mas

I sense the tendency for us to keep going in circles! The statements above pertain to general acoustical spaces, an acoustical definition that includes rooms of varying sizes but all exhibiting a series of similar specific characterisitcs. In reality, we deal with many sized rooms - the vast majority on this forum, if not all, of which will fall into the "small acoustical space" definition. Hence the tuning of the specific ITD to ~2-5 ms greater than the room's natural ITD. The primary problem to which I am referring is the over use of absorption, an approach which is predominant here as well as a pronounced lack of sufficient diffusion. With this approach, the resultant lack of a dense diffusive field is not only a definate possibility, it is a near certain probability. And these late arriving higher order specular reflections will very probably exceed the exponential decay rate of a diffuse field and be very audible. This is further aggravated by the common references on the Net to an LEDE exhibiting an 'anechoic' reponse which is wrong in its simplistic misunderstanding of the concept. Hence the rush for absorption! And if the same trend is followed, more absorption will be used, further exascerbating the problem. Hence alot of time, effort and money to simply move the problem around. But yes! It WILL sound different! And without anything to benchmark it too, most will assume it to be an improvement. We keep circling the issue here which is that many want a very scientific way to put their finger into the air and determine the optimal way to treat a generic (anything but perfectly rectangular) room without using the proper tools (and I say this as RTA and EQs and SPL meters are NOT the proper tools for this application.) Additionally, such concepts as LEDE are not random or approximate. They are based upon research and can be quantified and qualified based upon actual measurements that do correlate to a subjective experience. I can completely understand the desire to be able to enhance their listening room without spending thousands of dollars! Not only that, I completely agree! I personally have no desire to buy magic foam for a thousand dollars! ...Nor do I personally relish the thought of buying 2' x2' diffusive panels for from $200 to $600 each!! I would personally propose making these in a weekend or three. Some sheets of luan (if you are comfortable doing the ripping & edge finishing), or several plantation blinds bought at Home Depot, prefinished in the desired finish, taken apart, and a jig and router make this a simple and fun project. I can provide as in depth a discussion of the physics as one wants. We can specify how a well behaved room behaves quantified by measurements, complete with tolerances and limits. But these descriptions will not result in a tuned room that is worth the ignorance of the basic tools. If we could, those who have been doing this for a long time now WITH the elaborate tools would be able to save the time, money and hassle of using them. But they don't. There is a very good reason for this. There are very definate advantages to tools such as TEF, Easura, SMAART, etc., but for $150 to $300, ETF's RPlusD can do what the average person needs. And most are all too willing to spend more than this for interconnects and/or bi-wiring, yet run from the suggestion of learning about real tools that make a real difference. And all one needs for a basic room is the ability to make (and interpret!) basic time, energy, frequency waterfall plots for room modes and impulse responses for absorption, ITD, and diffusive measurements. Now someone who is selling a turnkey solution may try to tell you it can be done (and FAR TOO many do!!!!!) And some even suggest they can if you send them a sketch (I guess that adds to the psychological feeling of completeness). Heck, save your money and send me a sketch, I will be glad to suggest wall treatments fir free - and you can move the response of the room around. But at some point it you desire to address a real room with any sense of accuracy, you bite the bullet and get the proper tools. I guess what concerns me most, is that so many will go to such great lengths, and spend more then they need to on treatments rather than to be come familiar with the time based tools that are available that will allow them to identify where they are, what needs to be done, and when to stop! But there is more to this than simply installing some magic bass traps (based upon ideal gross guestimates of rooms that vary greatly from the ideal), some absorption using the mirror test (yet having no idea of the ITD of the room nor of the Haas kicker - if it even remains), and tacking up some diffusion (actually pretty hard to go wrong here - except that it is done too little and too sparingly). The devil is indeed in the details. But if you do choose to go this route, use bass traps, and then please, use absorption sparingly for the first order reflections, and then go heavy on the diffusion on the remaining surfaces!!!!!! Sure there are some simple general guidelines, just as I can tell provide you with the general guidelines to become a 50 home run hitter in the majors without steroids! Unfortunately, they are both equally effective in actually achieving the goal in the real world.

Its 6 of one and a half dozen of the other if you persist in doing it without the proper tools! Its rather like doing circuit design based on the size of the puff of smoke and the intensity of the shock you receive! You still don't know where you are and you have no means to determine when you have gotten to where you desire to go.

Here we are reminded that there are different acoustic designs for different purposes. And the failure to understand this is the cause of a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion both here and in the industry in general. And I hope that I don't offend anyone, but this is a common source of confusion here as well.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> As this 'guy' is mentioning dealing with "sound track titles" in a mix environment, he is completely correct within a limited application environment! The purpose of the acoustic design of a studio mix booth is to completely remove the room and to focus exclusively on the direct signal, as that is ALL the mix engineer has control over. Hence the use of RFZ (reflection free zone) configurations. But the exclusive use of an RFZ is not appropriate for listening rooms used for accurately reproducing recorded sources. If this seems confusing, it is a definite sign that one needs to do a bit more research. And at the risk (once again) of stepping on toes, this seems to be behind much of the rush to treat rooms generally (rather than surgically) with absorption. ;-) On the other hand, I will reiterate what I have been trying to state previously with regards to accurate reproduction. This (an anechoic response) is NOT appropriate for listening rooms! If he is refering to a listening room, most** would agree that he is incorrect...but if you say he is from THX, then I am being redundant. ;-) And unfortunately, as I am unable to post attachments on the site, (HELP!!!!!), and subsequent requests for help have gone unheeded, so you will just have to squint a bit harder and imagine the attachments that would make this much clearer. ;-) What I have been trying to convey are some of the more current thoughts regarding the concept originated by Don Davis that has continued to evolve and which is known as the LEDE (Live End Dead End) configuration. (But to properly understand it, you must move beyond the simplistic description!) "When the physically and acoustically small room is converted into a physically small, acoustically large room by LEDE means, then this signature is heard from the loudspeakers." ... "Leo Beranek has written in Music, Acoustics and Architecture, Persons trained in listening for example, bind people, who receive all of their clues about the environment around them through the senses other than the eye can measure the size of the room or judge the distance to the wall behind them by the length of the time interval between the direct sound and the first reflected sound. Beranek goes on to note that this capability is not restricted to the unsighted, but experienced music listenerssense the approximate size of the hallby the length of the initial time delay gap. "The LEDE technique, by virtue of the distance the direct sound must travel to encounter a first reflection, adjusts the initial time delay gap {to a figure ~2-5 ms longer then the ITD of the untreated room itself - thus establishing an effectively 'anechoic' path to the listener's ear of the direct signal} to the same figure that Beranek judged as desirable in the best concert halls, namely 20 ms. It is no coincidence that the same 20 ms is the optimal delay for the maximum Haas effect in good, diffuse, semi-reverberant spaces." "William B. Snow, of Bell Labs fame, in 1957 wrote in Application of Acoustical Engineering Principles to Home Music Rooms, The direct sound alone carries the information giving the sense of direction, by allowing the listener to observe the initial transients clearly during the short time interval before the many-directed reflections begin to arrive at his ears. A 'dead' room does indeed sound 'dead'. A lesson learned quite well (and quickly modified!) in the very frst iteration of the LEDE concept at Wally Heider's. Absorption is used surgically for very specific purposes. It is used to define the ITD/ISD and, in very rare cases, to tame stubborn subsequent focused specular reflections where diffusive means prove insufficient. Other then those surgical applications, diffusion is used liberally to increase the density of the diffuse field occuring later in time after the ITD/ISD, defined by Ld and the Haas kicker. ** To make any absolute statements regarding preferences is a bit absurd. But one is able to make some generalizations regarding the general trend among those who are actively developing and researching such environments. So please understand my statements that may indicate that a particular method or approach is 'correct'.

