[bigshot]

I've never seen someone try to prove their intelligence with folder sizes. That's rather pitiful, after it stops being funny for the first minute or two. The ego on display is alarming to behold, and almost makes me feel embarrassed for him.

Not just that, we're supposed to take note of the creation dates so we know how long he's had to read them! I've stopped reading his stuff. Thanks for pointing me to that one.

 

[gregorio]

[1] No mention of "analyzing" the room. [1a] You have to remember, I have debate this topic with top advocates of studio design.
[2] To provide some variety, here is Tony Grimoni on this topic. Again, advice given is absolute. [2a] No different than if you have the flu and you go to the doctor.
[3] I have discussed these topics with numerous acousticians on both sides of the fence here.
[3a] And what you describe is not correct at all. They are all strongly opinionated on these topics.

1. You're joking right? He's talking about curing comb filtering but surely before curing comb filtering you'd want to know if the problem actually exists and needs curing? Comb filtering is very common and sometimes is severe enough to require treating, not unlike flutter echoes. Are you suggesting acoustically treating these problems without first ascertaining if the room in question even suffers from them? If so, that would be the exact opposite of the absolute advice you gave to start with, of doing nothing and leaving the walls alone. Or, are you sticking with your absolute advice and if so, (again!) do you have any papers to quote which demonstrate that say flutter echoes are preferable to a room which has been treated to cure them?
1a. I have to remember that you've discussed this topic with top advocates of studio design but you don't have to remember that I have too?

2. Yes, his advice was somewhat absolute and although it's not necessarily wrong, it's not necessarily correct either. As broad, general advice, Grimani's statement probably would provide some improvement to many untreated consumer listening rooms but not necessarily all. I assert that by identifying the problems and then targeting the treatments to those problems, one avoids buying and applying treatments which are unnecessary or may even be detrimental.
2a. If you go to the doctor with flu like symptoms, wouldn't you expect the doctor to ascertain/diagnose that you do actually have the flu before prescribing medicine? And, that's not even the analogy here because the symptoms of the room have not been mentioned. A better analogy would therefore be; if you went to the doctor feeling unwell, would you not expect the doctor to find out what was causing it BEFORE prescribing some medicine? How would the doctor even know what to prescribe? How long before he got sued out of existence (or worse)? Come on, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp!

3. Me too!
3a. Yes, it is correct! Why are you misrepresenting their views? Have you really read the books and research in this area? Do you lack practical experience and are therefore just misunderstanding what you've read or is there something more sinister here? Some of your misrepresentations are hard to interpret as simply misunderstandings.

I've never seen someone try to prove their intelligence with folder sizes. That's rather pitiful, after it stops being funny for the first minute or two. The ego on display is alarming to behold, and almost makes me feel embarrassed for him.

I'm not so bothered by the ego thing, although it is annoying that he thinks he's the only one who knows anything about acoustics and psycho-acoustics, what bothers me is that he occasionally has a very black and white view of areas which are in fact rather grey, leading to incorrect information and advice. He then defends that absolute view with appeals to authority, scientific papers and/or expert opinions which he quotes out of context and misrepresents, that's what bothers me more! His work publishing measurements of equipment and many of his contributions to threads are very useful indeed and I commend him for it but once in a while he gets stuck in an absolute position which is incorrect or inapplicable and starts with the shenanigans of misrepresentations, no one but me knows anything, etc.

G

 

[bigshot]

The shenanigans he pulled with his listening tests and his disingenuous attempts to avoid admitting to it made me skeptical of his measurements too. We all know it's hard to avoid having bias affect results, but when you have an agenda you feel the need to prove to protect your ego, it's even worse.

 

[Strangelove424]

I'm not so bothered by the ego thing, although it is annoying that he thinks he's the only one who knows anything about acoustics and psycho-acoustics, what bothers me is that he occasionally has a very black and white view of areas which are in fact rather grey, leading to incorrect information and advice. He then defends that absolute view with appeals to authority, scientific papers and/or expert opinions which he quotes out of context and misrepresents, that's what bothers me more! His work publishing measurements of equipment and many of his contributions to threads are very useful indeed and I commend him for it but once in a while he gets stuck in an absolute position which is incorrect or inapplicable and starts with the shenanigans of misrepresentations, no one but me knows anything, etc.

