116 is often referenced in the ITU recommendations, apparently because issues in common to all such studies (experimental design, statistical design, reproduction equipment, choice of listeners, listening rooms... et.) are spelled out in detail. The test protocols vary depending on the goal, and the goal of 1116 and a hypothetical room treatment experiment are different.
This thread pits the philosophy of Floyd Toole against that of Ethan Winer, with regard to effect of early acoustic reflections on sound quality.
Utterly false premise, repeated ad nauseam on "audiophile" sites (like AVS et al).
Dr Floyd Tooles position is based on a mountain of blind perceptual research, that he constantly cites, or has been performed by himself/team over his lengthy career as a researcher. Ethan Winer is a studiophile, who posits his lifelong sighted, biased, uncontrolled evaluation beliefs as facts. The real dichotomy is not "philosophical" in nature, except perhaps, for fellow evidence free believers.
This thread is a follow up to the 2 above (although the topic goes way further back than that), both of which reference "Realtraps".
The thread title clearly spells out what the thread should be about, though related to above.
(had to add the bold part you left out)
The title is:
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary? The answer, for the 99.9%-100% of the people reading this, is they are “assumed necessary”
(or assumed unnecessary!) based on the words of some authority. Since
(nearly?) no one here has done a DBT, or equivalent bias-controlled test, on “Bass Traps and Other Treatments”, we must all find (an) authorit-ies(-y) to trust based on their record (e.g. Toole and/or Winer and/or…). Upon what should we base that trust? I would suggest any reader trust
neither you nor me, but rather look at the record of their work and decide themselves. I’m not a fanboy of either, but from the tiny amount I have found on both, both have earned my respect.
You like to cite:
http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)
where among other things, he says :
One proponent of early reflections is loudspeaker expert Dr. Floyd Toole, whose latest book "Sound Reproduction" has been deservedly well received. I'll address Dr. Toole's position below.
and
I'm a big fan of Floyd Toole, so disagreeing with his preference for early reflections doesn't mean I don't respect his other work.
and for most of that rest of the page he discusses this one area of disagreement (early reflections). …and yes he’s cites his
experience,
without DBT evidence.
If you click above on that page, here (http://ethanwiner.com/music.html) or here (http://ethanwiner.com/articles.html), you find a rather admirable record of articles, presentations and work, including being asked by the AES to host 2 workshops: The Audio Myths Workshop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ) and AES Lies, Damn Lies, and Audio Gear Specs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvireu2SGZM). Forgive my boldness, but I
assume you agree with some of this stuff, no?
Then, anyone can google Floyd Toole and find many links including his LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/floydtoole) or the excellent video of his talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM). We know you agree with much of what he says, but do you agree with all of it? … including his preference for testing speakers mono (link) (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=81708&view=findpost&p=710749)?
So you agree with some, but not all of both of their works, just like me!. There are of course other possible authorities.
By the way, who are the “fellow evidence free believers”? Not me, not Arny, not KozonNaut, not krabapple, not Winer… who? Don’t lie. You are not able to read minds and “see through” what people write, no matter what you claim (or lie).
FYI, Winer states all over his website, including the page to which you link, that he is a co-owner of RealTraps. You may want to openly question whether that provides a conflict of interest. If you did so openly, I’d agree with you! Selling stuff that creates or “treats” sound and acoustics may influence his recommendations… and makes him somewhat of a competitor of yours. You sell stuff that creates sound (speakers). Does your sales pitch ever include “they work well without treatments” or do you perhaps know that they sound worse with treatments?
Just askin’. I know nothing about your speakers or business. Do you have a conflict of interest here? Your vitriol here against people who use non-DBTed sounds preferences for their purchases makes you think
what about your own customers?
The entire paper focuses on performance: task times and chosen (adjustment) levels.
The test is not for JND.
Very good, AJ! As I said, they focus on performance measures, not perceptual measures (e.g. JND). Their main 3x3x3 ANOVA uses the measure of absolute gain (mixing adjustment) level and its variance, with factors of treatment, music excerpt and trial set. They did a separate analysis for response time and a little one-way ANOVA for preferred listening condition(treatment) vs. level. No “measures” of perception, including JND.
The title is: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
The answer, for the 99.9%-100% of the people reading this...we...
yes he’s cites his (sighted, bias load, etc) "experience", without DBT evidence....both have earned my respect.
You sell stuff that creates sound (speakers). Does your sales pitch..
Do you have a conflict of interest here? Your vitriol here..
By the way, who are the “fellow evidence free believers”?
Those who blather endlessly, make projections, appeal to authority, ad hominem, red herring, strawmwan, dance, wave hands frantically, smokescreen, etc. the discussion..., posit their beliefs as equivalent to scientific data...and present
zero reliable evidence for the thread:
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?Know anyone like that Bob?
Very good, AJ! As I said, they focus on performance measures, not perceptual measures (e.g. JND). Their main 3x3x3 ANOVA uses the measure of absolute gain (mixing adjustment) level and its variance, with factors of treatment, music excerpt and trial set. They did a separate analysis for response time and a little one-way ANOVA for preferred listening condition(treatment) vs. level. No “measures” of perception, including JND.
The only reason we are discussing that paper, is because there are no papers supporting studiophile beliefs and why "Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?", just the par for the course diversionary tactics used by evidence free believers who prefer sighted biased overloaded evaluations, possibly by self assessed "authorities", free of any controls.
If you know what I mean.
By the way, who are the “fellow evidence free believers”?
Those who blather endlessly, make projections, appeal to authority, ad hominem, red herring, strawmwan, dance, wave hands frantically, smokescreen, etc. the discussion..., posit their beliefs as equivalent to scientific data...and present zero reliable evidence for the thread: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Know anyone like that Bob?
Unh, yes. This habitual liar and troll who posts under the alias "Ajinfla". Thanks for the autobiographical sketch.
Those who blather endlessly, make projections, appeal to authority, ad hominem, red herring, strawmwan, dance, wave hands frantically, smokescreen, etc. the discussion..., posit their beliefs as equivalent to scientific data...and present zero reliable evidence for the thread: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Know anyone like that Bob?
I do AJ!! PM me your address; I'll send you a mirror.
If you reply with some actual content, some actual information (other the the article... yet again)... some data, knowledge, relevant comment... I'm eager to engage and interact. But your softballs are tiresome.
If you reply with some actual content, some actual information (other the the article... yet again)... some data, knowledge, relevant comment... I'm eager to engage and interact.
Let's all feign surprise the Krugers are oblivious the Burden of Proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) lays squarely with them.
Bob, Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Evidence free epic odes and believers sighted/biased "experience" whose "authority" you "respect" doesn't count here, sorry.
Reliable evidence, got any?
PM me your address; I'll send you a mirror.