Metal mounting plates are available that span the normally 16" stud centers. Normally manufacturers should have these available for their products (especially if they anticipate the use of their products in commercial environments where metal studs are the norm). If not, various generic mounting plates are available from building supply houses. Here is an example of a mounting plate: http://www.audio-discounters.com/wsp-425.html

The listening environment is an integral part of the playback environment. While headphones come closest to eliminating this, even they cannot avoid this. And to this end a room exhibits both an ambient noise level as well as a relationship of the direct signal to the reverberant sound level (be it true reverberation or a semi-reverberant field). Thus the goal is to establish an optimal balance in order to create an optimal listening environment.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The well designed room properly adds a diffuse field that adds a sense of space while preserving the primary focus which is the direct signal. The goal then becomes that of establishing a well behaved balance wherein the room does not become a source of deleterious effects. Personally, I think the best room imparts a 'reasonable' ambience. Just as in a live performance. In a live performance (an acoustical performance sans sound reinforcement) the direct signal is presented, and a well designed room adds a subtle ambience. (...as distinct from some of the horrendous halls that seem to inhabit a Twilight Zone somewhere between a House of Mirrors and a Fun House.) If one seeks to hear only the direct signal source without the effects of the room, they desire a configuration known as a reflection free zone (RFZ). This geometry was utilized pre-TEF to minimize the effects of reflections from the floor, walls and ceiling. Assuming the absence of speaker diffraction (as diffractive surfaces act as secondary acoustical points of origin), absorption was used to minimize reflections from control surfaces (boards, consoles, etc.). With the development of TEF, the natural progression of RFZ became the LEDE, and its practical progression of that design. But one must be aware, that with the removal of the room acoustics, the next order of magnitude concern becomes the design of the speaker itself with its multipoint sources of signals, diffraction, etc.! The most significant advancement in the LEDE room was the movement away from the over use of absorption. And unfortunately, the topology of the early incarnations of the LEDE room seems to be the models represented in Everest and other sources. The result being a strange mix of negative reviews (due to the excessive use of absorption) and plans which still feature the over use of absorption! Few sources speak to the optimized design that has replaced these initial iterations of the concept! So, for many, this new acoustical science is stuck in 1977 where some of the new models are mentioned, but the more important associated advances in understanding that evolved as a result of these early models has not! Be aware, the role of an engineer in a studio is to focus solely upon the direct sound. As they have no control over the playback environment, the focus should be only on the direct signal. To attempt to do otherwise would only serve to introduce even greater anomalies. But, more to your question, the studio environment can indeed have a profound effect on the direct signal source, both positive and negative. And this brings us back to the other recent thread regarding soundstage. The source can range from a coherent source to a Frankenstein like artificial creation that represents a completely artificial and fabricated sonic environment. In my opinion, we have control only over the environment in which we listen. Beyond that we are free to evaluate and comment on the job of the engineer - and hence Mix Magazines TEC Awards! But we are not at liberty to change or rectify that job. So I think it only reasonable that with regrads to recorded material we assume the best of the engineer and their efforts, as we are stuck with whatever they have 'created'. It serves as a baseline with which we much deal. Thus we need to focus on the elements over which we have control. ;-)

