Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary? (Read 91200 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #125 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?  ;-)

Quote
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #127 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #128 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #129 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.



Wow. First Tooles tests are sighted and now this. Absolutely pathetic.
Loudspeaker manufacturer
 

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #130 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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

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

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #131 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #132 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #134 –
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

I (and am sure others) very much look forward to hearing your comments.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #135 –
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!
Quote from: greynol on
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:
Quote from: greynol on
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.

Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: ktf on
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.


Quote from: ajinfla on
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.


Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #136 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #137 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
..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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #138 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #139 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.


Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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"?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #140 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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.
Quote
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)

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #141 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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%).

Quote
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 ;-) )

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #142 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
Waffling?

Yes, we've had your second serving now.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
Mr Baker?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #143 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: bobbaker on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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:
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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…

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #144 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #145 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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"?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #146 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #147 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #148 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?
How am I failing to make up my mind? Please clarify.

Mr Baker?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Reply #149 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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.