Completely agree about his style of argumentation, it’s all logical fallacies to prove a point which may or may not be valid. I associate that with ego because science upholds the value of truth, not being right or wrong which is a selfish value that often obscures science. While I do think that Amirm could be of value to sound science (his measurements can be informative) I also question his agenda and therefore his integrity, as Bigshot did, which brings in to question the accuracy of his results. And personally, I just find some of his comments very off putting, and feel he could make his point without such rancor or haughtiness.

The shenanigans he pulled with his listening tests and his disingenuous attempts to avoid admitting to it made me skeptical of his measurements too. We all know it's hard to avoid having bias affect results, but when you have an agenda you feel the need to prove to protect your ego, it's even worse.

The opening link to Sound Science might seem like boring fanfare for noobs, but the article titled "Science is Enforced Humility" really makes a great point. Truth is selfless, and science is a pursuit of it. We're all a bunch of bums chasing it. When it becomes more about proving your own perspective than being honestly curious about the truth, it all goes awry. Presumption is so much more dangerous than ignorance.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

 

[amirm]

1. You're joking right? He's talking about curing comb filtering but surely before curing comb filtering you'd want to know if the problem actually exists and needs curing? Comb filtering is very common and sometimes is severe enough to require treating, not unlike flutter echoes.

Nope on both. Comb filtering exists in ALL rooms and in ALL circumstances! There is nothing to figure out. Unless you are in an anechoic chamber, the direct sound mixes with the reflection. What is the reflection but a delayed version of direct sound. Add those two together and you get comb filtering.

Ethan will give you the advice to filter first reflections because of that reason (and others) unconditionally. Go head and read his web site and tell us otherwise. Ditto for others following the same practice.

The problem with their recommendation is not that comb filtering may or may not exist. It always does as I mentioned. The problem is that their advice is a) devoid of psychoacoustics and b) lacks any controlled testing to show the efficacy of blocking such. If you follow those two metrics you see that lateral reflections are a good thing and that out hearing system cannot "see" the comb filtering that our eyes do. I provided a link to may paper that explains this very thing earlier in the thread: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/perceptual-effects-of-room-reflections.13/

Remember, room measurements are done with one microphone. Our hearing system is comprised of two ears and a brain. A very different matter. Lay intuition should not substituted for audio science in this regard.

Are you suggesting acoustically treating these problems without first ascertaining if the room in question even suffers from them?

Suggesting? No, I am telling that it is standard practice for acousticians to know what they want to do with lateral reflections by mere fact of looking at a room. Those who believe in filtering them they have their views instantly. And those of us who follow the latest science do the same. Without this, we would have no ability to ever design a room from scratch! What do you think we do? Build the room and go screw around in it before giving a plan on how it should be built? Of course not.

Again, our measurement system above transition frequencies is quite faulty. The wavelength of audio becomes close in dimensions of your head, torso, etc. causing each ear to hear differently. And a brain that then adjudicates between them. Any measurements you make is going to faulty anyway. So what do you think the "ascertaining" process would involve if it is not measurements???

For bass frequencies, now that is another matter. There, the measured frequency response matters a ton and you do want to determine the problem before applying solutions (although people who believe in treating those problems with acoustic products like Ethan, will again give unconditional advice).

Or, are you sticking with your absolute advice and if so, (again!) do you have any papers to quote which demonstrate that say flutter echoes are preferable to a room which has been treated to cure them?

No. But I am not sure you know how flutter echo is created.

Flutter echo is usually demonstrated by someone clapping in a room and hearing the "zing" and declaring to the customer that the room needs to be treated. If you stand between parallel walls, the sound bounces back and forth and creates that 2 Khz or higher tone. It is a neat trick and the check for the project is written right then and then.

Of course it is a false promise. The sound source in a room are the speakers. NOT where you yourself are standing. You need to have a person stand by the speaker and clap, and you sit where you normally site and see if there is flutter echo.