If I may, let me ask a couple of questions and then reply to Mike's question...and I will hopefully use it to illustrate a few fundamental issues that we commonly encounter in talking about this subject. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> You (Mike) mention a "particularly harsh reverberant field"... While I certainly do not dismiss your point, I do have an issue with its real meaning. I suspect the reason for this problem is in terminology, and the tendency for us not to use standard terms that have real meaning in acoustics. So I will use it as a focal point to try to point out a few problems we commonly make and propose what I think may be going on, and hopefully a solution. First, we must come to an understanding of the very real distinction between small and large acoustical spaces. Fundamental to the understanding of small acoustical spaces is the fact that they (as distinct from large acoustical spaces) do not have a reverberant field. Rather than debate this, please refer to Sound System Engineering, by <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Davis (pp. 151-234) Very quickly, the word reverberant is used in a myriad number of ways, and although the word may be used, its meaning varies substantially depending upon the context and the acoustical environment. And a proper understanding the use of this word is critical. A good example is our example here. Even I will take issue with someone's use of the word reverberant in the context of a small acoustical space and then turnaround and use it myself. But inherent in my use is the knowledge of the fundamental limitations and the fact that I am actually referring to a semi-reverberant field. As it is FAR beyond the scope of this post, let me mention a few general definitions. And please be aware that these generalities have much detail beneath them!! {Please be aware that several other concepts that are critical to the proper understudying of reverberation (as well as to large acoustical space acoustics) is the critical distance, Dc and RT60. But these are beyond the scope of this topic; I will not delve into them here. Again, while they are simple terms, the contributing factors are anything but! And while it is very important to understand them, it is their absence in a small acoustic space that is most significant here! } There are five general classes of sound fields: free fields, diffuse (reverberant) fields, semi-reverberant fields, pressure fields and ambient noise fields. In reverberant field "the time average of the mean square sound pressure is everywhere the same. The flow of energy is all directions is equally probable, which requires an enclosed space with essentially no acoustic absorption. The reverberant sound level is labeled Lr". "In a semi-reverberant sound field, sound energy is both reflected and absorbed. Energy flows in more than one direction. Much of the energy is truly from a diffused field; however, there are components of the field that have a definable direction of propagation from the noise source. The semi-reverberant field is the one encountered in most of the architectural acoustic environments. The early reflections (i.e., under 50 msec after Ld) are labeled Lre. But, now lets look at another very important qualification. To quote a section for Sound System Engineering (p.211): To quote Ted Shultz (formerly of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman): In a large room, if one has a sound source, one can determine the total amount of absorption in a room by measuring the average pressure throughout the room. This total absorption can them be used to calculate the reverberation time from the Sabine formula. This method fails badly in a small room, however, where a large part of the spectrum of interest lies in a frequency range where the resonant modes of the room do not overlap but may be isolatedIn this case the microphone, instead of responding to a random sound field (as required by the validity of the theory on which these methods depend), will delineate a transfer function of the roomIt does not provide a valid measurement of the reverberation of the room. What is often overlooked in the attempted measurement of RT60 in small rooms is that the definition of RT60 has two parts. The first part is unfortunately commonly overlooked. 1.) RT60 is the measurement of the decay time of a well-mixed reverberant sound field well beyond Dc. 2.) 2.) RT60 is the time in seconds for the reverberant sound field to decay 60 dB after the sound source is shut off. In small rooms there is no Dc, no well-mixed sound field, and, hence, no reverberation. There is merely a series of early reflected energy. Consequently the measurement of RT60 becomes meaningless in such environments The control of the early reflections becomes most meaningful because there is no reverberation to mask them. So, fundamental to our discussion are two issues: 1.) What is the level of the reverberant field? 2.) How uniform is the reverberant sound levels distribution in the space? (And I hope you see the multiple use of the word reverberant here! Essentially we are asking when is a reverberant field reverberant, and when is it not reverberant!) This is precisely the issue I want to address regarding Mikes point, as he has zeroed in on precisely the issue we need to address! In small rooms, we experience a preponderance of distinct room modes as well as a preponderance of distinct specular (non-diffused) low order reflections rather than a truly diffuse reverberant sound field. Thus the room topology dependent LF modes must be dealt with by the use of LF traps. First order early arrival time reflections that arrive within the ITD gap are absorbed. And please note, while this addresses Haas (Henry precedence Effect) issues, it also reduces the intensity of the specular reflections that contribute to a diffuse sound field! And while some focus on this as a positive, there is also the other half of the situation to consider! It is difficult to increase the diffusion if you increasingly decrease the sources that may be diffused! The result, instead, is an increase in the number of specular reflections relative to, and at the expense of, the diffuse sound field! Thus, the desire is to surgically control the early arrival first order reflections. But you do not want to remove all of these! You desire the reflection that is referred to as a Haas kicker. This point is often ignored in the race to remove all of the reflections! And the corollary problem for most is WHICH first order reflections should be removed and which should remain! Without a measurement to indicate the intensity and arrival time of each component reflection, just how does one determine which reflection to keep???? Beyond the ITD and the Haas kicker, it is desirable to have a well behaved diffuse sound field. But a small room lacks a truly diffuse sound field with equally distributed sound energy, the specular reflections tend to be focused and of relatively high intensity. The diffuse sound field should decay at an exponential rate, without the presence of reflections that exceed this level. Energy that exceeds this level is audible and detrimental. Herein lies Mikes issue. How uniform is the reverberant sound levels distribution in the space? And does it exceed the exponential decay rate It is a very valid issue! But simply knowing that there is a problem is not enough to correct it. The reason is that this diffuse sound field is already sparse in a small room. And the presence of a well-behaved diffuse field is a very desirable element! So, is the answer to simply absorb and indiscriminately diminish this diffuse sound field, all the while making the specular reflections even more apparent? The answer is an emphatic no! But still, we are left without a way to know just which offensive reflections need to be addressed. So we have two options. The first for those who still run from the thought of moving beyond RTA and SPL meters, is to simply increase diffusive treatments in the attempt to increase the diffuse sound field while simultaneously diffusing the offensive reflections further. Here I need to interject another observation before stating the second option. Thus far we are treating the room based upon abstractions and suppositions. It is rather like Christopher Columbus in his initial voyages, setting out with the goal to land precisely at the Myrtle Beach pier without a map! I think you will agree that the odds of that are rather precarious, and any chance of success reduced to pure luck and coincidence. The reason for this is that the ordinary tools can tell you the intensity of the total sound field, but little else. They cannot identify the component reflections that comprise the sound fields. Nor can they identify the arrival times of each of the component reflections. Nor can they identify the orientation and reflective path of the component reflections. Thus, you are wandering in the dark, persisting on faith based on abstract theory. Here is why the time based tools are critical and also why it was their development that has allowed acoustics to move forward in such a dramatic fashion. They are pre-requisites to a greater understanding, and yet it is fascinating that so few are really aware of them, and how so many who are aware of them still dismiss them! As these tools allow you to see not only the sound field, but also each component part, along with detailed information regarding the intensity, arrival time, and (in the case of TEF-PEQ) the ability to resolve each reflection into its 3-Space coordinates showing exactly where the effective reflection on each surface occurs, we are able to see the big picture as well as all of the atomistic component parts. This detail allows us to very surgically address each anomaly and to see the effect of any step we take. It becomes an easy process at this point. Thus, the second option is to measure the room and to view the overall trend and then to focus on the individual component parts to surgically address the specific problem without adversely effecting other elements. This has the benefit of saving allot of time, and potentially saving allot of money in materials, as you only address the specific sources of problems rather than indiscriminately treating surfaces which unfortunately usually only move the problems around without actually resolving the problems. So, in Mikes problem, we have specular reflections that are insufficiently diffused. We do not have too great a reverberant field, but instead we have a semi-reverberant field with specular components of excessive intensity. It is these specific reflections that need to be diffused so that they will contribute to the overall diffuse field while being eliminated as hard harsh reflections that are audible and detrimental to the listening environment. Often these offending signals are not single reflections, but are instead summed lower intensity specular reflections. And without measuring tools these would be impossible to resolve into their component parts for treatment. Only in rare instances would they need to be absorbed. And measurements would quickly identify the nature of the source of these reflections and tell us if this was indeed the case. But in either event, we would be proceeding based upon a solid understanding of the problem rather then an emotional guess. I am reposting the graphic from the last post. Please look at the 2nd and the 4th diagram. The signals that Mike is referring to are those that exceed the exponential decay level of the diffusive field. I apologize if I have both dealt with this subject too deeply for many, while at the same time without sufficient depth and explanation of so many prerequisite and co-requisite principles and considerations. Again, if anyone has specific questions regarding problems, or would like to discuss or explore any other related issues, it is easier to speak to them by voice. Also, if you have pictures and or drawings, that always makes things easier! So, if you have questions, please PM me and we can talk by phone if you like. I am glad to refer you to more detailed references depending on the issue or to talk about more specific solutions. ConcatSmallRoomResponseCharacterisitcs.pdf