Possibly way beyond the Krugers comprehension skills again, but that is me in my avatar, my initials (like "JJ"), home state, I am a manufacturer, with all pertinent info available to those who can figure out how to navigate the internet.
YMMV.
Unfortunatley, what we are looking for here is
reliable evidence for the thread topic, not dance moves and inconsolable sobbing, etc.
So if you send anything, that is what we're looking for.
If you reply with some actual content, some actual information (other the the article... yet again)... some data, knowledge, relevant comment... I'm eager to engage and interact.
Let's all feign surprise the Krugers are oblivious the Burden of Proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) lays squarely with them.
AJ the above is just another one of your self-deceits.
I have no special personal interest in bass traps one way or the other. I don't own any, I have no plans to build or buy any, and I have no financial interest in any business related to them.
I'm probably in the same boat as most other participants in the forum as they seem to have expressed their positions. I'm under the impression that appropriately designed and installed, they can have some audible benefits in some cases.
You should know this, and I have told you this many times. Therefore your constant taunts must just be abusive trolling.
You could stop this any time and the quality of these forums would no doubt improve.
I presume your hidden agenda is adverse to reasoned understanding of audio DBTs because its very hard to see how its helping.
Let's all feign surprise the Krugers are oblivious the Burden of Proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) lays squarely with them.
Is there such a thing as Burden of Meaningful Content? Any monkey can throw poo, as most of your posts do. I'm not asking for proof (there may be none); I'm asking for an intelligent response.
...otherwise, I don't have much more to say... waiting for more than poo....
the Burden of Proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) lays squarely with them.
AJ the above is just another one of your self-deceits.
To those utterly devoid of logic, of course.
I'm probably in the same boat as most other participants in the forum as they seem to have expressed their positions.
Audio Asylum, AVS WTF? etc forums would be very interested in your belief "position".
HA cares only about
reliable evidence. We're now at Page 9 of your dancing and frantic hand waving.
I'm under the impression that appropriately designed and installed, they can have some audible benefits in some cases
Great, let's hear about ABX Arny's reliable evidence, that created your "impression" of sometimes
audible benefits.
Otherwise, TOS #8.
I'm not asking for proof (there may be none)
Right, the Mod who started the thread did, per forum rules of proof.
I predicted early, there would be none, but instead, lots of endless blathering, smokescreens and inconsolable sobbing. You complied.
I don't have much more to say... waiting for more than poo....
Give an address and I'll send an Intro to Logic textbook and a case of Kleenex.
I'm probably in the same boat as most other participants in the forum as they seem to have expressed their positions.
Audio Asylum, AVS WTF? etc forums would be very interested in your belief "position".
There you go again AJ. It's not up to me to publish my opinions all over the face of the earth. If I choose to do so, that would be me exercising my right to freedom of speech. But if I choose to be quiet, I get to be quiet.
HA cares only about reliable evidence. We're now at Page 9 of your dancing and frantic hand waving.
That's just another one of your lies AJ because I did not write the whole 9 pages. Just guessing, but its possible that a guy named AJ is responsible for more of those 9 pages than I.
I'm under the impression that appropriately designed and installed, they can have some audible benefits in some cases
Great, let's hear about ABX Arny's reliable evidence, that created your "impression" of sometimes audible benefits.
Otherwise, TOS #8.
AJ at the very least you are as obligated to contribute some reliable evidence on one side of the issue or the other as I am, and so far you've proven yourself incapable of doing so.
You know AJ, I was just contemplating your conflation of bass traps with lateral reflections.
Helpful hint - they are two different issues, so why did you bring up lateral reflections in a thread about bass traps? Are you that ignorant of basic acoustics?
This is just about as bad as your misrepresentation of some fairly casual listening tests by students as being formal DBTs. Obviously, you wouldn't know a valid DBT if one fell on your feet. Why do yyou keep humiliating yourself in public this way?
Why do yyou keep humiliating yourself in public this way?
Now that was
very funny in a Kruger kind of way. Had me laughing.
Page 9, ABX Arny still with zero evidence to support his sighted believer beliefs and claims about thread topic.
Toole is aware of and cites research about the distinct preferences of 'mixing engineers' versus consumer listeners as regards reflections, so I don't know WTF Winer is talking about. But I am *quite sure* Toole has a better grasp of the research literature than Winer does.
Not according to his fellow studiophile believers like Arny et al, who posit their sighted, uncontrolled evaluations and "authority", trump Toole
et al blind scientific research data/AES papers, etc.
AJ at the very least you are as obligated to contribute some reliable evidence on one side of the issue or the other as I am
No Amir-keny, that burden of proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) for Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary, lies squarely on you/your ilk.
You believe, you posit, your obligation.
Is this why you're so worked up, AJ?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...than-winer.html (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2204833-early-reflections-not-beneficial-article-ethan-winer.html)
http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)
Is this why you're so worked up, AJ?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...than-winer.html (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2204833-early-reflections-not-beneficial-article-ethan-winer.html)
http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm)
BTW, anybody ever see any credible test data based on AJ's personal study of the matter?
It's still not very clear what a studiophile is, but I have the feeling that I qualify
In the (music) studio we make hundreds of quick decisions every day about sound and about 99.9% are sighted. The artistic process doesn't require justification by double blind tests. It's the quality of the final product (mix/master) that counts and there are hardly any objective criteria for that, besides returning clients and Grammy awards on the wall.
When it comes to (studio) acoustics, there are no rules either, just trends. If your studio will be used by external engineers, you'd better have a studio that is not too different from current trends, so engineers will feel at home right away.
One of the rare standards that comes to mind is "Dolby Studio Certification (http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/cinema/industry/content-services.html)". Dolby will check/measure your studio and decide if it meets their standards. I don't know how much DBT went into their standards, but basically they can do whatever they deem appropriate.
Premier Studio Certification
To aid film producers and directors in identifying dubbing studios that have superior equipment, acoustics, and competence, Dolby has established a Premier Studio Certification program in many parts of the world. The program measures technical excellence at every level of a studio's operation, and facilities that earn Dolby Premier Studio Certification are able to use a special logo in credits and advertising.
Room acoustics, monitoring standards (visual as well as audio), equipment selection, installation standards, synchronization accuracy, mixing competence, and technical experience are all measured and evaluated as part of the certification process. The standards are based on our research and the vast experience of studio engineers who have worked all over the world producing multichannel film soundtracks.
AFAIK there is no such standard for music production.
I think it's nearly impossible to do a proper DBT when it comes to changes in the acoustics of rooms and halls, since fast switching is impossible. Perhaps the idea of comparing two (complex) mixes, before and after the change, is an interesting method, but deciding which is "better" will be subjective again.
