![]() |
Room Acoustics Forum by Rives Audio Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share you ideas and experiences. |
|
In Reply to: Re: I was hoping some technical explanation might appear.... posted by David Aiken on March 4, 2007 at 13:07:31:
David,> It's ridiculous to suggest that something can't work because it doesn't operate in the same way as something else ... Sorry to come on a little strong on this one but misuse of the "laws of physics" and the implication that if something works, it can only be because they've been repealed really annoys me. The argument is logically invalid and not scientifically sound. <
I was tired yesterday when I replied, and did not give as complete an answer as I should have. I'll amend that now, and explain better why it is necessary to defy the laws of physics to do what's claimed in those waterfall graphs.
In order for those panels to have an effect as large as they show, each would need many Sabins of absorption. But they're simply not large enough! The definition of one Sabin is an opening to the outdoors one square foot in size. So it's physically impossible to get more than 1.22 Sabins from a single panel only 11 by 16 inches.
> The waterfall plots seem to show that the Cathedral sounds reduce the level and duration of reverberation within the room <
No, they really don't. If you were experienced with the ETF software you'd know why. When absorption is added to a room, the shape of the peaks changes in several ways. Specifically, the peak bandwidths are made wider (lower Q), the decay times are reduced (steeper slopes), and the peak center frequencies are also shifted down slightly. To absorb sound and not affect the peak Q and decay time and frequency is another example of "defying physics." I see none of those, only a lower volume level.
--Ethan
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: I was hoping some technical explanation might appear.... - Ethan Winer 06:44:27 03/06/07 (27)
- Re: I was hoping some technical explanation might appear.... - David Aiken 14:27:18 03/07/07 (26)
- Re: I was hoping some technical explanation might appear.... - Ethan Winer 10:11:24 03/08/07 (24)
- Ethan and MahlerFreak - David Aiken 19:15:06 03/08/07 (23)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - MahlerFreak 16:00:33 03/09/07 (21)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - Ethan Winer 12:30:57 03/10/07 (20)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - David Aiken 22:17:51 03/10/07 (19)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - Ethan Winer 14:37:38 03/11/07 (1)
- See the hypothetical scenario in my response to MahlerFreak. How would you answer the questions posed? NT - David Aiken 17:39:30 03/11/07 (0)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - MahlerFreak 11:46:14 03/11/07 (16)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - David Aiken 15:24:22 03/11/07 (15)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - MahlerFreak 21:26:12 03/11/07 (14)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - David Aiken 23:45:46 03/11/07 (13)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - Champion 01:11:48 03/12/07 (12)
- An explanation/apology/conclusion to this thread? - caution: somewhat long but hopefully non-contentious - David Aiken 14:58:33 03/12/07 (11)
- Re: An explanation/apology/conclusion to this thread? - caution: somewhat long but hopefully non-contentious - MahlerFreak 19:41:29 03/13/07 (5)
- Re: An explanation/apology/conclusion to this thread? - caution: somewhat long but hopefully non-contentious - David Aiken 20:39:42 03/13/07 (4)
- Re: An explanation/apology/conclusion to this thread? - caution: somewhat long but hopefully non-contentious - Ethan Winer 14:54:13 03/14/07 (3)
- :-((((((((( - David Aiken 15:57:14 03/14/07 (2)
- Re: :-((((((((( - Ethan Winer 10:54:02 03/15/07 (1)
- Re: :-((((((((( - David Aiken 17:42:55 03/15/07 (0)
- Re: An explanation/apology/conclusion to this thread? - caution: somewhat long but hopefully non-contentious - LarryB 17:47:08 03/13/07 (3)
- Re: An explanation/apology/conclusion to this thread? - caution: somewhat long but hopefully non-contentious - Ethan Winer 14:56:25 03/14/07 (0)
- "Absence of proof is not…" states it a lot faster and better than I did. NT - David Aiken 19:58:07 03/13/07 (1)
- It's a good thing I don't get paid by the word - LarryB 08:18:06 03/14/07 (0)
- Re: An explanation/apology/conclusion to this thread? - caution: somewhat long but hopefully non-contentious - Champion 16:05:33 03/12/07 (0)
- Re: Ethan and MahlerFreak - Ethan Winer 14:53:31 03/09/07 (0)
- Re: I was hoping some technical explanation might appear.... - MahlerFreak 15:35:34 03/07/07 (1)