Acoustics: Music vs HT

[edwinr]

There appears to be a strong move in the market vis-a-vis providing simplistic technological solutions to fairly complex room acoustical anomalies. One example is the offering by Yamaha with their RXV2400 series home theatre receiver. The RXV2400 features a room correction mode. A microphone is provided with the receiver. Once plugged in and placed in the listening position, the receiver performs a self diagnoses.

Correction is provided at a limited number of frequency points. There is provision for the user to manually adjust the receiver as well. I have heard this system operate. It does offer a reasonably user friendly solution to some domestic room acoustical problems.

After playing with some of the manually adjustable modes, I feel that an experienced ear, with the able assistance of a spl metre, would achieve more worthwhile results.

Another consideration, I guess, would be that certain persons may accept the automatic calibration facility as offering the complete solution to room/loudspeaker interaction anomalies. As we all know, this is not the case.

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On 5/24/2005 4:47:13 AM edwinr wrote:

There appears to be a strong move in the market vis-a-vis providing simplistic technological solutions to fairly complex room acoustical anomalies. One example is the offering by Yamaha with their RXV2400 series home theatre receiver. The RXV2400 features a room correction mode. A microphone is provided with the receiver. Once plugged in and placed in the listening position, the receiver performs a self diagnoses.

Correction is provided at a limited number of frequency points. There is provision for the user to manually adjust the receiver as well. I have heard this system operate. It does offer a reasonably user friendly solution to some domestic room acoustical problems.

After playing with some of the manually adjustable modes, I feel that an experienced ear, with the able assistance of a spl metre, would achieve more worthwhile results.

Another consideration, I guess, would be that certain persons may accept the automatic calibration facility as offering the complete solution to room/loudspeaker interaction anomalies. As we all know, this is not the case.

----------------

Yes, this is an old technique come back to haunt all to which I referred above. They are simply taking the frequency response and feeding back an inverted waveform to 'flatten' the response. Classic, and unfortunately, fundamantally wrong. Even Velodyne has included this feature.

It is, in effect, the same result you would get using an SPL meter and/or an RTA and then taking the inverse of the measured response and applying that 'EQ curve' in an attempt to flatten the response. And unfortunately this all begs the basic question of what can be EQ's effectively and what cannot. This cannot.

It's a sad testimony to the demand for marketing over physics.

You cannot EQ non-minimum phase signals and achieve the desired results. This simply begs the original problem.

The classic flatlander response to rumors of a more complex reality.

And it's ironic, as this feature is available only on the 'high end' models!

[Olorin]

----------------

On 5/24/2005 2:06:19 AM dragonfyr wrote:

Then maybe what we need around here are some 8 year olds open to thinking about technology and paradigms with which they may not be intimate, rather then the old farts who think they know it all.

But whatever you do, if it doesn't make sense to you, rather then automatically thinking the other person doesn't know what they are talking about, perhaps one could learn how to ask for clarification instead of being content in one's blissful ignorance.

Funny, all I am reading here is alot of pissing and moaning illustrating gnorance instead of asking questions regarding things not well understood. Great contribution.

----------------

I see you read as well as you speak, and you assume too much. I don't think I know much about this at all, and I suspect you know quite a lot. I have learned, though, from reading your many and varied posts that you have a singular inability to pick a topic and explain it in any kind of cogent manner. You'd rather go off on tangents, insert snide comments, and talk down to people when they aren't up to your expectations.

No worries. I can get the books and read them myself. They are, after all, written with an eye toward imparting reader understanding. It's difficult to tell what you hope to achieve with your writing style.

See you around.

[jacksonbart]

----------------

On 5/24/2005 1:53:23 PM Olorin wrote:

"I have learned, though, from reading your many and varied posts that you have a singular inability to pick a topic and explain it in any kind of cogent manner. You'd rather go off on tangents, insert snide comments, and talk down to people when they aren't up to your expectations."

Now that last post was succinct and had a clear point and one that I also agree with.

[D-MAN]

I consider music to be much more "critical" than soundtrack material. After all, how do you really know what an explosion really sounds like? But music everybody knwos what the timpany or a trumpet sounds like.

If the room is treated for critical music listening, then soundtracks will also be just fine.

DM

[dodger]

JacksonBart, I didn't feel that you were calling my intelligence into question. We're fine.

I think and I don't mind being corrected, that dragonfyr attempts to address every possible scenario, then someone says something and it snowballs.