Now to get that echo, speakers need to be pointed toward the back wall and not be toed in. And the back wall needs to be close enough to cause that back and forth to have sufficient energy to cause flutter echo. If it does, then sure, slap an absorber on the back or front wall. In neither case are we talking about putting absorbers on side walls which is the topic of discussion.

Flutter echo can be a problem with side-walls in surround systems with side speakers that are pointed at the opposite wall. In those cases, you want to put one panel on one wall only. You do NOT need it on both walls in the same position.

 

[amirm]

3. Me too!

Let's have a list of those accoustions please. I have given you not only names but specific links to writings of those people. Can you do the same?

 

[bigshot]

Gregorio, please use a different color highlighter so I can keep things straight!

 

[amirm]

Gregorio, please use a different color highlighter so I can keep things straight!

Highlighter on what? The three of you have provided any reference material to back your acoustic position. So not sure why you need a highlighter. It is all "I don't think so" or "we don't know." And dismissive of any research put forward. Sounds like how subjectivists act....

 

[bigshot]

You want us to quote stuff out of context too?

 

[gregorio]

[1] Nope on both. Comb filtering exists in ALL rooms and in ALL circumstances! There is nothing to figure out.
[2] Remember, room measurements are done with one microphone. Our hearing system is comprised of two ears and a brain. A very different matter.
[2a] Lay intuition should not substituted for audio science in this regard.
[3] Suggesting? No, I am telling that it is standard practice for acousticians to know what they want to do with lateral reflections by mere fact of looking at a room. And those of us who follow the latest science do the same.
[3a] Without this, we would have no ability to ever design a room from scratch!
[3b] What do you think we do?
[4] So what do you think the "ascertaining" process would involve if it is not measurements???
[5] Flutter echo is usually demonstrated by someone clapping in a room and hearing the "zing" and declaring to the customer that the room needs to be treated.

1. Of course there is! How severe is the comb filtering, the interaction of comb filtering and whether, with a particular room, there is a preference for reducing or removing it!
2. Our hearing system is comprised of two ears and a brain, in this case, the two ears and brain of the OP, of which you know little but have assumed everything!
2a. Better still is to have the experience and understanding of how to interpret and apply that audio science, because misunderstood/misrepresented audio science is just as bad as lay intuition!
3. Except you're NOT doing the same, you haven't looked at the room, have you?!!! You know nothing about the room, except for a roughly drawn floor plan. You don't know the height/volume of the room, the materials the floors, walls or ceiling are made from, you don't know the speakers, their dispersion/axis response, etc., and you know nothing at all of the preferences of the OP.
3a. We're not talking about designing and building a room from scratch, the OP's room is already designed and built! When designing and building a "room from scratch" we actually specify the exact dimensions and the materials used for construction. We therefore have a fair idea of the absorption and reflective characteristics the room will have, which is NOT the case here! Again, you have provided absolute advice WITHOUT ascertaining hardly any of the salient variables!
3b. I don't need to think, assume or rely on my misinterpretations of books on acoustics and scientific papers to guess how it's done, because I've actually done it! I've had acoustician designed and built studio control rooms of my own, 3 of them over the last 27 years (one of which was a Dolby approved room) and I've been involved in several other builds and refurbishments.
4. One could try listening ... you know, using those two ears and a brain! In practise, we should do both, take measurements and listen.
5. And where have I stated to do that? That's just misdirection because presumably your answer to my question is "no", you don't have any papers demonstrating flutter echoes are preferable to a room treated to remove them.

[1] Let's have a list of those accoustions please. I have given you not only names but specific links to writings of those people. Can you do the same?
[1a] It is all "I don't think so" or "we don't know." And dismissive of any research put forward. Sounds like how subjectivists act....

1. What do you mean "can I do the same"? Could I use appeals to authority and then misrepresent their views, their books and scientific papers, the same as you? Sure but I choose not to, in fact, I strongly object to it!
1a. I'm not dismissive of any research put forward, just of your misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of it!! Which sounds like how shills, marketers and some subjectivists act ...

