[
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 19, 2007 at 06:13:08
In 1989 Olive & Toole used a single loudspeaker and a single reflection (experiments under anechoic conditions). They further used speech, not music.
In 1995/1996 Bech went a step further by investigating a complex sound field with multiple reflections. His conclusion was that for noise and speech only the floor reflection is strong enough that it contributes individually to the spatial aspects of the sound field. Also Bech used only a single loudspeaker.
When using two loudspeakers a phantom source is created. This has the effect of increased absolute thresholds.
Your question: “You've obviously read extremely widely in acoustics research and you've also obviously thought about it a lot. Since that is the case, why is it that you seem to use that knowledge purely for the purpose of rejecting recommendations for acoustic treatment and arguing that treatment isn't necessary?”
Scientific evidence says, or strongly suggests, that reflections are not a problem, it is convincing evidence and the conclusion that treatment is not necessary seems very obvious. The very moment I see good evidence that supports the need for reflection treatment, I will re-consider my position. You and many others assume that treatment can improve things and you personal experience seems to support that assumption. Still, such evidence is anecdotal at best and as such not convincing since it is not obtained under controlled experimental conditions.
“You on the other hand seem to want to use your knowledge for no other purpose than to argue against acoustic treatment. I simply can't understand why that should be the case. Why spend a considerable amount of time and effort studying acoustics not so that you can use it to improve the listening experience but rather so that you can try to expertly argue that there's no nothing to be gained by acoustic treatment which is the way most of your posts seem to come across to me?”
Blame the message, not the messenger. The evidence is what it is, I’m not the one to be held responsible, and think that the conclusion to be drawn from that evidence is obvious. YMMV.
Klaus
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]