I believe that we surpass the eight year old intelligence point.

Most of the answers given are on an easy plane as we do not know what the I.Q. level of the person is.

It may take several readings of dragonfyrs initial post to see the criteria.

Yes some have Engineering Degrees in one field or another. On the job expertise can rival some book learning.

But there is no cause for either side to become personal. Once that happens, we have lost the point. We have lost some credibility.

From one who knows first hand.

It's nice in the point that revisits may be eliminated, adds to long Posts ( a Master speaks.)

There is middle ground. Asking questions beyond the original Post. Getting a feel of the depth the person wishes to learn.

From a bigmouth, going back to Audio, Math, Acoustics and Physics 101 is the starting point.

Questions, not comments or remarks the next logical step.

Dialogue, or the three Cs we abided by in Crime Analysis: Cooperation, Communication, Coordination.

Some may question Coordination. We help one another out to Completion through mentioning logical steps.

The selling and or trading of Components and the passing on of experience.

We're not as far apart as we sometimes seem. And, there are numerous Members who have taken the time to expand their knowledge base with the help of other Forum Members.

In our own way, until we learn where each Person seems to be coming from, that is how we learn.

[dragonfyr]

Barts contributions:

You must be fun at partys, the guests run for the friggin exits. We need to get you an editor, cause life is too short.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I do think however you would be much more effective at getting your viewpoint across if you stuck more succinctly to the point of discussion, as opposed to meandering. I think that is were you loose some people. As you correctly stated any viewer can stop reading when ever they want, but I would think to be effective you would want the viewer to want to read the entire post.

Olorins contributions:

I have seen few posts contain so many words and yet say so little. I'm very pleased that you know a lot of stuff, but it's a pity you can't communicate.

I have learned, though, from reading your many and varied posts that you have a singular inability to pick a topic and explain it in any kind of cogent manner. You'd rather go off on tangents, insert snide comments, and talk down to people when they aren't up to your expectations

_____________________________________________________________________________

So here are the summed contributions to the SUBJECT by two folks above. Does anyone here notice ONE acoustical issue mentioned or question asked?

Overly simplistic generalizations can be given (bass traps and control early reflections, adjust time arrival to be coincident for the various sound sources).

But specific solutions to the real predominate problems cannot. Just as doctors wont prescribe some medicine by phone and they require a visit. The necessary information to avoid prescribing the wrong medicine is absent. And proposing damping reflections is problematic as over damping with too much absorption is as bad as too little. And absorptive material is frequency dependent. Using a shotgun approach is not a worthwhile expenditure of energy.

Thus far the focus in posts has revolved around:

1) What are the ideal room dimensions in order to avoid acoustical issues, and

2) What should I do to fix the acoustical anomalies.

Unfortunately, it seems that if someone doesnt provide a succinct answer in 25 words or less outlining the specific steps, they are not 'talking to the point'.

The point is that MUCH can be done. You can install a few bass traps and damp the floor, ceiling and side walls, as well as the surrounding areas behind and to the side of the speakers.

Happy?

BUT there is a MAJOR problem with this. And my tangents attempt to address why the simple answer is not so simple, and may easily contribute to as many problems as it may address.

The second BIG issue is with the demand for the '25cent solution'.

This forum is filled with HIGH dollar solutions to component issues. For instance, a $700-1000 turntable isnt sufficient; one must spend more to hear really good sound (for instance; I recall the suggestion that that a Music Hall 5 or 7 might be the best buy option for a vinyl newbie when faced with the choice between buying older turntables requiring the additional expense of repair, alignment and a new cartridge, and spending more than $1250 for a new turntable). And many advocate turntables easily exceeding $2000. Many feel you must spend at least $400 to even enter the realm of a decent CD/DVD player. People are also willing to spend upwards of $600-700 for crossovers depending upon the model of speaker to improve the sound. Others will gladly incur annual fees of ~$800 for re-tubing costs. And I wont even mention some of the prices for amplifiers that many so gladly recommend. And the list goes on! In my opinion, some of the expenditures are worthwhile; others are not so easily justified. But each person determines their value and is of course free to spend their money as they please.

But all in all, the consensus seems to be that as long as you are spending money on 'components', that spending the money to solve (in many cases) relatively small problems compared to speakers and room acoustics, is money well spent.