Have you ever heard of the "Mix With The Masters (http://weeklong.mixwiththemasters.com/)" program, where young mixing engineers can work a week with a famous mixing engineer ? Who decides if they have become better engineers after spending 7 days and $6.000 ? IMO music production is an art and therefore highly subjective. I don't think HA (and TOS8) has a problem with that, as long as the science (acoustics) and art (music) are clearly separated.
Just my €0.02
Is this why you're so worked up, AJ?
Have you stopped beating your wife Mr Sullivan?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...than-winer.html (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2204833-early-reflections-not-beneficial-article-ethan-winer.html)
Is that thread started on 11/13, the reason this one was started the same day, based on threads from 11/8 and 11/12?
Dunno, maybe Greynol is a seer too?
Regardless, it appears there are at least 2 other haters with a clear agenda, Fbov (Frank, physicist I believe) and Gene...well, no intro needed.
Remember, it can't be the actual issue of treatments and perceptual claims made like in the Winer article. No, Kruger logic dictates this must be all personal, ya understand. Somehow, "treatments" threaten my speaker sales, Franks I don't know what sales and Genes..hmm, one would think he could profit nicely off iso-ward product sales to his minions with their high markups, so dunno there either.
Or maybe we're all just members of the interior decor fashion secret police.
Whatever it is, we know it
can't be about perceptual claims of "improvement" with treatments.
You mad bro?
[ No, Kruger logic dictates this must be all personal, ya understand. Somehow, "treatments" threaten my speaker sales, Franks I don't know what sales and Genes..hmm, one would think he could profit nicely off iso-ward product sales to his minions with their high markups, so dunno there either.
Or maybe we're all just members of the interior decor fashion secret police.
Whatever it is, we know it can't be about perceptual claims of "improvement" with treatments.
You mad bro?
I'm a little unhappy that you feel the need to continually claim falsely about my position in this matter. What's the problem, AJ? Not selling enough speakers because people want to treat their rooms first?
It's still not very clear what a studiophile is, but I have the feeling that I qualify
Kees,
The thread title and OP has been revised to make it quite clear what this is about. If you agree with this (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm) then you are a studiophile.
The issue is Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary? We're looking for valid perceptual evidence, os no, what clients expect, etc. is not relevant.
Please keep in mind that studiophiles also believe home listening environments should be similar or the same as studios as well.
As I have stated many times on different forums, I'm not against studiophiles having as much treatments as possible, any more than I'm against audiophiles buying bling to make themselves happier. I made my position clear by the 4th post in the thread. The believers cranked up immediately following, but still no evidence.
cheers,
AJ
I think it's nearly impossible to do a proper DBT when it comes to changes in the acoustics of rooms and halls, since fast switching is impossible.
Since TOS#8 only requires evidence "to the best of their ability", new HA readers should be surprised to see how one can spam down this thread with repeated abuse of the TOS item and remain unmoderated. (Old HA readers know already that the TOS are subject to whoever has the power to bend and wield them.)
Is this why you're so worked up, AJ?
Have you stopped beating your wife Mr Sullivan?
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...than-winer.html (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2204833-early-reflections-not-beneficial-article-ethan-winer.html)
Is that thread started on 11/13, the reason this one was started the same day, based on threads from 11/8 and 11/12?
Dunno, maybe Greynol is a seer too?
Regardless, it appears there are at least 2 other haters with a clear agenda, Fbov (Frank, physicist I believe) and Gene...well, no intro needed.
Remember, it can't be the actual issue of treatments and perceptual claims made like in the Winer article. No, Kruger logic dictates this must be all personal, ya understand. Somehow, "treatments" threaten my speaker sales, Franks I don't know what sales and Genes..hmm, one would think he could profit nicely off iso-ward product sales to his minions with their high markups, so dunno there either.
Or maybe we're all just members of the interior decor fashion secret police.
Whatever it is, we know it can't be about perceptual claims of "improvement" with treatments.
You mad bro?
My first link was a recent example of someone endorsing Winer's views on early reflections. My second link was direct to Winer's views.
So those are *not* the sort of things that u mad about bro?
I'm on there too now, though my beef is more with people writing stuff about Toole apparently without having read what he wrote.
A pissing match with Arny here seems beside the point.
My first link was a recent example of someone endorsing Winer's views on early reflections. My second link was direct to Winer's views.
So those are *not* the sort of things that u mad about bro?
I don't get mad, I get even. Actually, most of my time on forums is spent laughing at the D-Krugers, not "getting mad". The vast majority of folks that post on audio forums are believers of one sort or the other. The number that can comprehend what Toole, Olive, Griesinger, JJ, Salmi et al are doing, are infinitesimally small.
I'm on there too now, though my beef is more with people writing stuff about Toole apparently without having read what he wrote.
He enrages audiophiles and studiophiles equally, because they are cut from the same sighted belief/immune to bias cloth. As Winer and Raging Bull here demonstrate.
Of course I was unaware Floyd doesn't play any musical instruments, so we at least gained that vital piece of information. Oh and Ethan drives a Honda.
cheers,
AJ
I think it's nearly impossible to do a proper DBT when it comes to changes in the acoustics of rooms and halls, since fast switching is impossible.
I disagree, since this is not a JND, no one except the incessant Krugers, is claiming
no difference.
I think its entirely possible to test perceptual differences/preferences that require settling time/adaptation.
Those who peddle treatments etc. and make specious claims about them, will still be subject to scientific rigor, despite their desire to trump this via "authority" and "experience".
The onus will always be on them to supply the proof, not just frantically wave hands and sob when challenged by real rationalists.
Mr. AJ, I don't mean to change the subject here on this thread, but I couldn't help but notice that you've got some great looking speakers on your website.
Wait a minute...are those 'audiophile' amps I see in the background? What's up with that?
I don't get mad, I get even.
IOW you must go from forum to forum, ruining the resdual credibility one gets for simply being there.
Actually, most of my time on forums is spent laughing at the D-Krugers, not "getting mad".
That's ironic.
Going onto forums to laugh at people is more than a little pathological all by itself. Normal behavior is more like participating in forums to have pleasant and helpful interactions with people with the same interests. For me the ratio between what I learn and what I share is very still heavy on the learning side.
AJ, have you yet figured out that your many false claims qualify you as one who is having an ongoing acute attack of Dunning-Kruger syndrome?
When will it end?
The vast majority of folks that post on audio forums are believers of one sort or the other.
That's a truism, even if you take out the word audio.
The number that can comprehend what Toole, Olive, Griesinger, JJ, Salmi et al are doing, are infinitesimally small.
AJ, please feel free to exclude yourself from that group. Your ignorant comments here which includes many misapprehensions about the writings of Toole and Olive and is all the evidence that is needed.
Since TOS#8 only requires evidence "to the best of their ability", new HA readers should be surprised to see how one can spam down this thread with repeated abuse of the TOS item and remain unmoderated. (Old HA readers know already that the TOS are subject to whoever has the power to bend and wield them.)