A suggestion...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The treatment of rooms is well understood. And there are different criterion used for different goals, be it intelligibility, gain, etc. So first the desired use must be determined. Additionally, the characteristics of the acoustical space are different dependent upon whether it is a "small" acoustical space or a "large" acoustical space. These are very specific definitions with a primary distinction being that a "small" acoustical space lacks a diffuse reverberant field. Typical home listening rooms and studios fall into the small acoustical space categories. Many of the works cited, and I will risk kicking a sacred dog here in mentioning that Everest's Master Handbook of Acoustics is an adequate overview of many of the basic ideas and research developed by others. But in order to understand and benefit from the research and the myriad advancements of those who are actually doing the research and whose materials and diagrams he uses, you need to move to the sources themselves. His book provides a good introduction to acoustics, but you are not prepared to begin operating as a surgeon by simply looking at a copy of Gray's Anatomy.. It does not provide sufficient depth to understand exactly how each of the principles and technologies mentioned are actively employed - nor what has been learned during the advancing implementation of these technologies and concepts. To learn more and to advance past this, you need to learn more about the basis for, and the application of the technologies to which he refers. And the place to start is: Sound System Engineering, Don and Carolyn Davis, ISBN: 0240803051, Focal Press (800.545.2522). This classic deals with sound system design and theory for both large and small rooms, and provides an excellent overview of test and measurement, impedance, acoustics, and more. ***Note the 3rd Edition is about to be released for widespread availability authored by Don Davis & Dr. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Eugene Patronis. These are absolute must haves. Also, several titles that may have not been mentioned in other threads that you will find useful: The Audio System Designer, Peter Mapp. Small enough to fit in your briefcase, this is an excellent resource of the charts, data, and coefficients sound system designers need. An Introduction to Mathematics and Engineering Science, Dr. Sidney Bertram. Sound Reinforcement Engineering, Wolfgang Ahnert . Wolfgang Ahnert is best known for his development of the EASE modeling program for sound designers. His textbook covers all aspects of system design. And for instruction into the latest advances in theory and the latest applications and test & measurement in acoustics: Synergetic Audio Concepts (Syn-Aud-Con). This has been the historical clearing house of almost all of the significant innovators since the 1970's. Pat Brown assumed leadership when Don & Carolyn Davis decided to 'retire' (almost a misuse of the term) in 1996. Additionally, while many web sites try to provide simplified cookie cutter approaches, you need to not only become familiar with, but understand the value of the time domain based test and measurement gear. To advance to the next level about guesswork and simple emotional reaction, you have no alternative. It can be as basic as RPlusD, the replacement for ETF, or it can be as advanced as TEF, Easera, SMAART, or MLSSA, etc. (each having various strengths and weaknesses such as ambient noise immunity, etc. as well as varying degrees of completeness and scope.). But these are the tools required to allow you to examine the acoustical characteristics in their component aspects. Now I know many are not intimate with these tools. And many also believe that while they are nice, they are not necessary. Regarding the specific issue of the treatment of mid and high frequencies, these are well understood, and the various approaches determined by the specific application and the specific goal are well understood. this area of acoustics has experienced a quantum leap in the past 25 years. And much of what you read is based upon only the very basic introductory ideas as first proposed 25-30 years ago. And these models have been significantly refined! A great example is LEDE & RFZ configurations. The irony is that much of what you read in many of the books (including Everest) is obsolete and based upon the very initial proposals that further testing ad research has modified significantly. And the test gear is what has made the further investigation and refinement of this possible. In a nutshell, LF modes below ~300Hz are determined by room topology and are treated with various diaphragmatic traps. You have several considerations with the mids and highs. But in general, after the arrival of the direct signal there is a natural ITD (initial time delay - or more properly - and initial signal delay gap) between the arrival of the direct signal and before the arrival of the initial first order reflection. Knowing the rooms natural ITD, you are then able to establish a desired ITD greater than the rooms natural response. This period will typically range anywhere from 5ms up to 25ms in a small room (and this is not arbitrary; there are factors that enter into this), where you absorb the first order reflections that fall into this time range sufficient to trigger the Haas Effect. This period is going to be terminated by what is referred to as a Haas Kicker - the first reflection within 6dB of the highest magnitude reflection. Absorption is useful to absorb the first order reflections within the ITD gap. Beyond this, it is desirable for the reflected energy to exhibit a well behaved decay following an exponential rate. Reflections that exceed that slope are audible and to be addressed. Likewise, in a small room that by definition lacks a diffuse reverberant field, the specular reflections are to be diffused, thus scattering the acoustical energy further, eliminating distinct focused speculate reflections. Thus, except in unusual special conditions, except for the definition of the ITD, absorption is not beneficial. Diffusion is to be used on the preponderance of the side walls, back wall and ceilings. Absorption is not desirable! Absorption reduces an already sparse diffuse sound field into distinct specular reflections rather than increasing the diffuse field. And new techniques such as that developed by Russ Berger allow additional unused attic or closet or adjoining rooms to add a pseudo-reverberant component to the diffuse field decay. This is a 15 cent tour. There is MUCH more specific information available. And I wish I could say that by going to a website and simply giving them a drawing or the dimensions of your room that someone could reliably give you a turnkey package that was worth more than what you could do yourself with a ruler and a pencil. It is actually not that difficult. But it is important that you specifically address certain signals and diffuse the rest. And if you desire a simple summary, you only absorb the critical first order reflections defining the ITD. There after (unless there is an exceptional anomalous circumstance), you will diffuse the remaining sound field. As always, if anyone wants to deal with this in greater depth or with additional tools, PM me. I am available to chat via phone. And for all the toes I have stepped on and for any sacred cows I have tipped, I apologize, but please give me a holler and I think I can help to clarify any points anyone may want to discuss. MANY resources and much info is available, but it is simply not practical to cover it all here. ConcatSmallRoomResponseCharacterisitcs.pdf

Tom, Let me make a few calls and I will attempt to get the exact details of all aspects of the apparatus and microphones, as well as a detailed description of the functional principals - I have been meaning to do this for a while now and this is a good kick to get me movin...

