[
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 ]
58.179.119.19
In Reply to: RE: Did you bother to check all of those references… posted by KlausR. on December 25, 2007 at 02:39:46
Klaus,As I've said before, we approach this from 2 obviously very different angles. You look for specific statements that something is bad and, when you fail to find them, say there is no evidence that reflections are bad and therefore no need to treat them. Let's call that a "if it's not broke, don't fix it" approach.
You said: " I have the 2001 edition of Everest. If you read him carefully, he does not say anywhere, that reflections are a problem, or does he?"
The third passage I quoted from Everest finished with the sentences: "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."
As far as I'm concerned the phrase "interfering early reflections" indicates that reflections ARE a problem, especially when it's made in the context above after a statement of what is achievable by "manipulation" of the level of particular reflections and the manipulation referred to is acoustic treatment by absorption. So yes, I think Everest does say that reflections are a problem.
Everest has a chapter specifically devoted to recommendations for treating home listening rooms, hardly something one would devote a whole chapter of a book to if there weren't problems that could be beneficially addressed. Those problems may not be so severe as to demand an unequivocal statement that the "need" to be addressed but they most certainly receive a statement that their treatment is beneficial. You can ignore that but if you do so you are ignoring it simply because the statements that are there don't include whatever particular set of "buzz words" you are looking for.
You have continually denigrated—I choose that word carefully—statements by Ethan, I and others about the beneficial effects of treatment as anecdotal and not demonstrating either that reflections were a problem or that there is a need for treating them. Our statements certainly are anecdotal but they also provide confirmation of the accuracy and effectiveness of Everest's recommendations. They would certainly deserve a thorough scrutiny if there wasn't evidence indicating that the treatments we have used could produce benefits but that evidence is there and our reports are precisely what one would expect to see reported if that evidence is accurate and valid. Our reports may be anecdotal but that most certainly does not mean that they are unreliable.
You said in an earlier post:
"The very moment I see good evidence that supports the need for reflection treatment, I will re-consider my position."
I think Everest provides good evidence for the benefit, not "need" as you demand, of reflection treatment and, as you've pointed out previously, Toole has made similar suggestions. I doubt you'll ever find anything you consider strong enough to satisfy your demand for proof of "need" but you certainly ignore much that does quite strongly and explicitly point to such treatment providing positive benefits. That's your choice but it seems to me that there's something quite perverse in a person spending a huge amount of time and effort reading the literature and ignoring recommendations provided for improvement of a listening room simply because the authors don't explicitly say that the factors being addressed with the improvements are "bad".
If statements by an author who you regard as reputable enough to cite in your reference list that treament of reflections actually produces benefits, statements backed by the reports of individuals who have personally adopted those treatment recommendations in their own rooms, is insufficient to make you re-consider your opinion then I can't see that anything will ever change it. My best advice to you in that case is that you stop reading the research immediately because you're not going to find what you keep demanding. Instead go into your room, put on a disc, and start using the time you save from giving up on the reading for listening to music. The only reason for recommending treatment is to improve our listening enjoyment and if you're satisfied that treatment won't do that then it's time to get back to listening and enjoying the sound you have.
Still, I think there is one thing you really do need to do. If you are going to continue stating that you can find no evidence that reflections need to be treated, I think in all fairness that you need to start adding a qualifier such as "but several authors do state that treatment of reflections is beneficial" to your statement if you really are concerned with accurately representing the views of some of the authors you respect sufficiently to cite as references. In my view you are most certainly misrepresenting their position on the treatment of reflections if you fail to add such a qualifier to your statement since you are recommending that there is no need for treatment and Everest, perhaps others, are making specific recommendations for treatment.
David Aiken
Edits: 12/25/07Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]