And it has also been said repeatedly by the community (not just by the moderators!) that if you aren't able to provide evidence then STFU.
Are we done trolling from the peanut gallery yet, Porcus?
Since TOS#8 only requires evidence "to the best of their ability", new HA readers should be surprised to see how one can spam down this thread with repeated abuse of the TOS item and remain unmoderated. (Old HA readers know already that the TOS are subject to whoever has the power to bend and wield them.)
And it has also been said repeatedly by the community (not just by the moderators!) that if you aren't able to provide evidence then STFU.
My associates and I've repeatedly (most recently about a month ago) have tried to do sensitive ABX tests involving acoustical influences (speakers and rooms for example) and been met with nothing but frustration.
There seem to be physical reasons why this won't change soon. ABX is basically too sensitive to not return positives just about all the time, some of which will be for the purposes of most experiments, false.
So what of the DBT's of speakers by Harman?
A big chunk of a test is the question asked, and the questions that Harman appear to be asking do not seem to relate to just hearing differences. They seem to be more like questions about people's opinions. That's a whole 'nuther thing. One biggie - the concept of a reliable standard flew out the door.
We all know that the costs of setting up these DBTs involving acoustical influences required some very expensive and large custom-built hardware. That puts them in the difficult to impossible category in my book.
Therefore. I'm of the opinion that people who want to repeatedly demand DBT evidence related to tests involving acoustical influences should be moderated until they STFU once they are made aware of the situation.
Going onto forums to laugh at people is more than a little pathological all by itself. Normal behavior is more like participating in forums to have pleasant and helpful interactions with people with the same interests.
I'm pleasant and helpful with those who are here/there to actually learn something, or actually know something, which automatically excludes the Krugers who are believers incapable of learning and already "know" about treatments et al.
Why shouldn't I enjoy their sighted believer beliefs, "authority" and incessant, inconsolable sobbing when challenged? It's very funny!
Of course, as much as you'ld like it to be Amir, the thread isn't about me, but about Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Which makes your responses even funnier.
For me the ratio between what I learn and what I share is very still heavy on the learning side.
So sayeth raging bull. See
that was very funny
You can't be cognizant of this, but we are now at
page 10(!!) of your frantic hand waving, dancing, crying...and still,
ZERO EVIDENCE.
It would be interesting to search the number of posts you made that had zero reference to the thread topic of treatments viability Amir, excuse me, Arny.
nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations.
The first problem is that a lot if not most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs.
Your ignorant comments here which includes many misapprehensions about the writings of Toole and Olive and is all the evidence that is needed.
Perfect, bravo Mr Kruger.
it has audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ.
Page 10. Here's you big chance.
My associates and I've repeatedly (most recently about a month ago) have tried to do sensitive ABX tests involving acoustical influences (speakers and rooms for example) and been met with nothing but frustration.
Shocking. You really should leave that sort of thing to real experts like Toole and Olive et al. You know, non-studiophiles who understand why tests/evaluations should be controlled/blind, not sighted.
It's not like you were going to publish anything with AES like they do anyway, assuming your claim isn't completely fabricated of course, which is yet another trait....
That's just too bad Arny. So you admit you still have zero evidence in support of the thread title, 10 pages in.
Therefore. I'm of the opinion that people who want to repeatedly demand DBT evidence related to tests involving acoustical influences should be moderated until they STFU once they are made aware of the situation.
Here? On HA?
Wonderland is calling Alice, they need you back!
My associates and I've repeatedly (most recently about a month ago) have tried to do sensitive ABX tests involving acoustical influences (speakers and rooms for example) and been met with nothing but frustration.
Shocking. You really should leave that sort of thing to real experts like Toole and Olive et al.
Thanks for the opportunity to point out that Toole and Olive learned about audio ABX from my associates and I. You know this very well, so we also get to add this to your long list of intentional false claims.
You know, non-studiophiles who understand why tests/evaluations should be controlled/blind, not sighted. \
As opposed to trolls who don't know the difference between informal listening tests and formal blind tests such as yourself, AJ?
It's not like you were going to publish anything with AES like they do anyway, assuming your claim isn't completely fabricated of course, which is yet another trait....
There you go again AJ - calling names like a 9 year old and casting false aspersions. You seem to know nothing about the tests I am referring to even though I posted links to videos about them here a few days back.
For example do you know the name of the AES Fellow who supervised that work?
That's just too bad Arny. So you admit you still have zero evidence in support of the thread title, 10 pages in.
Not only do I have zero evidence, but I presently have zero evidence in developing any, and you've been told this many times in this thread, AJ. Basic reading comprehension problems, anybody?
I posted links to videos about them here a few days back.
In
this thread? Completely missed. Link?
For example do you know the name of the AES Fellow who supervised that work?.
Why don't you drop a name, see if we can establish some guilt by association?
Thanks for the opportunity to point out that Toole and Olive learned about audio ABX from my associates and I.
Chris Rock's got nothing on you man. Seriously. Then you wonder why I can't stop laughing???
such as yourself, AJ?
There you go again AJ
You seem to know nothing
Not only do I have zero evidence, but I presently have zero evidence in developing any.
That's a nice summary after 10 pages, thanks.
Since TOS#8 only requires evidence "to the best of their ability", new HA readers should be surprised to see how one can spam down this thread with repeated abuse of the TOS item and remain unmoderated. (Old HA readers know already that the TOS are subject to whoever has the power to bend and wield them.)
And it has also been said repeatedly by the community (not just by the moderators!) that if you aren't able to provide evidence then STFU.
"on behalf of infinitely many". Impressed. Well, maybe you are right, and that none in the HA community sees any credibility whatsoever in the claims that concert X sounded incredibly shitty when an amp broke down, unless there are bootlegs available.
I posted links to videos about them here a few days back.
In this thread? Completely missed. Link?
Arny, AJ and I have all been caught by mixing up this thread with other related (and cited) threads. Arny posted links here (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110486&view=findpost&p=911240). And I'm guessing the name he would therefore drop is David Clark.
…I did not write the whole 9 pages. Just guessing, but its possible that a guy named AJ is responsible for more of those 9 pages than I.
LOL Well let’s have a quick count:
Member:____ Posts:__My comment:
greynol______36_____Thread starter, moderator, lots of content and… ? You decide.
ajinfla_______83_____You decide. Certainly post#4 was a relevant opinion, but … over 3 pages, just from AJ. How many contributed?
Arny________49_____Mixed… You decide. … nearly 2 pages
bobbaker(me)19(now)_Mixed…
Member X____20_____This member, IMO had the largest number of relevant, thoughtful posts.
Member Y_____9 _____This member also seemed to stick to the topic, plus some extra comments.
