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 91067 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #200 –
Nov 8 2015 https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910456
Nov 12 2015 https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=910735

http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm

Quote
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.


Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
The entire paper focuses on performance: task times and chosen (adjustment) levels.


Quote
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
if we’re talking about music listening for pleasure.

If we were, it gets worse for studiophiles, not better.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #201 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

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

Reply #202 –
Some may have a different preference depending on whether they allowed to operate from bias.

Is this really that hard to understand?!?

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

Reply #203 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.


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.

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

Reply #204 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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.

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

Reply #205 –
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.

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

Reply #206 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: bobbaker on

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.


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.

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

Reply #207 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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:
Quote from: ajinfla on
http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm
where among other things, he says :
Quote
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
Quote
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 or here, 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 and AES Lies, Damn Lies, and Audio Gear Specs. 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 or the excellent video of his talk. 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)?

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?

Quote
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

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

Reply #208 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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?

Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #209 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote

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.

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

Reply #210 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
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.

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

Reply #211 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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 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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #212 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #213 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: bobbaker on
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 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.

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

Reply #214 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Let's all feign surprise the Krugers are oblivious the 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....

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

Reply #215 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: ajinfla on
the 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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #216 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Quote from: bobbaker on
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.

Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #217 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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?

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

Reply #218 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #219 –
Quote from: krabapple on
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

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

Reply #220 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
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 for Bass Traps and Other Treatments: Why so frequently assumed necessary, lies squarely on you/your ilk.
You believe, you posit, your obligation.
Loudspeaker manufacturer
 

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

Reply #223 –
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". 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.

Quote
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" 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

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

Reply #224 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Is this why you're so worked up, AJ?

Have you stopped beating your wife Mr Sullivan?

Quote from: krabapple on
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-the...than-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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer