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 91202 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #151 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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
Loudspeaker manufacturer
 

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

Reply #152 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #153 –
Quote
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.

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

Reply #154 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
"For accurate bass monitoring

"Accurate" to what?

Quote from: DVDdoug on
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.

Quote from: DVDdoug on
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?

Quote from: DVDdoug on
although I'm not what you call a "studiophile" I would want my home studio to sound like a mixing/mastering studio.


Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #155 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

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

Reply #156 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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...
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #157 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.
Quote
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.

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

Reply #158 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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?:
Quote from: ajinfla on
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?


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?


Quote from: ajinfla on
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?


Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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?

Reply #159 –
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.
"I hear it when I see it."

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

Reply #160 –
Quote from: xnor on
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.

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

Reply #161 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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

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

Reply #162 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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. 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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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".

Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #163 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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. 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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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!

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

Reply #164 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
* 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

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...

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

Reply #165 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: bobbaker on
* 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

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.

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

Reply #167 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
I read the whole thread.

Quote from: ajinfla on
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #168 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
I read the whole thread.

Quote from: ajinfla on
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.

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

Reply #169 –
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.

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

Reply #170 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
You are a nasty man. Is it just today or always?

Only when I haven't had a Snickers bar.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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".

Quote from: bobbaker on
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)
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #171 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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 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.

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

Reply #172 –
Quote from: Green Marker on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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 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)
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #173 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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?

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

Reply #174 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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.