Then there are 2 members with 4 comments, 4 members with 2 comments, and 9 members with 1 comment.
I'm pleasant and helpful with those who are here/there to actually learn something, or actually know something,
AJ, please don’t contradict this fact: I’m here/there to learn and I know some relevant stuff. Please don’t label me “believer” (in what?) and be a jerk to me, as you have been. Should we start being “pleasant and helpful”?
For example
I think it's nearly impossible to do a proper DBT when it comes to changes in the acoustics of rooms and halls, since fast switching is impossible.
I disagree, since this is not a JND, …, is claiming no difference.
I think its entirely possible to test perceptual differences/preferences that require settling time/adaptation.
First, if you can create an independent variable (absorption, or dB-reflection-reduction, or…), you can create a dependent variable of JND… but that’s not relevant for this thread.
I agree that the switching time need not be super-fast. I would argue it depends on the level of processing, from sensory to perceptual to cognitive, of the sound. What do you mean by “require settling time/adaptation”?
Hoping for “pleasant and helpful”, but I’m not holding my breath…
Well, maybe you are right, and that none in the HA community sees any credibility whatsoever in the claims that concert X sounded incredibly shitty when an amp broke down
You can't be cognizant of this, but that's pure Red Herring. Try the AES archives instead of 10 pages of sobbing and foot stomping. That's your best hope.
10 pages of sobbing and foot stomping.
AFAICT you have posted significantly less than ten pages in this thread ... yet.
There is what we scientists call a "testable empirical consequence" of these claims - though I hope scientists have better things to do than to register a HA account to use this community as lab rats for something this stupid:
Suppose a user posts "I just relocated to Portland, and I got a giant boomy bass peak in my new living room. Any hints? Seems like everything is concrete here, my old house outside Helsinki was wood ... does that matter?"
Test: Will the HA community (and not just the moderators!) go "TOS#8! Go back to Helsinki and DBT it against your old room or S-T-F-U!"?
User: "Look, I actually measured the peak to +27 dB @110 Hz ... "
Test: Will the HA community go "Measurement? Invalid as per TOS#8! STFU until you have posted a DBT log!"? Would any of the mods issue warnings?
Of course the latter depends only on one person, not on the community, and so is a fairly weak indicator for community jerk factor.
Arny posted links here (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110486&view=findpost&p=911240). And I'm guessing the name he would therefore drop is David Clark.
Wow, that almost put me in a coma and I certainly wouldn't want to be guilty by association there, with that hot mess of a "test"....if you can call it that.
Probably deserves a thread all by itself. Oh...and
zero relevance to this thread topic.
AJ, please don’t contradict this fact: I’m here/there to learn and I know some relevant stuff.
Fantastic news Bob, so let's see what you know about Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
The relevant stuff? (Hint: "relevant stuff" does not include the words "AJ" anywhere. Try the AES library instead)
Please don’t label me “believer” (in what?)
Riiight Bob. Ok, litmus test: Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm).
Believer utter nonsense/ad hominem, etc., or....?
I agree that the switching time need not be super-fast. I would argue it depends on the level of processing, from sensory to perceptual to cognitive, of the sound.
Great!
Happy Thanksgiving.
There is what we scientists call a "testable empirical consequence" of these claims - though I hope scientists have better things to do than to register a HA account to use this community as lab rats for something this stupid:
Suppose a user posts "I just relocated to Portland, and I got a giant boomy bass peak in my new living room. Any hints? Seems like everything is concrete here, my old house outside Helsinki was wood ... does that matter?"
Test: Will the HA community (and not just the moderators!) go "TOS#8! Go back to Helsinki and DBT it against your old room or S-T-F-U!"?
User: "Look, I actually measured the peak to +27 dB @110 Hz ... "
Test: Will the HA community go "Measurement? Invalid as per TOS#8! STFU until you have posted a DBT log!"? Would any of the mods issue warnings?
Of course the latter depends only on one person, not on the community, and so is a fairly weak indicator for community jerk factor.
Oh look, more foot stomping and chucking toys from pram, zero reliable evidence for Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
A "scientist" who doesn't know what a red herring is, or the word "difference". Cool
AJ, please don’t contradict this fact: I’m here/there to learn and I know some relevant stuff.
Fantastic news Bob, so let's see what you know about Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
The relevant stuff? (Hint: "relevant stuff" does not include the words "AJ" anywhere. Try the AES library instead)
Where is your "relevant stuff”? Hint: it doesn’t include “Bob”, “Arny”, “Amir”, “keny”, “studiophile”, “placebophile” or your favorite: a list of gerunds.
Please don’t label me “believer” (in what?)
Riiight Bob. Ok, litmus test: Early Reflections Are Not Beneficial (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm).
Clearly, in your world all is blue or pink, base or acid, us or them…
But the real world doesn’t fit your simplistic 2-valued categorizations. FYI, I already said I’m agnostic on Winer’s claims.
When will you contribute more than irrelevant challenges to relevance and page counts?
I agree that the switching time need not be super-fast. I would argue it depends on the level of processing, from sensory to perceptual to cognitive, of the sound. What do you mean by “require settling time/adaptation”?
Great!
Happy Thanksgiving.
Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving to you! So, what do you mean by “require settling time/adaptation”?
You can't be cognizant of this, but we are now at page 10(!!) of your frantic hand waving, dancing, crying...and still, ZERO EVIDENCE.
It would be interesting to search the number of posts you made that had zero reference to the thread topic of treatments viability Amir, excuse me, Arny.
An independent study shows that a guy posting under the nym AJ has made about twice as many posts to this thread as I. Thus, it is clear AJ that your awareness of all of your personal attacks, name calling, frantic hand waving, dancing, crying...and still,
ZERO RELEVANT EVIDENCE is nil. No self-awareness!
There won't be any relevant stuff posted here and I still don't get all the fuss.
Changing your room can cause big differences in how sound travels through the room and eventually arrives at your ears. That is demonstrable, measurable. Even just simplistic frequency response measurements can show big differences.
If you don't hear a difference between a relatively empty room with hard surfaces vs. one filled with absorbers and diffusors then you're deaf.
Getting used to a room does not negate that these differences are detectable in an ABX test in principle. Heck, when switching to headphones with very different FR you can also get used to it...
So we have measurable, audible differences.
The next question is what you use the room for. Monitoring, recording, multichannel home cinema ... ? From there we can look at different recommendations e.g. regarding RT60 and finally preferences.
If somebody doesn't like early reflections or likes bass-heavy headphones then so be it. You cannot tell people what they have to like.
10 pages of sobbing and foot stomping.
AFAICT you have posted significantly less than ten pages in this thread ... yet.
There is what we scientists call a "testable empirical consequence" of these claims - though I hope scientists have better things to do than to register a HA account to use this community as lab rats for something this stupid:
Suppose a user posts "I just relocated to Portland, and I got a giant boomy bass peak in my new living room. Any hints? Seems like everything is concrete here, my old house outside Helsinki was wood ... does that matter?"