Actually, no. The ITE method involved suspending a silicone tranducer down the ear canal into the pressure zone of the eardrum. Each mic appears as a bobbin earring [] (very stylish!) The technique extended the PZM concept to the pressure zone of the ear, thus accurately capturing all of the phase information exactly as your ear drum receives it just prior to its being transformed from air based energy. What makes this system so unique is that it captures all of the acoustic phase exactly as it exists after being processed by the ear - the entire pinnae structure.It is MUCH more advanced then the simple approach taken by the various less sophisticated ( but nevertheless still advanced techniques) such as the Crown SASS system. The playback is via a front LF pair and a rear LF pair, and the gain is adjusted to the rear pair so that it is just apparent that there is an ambient source. The recording is localized from the perspective of the person who 'wore' the microphones. Thus, if an orchestra condustor wears them you will experience the concert from the location and perspective of the conductor - with violins to your left, tympani to the far right rear, and the annoying audience member who talks during the perfomance over your left shoulder about 10 rows deep. This was the first recording I listened too - with my eyes wide and mouth open I might add! The second recording was both a treat and a trick that verified beyond ANY doubt the voracity of the technique. It was made at a Grateful Dead show in 1990 where Don and Carolyn Davis had been invited to help with an issue with the sound system. During the course of the recording, someone not familiar with the fact that the person wearing the ITE microphones was recording, walks up from behind the person , taps them on the shoulder to ask them a question. Each one of us listened to the recording one at a time sitting in the 'sweet spot' of the 4 speaker F-R pair. We were only allowed to witness others experience this after we each had our turn to listen first hand. So we had no prior idea of what we were going to experience. In other words, if you had not listened first hand, you had NO idea what was about to transpire. So, at the precise moment during the playback of the show when the 'interruption' occured, each individual who was listening in the sweet spot, IMMEDIATELY turned to look over their left shoulder as if someone had just tapped them on the shoulder and asked a question. You actually were prepared to respond to the accurate acoustic cues enabling such complete and detailed localiztion of the source. It was uncanny to say the least! It was (or it certainly felt) real! Of course, as the reaction was an automatic response, you quickly realized that no one was there and that it was part of the recording, and you promptly felt very sheepish, while simultaneously being absolutely amazed, as the others who had already been caught themselves in exactly the same way were able to share in your surprise by laughing themselves silly at your expense! But then it was your turn to share in the delight as the next 'victim' took their seat to listen. I have never experienced anything that came even remotely close to this effect of "is it live or is it Memorex'! You are truely THERE! Likewise, if you were to walk through a Morrocan bazaar wearing the microphones, you would hear all of theacoustic cues in a 360 degree arc both on the horizontal plane as well as the vertical plane. It would capture the TOTAL ambience in all regards. Let me make a couple of calls and see exactly what the status is of the technology. I know that the IMAX folks were interested in it. But I am not aware of any additional commercial use. Additionally, for 5-6 years everyone who visited Don and Carolyn became an appointed volunteer in the making of pinnae measurements in order to ascertain the best ear response topology - and just the variation in this is utterly amazing as well! I know they were interested in using this information to create an artificial 'head' for the purposes of using the technique - but again, allow me to make a few calls if you folks are interested.

That is fine! I sincerely applaud your goal! But let me see if I can convince you to save some of your energy for more useful pursuits that actually result in greater utility.[] The reason I mention this is that more precise calculations are actually spurious, as they assume a much greater degree of precision than is valid! And they do not represent real world spaces with a great degree of accuracy - even if everything else was ideal. So my serving as the devil's advocate is only intended to prevent anyone from pretending that they are really achieving greater accuracy. As limited mathematical calulations cannot provide the desired improvement. It is akin to calculating the area of a surface to 3 decimal place precision when the measuring instrument used to measure the surface dimensions is marked in 'whole' integer units with a tolerance of 10%! Or, to put it another way, if all I have is a foot long stick with no markings, the precision of the instrument is to estimate to the nearest 10th of the base unit. So I can make measurements that are limited in precision to tenths of a foot. More rigid standards could be quoted to say that I am limited to the nearest whole foot! Maybe I also take measurements with a tool that can now measure dimensions to 20 decimal place precision. Now, if I then take one measurement from each series of measurements and calculate a derived value from the two measurements, say area, my precision of the derived answer is limited to the least precise measurement. Not to even mention that the calculation assumed an ideal 'perfect' form! So we have quite a few very limiting conditions already assumed. In other words, it makes no sense to pretend that you can design the latest generation CPU using a 45nm process using a meter stick precise to the nearest mm. Room modes are the same way! The up side is that it serves no valid purpose to do so. All you need be concerned with in the calculations (due to their NOT providing a Q for the resonance) is the grouping - the clustering of the various mode center frequencies. Plus these 'ideal' calculations are good ONLY for ideal perfectly rectangular closed rooms - and they ignore coupling of adjacent spaces via doors or walkthroughs, alcoves, stairways etc., thus rendering the best calculation just a guestimation - a very general estimate - but one generally sufficient for the proverbial game of hand grenades. Thus a tool such as ModeCalc calulates the center frequencies as well as displays the center frequencies graphically in order to show such clustering. And a rough guess is fine, especially as that is all this method is capable of providing! It's precision is more than adequate for the tools purpose. The ONLY reasonable way to account for the real world anomalies is to measure the modes, which is easily done and easily graphically displayed via time based measurement tools. http://www.realtraps.com/pmodecalc.htm

The fundamental problem is that the original complex phase relationships of the various sources (being recorded - not the mics!) relative to each other in a live recording are neither captured nor maintained throughout the mix process. Without this all you have is a composite image of discrete images that are simply postitioned by a pan! The Only recording technique that completely preserves this relationship is the ITE recording method. And this provides a 360 degree complete 3space environment where ALL of the acoustic cues relative to localization are completely maintained and reproduced. They are uncanny to experience. http://www.livesoundint.com/archives/2004/aug/tech.pdf#search=%22ITE%20recording%20technique%22

