[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
83.84.178.82
In Reply to: RE: the glass is half full/the glass is half empty posted by David Aiken on December 16, 2007 at 15:17:02
>while I see it as meaning that, while they [early reflections] don't have to be treated, benefits can be obtained by an appropriate level of treatment and by that I am not talking about total removal.<
Comb filter coloration has been shown to not be a problem. Change in spatial impression in small rooms has never been investigated other than determining absolute thresholds of a single reflection which are higher than the absolute thresholds of detection, at least for artificial signals. No data for music and no data for a single reflection in the presence of multiple reflections. So you simply don't know what appropriate levels are which do not totally remove the reflection.
>It's a statement that under some circumstances they aren't disturbing. It implies that they are disturbing at other levels and gives no mention of when they become disturbing or how they do so.<
Disturbance levels for music have never been investigated other than the echo threshold (upper limit of the prececence effect). However, from what is known from psychoacoustic research it appears that natural reflections in small rooms are well below disturbance thresholds, says Toole.
>I can appreciate the need for brief quotes but with that one what is revealed is interesting and what is concealed—when and how they become disturbing—is what is truly vital.<
Well, here's the whole passage from which the quotes come:
"To study monaural processes in the auditory system stimuli arc presented monotically or diotically [3, 4, 5]. To examine binaural processing thresholds of diotic (or monotic) stimuli are compared with those of dichotic stimuli [6, 5]. It has to he mentioned, though, that threshold data do not describe the percept of audible reflections, that is what multidimensional perceptual changes occur when reflections are above threshold, Specifically, detection experiments determine when a quantifiable physical parameter causes an audible percept. In enclosed spaces, however, there are always reflections that are above threshold. Yet there is a multidimensional variation in the perception of these above-threshold reflections. Note that reflections might be clearly audible but not perceived as disturbing. Furthermore, simple stimuli in detection experiments allow physical variables to be precisely controlled. But if models of the auditory system are exclusively based on these experiments they might not be widely applicable — especially if noise signals are employed as the sound source."
>I personally would also agree with that statement as a comment on my overall preference for treatment at those points in my room.<
And that exactly is the crucial point, you speak of overall PREFERENCE. While this is ok, and this is also acknowledged by Toole as such in his AES paper, this is not equivalent to "early reflections are a problem and have therefore to be eliminated". Yet this is exactly what people do, they make statements in this latter respect, without providing any hard evidence, and not that they remove reflections because of subjective preference.
Klaus
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]