Test: Will the HA community (and not just the moderators!) go "TOS#8! Go back to Helsinki and DBT it against your old room or S-T-F-U!"?
User: "Look, I actually measured the peak to +27 dB @110 Hz ... "
Test: Will the HA community go "Measurement? Invalid as per TOS#8! STFU until you have posted a DBT log!"? Would any of the mods issue warnings?
Of course the latter depends only on one person, not on the community, and so is a fairly weak indicator for community jerk factor.
It is kind of ironic that we invented ABX to deal with people who were reporting audible differences due to distortion with lots of leading zeroes, and now up to 100% or more distortion is being dismissed based on a lack of confining ABX testing.
There won't be any relevant stuff posted here and I still don't get all the fuss.
That is not relevant!
Changing your room can cause big differences in how sound travels through the room and eventually arrives at your ears. That is demonstrable, measurable. Even just simplistic frequency response measurements can show big differences.
If you don't hear a difference between a relatively empty room with hard surfaces vs. one filled with absorbers and diffusors then you're deaf.
Getting used to a room does not negate that these differences are detectable in an ABX test in principle. Heck, when switching to headphones with very different FR you can also get used to it...
So we have measurable, audible differences.
The next question is what you use the room for. Monitoring, recording, multichannel home cinema ... ? From there we can look at different recommendations e.g. regarding RT60 and finally preferences.
If somebody doesn't like early reflections or likes bass-heavy headphones then so be it. You cannot tell people what they have to like.
Although this is not a relevant DBT of
Bass Traps and Other Treatments, it is a relevant answer to
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary? ... to everyone except those who blather about relevance, without saying anything relevant!! I'm blathering...
Happy Thanksgiving to those in the US and to expats like me!
Where is your "relevant stuff”?
Unfortunately it will be incomprehensible to you/your ilk, but here it is (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof).
For perhaps something you
might comprehend (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910809).
I already said I’m agnostic on Winer’s claims.
This article is meant mainly as a rebuttal to those who believe that early reflections enhance sound quality in a typical home-sized listening room.
Some audiophiles believe that reflections in a listening room enhance spaciousness....played back in a small untreated room, the strong early reflections drown out the larger sounding reverb in the recording. This makes the music sound smaller and narrower, not larger and wider. One common myth is that rooms used mainly for playing stereo music should be treated differently, and less, than home theater rooms.
The value of absorbers at reflection points is standard for professional listeners, and should likewise be the goal for an audiophile or home theater enthusiast who wants a listening environment as excellent as a million dollar control room. Anything less and you won't experience the same clarity and quality as the mix engineers heard when creating the music or movie soundtrack.
Stereo creates a virtual center channel, so for someone sitting in the middle there's no real difference between having a center speaker or not.
As far as I know Dr. Toole is not a recording engineer, and he hasn't mixed music professionally if at all. I don't think he's a musician either, so that probably affect his opinions. Floyd's statements about early reflections defy my own personal experience, and the experience of almost every other audio engineer I know. Floyd claims that early reflections increase clarity, and cites research that proves "people" prefer the sound of music with early reflections present. But of those tested, how many were experienced listeners and how many were regular folk with no particular interest in audio and music? If the tests included "civilians" who don't listen for a living or even as a hobby, it's difficult to accept the results.
Please don’t label me “believer”
Uh huh, sure thing Bob.
I agree that the switching time need not be super-fast. I would argue it depends on the level of processing, from sensory to perceptual to cognitive, of the sound.
Great, so now all we need is "some relevant stuff" from Bob, for: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Got milk?
Well, why is it assumed necessary? Because it is necessary. Or rather, it is not assumed, it is known.
Go into a relatively empty, typical rectangular room with flat hard walls, floor, ceiling and you'll know why.
Where is your "relevant stuff”?
Unfortunately it will be incomprehensible to you/your ilk, but here it is (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof).
For perhaps something you might comprehend (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=110549&view=findpost&p=910809).
The first reference fails on the grounds of relevance to the topic at hand - its just a highly general truism.
The second fails on the grounds of just being the personal opinion of a potentially highly biased advocate.
Net effect: zero
most of the evidence that Toole relies on was not developed using DBTs
One difference is my 30+ years of experience with actually trying to DBT speakers.
In general the differences between speakers are easy enough to hear.
treatments have audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio "know" that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics
are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations.
It has been conclusively proven that casual sighted listening evaluations are 100% susceptible to false positives
Net effect: zero
I'd say more like -3 at least
[...]
Still waiting for an on-topic post from you.
Now I wonder if you even understand the purpose of the topic. Read the original post for a refresher (if not for the first time).
Well, why is it assumed necessary? Because it is necessary.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/9189283.jpg)
Or rather, it is not assumed, it is known.
Go into a relatively empty, typical rectangular room with flat hard walls, floor, ceiling and you'll know why.
Or rather, it is not assumed, it is known.
Go into a relatively empty, typical rectangular room with flat hard walls, floor, ceiling and you'll know why.
Not if you are stone deaf. That may explain the surprising recent skeptical comments about room acoustics - the commentators are stone deaf and don't hear the natural differences in the acoustics of various rooms that the rest of us hear.
Not if you are stone deaf. That may explain the surprising recent skeptical comments about room acoustics - the commentators are stone deaf and don't hear the natural differences in the acoustics of various rooms that the rest of us hear.
Amir, are you just trying to be cruel to an sick old man whose ears are well past their prime? (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1532092-debate-thread-scott-s-hi-res-audio-test-66.html#post25743641)
When I served in the US Army (drafted) in the 1960s they had no clue about hearing protection. I qualified with 3 different firearms, worked on firing ranges, and worked routinely for about 30 months in a very noisy environment. While any damage that may have related to those experiences did not seem to hurt my hearing acuity that much when I was younger, these days things are far worse.
I now struggle to hear the effects of an 8 KHz brick wall filter at normal listening levels (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1532092-debate-thread-scott-s-hi-res-audio-test-66.html#post25746633).
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio "know" that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations.
Obviously, a listening methodology with a high propensity for false positives such as sighted evaluations has very limited benefit to the process of listener training. No pain, no gain. (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=107540&view=findpost&p=883893)
Uh oh.
Not if you are stone deaf. That may explain the surprising recent skeptical comments about room acoustics - the commentators are stone deaf and don't hear the natural differences in the acoustics of various rooms that the rest of us hear.
Amir, are you just trying to be cruel to an sick old man whose ears are well past their prime? (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1532092-debate-thread-scott-s-hi-res-audio-test-66.html#post25743641)
When I served in the US Army (drafted) in the 1960s they had no clue about hearing protection. I qualified with 3 different firearms, worked on firing ranges, and worked routinely for about 30 months in a very noisy environment. While any damage that may have related to those experiences did not seem to hurt my hearing acuity that much when I was younger, these days things are far worse.
