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 91267 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #175 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold ABX Krueger on
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #176 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold ABX Krueger on
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?

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

Reply #177 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #178 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote
"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.

Quote
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.

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

Reply #179 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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, etc. and other ridiculous believer biased, sighted claims. Got it.
Now, if "treatments" only need (your ilks) "valid sighted evaluations", what idiot said this?
Quote
It has been conclusively proven that casual sighted listening evaluations are 100% susceptible to false positives and false negatives

Any idea?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
OTOH AJ as much as you hate Ethan for plucking your feathers in public over at AVS

Hmmm, he "plucked my feathers" here 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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
his stuff is a lot more real.

More real? In terms of appropriateness for treating studiophiles?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
it has audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ.

TOS #8

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #180 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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, etc. and other ridiculous believer biased, sighted claims. Got it.
Now, if "treatments" only need (your ilks) "valid sighted evaluations", what idiot said this?
Quote
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?

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

Reply #181 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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, 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.


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

Reply #182 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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. 

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?
Arny, where are the Krugers DBTs for treatments?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
For another example, could the reverberency of the room make a difference?

Could? Where are the Krugers DBTs for treatments?

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

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

Reply #184 –
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.

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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #185 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

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

Reply #186 –
S/N here is way low.  Maybe you should both just call it a day.

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

Reply #187 –
Quote from: krabapple on
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!


Creature of habit.

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

Reply #188 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
it has audible effects and if you manage them well they can improve SQ.

Reliable evidence or TOS#8
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #189 –
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #190 –
Quote from: krabapple on
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.

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

Reply #191 –
Q: Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Blah blah person blah blah vendetta blah blah

Exactly as predicted. Zero evidence.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #192 –
(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:
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
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:
Quote from: krabapple on
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:
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Quote from: greynol on
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. 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.

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

Reply #193 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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

Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

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

Reply #194 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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

Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

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

Reply #195 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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

Further posts on the matter will be binned.

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

Reply #196 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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


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?

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

Reply #198 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

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

Reply #199 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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. 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.