[
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 ]
58.179.93.203
In Reply to: RE: Seriously, to take research on speech intelligibility ... posted by KlausR. on December 24, 2007 at 02:45:38
or just produce a book list?
The only one of those references I have is Everest's Master Handbook, 3rd Edition so I'll just take 4 quotes from there to support my contention that treatment of reflections can be beneficial:
First, at page 201, under the heading "Perceptive effects of reflections:
"In the reproduction of sound in a high-fidelity listening room or control room of a recording studio, the sound of the loudspeakers falling on the ear of the listener is very much affected by reflections from the surfaces of the room. This is another manifestation of sound reflection."
Second, at page 298 under the heading "Perception of sound reflections" in a discussion of Olive and Toole's "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms" which appears in your list, Everest says:
"Figure 16-4, curve A is the absolute threshold of audibility of the echo. this means that at any particular delay, the reflection is not heard for reflection levels below this line. Note that for the first 20 milliseconds, this threshold is essentially constant. At greater delays, progressively lower reflection levels are required for a just-audible reflection. It will soon become apparent that for a home listening room or other small room, delays in the 0-20 ms range are of greatest significance. In this range the reflection audibility threshold varies little with delay."
He follows that statement with discussions of the perception of spaciousness, image changes, discrete echoes, effect of the angle of incidence on audibility of reflections, effect of signal type (continuous vs noncontinuous sound, pink noise, speech and music) on audibility of reflections, the effect of spectrum on audibility of reflections. He certainly does state that reflections don't affect all of those things but they certainly do affect some. He concludes that summary discussion with a section on "Using reflection data" on page 300 which states:
"How about the two-loudspeaker stereo installation? Olive and Toole investigated this and found that the effects obtained from a single loudspeaker are directly applicable to the stereo case. This means that the information presented earlier is immediately available for application to stereo listening situations such as the home music-reproduction room.
Those interested in the reproduction of high-fidelity sound will see the practicality of the results of these reflection studies. The possibility of adjusting the spaciousness of the listening room as well as the stereo image sharpness in intriguing. All this is possible by careful and knowledgeable manipulation of lateral reflections. Of course, lateral reflections can come into their own only after interfering early reflections are reduced. These possibilities are explored further in later chapters."
Finally, at page 301 under the heading "Spaciousness":
'Acoustical consultants and architects routinely design music halls to give lateral reflections of appropriate levels and delays to add a sense of spaciousness to the music for those in the audience. This is a highly specialised area of limited interest to readers of this book. This application does emphasise the importance of informed manipulation of reflections in large spaces to achieve desirable results, even as in smaller rooms."
So Everest specifically states, as I have stated also, that reflections in a listening room have an audible effect upon spaciousness and image sharpness and that they can be manipulated, in both large hall spaces and in smaller rooms, to achieve desirable results. He also specifically states that control of lateral reflections requires prior reduction of "interfering early reflections" and specifically cites Olive and Toole as authors of the work providing this data.
The quotes above directly support my contentions and directly contradict yours, yet you're trying to cite Everest as supporting your position.
In response to an earlier post of mine you stated:
"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."
I agree that the evidence is what it is. Everest does not support the position you have been arguing in opposition to me. You certainly can't be held responsible for the evidence of Everest and Olive and Toole but you can be held responsible for your interpretations of them, and for the conclusions you draw . Those interpretations and conclusions are not supported by Everest, despite your citing of him. The conclusions to be drawn from Everest are most certainly obvious and they aren't yours. Our mileage certainly varies.
I have no doubts that if I read all of the other references you cited, especially Olive and Toole whose work you seem to pay particular attention to, I could certainly find other quotes to support my position and contradict yours.
Let's call this quits. Producing long lists of references to support your position doesn't work when I only have to grab the only one of those references I own, look in the index under 'reflections" and go straight to the quotes above which most definitely do not support your position. I can't be bothered arguing the points any longer when you obviously misrepresent authors you cite as support for your views. There is support for the views Ethan and I have been presenting on the desirability of treating reflections and it can be found right in the data you claim does not support us. I don't think we have to present anything else to show that treating reflections can be beneficial or that early reflections can interfere with music.
David Aiken
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]