I now struggle to hear the effects of an 8 KHz brick wall filter at normal listening levels (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1532092-debate-thread-scott-s-hi-res-audio-test-66.html#post25746633).
Obviously AJ, you can't tell the difference between people with deficient ears, and those who can't hear at all. Put on the pointed cap, sit in the corner, listen carefully (which we know you don't do based on your fiascos with the videos I posted) and be quiet.
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio "know" that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations.
Obviously, a listening methodology with a high propensity for false positives such as sighted evaluations has very limited benefit to the process of listener training. No pain, no gain. (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=107540&view=findpost&p=883893)
Again AJ the existence and benefits of listener training has been validated with DBTs, so this is another area where you are exposing your ignrorance.
Uh oh.
I now struggle to hear the effects of an 8 KHz brick wall filter at normal listening levels.(7/2014)
Obviously AJ, you can't tell the difference between people with deficient ears, and those who can't hear at all.
So things have gone downhill since that July 2014 post, you are now completely stone deaf and reliant purely on your vision and studiophile believer beliefs about "treatments" efficacy?
Hmmm. I see. Well, I suppose that does make some sense here (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=107164&view=findpost&p=876991).
which we know you don't do based on your fiascos with the videos I posted
You referring to the "ABX" video with the two MT speakers stacked atop on another, with one upside down(!!) and "EQ'd" to sound similar with an omni mic, at some distance in the room? That fiasco? Well that deserves a whole 'nother thread since you are clearly masochistic.
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio "know" that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations.
Obviously, a listening methodology with a high propensity for false positives such as sighted evaluations has very limited benefit to the process of listener training. No pain, no gain. (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=107540&view=findpost&p=883893)
Again AJ the existence and benefits of listener training has been validated with DBTs, so this is another area where you are exposing your ignrorance.
Uh oh.
Your reading comprehension fails you again Kruger
For completely deaf people like aj:
uploads (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110673)
Granted, an extreme example. But then again aj is extremely deaf.
Granted, an extreme example.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
uploads (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110673)
Those aren't the droids we're looking for. Try here (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/) instead.
Of course there's no way you see this post, because I'm on your ignore list, which you're doing a fine studiophile type job with.
The heck?
It all depends on the room. While I might say more, there's really no more to say.
In my experience, nearly all room need substantial absorption, though, though, though, though, though
It all depends on the room.
What would be the determinants? (outside of pathological, like empty bathroom, basement, etc and pure preference)
The premise is that, according to studiophiles, "treatments" are mandatory for "good" sound even in typical, furnished living rooms, just like "million dollar studios".
In my experience, nearly all room need substantial absorption, though, though, though, [/size]though, though
For holographic/auralized two-channel presentation, or...? Why?
cheers,
AJ
...and may the rubber finally see the road(?).
Granted, an extreme example.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
uploads (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110673)
Those aren't the droids we're looking for. Try here (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/) instead.
The link to the AES e-library refers equally to every AES paper ever published, and is therefore utterly useless.
The link to the AES e-library refers equally to every AES paper ever published
Yep and completely unbeknownst to you, where one would find reliable, blind test evidence for "treatments" efficacy...if it exists.
Completely opposite of:
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio "know" that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations.
..and is therefore utterly useless.
As noted here:
Obviously, a listening methodology with a high propensity for false positives such as sighted evaluations has very limited benefit to the process of listener training. No pain, no gain.
The link to the AES e-library refers equally to every AES paper ever published
Yep and completely unbeknownst to you,
That's a lie.
where one would find reliable, blind test evidence for "treatments" efficacy...if it exists.
Completely opposite of:
Most people who are professionally engaged in audio "know" that the sonic changes wrought by nominal changes to room acoustics are readily audible and measurable and can be effectively and reliably managed by trained people based on sighted evaluations.
..and is therefore utterly useless.
Wrong on two counts that would of course mean nothing to someone such as your self AJ that has shown themselves to be completely deaf or so hearing disabled that room acoustics changes are not heard by them.
(1) Room tuning is frequently performed by trained professionals with a track record for excellent productivity.
(2) The technical results of room tuning are generally on the order of a half dozen or more dB, and are therefore readily avalable.
I am surprised to see that there are people who can't grasp the idea that due to the large and readily audible nature of these changes, most of the audio world sees no need for DBTs involving room acoustics. We're not comparing amps, DACs, or good perceptual coders running at high bitrates, Dorothy.
As noted here:
Obviously, a listening methodology with a high propensity for false positives such as sighted evaluations has very limited benefit to the process of listener training. No pain, no gain.
Context is everything, and the context of this statement which was amps, DACs, audio cables and certain other accessories, or good lossless or perceptual coders running at high bitrates has been stripped out for a deceitful purpose.
When are you going to stop willfully lying, AJ?
someone such as your self AJ that has shown themselves to be completely deaf or so hearing disabled
Amir, are you just trying to be cruel to an sick old man whose ears are well past their prime?
When I served in the US Army (drafted) in the 1960s they had no clue about hearing protection. I qualified with 3 different firearms, worked on firing ranges, and worked routinely for about 30 months in a very noisy environment. While any damage that may have related to those experiences did not seem to hurt my hearing acuity that much when I was younger, these days things are far worse.
I now struggle to hear the effects of an 8 KHz brick wall filter at normal listening levels.
What's that saying about glass houses..?
most of the audiophile/studiophile world sees no need for DBTs involving room acoustics and loudspeakers, due to the large and readily audible nature of these changes
Of course studiophile, of course.
Granted, an extreme example.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
uploads (https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=110673)
Those aren't the droids we're looking for. Try here (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/) instead.
The link to the AES e-library refers equally to every AES paper ever published, and is therefore utterly useless.
I expected no less ridiculous answer from aj. He now even rejects objective data with the justification that he has a link to AES. Roflmao. That's why I blocked this clown.
What I uploaded were recordings of a small room, relatively empty (guitar, mic on stand, small table, chair, laptop, cam, 3 people, a couple of solid frames pre-mounted for absorbers) first without any absorbers, then with a couple absorbers put into these frames plus two traps, iirc.
Beginner home studio rooms are not much better than that. Some small study/bedroom is of course going to need less treatment due to extra furniture, carpet, curtains ...
I call this example extreme because I would not put so many absorbers into such a room. It's not a desperate measure, just a demonstration of what can be achieved (actually, the room/walls/ceiling had space for at least twice as many absorbers mounted and traps) and how huge the differences can be.
But it's all the same to deaf people, or those in denial.
I call this example extreme
Ok
I didn't read all of this thread so I don't know what was already said.