But if someone suggests that providing specific acoustical solutions to generic acoustical problems is asking for more problems then solutions, and that more time and money will be spent to perhaps exacerbate a problem rather then to fix it, then many lay on the floor and kick and scream because they arent being provided with the Wal-Mart acoustical anomaly repair kit. And that specific acoustical problem requires measurement. And more then what a SPL meter and an RTA will provide! And more then what an EQ will correct.

So I provided, in addition to the links to MANY papers explaining the basics of acoustical analysis and treatment, as well as links to Russ Berger, and to a MIX Magazine interview with him where he addresses many of the same difficulties of creating cookie cutter rooms (and even an architecturally reproducible room), and still at least 3 people howl that they havent gotten the simplistic solution to a complex interactive environment. Duh!

As I said, I can mention a few simple overly-generalized solutions, and you have been provided with a few simple suggestions. Dr. Who mentioned a few methods that are often tried without measuring the room in the time domain. Or you can run about with tools insufficient for the job (as SPL meters and RTAs dont quite do it as all you see is the flatlander viewpoint of a multi-dimensional world).

But my comments that you regard as so snide, {aside from specifically acknowledging those who would simply attack 'people' because they didnt get their simplistic solution, and rather then ask an intelligible question, simply biitch and moan and then cry when others acknowledge their whining(see above!)}...are more gently aimed at my frustration with the more mainstream folks who refuse to consider spending $300-500 to have their room analyzed and mapped.

This process will allow VERY specific treatments to be proposed, ranging from VERY expensive custom products to very simple and inexpensive treatments to accomplish the same thing. And knowing exactly what the REAL (as opposed to assumed or imagined) problem is, I would be glad to provide instructions to make many of these alternative treatments. And the ROI will, with few exceptions, be greater then any other investment you make short of buying new speakers.

But the 'intersting' thing is, NO one has yet presented a specific problem. And as much as many might think they have, they have not presented a problem defined specifically enough to specify a specific solution, aside from bass traps. And I say bass traps, as in a small room where the large room dimensions are smaller then a significant segment of the LF wavelength, the result is a pressurization or rarefaction of the entire space.

If you havent done it, {and I suspect few have, as it is more difficult then simply demanding a simplistic answer (snide- I prefer wry sure! True? Sure!!!! Thats my sense of humor he says with a sardonic grin. Deal with it.)} Read Russ Bergers interview with MIX Magazine. NOW!

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_russ_berger_full/

Read what one of the most knowledgeable and proficient acousticians says about this precise subject! And while I only aspire to be as knowledgeable and proficient as people such as Russ and D.B.Keele, Don Davis, Dr. Patronis and others with whom I have been fortunate enough to work and study (and with whom I dont have a problem discussing similar issues), you will note that I am constrained to answer generic questions with specific solutions JUST as they who are even MORE knowledgeable and skilled cannot answer similar overly general questions! At some point the reason for this should become apparent, even if you choose to ignore what I have tried to tell you in a manner which you dont like.

For you see, it has been the advent of some very advanced measurement tools, and the availability of powerful post-processing tools that makes the modern approach to acoustics possible. There is no magic whiz bang generic answer. Sorry

Therefore, the suggestion that $300-500 is not a lot of money (relative to the multi-thousand dollar turntables, electronic component modifications, multi-thousand dollar amplifier upgrades, etc. etc. etc.) to have a qualified acoustician bring in the very expensive measuring equipment (TEF with TDS or MLS) requiring a lot of training to accurately use them in order to measure the room in order to make adjustments for the 2^nd biggest source of bad sound next to the speakers themselves, is a worthwhile investment.

From there specific solutions can be provided. Once the specific source and cause of the ailment is diagnosed, many options are available.

But until that, some will simply choose to complain that the only available answer, given the general nature of the question, is not to their liking!

P.S. As much as I personally would like to teach everyone acoustics from step one, I cant. I can provide sources of information. I can try to clarify confusing points. But I am not going to spend every conversation assuming the audience is a group of ignore-ant (meaning unaware) folks. And that is not to deride anyone who is not familiar with acoustics! (Although some will jump up now and say that that is what I said!) I delight in trying to explain any question to anyone who has taken the time to explore the literature and has become confused! These truly interested individuals are ones who take the time to look at the information and then ask a questionand they are usually great requiring one to think!

But, after providing resources that address particular topics many times, and having the SAME people who have chosen to either ignore them or to forego asking any questions for clarification, simply ignore them and them come back to complain that they didnt get the answer to what kind of absorption should be applied in their room, and where it should be applied, gets old.

