[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
211.27.138.231
In Reply to: RE: Tune 1 posted by KlausR. on January 06, 2008 at 10:36:40
More isolated quotes to try and make a point and you miss the point of the quote you make anyway.It included the words: "This can be interpreted as…a cross-channel delayed component in a stereo or surround-sound system."
Olive and Toole specifically say in the paper that it can be applied to situations of 2 or more channels. They don't have to prove that claim in this paper. They could have been relying on earlier research of their own, or of another researcher, and there may even be references amongst their citations to research proving that such an experiment could be applied to situations with more than one channel. You say we can't rely on this paper for multi-channel situations because they didn't do a multi-channel test but that amounts to saying that researchers have to keep proving the same things over and over again each time they want to rely on earlier studies to extend the conclusions of a new study. That is not required.
More importantly, why should I rely on your claim that this research can't be applied to situations with more than 1 channel rather than accepting their word that it can? Why should I accept your word that there is no need to treat a room when one of the references you've cited is actually a book on how and why to do so?
I'm not responding to any more posts on this topic so don't bother about Tune 2.
David Aiken
Edits: 01/06/08Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]