Acoustics is a complex field, room acoustics are chaotic systems, on top of that we have pyscho-acoustics, which is also complex and only partially understood, on top of that we are dealing with art and preferences, not only science and lastly we have relatively little research of small/consumer rooms to start with! It's very rare that a piece of research proves something categorically, it's usually a case of interpreting "a level of confidence" in the research, of how well it correlates with other research, of how it correlates to professional practice and if it adds up to an interpretation of that science that professional practice should be changed. Even in fields where we have a great deal of published research, it's entirely easy to incorrectly interpret and misrepresent that research, a problem which is currently very much in focus in some of today's societies! It's possible to demonstrate almost anything if we cherry-pick published research and even more so if we misrepresent it; smoking isn't bad for you, there's no climate change and lead in petrol isn't harmful, just to name a few of the most famous examples. For these reasons, in this forum, I prefer to discuss sound in terms of facts (or where appropriate, opinions) as interpreted/informed by my professional experience of the body of science and it's practical/professional/commercial application, as I believe that can provide a better (more usable) understanding, to those who often know relatively little about the specifics of the subject area, rather than quote individual papers/pieces of research. In this case, there are a number of variables at play and we do not know what most of them are. Furthermore, room acoustics is not a simple problem and there is no absolute or single right way to treat a room, even when we know more of the variables than we do in this case. And, you misrepresenting books on acoustics, their authors and other scientific papers does NOT demonstrate otherwise!

G

 

[amirm]

You want us to quote stuff out of context too?

Quote anything for heaven's sake. All you are doing is raise the noise level of the thread and argumentative posts. There is no learning in that. Quote it. At least there will be something to read there. And if it is out of context, I am happy to provide the rest of the text that shows that. The war of words is not the way to have a technical discussion in a science forum.

 

[amirm]

1. What do you mean "can I do the same"? Could I use appeals to authority and then misrepresent their views, their books and scientific papers, the same as you? Sure but I choose not to, in fact, I strongly object to it!

You keep representing unknown acousticians who agree with you. I am asking who they are and if they have ever written anything on this topic that you are representing on their behalf. I assume your intentions would be pure and you won't misrepresent them. Buf of course if you do, I will show with exact references that you have done so.

For now, you don't seem to have such references or names to represent. In that case, none of that means anything especially coming from an anonymous poster yourself.

 

[amirm]

Acoustics is a complex field, room acoustics are chaotic systems, on top of that we have pyscho-acoustics, which is also complex and only partially understood, on top of that we are dealing with art and preferences, not only science and lastly we have relatively little research of small/consumer rooms to start with! It's very rare that a piece of research proves something categorically, it's usually a case of interpreting "a level of confidence" in the research, of how well it correlates with other research, of how it correlates to professional practice and if it adds up to an interpretation of that science that professional practice should be changed.

That is what every subjectivists says when challenged with why one USB cable is so much better than the other. That the science is not understood. Measurements don't tell the whole story. Our hearing is so complex. Etc., etc. etc.

So no, your lack of knowledge i validity of research doesn't amount to anything. You can believe what you want. But the moment you put it forward as fact, i.e. we don't understand it, then you need to provide references to demonstrate that. Just like the above USB cable advocate can't find such references to prove his point, same is here. You just want to insist there is no answer. That you know more than people who have dedicated their entire career to getting such answers. That they are still ignorant about a simple question of: "should I absorb side reflections or not?"

Ah "gregorio" doesn't see "a level of confidence in research." That is how we do it. We declare the work of our top luminaries which you have not even read, as not good enough for us. Just like that subjectivist would say above. We are have higher standards. This is the absurdity of how we have these discussions online. We claim to be vegetarian but have steak for dinner every night when we think no one is looking.

You need to decide to live and die by the sword of science. If you wear its cloth to state USB cables don't sound different -- mind you with zero data and verification of your own -- then you sure as heck need to same in acoustic psychoacoustic research.