I guess these folks need to find some song and dance guy with whom they can simply throw quarters on to the stage and watch him dance.

Dealing with the time domain in acoustics is similar to discussing calculus in the mathematical world. It is based upon a solid foundation and understanding of algebra and of algebras limitations. And one can attempt to discuss calculus with one who has the basic understanding of algebra. But it is not productive if the audience doesnt have a grasp of algebra. Thus instead, one either teaches algebra, or they spend the entire time defending calculus against the challenges of those ignore-ant (unaware!) of the underpinnings.

Unfortunately, at least two folks here neither look at the resources nor ask pertinent questions. But they sure can complain!

[DrWho]

no offense, but all the links you provide have absolutely no information discussing how to treat a room or any productive means to arrive at a better sound. As far as hiring a "professional" to measure a room, allow me to put in my 2 cents about that. First of all, "professional" just means the person is getting paid, nothing more. Technically, I'm an audio professional...would you wanna hire me? Heck, I'll charge $1,000 for a visit no problem. Anyways, finding an acoustical professional in the area is actually a difficult thing to do. Then finding a qualified acoustical professional is even harder and then finding one that is actually good at what he does narrows our possibilities down to a few dozen in the world. The majority of these so called professionals don't have a clue as to what they're doing. I've worked for and with several "professional" audio companies in all sorts of settings and I can't believe how many "professionals" don't know what they're talking about or even flat out disagree with each other over the most simplest of concepts. Heck, even the most "scientific experts" are always disagreeing with each other as to what determines the best sound. The audio industry strives to maintain this mysticism which is really quite ridiculous and it stems from the fact that everyone in the industry is insecure and is relying on the mysticism for any level of credibility. All it takes is a month working for any audio company to come to this realization.

All this raving about having to measure throughout the time domain is seriously overrated, but prob cuz some overly clouted dude at SynAudCon had to save his image by defending the immense importance of it (because anything anyone ever does is always so revolutionary and important and whatever). And just to state it, this opinion is not merely the result of a misunderstanding of the concepts (I have a feeling I will be told otherwise but whatever). I totally understand where they're going and I can even appreciate the positive aspects of it. However, it is bogus to claim that it is the end all solution to everything and nothing else should ever be considered again. Our ears are still a far better measuring tool...it's just a matter of learning how to listen and learning to recognize certain anomalies. The best part is our ears are also free...and in the end it's our ears that are doing the actual listening as well.

I also find it very ironic that rooms modelled with EASE or even measured in the time domain dictate very similar results to the two methods I suggested (treating first order reflections and bass traps in the corners). I personally do not have any of these fancy toys, nor do I have access to them any longer, but I would seriously challenge anyone to try and show this model to be a mistake. I have no doubt that actually measuring a room will make the entire process quicker and perhaps even more precise, but it is not necessary in order to achieve a good sound.

[sivadselim]

dragonfyr, you're a shmuck

[dragonfyr]

----------------

On <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />

5/25/2005

3:23:17 AM DrWho wrote: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

no offense, but all the links you provide have absolutely no information discussing how to treat a room or any productive means to arrive at a better sound.

LEDE articles do not? Room modeling techniques do not? Funny, who DEVELOPED those tricks you are parroting!? Think! And Russ Berger discussed some of the difficulties of providing overly simplified acoustical solutions for rooms with the exception of bass control precisely because of the unique nature each presents.

All this raving about having to measure throughout the time domain is seriously overrated, but prob cuz

some overly clouted dude

a

t SynAudCon

{who has literally forgotten more about audio then you have ever known, even before he developed the 1/3 octave equalizer, and who is the chief proponent of its uses and its

fundamental limitations

!!!}

had to save his image by defending the immense importance of it (because anything anyone ever does is always so revolutionary and important and whatever). And just to state it,

this opinion is not merely the result of a misunderstanding of the concepts

(I have a feeling I will be told otherwise but whatever).

I totally understand where they're going

(Yes, enough so that you can claim primacy of YOUR techniques over those who developed them!)

and I can even appreciate the positive aspects of it. However, it is bogus to claim that it is the end all solution to everything and nothing else should ever be considered again.

When I do that I will be glad to let you know!

Our ears are still a far better measuring tool...it's just a matter of learning how to listen and learning to recognize certain anomalies.

The savant speaks!

The best part is our ears are also free...and in the end it's our ears that are doing the actual listening as well.