To reinforce what Gil has mentioned: Waves carry energy and momentum, and whenever a wave encounters an obstacle, they are reflected by the obstacle. This reflection of the object can be analyzed in terms of momentum and energy conservation. If the wall is a hard fixed boundary and the collision is 'perfectly elastic', then the wall absorbs none of the energy and all of the incident energy and momentum is reflected with an identical velocity with the reflection being 180 degrees out of phase from the incident wave. If the wall is a non-fixed/non-rigid boundary, then the collision is 'inelastic', the restorative force is zero and the wall absorbs some of the incident energy and momentum and the waves lose some energy and velocity with the reflection being in phase with the incident waveform. If the reflective surface is neither perfectly hard nor perfectly soft, and is somewhere in between, the restorative force is less than equity and part of the wave is reflected and part of the wave is absorbed or transmitted through the boundary surface. <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /> The exact behavior of reflection and transmission depends on the material properties on both sides of the boundary. The sum of this behavior is termed the acoustical impedance, which is essentially the total opposition of the wall system to sound waves comprised of resistive and reactive components.. And just like what you may be used to in electronics, the acoustical impedance also has an acoustical resistance component, which is the real component associated with the opposition and dissipation of kinetic sound energy upon striking a wall, as well as an acoustical reactance, which is a value related to the mass of the wall, along with the relative elasticity of the surface which comprises the imaginary component corresponding to the stored potential stored energy in the system. As others have observed, the acoustical impedance of the wall system is characterized by very complex non-linear dependencies with respect to frequency. And while charts can provide some useful relative measure of a materials effectiveness regarding reflection and sound transmission characteristics, the actual effect is a complex sum of the various wall components. By far, the easiest way to determine the performance of a reflective surface is to measure it. An easy way to visualize this phenomena is to tie a rope to a tree and 'shake it up and down' and watch the waves and the reflections that result. This phenomena is the same for electrical energy and the concept of 'termination'. A common place you will experience practical effects are in your cable or satellite distribution network, if you leave a leg 'unterminated' by a (characterisitically) 75 ohm resistor (built into a terminator cap). Reflections are the result of an imperfect impedance match - as a load equal to the source would absorb the energy rather than reflect it. One question I do have... Are you 'doing the math' regarding standing waves simply to build character? ;-) Is there a reason the online standing wave (eigen)mode calculators are not sufficient? If anyone desires the equations and has lots of spare time on their hands, please say so, or PM me. Axial Modes are the easiest to calculate as well as being the most important. Tangential modes exhibit ~ one half the intensity, while Oblique modes exhibit ~ one quarter the intensity. The concerns regarding these types of modes is when one type of mode occurs near another type of mode as the result will be effected by what is caled superposition - the summation of the waveforms, so the calculation of all of the mode types is prudent to determine where the overlap may occur, as those frequencies may be a problem. Oh, and to comment on the diagrams that are commonly used to represent modes and the problem one experiences by mistaking a stylized description with reality! All of these modes actually hit the Entire surface of each wall. The diagrams treat them as linear 'lines' and you may get the erroneous impression that you can treat just a section of each wall corresponding to the wave-wall intersection as pictured in the representational diagrams to damp the standing wave. Also, real rooms are not ideal, so small variations in angles are involved. The calculations provide only an idealized and overly simplified mathematical model. This, combined with the fact that the calculations provide only for the center frequency of the standing wave frequency band should reinforce why we are most concerned with modes that occur close to one another. These are not high Q phenomena. Therefore, while room calculations and calculators are handy, it is still preferable to simply take real measurements with time based measuring tools. (see diagram of a simple standing wave) Standing waves are addressed with traps!! BTW: Surface treatments do not address these modes (well, none that you want in your house!) These standing waves are determined by the room geometry. Above 300Hz, sound is influenced more by what the room is made of and the materials' characteristic surface reflectivity than by the dimensions and shape of the room. RoomModes&HelmholtzResonatorLg.pdf

Actually, decoupling the drywall from the stud walls by using neoprene offsets and pliable adhesive is more effective as it prevents energy from being effectively coupled and transmitted to the stud wall frame and thus some energy is dissipated. This is also fundamental construction technique employed when utilizing double layers of drywall when sound transmission through the wall is a factor. Likewise the concept of a room within a room utilizes neoprene pucks to support and decouple the floor joists from the foundation floor, thus rendering the entire room 'floating' for the same purpose - to dissipate energy from being efficiently transfered. {But mid and high frequencies are not really an issue here.) But I still think we are tending to mix problems and solutions. May I suggest clearly distinguishing between sound transmission issues through the wall to surrounding areas and reflective issues within the room - as the sources and solutions are not the same. For sound transmission issues, tightly sealed (as in airtight) wall mass and loosely coupled components are the order of the day. While for internal room issues, wall mass has little effect upon the reflective characterisitics of the mid and high frequencies. And the low frequencies are effected both by wall mass and the use of various types of diaphragmatic resonant 'traps'.

The folks above have made some very valid points.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I think one has to examine the recording process itself to discover the fundamental flaw.. In assuming that imaging is to be preserved, we seem to have a preconceived notion that there was indeed some original event that is simply being transcribed to the medium which possesses 'an image'. And except in what has become a rare instance, this is a false assumption. With multi-tracking, overdubs, remote recording and a myriad other techniques, not only are the individual parts not done at the same time, many are not even done in the same location! The individual pieces and parts are assembled into a whole. And any semblance of an image is an artificial creation. There is one microphone/recording technique (ITE) that accurately retains all of the phase information and hence all of he acoustic cues for extremely accurate spatial recreation of the original integral event. But unfortunately, in a composition comprised of many spliced pieces and parts, any resulting 'image' is a new creation of that which never was, as opposed to the recreation of an actual event. Thus, what most consider to be an 'image' is simply the skilled manipulation of the psychoacoustic elements sufficient to create an effective illusion. P.S. If you are intent on verifying your system's ability to reproduce the spatial cues in a manner consistent with the recording process, the Prosonus SRD CD L.E.D.R test (track 51) will do this.

I too was hoping for a diagram. [] Just a few ideas... Generally speaking, a cathedral ceiling can be treated as a regular wall/ceiling surface provided its ridge orientation runs from the front to the rear of the space (and precluding any significant additional structures such as beams, etc.). But cathedral ceilings can present a significant problem if their ridge orientation runs from left to right relative to the 'stage'. The reason for this is that the rearmost ceiling surface will tend to concentrate its reflection in the rear half of the room (the exact location dependent upon the specifics of the reflecting surface angle, etc.). In this case, more significant surface treatment utilizing diffusion and/or absorbtion will be required to address the focused reflection. All other aspects of the room being 'ignored' in relation to this issue, I would orient the room with the ceiling ridge running from front to rear to avoid issues with the hard focused downward reflection. But please bear in mind this is all hypothetical without the benefit of looking at the actual topology of the room.

Bret,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> The STC (sound transmission coefficient) value for ICF is >= 55, indicating that it is excellent for soundproofing - that is minimizing the sound transmission through the wall. From what I have been able to gather after a few phone calls, it is treated about like drywall with regards to its reflective characteristics. I will try over the weekend and again Monday morning (depending upon who I can catch at home) to try to get more info. Thus far, the overwhelming suggestion is to simply shoot ETCs (energy time curves) of the room. These combined with PEQ software will perform the polar convolvement of each reflection peak into its 3 space polar coordinates as quickly can you reposition a cursor! Then, with a surveyor's transit and a laser pointer positioned at the same spot where the microphone was positioned, you simply point the laser in the direction of the coordinates and you have the exact spots requiring absorption or diffusion. {Less precise alternatives are to use the reverse mirror trick where you sit in the listening position and have someone move a mirror along the walls and ceiling and mark all of the mirror positions where you can see the speakers in order to get an idea where absorption should be placed.. Unfortunately this will not help with diffusion.} Additional diffusion treatment on the back wall and to a lesser degree on the side walls and ceiling will transform the discrete reflections of the sound field in to a diffused sound field. Oftentimes the modeling process is much more complex then simply taking a series of measurements of the room. And with access to measurements, you can skip much of the calculation guesswork entirely! As, even with a model, you are still brought back to the same situation of measuring to determine what the real situation is in order to perform verification and proof of performance. Feel free to PM me if you would like more info. ICFsuperformproductspecification.pdf