And it is not like I have quoted one obscure line from somewhere. I have quoted research on this topic from a number of sources. Here is another authoritative one: from the *introduction* section of the Journal of ASA paper, ” The influence of spectral characteristics of early reflections on speech intelligibility,” by Arweile and Buchholz, dated 2011:

” Early reflections (ERs) of a sound in a given environment are characterized by arriving at the listener’s ears shortly (approximately within 50 ms) after the direct sound (DS). They are integrated with the DS in the auditory system, i.e., within a certain time window their energy is added to the energy of the DS. With regards to speech intelligibility the DS and the ERs form the useful part of the speech signal, whereas late reflections are considered detrimental for speech intelligibility. Thus, the effective level of a speech signal depends on the energy of the DS and the energy of the ERs at the listener’s ears. ER [early reflection] energy increases the effective speech level and has been demonstrated to improve speech intelligibility (Lochner and Burger, 1964; Na´beˇlek and Robinette, 1978; Soulodre et al., 1989; Parizet and Polack, 1992; Bradley et al., 2003).”​

Note here the emphasis on speech. Governments (especially in Canada) have put forth a ton of research money in this area to better understand how to improve student comprehension in classrooms as taught by teachers. Unlike entertainment applications (i.e. listening to music) this one has value from society so gets real research money.

As to how it correlates to other research, it does exactly that. If you had read the references I put forward and read the list of references in those papers you would see solid agreement. Here is but many such examples: From, Journal of ASA, "The Active Listening Room: A Novel Approach to Early Reflection Manipulation in Critical Listening Rooms." There, Naqvi, and Rumsey actually performed double blind ABX tests: "The listening test was based on the A/B/X methodology, which is summarized in [16]....In this experiment X was assigned randomly either to have artificial reflections or not, whereas A and B were the “with reflections” or “without reflections” comparisons, assigned randomly."

Here is the final statement in the conclusion of the paper:

"The findings of the pilot experiment were found to be in close agreement with the findings of Olive and Toole’s [6] and Bech’s [9] experiments in terms of the threshold of image shifts in IEC standard listening rooms."

Neither I, nor Dr. Toole would stick our head out there if this was not such a well supported thesis.

Now, can you still disagree? Sure. But come back with something other than words. Quote top experts with their own controlled testing showing other results.

Yes, this research is difficult to conduct. But it has been conducted as applications of better sound in room has massive implications.

Finally, as I said, I have debated this topic for years and years online. This is the only time I have seen someone disagreeing and bring no proof whatsoever of their correctness. The other folks at least put forward their own references allowing a good discussion on merits of those. You few seem comfortable just throwing rocks. How do you live with such a standard in other discussions???

 

[gregorio]

You keep representing unknown acousticians ...

Which is immeasurably better than: You keep misrepresenting known acousticians!

For now, you don't seem to have such references or names to represent. In that case, none of that means anything especially coming from an anonymous poster yourself.

Maybe it doesn't mean very much but it's still important to counter your misrepresentations of "references and names" and your resultant INCORRECT advice. The OP and everyone else can make up their own mind. And, just in case anyone is in any doubt from your obvious misrepresentation of the treatment/no treatment paper you quoted, let's take a look at another misrepresentation, one of you favourite names/references:

"I rarely participate in internet forums of any kind, but I do look in from time to time. Occasionally my name appears, along with expressions of what people think I believe about certain things. I make an effort to ensure that anything I write or say reflects the results of accurate measurements and double-blind tests done by me or someone else. ...
And Now, What “Toole” Really Believes:
By now I hope that readers have concluded that the matter of early reflections in rooms is not a simple one. There is no single “right” way to do things. ...
In Figure 22.3 at the end of my book presents suggestions for room treatment based on guidance from research. The portions of side walls responsible for first lateral reflections are specified as “optional areas: absorb, diffuse, reflect.” It is a decision to be made by the customer and/or the installer. People who assert that I am in favor of lateral reflections obviously did not finish reading my book." - Floyd Toole 2016.

Almost seems like it's addressed to you personally amirm? Here's the full article for anyone interested.

G

 

[noname2020x]

Woah.

This thread really took off.

So to give you an update, I took some of the advice on page one and ran with it.

After putting my couch closer to 1/3rd toward my sink, tilting the speakers a bit, and placing the foam on my cabinets near my sink slap noises are gone and close to the full sound is present. It sounds great overall. It sounds better when I'm sitting on the floor though so would it be better to put something under the front of the speakers to tilt them up a little?