I also find it very ironic that rooms modeled with EASE or even measured in the time domain dictate very similar results to the two methods I suggested (treating first order reflections and bass traps in the corners).

I personally do not have any of these fancy toys, nor do I have access to them any longer,

but I would seriously challenge anyone to try and show this model to be a mistake.

I have no doubt that actually measuring a room will make the entire process quicker and

perhaps

even more precise

Ya think?,

but it is not necessary in order to achieve a good sound.

----------------

Russ Berger discussed some of the considerations and difficulties of creating simplistic 'cookie cutter' listening rooms in response to a question of how to do just that!

Yeah, go hire a "professional" who doesn't know what they are doing. If you think that that is what I was proposing, there is not further purpose in discussing this. And if you indeed consider hiring someone who is not legitimately qualified, you deserve what you get.

Yes, Richard Heyser and Don Davis are just overly clouted dudes.

And Russ Berger, a former principal at Joiner Rose, is 'just another professional hack' that MIX Magazine chooses to interview who is just another example of your overrated 'professionals' who just need to try to scam others to pay for their measuring equipment. Oh, and don't forget DBKeele, another 'professional' hack, as he obviously isn't qualified as he actively works with those same people. You need to do some research into just who is/or has been associated with SynAudCon. And the list goes on.

And as far as the suggestions merely 'copying' YOUR methods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where does one begin to expose this farce!?

Well, heres a news flash! Those methods that YOU have borrowed (since you obviously don't know this!) CAME FROM THE LEDE techniques, TEF and the ray tracing algorithms developed by Dick Heyser and further refined by Don Davis, DBKeele, Russ Berger, Dr Ahnert, and others!

And as far as EASE providing support for YOUR techniques? These techniques are based on the same research of Dick Heyser and developed into EASE by Dr. Ahnert, yet another distinguished colleague of those "overly clouted SynAudCon dudes"!!

And to allow you to choke on your own words,

"But I would seriously challenge anyone to try and show this model to be a mistake".

Sorry, but with your own words, you simply supported the very work that you attempt to discredit!

So you 'plagiarize' a simplified restatement of some of the developers own basic principles that THEY developed! And then you claim them as your own, and declare them sufficient!

And your plagiarism is then used to attempt to discredit the authors of the technique!

So you think that THEIR techniques might prove to be faster and more precise then

'your'

limited presentation of THEIR homebrew techniques? Really?

Gee, maybe YOU should sue over the rights to time domain spectrometry (TDS) and TEF! I guess those ideas are actually yours! And to think AES publishes that volume of Dick Heysers work, much of it written before you were born! Neat trick! So when will we see YOUR original works published that Heyser evidently plagiarized? That toilet paper cant take that long to dry!

And if you don't remember, there

was

posted an article on room modeling detailing the use of the POGO laser transit and mirrors showing exactly how this technique is done to control early reflections for home theater! Gee, what a coincidence.

I'm not sure what school you attended in the

Chicago

area, but if it was

Columbia

College

, Doug Jones will be greatly humored and embarrassed to hear about this! But it will make a great story over a beer!

Thank you for inadvertently supporting my case for hiring a QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL and not relying on the advice of someone who knows little of what he speaks. And you have done more in this post to PROVE that you know little of what you speak as you demonstrate an understanding that is limited to weakly parroting other's accomplishments (

while in the same breath you vainly try to discredit the source of your own limited knowledge

!) Amazing!

Being unaware of something is excusable. But such intentional misrepresentation (slander) and complete ignorance in the name of providing facts is utter and complete BS.

What circuitous insanity! Wry wit? Hell no! This is meant with all due seriousness!

Ive seen it all now!

[johnyholiday]

"Just as doctors wont prescribe some medicine by phone and they require a visit. The necessary information to avoid prescribing the wrong medicine is absent." i love quadrangled oxymorons, lmao, that had me around my knees like a bullwhipp, for about 10 seconds

[dragonfyr]

I figured you were on your knees for other reasons....

[johnyholiday]

"I figured you were on your knees for other reasons...." introspective approach of an oxymoron

[DrWho]

Correct, your links were completely unhelpful.

What's all this crap about plagiarism and "MY" techniques and crap. I never claimed ownership of anything. There are plenty of articles all over the internet that talk about first order reflections and bass traps and all that. I was merely combining my personal experiences and things I've read into a simple easy to understand solution. gosh man, learn how to read. As far as slander goes, you are the one that is slandering and making all sorts of assumptions (ie columbia college which is a complete joke of a school). I can't say it enough, learn how to read and stop twisting things around.