If I may simplify things, there are 3 primary aspects of a small room acoustics.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 1. Sound transmission from the room into surrounding areas. 2. LF modes within the room 3. MF-HF reflections within the room. What it sounds like is that the sound transmission aspects of the walls and ceiling have already been addressed. What you will still want to remain cognizant of, is that the critical flanking pathways such as doorway seals and HVAC duct and AC outlets must still be addressed. Regarding the last two aspects: LF modes are addressed by traps and MF-HF are addressed by wall surface treatments, either via diffusion, absorption, or a combination of the two. Be aware that even wall materials that are terrific LF absorbers will still reflect the majority of MF-HF from their surface. Thus, LF absorptive material will not act as an effective MF-HF diffusive/absorptive surface treatment. And now the MF-HF reflections: Generally speaking, you only want to absorb the first order reflections that arrive within what is referred to as the Initial Delay Gap (ITD). These are reflections that arrive within an approximately 20-35ms period after the arrival of the direct signal. These signals trigger the Haas (Henry Precedence Effect) and result in a fusing and an inability to resolve the location of the individual signals location point of origin. Thus these are damped. This is done surgically with absorption. All other signals ideally become part of a well behaved diffuse sound field. This diffuse sound field begins after the initial time delay gap and is defined by a Haas kicker that is ~6dB lower in intensity than the direct signal and of greater intensity than the remaining diffuse sound field. Ideally, the remaining diffuse sound field will decay without exhibiting and anomalous reflections (often sums of various order reflections) which are most easily damped by additional diffusion of the component signal paths. Sound confusing? With the proper measuring equipment and measurements such as the ETC (Energy time curve) it is not only easily represented, but the needs are easily identified and addressed. The included diagrams provide a graphical representation of some of the component relationships. (Please note one exception. In the second figure illustrating the relationship of acoustic levels versus distance and time in an idealized ETC (energy time curve), the reverberant field Lr does not exist in a small acoustic space. This diagram is intended to cover both small and large acoustic spaces; the large acoustical space reverberant field component is included.) I suspect that you are still going to need to apply appropriate bass traps for room modes/standing waves as well as diffusion and selective absorption on the wall surfaces. Avoid overdoing absorption! Overuse is as bad, if not worse, than under use. ConcatETCDiagrams.pdf

http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Clarifies_Vista_HD_Movie_Stance/1156523580

What is truely amazing is the amount of Tesla's work that is STILL classified!

Be aware, aside from the forthcoming AACS/HDCP issues, you might want to check out what was just formally announced by Microsoft! You MUST use the 64-bit version of Vista, and of course that requires 64-bit hardware. And the 64-bit drivers are the bear of Vista as they must ALL be signed...and few exist even for XP. http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/08/24/1325214.shtml http://www.betanews.com/article/No_HD_DVD_or_Bluray_in_32bit_Vista/1156450463

FYI Slashdot is reporting the latest announcement that ONLY the 64 -bit version of Vista will support full HD playback. http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/08/24/1325214.shtml So, if you are contemplating using Media Center or just plan on using an HD player, you might want to be aware of the hardware requirements as well, as neither the 32-bit hardware nor 32-bit Vista OS will support full HD.

Oh oh, but have you factored in the increased cooling demand produced by the waste heat of the SW during standby as well as during runtime? Depending upon your locale there is a good chance that it will not be offset by an accompanying decrease in heat required during the cool season...[][] The potential to carry this to absurd levels is enormous! On the other hand, that point has probably already been reached. [][]

Viable options to many issues exist today. And hopefully more will continue to be developed. But I do not expect a cheaper 'one size fits all' option. An example. Cities do not need septic systems. However, they are viable and appropriate where there is available land! Thus the country and most of the suburbs can easily eliminate the need for sewers. Further, with modern dry toilets (Incinolet, Clivus Multrum, etc.) you eliminate the solid waste. Thus in any scenario, and especially in cities, the need is reduced to dealing with a grey water waste system that can easily be dealt with on a building by building level, negating the need for off site transport and separation. Many of these issues have already been effectively addressed and solved going back to the 70's by systems designed by folks such as Sim Van der Ryn. What is lacking is an awareness of the alternative systems and the desire or impetus to overcome the inertia of 'that's how we have always done it'. One example of an additional issue similar to what I was refering was expressed last month by Dr. Ulf Bossel, organizer of the very recent Lucerne Fuel Cell Forum, about their announcement that hydrogen will no longer be a topic of conversation at the conference. And I am sure that there will be those who will claim that (fill in the blank) supressed this valuable technology as well. http://www.thewatt.com/article-1238-nested-1-0.html "Ulf Bossel: Hydrogen and fuel cell, hydrogen is an artificial fuel, synthetic fuel. It has to be made from other energy. If you look at the energy, the renewable energy, most of it is harvested as electricity, the chips of biomass and so on of course, some heat for water heat, but basically all the renewable energy is harvested as electricity. Hydrogen has to be made artificially by splitting water by electrolysis and that requires more energy than you will ever find in the hydrogen, but the hydrogen then has to be compressed or liquefied in order to be transported, to be distributed, and then it is reconverted back to, guess what, electricity. That means electricity derived from hydrogen has to compete with its original energy source, electricity, and if you go through a chain, you find that only 25% of the original electricity can be used by people after the fuel cell. The efficiency criteria are not satisfied in hydrogen economy. Hydrogen economy is a gigantic energy waste and we cannot afford this in the future; therefore, there has been [05:22 unintelligible] and energy derived from hydrogen and fuel cells is four times more expensive because of the 75% loss. Because of the losses, electricity derived from fuel cells and hydrogen must be four times more expensive than power from the grid. Ben Kenney: So, why did you make this announcement now? I mean we have known about this problem for a while now. Ulf Bossel: There is no future to hydrogen economy because of this. These are all by laws of physics. If you go through the hydrogen chain electrolysis, compression, or liquefaction, transportation, storage, and reconvert the electricity by fuel cells and then we have DC and you have to convert it to AC, there are additional losses. These are all physical, this is physics and because of the laws of physics there is no past, there was no past, there is no present, and there will be no future for hydrogen economy. Hydrogen economy is a structure of mind, which has no backing by physics. " But there is no need to conduct this debate on site. If you want to debate individual technologies or ideas, (but please spare me the conspiracy theories which are a waste of time to debate as they can neither be proven nor disproven), please PM me or we can chat online or via voice. There are viable responses to each of your objections. And often a combination of 2 or 3 appropriate technologies can do what the imagined magic bullet technology could. But this is not the forum to take each very generalized example and try to mix 100,000 foot views with 5 foot specifics. With that, I fear that any hope of a worthwhile meaningful discussion is lost. And that is a shame, as there are real opportunites that exist.