But I wanted to add (if it hadn't already been said)...
In reply to the OP...
Maybe bass traps are frequently assumed necessary because most room dimensions are pretty common shapes and sizes, and happen to be those shapes and sizes that are acoustically problematic.
That's what they taught us in sound engineering school. But of course they were teaching those of us who would be in studios, not in homes. But the reason why the frequency might be persistent is because the acoustics can already be mathematically predicted somewhat just by room dimensions. So an acoustician would already have a good guess at how bad the room acoustics would be just looking at a room schematic of the length, width, and height.
Also the types of surfaces (stone, wood, or carpet) give an implication of other acoustical effects.
Anyways that's my best guess response to the OP.
<man stuffed with straw>
Ok
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post37191770 (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2127274-understanding-early-reflected-sound-article-nyal-acoustic-frontiers.html#post37191770)
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post37191770 (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2127274-understanding-early-reflected-sound-article-nyal-acoustic-frontiers.html#post37191770)
Hah, another funny thread, missed that one. "Prove my sighted believer evaluations wrong" - the studiophile/audiophile mantra.
Clearly after 11 pages, evidence is, shall we say, a bit lacking. The dance floor remains open however....
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post37191770 (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2127274-understanding-early-reflected-sound-article-nyal-acoustic-frontiers.html#post37191770)
Hah, another funny thread, missed that one. "Prove my sighted believer evaluations wrong" - the studiophile/audiophile mantra.
Clearly after 11 pages, evidence is, shall we say, a bit lacking. The dance floor remains open however....
Here's an interesting paragraph from a paper that AJ has been praising:
Toole: The Measurement and Calibration of Sound
Reproducing Systems (http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20151127/17839.pdf)
"Over the years a few investigators have attempted to identify
advantageous room curve targets for small rooms. However
the studies that the author is aware of have been compromised
by a lack of adequate loudspeaker measurements
and/or information about the room acoustics. No doubleblind
listening tests appear to have been done so there are
no trustworthy subjective evaluations. Consequently, the
resulting targets can be challenged"
On the one hand it supports AJ's contention that sighted evaluations can be argued with, but on the other hand it supports my contention that DBTs in this area are very difficult or impossible to do right, so there haven't been any.
Arnold ABX. Krueger: Obviously, a listening methodology with a high propensity for false positives such as sighted evaluations.
On the one hand it supports "AJ's contention" that sighted evaluations can be argued with
That isn't "my contention"Krueger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_disorder).
my contention that DBTs in this area are very difficult or impossible to do right, so there haven't been any.
(http://www.mydyingbride.net/forum/images/smilies/nopityA.gif)
On the one hand it supports AJ's contention ...
This person seems to be in denial even about the efficacy and necessity of room treatment.
So there is no point in talking about the how, when being still stuck at the why.
Waiting for the next ...
(http://www.artsjournal.com/engage/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/StrawMan.jpg)
On the one hand it supports AJ's contention ...
This person seems to be in denial even about the efficacy and necessity of room treatment.
So there is no point in talking about the how, when being still stuck at the why.
Waiting for the next ...
(http://www.artsjournal.com/engage/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/StrawMan.jpg)
It seems to be getting worse and worse.
(http://www.mydyingbride.net/forum/images/smilies/nopityA.gif)
Nice violin, but it would sound better in a more reverberant space.
This person seems to be in denial even about the efficacy and necessity of room treatment.
Never said they were not necessary for studiophile believers. Actually the opposite. I've always encouraged those stricken with the disorder to seek/apply as much "treatments" as possible:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post22250017 (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1420393-speaker-questions-newbie-his-first-home-2.html#post22250017)
It's just the typical knee jerk responses/salespitch (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1401342-how-get-better-sound.html) about necessity for non-studiophiles and the absurd anti-science (http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm) claims I take issue with.
It seems to be getting worse and worse.
Room treatments can effect such dramatic improvements that no DBTs are necessary.
Indeed it is and there's no evidence IQ improves with increasing age and deafness.
(http://www.mydyingbride.net/forum/images/smilies/nopityA.gif)
Nice violin, but it would sound better in a more reverberant space.
Oh after 12 pages of hysterical sobbing and whining, the sound is coming through quite clearly. In lieu of a shred of valid evidence of course.
Kees, has this sort of reliable evidence (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640) made any inroads with the studio folks? Or is causing the type of hysterics and denial as seen in these threads?
cheers,
AJ
Room treatments can effect such dramatic improvements that no DBTs are necessary.
I'll stand by that statement but I did not make the post quoted above on the date indicated. It's just another one of AJ's habitual lies.
It's just another one of AJ's habitual lies.
"I said it, but didn't say it
then"
Oh the temerity!
I'll stand by that statement
You better: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...ml#post21816304 (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/1401342-how-get-better-sound.html#post21816304)
It was obviously "bad" arnyk, your other persona. The one that hates Toole, dismisses his body of work and mountain of references, dismisses any valid evidence to the contrary (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16640) if it conflicts with belief, or might harm sales of peddlers, etc, etc.
Now how to reconcile that studiophile belief with incessant posting
in a thread which specifically asks for valid reliable evidence/DBT for "treatments" efficacy, when you dismiss blind tests in favor of "authority" sighted "listening", well...
efficacy
I hope you realize you've left a gaping hole in how others interpret what you're saying.
efficacy: sound treatments make an audible
difference-or-
efficacy: sound treatments make an audible
improvement in subjective preference as determined by
objective means
???
Of course, with the natural progression of the disorder, we are now being told that the floor of the cell must also be thickly padded (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/2225810-early-reflections-floor-also-not-beneficial.html).
We might actually be in agreement here!
(http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/data/2098903/7/7b/7b1f1c89_padded-cell.jpeg)
The words "binaural perception", "adaptation", "blind listening tests", "source directivity/polar response" etc, etc. are nowhere to be found.
There are some pretty cool "diagrams" of some sort of omni-directional laser firing "sound" source being used to sort this all out. Great stuff.
But if "we" want to hear what the studiophiles "heard in studio", ummm, "accurately", there seems to be something missing here....
(http://www.biasstudios.com/index_files/79FA70E8-biasstudioA.jpg)
Hmmm, what could it be....?
efficacy
I hope you realize you've left a gaping hole in how others interpret what you're saying.
efficacy: sound treatments make an audible difference
-or-
efficacy: sound treatments make an audible improvement in subjective preference as determined by objective means
???
Like this (https://www.google.com/search?q=effcicacy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8):
ef·fi·ca·cy
?ef?k?s?/
noun: efficacy
the ability to produce a desired or intended result.
The
intended result is always touted "improvement".
cheers,
AJ
Right, but it is painfully inconvenient for people to do something other than interpret "intended result" as "makes an audible change" and then project logical fallacies.