You also missed my point about hiring a professional...to an average joe schmoe consumer they don't exist and therefore it's pointless to tell someone to go hire a professional unless you can PROVIDE A PERSON for them to contact. Yes I know, it's hard to actually come up with a PRODUCTIVE SOLUTION and you would rather rant and ramble about abstract concepts that you feel make you special because you have some wierd understanding of it all. And again, you failed to read the part where I mentioned there were a few dozen people in the world that actually were qualified...so why do you keep bringing up popular names over and over? I already know they exist and they know how to use their toys. I still think they overrate everything though, but again it's all an image mysticism thing (seems you might be caught up in it too). Btw, these people aren't gods and as far as I know they haven't achieved a perfect sound yet so let's keep them in perspective.

Well, heres a news flash! Those methods that YOU have borrowed (since you obviously don't know this!) CAME FROM THE LEDE techniques, TEF and the ray tracing algorithms developed by Dick Heyser and further refined by Don Davis, DBKeele, Russ Berger, Dr Ahnert, and others!

Ok first off, bass traps and first order reflection treatments have been around for a while. The fact that TEF supports some of these solutions indicates that the people implementing these treatments somehow knew what they were doing without the fancy toys. I am not discrediting anything about fancy measuring tools or your beloved TEF, but rather putting them into perspective. They simply aren't NEEDED to improve the acoustics in a room. Yes, they can be helpful but that's not the point. Keep in mind that this is not an opinion, but rather an observation. Without someone knowing what they're doing they can be harmful too (just like your constant over simplification of RTA's and graphic EQ's...yes, they were misused in the past, but used correctly with a good understanding they can be very good tools and improve the sound). If I were to sum up your posts, you come across as discrediting every other previous solution in the world that doesn't use a TEF measuring tool. The reality of the matter is that it's impracticle for an average consumer to go about finding one of these special professionals. It's even more impracticle when a basic understanding of acoustics is all that's needed to get a good idea of the impact of different treatments.

Do you have stock in SynAudCon or any of the companies these guys work for? gosh

[texxas guy]

Dragonfry, while I can certainly appreciate your knowledge of the subject, your method of delivery could definitely use some enhancement. I now realize how broad my original question was, but I was not asking this in an attempt to turn my simple room into a recording studio or La Scala. I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of the people on this forum have rooms which you have so eloquently described. Would I like to have a room like that? Hell yes, and I'm sure others here would also. But the reality is, most of us don't have that dream room, and never will. What you don't see as personal attacks, I, as well as others here seem to view them as such. I do not know you personally and you do not know me, or others here I presume, yet your verbal tirade against those that you view as inferior is laughable. Again, I am not implying that you do not possess a "higher knowledge" on this subject, just that you might exercise a bit of common coustesy to the great horde of poor ignorant souls that you address.

To those that responded with some suggestions, I thank you. Moderators, for all I care you can close this thread, as it is serving no useful purpose.

Thanks,

Larry

[dragonfyr]

You know, my assumption is that all are not ignorant fools. So I don't always refer to basics. I refer to more advanced related concepts and I refer to basics, and hence your constant whining about tangents. Because most of the tangents make reference to something a little more involved then basics! And I am sorry if you get lost. But there ARE a few who are more advanced. And I do enjoy obscure references and irony that I find amusing.

So no, I do not only post for your individual benefit. And for those who think I use too many words. Stop now. Frankly, I don't care. That's what that scroll bar or mouse is for. So, for you, I'll just say 'Bye!', now.

And regarding the idea of reflection free zones, early reflections, etc., the entire concept was a result of the time based research! And yes, this concept does originate with several people! So I get a bit tired of some biitching about a voluntary association of people which grew solely from the desire to pursue and share information and questions regarding many subjects. The difference between this forum and that group is quite frankly that that group has advanced a plethora of what are now considered either routinely accepted concepts, technologies or ideas, or the ideas are still sufficiently on the cutting edge representing ideas not yet well understood by many - and hence the attempt to present some of the ideas! But thanks for the introduction to an EQ. Funny, but Don Davis conceptualized the 1/3 octave equalizer and literally developed it! He was also the one who presented not only it's usefulness but also its fundamental limitations! So thank you for that tidbit of info about EQs! But you are a little late to preach to that choir! But its nice you picked up on that bit of info too! And when you have time, you might wonder why, with all the great minds who have been involved with audio and acoustics, Richard Heyser is the ONLY individual to have his works anthologized by AES? Especially as so many have known about early reflections for soooo long. Yup...

