124.187.91.219
In Reply to: RE: Hmmmmmm... posted by joamonte on July 04, 2009 at 22:54:57
For my part I think the argument is about how to respond to requests for advice.
The average request indicates that the poster has a problem, whether it be uneven bass response or something else. Klaus's approach seems to me to assume that there is only that problem and everything else is sweet. He tends to question whether the stated issue is a problem, often cites studies that indicate that the stated issue isn't a problem, and often says don't do anything.
I tend not to think that there is only one problem though I do tend to accept the poster's view that he does have problems with his stated issue. Having said that, I sometimes wonder whether the stated problem is the real issue for the poster or whether they're simply seizing on something they've read or heard and assuming that's the cause of their problem because there's certainly an element of that which goes on from time to time. Finally, I also tend to think that if someone is considering acoustic treatment then they basically do want to change the sound they're currently getting in some way so, even if they're unsure about what they want to achieve or even wrong about what their real issue is. There's no reason to consider acoustic treatment if you don't want to change the sound you're getting for some reason, even if you don't know what the reason is, so I'm more inclined to make some recommendations and to try to present those recommendations in a way that addresses what kind of sound presentation the poster might really be chasing. I also tend not to think of something like reducing reverberation time in isolation from other things like the effects of bass trapping or reducing reflections because there's no way to do one without the other.
It would be really nice if we could address each aspect of sound behaviour in a room individually, to tailor modal response without affecting anything else, to control reverberation time without changing tonal balance and other characteristics, and so on but when it comes down to how we can actually treat a room that's currently impossible and, as far as I can tell, will always be impossible. I think Klaus' approach would be fine if we could treat things in isolation but we can't, and I also think it ignores the fact that there has to be some desire to change the sound in some way if someone is going to be serious enough to start thinking and asking about acoustic treatment so it's worth while to start presenting options for them and indicating what the advantages and disadvantages of each option are.
Sure, we do study individual tree behaviour to learn how trees work and how trees work is vital to how forests work but how forests work is more than just the sum of how the individual trees work. Assessing whether or not there is a problem or how severe a problem is on the basis of one parameter only deals with one tree but ignores the forest. Assuming that changing one problem parameter for the better will produce a satisfying outcome without considering the effect of that change on other parameters and the possibility that those other changes may not suit the person and may make things worse ignores the forest. Assuming that acoustical issues in a home listening room can be addressed without worrying about the user's preferences for one sort of sound over another ignores the forest. We need to study the individual trees but we can never understand a forest simply by studying individual trees in isolation and we can't really assess the state of the forest by assessing each tree in isolation.
Finally, if what we're really on about when we play around with the acoustics of our rooms is improving our musical enjoyment, which is definitely what I'm concerned about with my room, the things we can measure easily at home, or even that we could get a professional to measure, will never be a reliable guide to what will make us happy. Why do some people prefer a front row seat to a mid hall seat in a particular hall? Does everyone who prefers a similar location in that hall do so for the same reasons. Why do some people prefer one hall and others a different hall? Dealing with the scientific aspects don't address those kind of questions and measurements alone can't answer those questions. Similar kinds of audible differences in sound which result in those differences also affect how we each experience sound at home and how much we enjoy it. We can't deal with those issues and help people to get a more enjoyable result simply by dealing with the trees, the things we can measure. Most rooms produce acceptable measurable results, often even very good results, just as most concert halls do but that doesn't mean that everyone will be happy with the sound any given room provides. In fact we can guarantee that not everyone will be happy with any given room even though some people will be. Saying there's no reason to do anything because the room measures fine ignores the human element in what we're doing. Analysing the measurable issues, pronouncing judgements on them, and then saying "anything else is preference and I don't deal in preferences" ignores why people consider room treatment in the first place and that is simply to get a sound that makes them happier. If we aren't prepared to deal with preferences and happiness there's no reason to worry about acoustics. Any room is likely to do just fine.
Unlike Klaus, I'm more interested in the preferences and happiness and how different treatment strategies affect how I and others feel about the music we listen to than how things measure. The science side of acoustics certainly helps when it comes to working out what to do but it doesn't answer everything. Preferences are messy and often confusing but they can be dealt with and I think they should be addressed as a matter of course, not dismissed as inconsequential.
David Aiken
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]