"Any chance of long term side effects to turning on and shutting off the amp in this way? " Absolutely! It may last longer! And with a bit of dry wit....(well, that is the intention![] ) As the unit will not be powered when 'off', this generally means that at least a portion of the components will last longer (provided of course that the manufacturer has not made some all too common magical claims regarding the performance of their product![]) Others can more knowledgeably comment on the specific design, but generally the powering off should also reset/initialize the unit for the power on. And may I suggest a similar solution and precaution too for items such as your expensive 'instant on' television! It too is powered continuously! After all, we all require the picture to instantly appear when we push the 'on' button! The alternative might be a 3-10 second period where we might miss whatever pearl of wisdom Oprah, Dr.Phil or Jerry Springer have to impart! And not having this feature might lose them the nickname of "toaster" that fireman have very affectionately tagged them, as they are a primary source of fires in the event that the power supply should short! (and the house circuit breakers react too slowly to prevent a local fire.) Of course you could always use the time productively bu going and getting a drink! Although I am sure many purists may object, but for items such as these, a simple solution is to use a high quality switched and 'fused/CB' power strip such as is made by APC. They provide a fast acting circuit breaker as well as easily controlled on/off functions. Of course, and even simpler method would be to unplug them, although that is more complex than a simple switch (especially if the AC outlet is not easily accessible). A good question! It is surprising how many convenience features are assumed to be mandatory. And how many of you have ever stopped to think twice about the "Do not remove under penalty of law" tags on a mattress!?[]

Reliable cheap power...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> There is the rub, isn't it!? We use petroleum for a very simple reason! It is still the cheapest fuel per unit energy to produce. Even with all of the associated problems! Coal is an incredibly abundant resource! Natural gas was for years burned as a waste product, and still is in many parts of the world, the flares being visible from space! Wind, solar, hydro, bio-fuels...all present possibilities that may be regionally attractive, but their economies too are still more expensive then the other already available alternatives! And the losses in distribution, especially for electricity, negate the very presence of a generating plant if the plant is far from the load! Hence the REAL use for superconductivity! Regarding the 'control' of alternative technologies... Ah, all-electric carsSo we use gas and other fuels, not directly, but indirectly to generate electricity that with all of the generation and distribution inefficiencies, by the time it reaches the outlet to charge the more expensive vehicle, is twice the price of gasoline with an even greater environmental price all so in our small focused frame of reference we can think of the car as being cleaner and cheaper!{Edit :TheTotal cost per unit energy factoring in ALL of the associated collateral processing and systems and required infrastructure... Not to mention the number of additional plants required to be brought online to simply the supply the basic demand if all were to convert to electric vehicles. Energy does not become cheaper and more abundant the further down the processing chain you go. It is exactly the opposite. This is not 'breeder' technology!} It is akin to proposing eating beef as a solution to food shortages, when soybeans are cheaper, more abundant, more nutritionally dense and healthy as well as having a smaller negative impact on the planet. But instead of being used directly for human food (e.g. TVP), we opt instead for their inefficient use for animal feed so that we can conveniently buy beef for use in the kitchen. Unfortunately, all-electric cars are the energy equivalent of a hamburger! Another example might be the building of elaborate municipal sewage treatment plants that have replaced the environmentlly sustainable septic systems. And this is ignoring the complimentary use of amazingly advanced dry 'composting/incineration' toilets that locally reduce the load even further. And all the sewage system is is a giant transport system whereby solid waste is mixed with water for transport 'out of sight out of mind', only to create a giant problem where the 'treatment process is all about separating the once separate solid waste from the water - not to mention all of the other wonderful toxins people now dump down the drain as they too are out of sight and out of mind! A solution? Wouldn't new more highly efficient septic systems and complimentary technology better effectively manage and address the need locally on site? They do. And they exist. And they are transparent to the user. And no, they are not like the outhouses of 'yor'! Now I have no issue with eating meat, etc., the point is simply that we as people tend to use focused attention to look at only a small part of the total system - usually the user interface with technology - rather then to look at the overall picture. Nor do I mind if someone buys a feelgood all electric vehicle thinking they are making a real difference. I do not believe that these alternative technologies are being artificially controlled. They are just not as economically competitive! And nothing is preventing an entrepreneur with initiative from implementing their own designs for the better mousetrap. And heaven knows that if <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Detroit could find a better design for a car that would sell, they would be using it rather than going down the toilet! What can and does work... What is feasible however, is for individuals to use complementary appropriate technologies that in total sum to provide local solutions to most of the energy demand. Thus reducing the total demand on centrally distributed often with no net negative residual impact. Small scale passive solar, active solar, micro-hydro (my favorite!), wind, thermal mass, geo-thermal heat pumps, and perhaps most of all, INSULATION, as well as many more technologies that are not practical for large scale distributed systems are ideal for site specific applications. And with the implementation of such, have the potential to even remove the site from the grid as a load - with the potential to even offer co-generative contributions back to the grid (albeit inconsistently)! My response to the cry for a "solution" is that we should stop expecting it to come in the form of some one-size fits all miracle technology that will save us from ourselves. The tools are for the most part already available. I wonder when the inconvenience of the 'perceived threat' of market prices will provide the tipping point for individuals to get off their posteriors and assume the control and responsibility for their own (and as an indirect result) others' welfare as well. But I neither expect nor desire this to come in the form of an imposed mandate. And I have no interest in massive centrally managed bureaucratic nightmares where more money and energy is expended in meetings talking about what you would do if you weren't in meetings as some distant bureaucrat tells you what is optimal for your particular situation where you have a better and more intimate understanding than the guy who has never seen it! And unfortunately this is more representative of the norm then the exception! We all have the means to make choices, however small. Heck, you might simply start by starting a garden! I am amazed at how few folks actually have a ready source* of organic foodstuffs that are of MUCH better quality than you will ever find in a store! And the small amount of exercise is even therapeutic! (*heck, oversupply if you have ever raised tomatoes! But then I am also one that does not believe you can ever have too many tomatoes! And that is even after supplying all of your friends!). So may I suggest that we stop waiting for the proverbial "they" to solve our problems? Am I a radical? Crazy? (OK, I'll grant you crazy!) Misguided? A Loooooney? Or what? But to me this just seems like a bit of all-too-uncommon common sense. OK, no more soap box. Besides, in keeping with my own fantasy, what suits me may not suit you! And you of course have the right to disagree and to be wrong (at least relative to my 'enlightened' way of thinking!), as long as you respect my right to disagree and to be wrong relative to your enlightened manner of thinking! And its my fantasy, so the only legitimate manner of persuasion is debate and logic! Gee, what a dream...if only![][][][][] See what happens when I take a 10 minute break and look for a diversion from the tasks at hand![6]