But instead of legitimate queries, a couple of you either want detailed 25 cent answers to general questions - which by the way have ALL previously been posted with some degree of detail that are easily graspable by just about anyone!!! - or your continuous complaining - And as far as providing names of practitioners, there are many, not in every city, nor with the same expertise, but I dare say that this is true for this forum as well. And you want me to provide a list of practitioners for You or You? Who in hell are you? In most cases I neither know where you live nor who you are! And with respect to those who have done nothing but attack me personally or my presentation and have not asked a single follow-up question regarding my audio or acoustics posts, but instead simply like to whine, I really have no desire to know you! Should that be a surprise!? And not ONE of you has asked for a reference! So don't expect me to read minds! It not only begs for a smart *** comment here, but you best call the psychic hotline if you want someone to guess that information and to do the research to find someone in your neighborhood, especially as all you have done is to denounce the very idea! So, if you think this applies to you, it probably does!

But if ANYONE had ever asked me to try to find someone qualified to provide that service, I would have tried! So don't cry about a potential solution that you never posited as a possibility! And I am not going to do national searches to find a qualified source of the service for someone who simply whines about how ridiculous it is! Those I would find are professional, but I certainly wouldn't be responsible for exposing them to the likes of some of the whiners here! I can only imagine the reception they would encounter!

But for those few who have asked private questions and have asked for additional information in private posts, I would certainly welcome the opportunity to try to locate someone! Can I GUARANTEE someone is sitting by the phone just waiting for you? NO! But I can certainly try!

And since you have obviously not read some of the other ideas I have posited in other posts, there are some potential solutions that will make this system more accessible to all, but except for several private posts asking about the follow up, the silence has been deafening!

And for the rest of you who only ***** and attack me, here's a bit of news! Frankly I don't really enjoy dealing with those of you who only like to ***** or make claims that physics and calculus is 'wrong' (and, quite frankly, if all you do is make this claim, WHY should I spend my time caring what you think! We obviously disagree, so simply ignore my stupid posts and go argue over speaker cables or the value of MP3 files or how Bose or Wal-Mart are the result of some secret international conspiracy. Write Neil Bortz and debate him!)

But for those who are confused that my post may deal with various references, some more obscure to you as you don't have some level of pre-requisite knowledge, there is a concept of posting or PMing me and asking about a particular reference, and asking me for clarification or more information, or why I said it. You might even take issue with the particular concept as you understand it and then enter into a polite dialogue or debate - not an argument! If you haven't figured anything out yet, I love to debate, but I hate arguing, and I have little patience with it. Debating explores an idea without an ego becoming involved. In a debate it doesn't really matter what your pet issue is, you explore the idea and examine what withstands scrutiny and what does not, and you look at what is left standing.

I have neither interest nor desire to become involved in your hang-up or inability to accept or even explore heretofore unknown ideas. And I especially get a kick out of hearing that someone already understands all the nuances of the time based domain! Really?! Then those who have made it a focus of their career would love to talk to you! And I am all ears! I have lots of questions! <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It is akin to a first year physics student declaring that we can skip all that 'quantum stuff', as we already know all about it! It simply provides sufficient evidence that you haven't a clue!

And it has become obvious that you can't decipher much of my humor nor even recognize when it is intended or not. Sorry, but the 'flat' media exacerbates that! But WHATEVER you do, don't ask! That might come dangerously close to making sense!

So, to some of the ego maniacs out there who feel I must speak only to YOU on your level, I disagree. If you are confused by some of what I write, ask regarding the topic for clarification.

So, I will stick my neck out and say that I enjoy exploring the topic on levels other then simply the extremely basic level. I certainly can if asked, and I have repeatedly posted the concept of basic ray tracing in attachments and references to LEDE, room modeling, POGO, LF room mode tutorials and the design and construction of bass traps. And for all of you who are complaining, NOT one of you has asked a question of me regarding follow-up of any aspect of the physics involved! And the issue of basic early reflections, the concept of LEDE (which too many know only from its EARLY concept and are ignorant of it's current form), the concept of reflection free zones and their limitations (as EVERY concept has limitations! And these do not negate the premise! They simply provide reasonable constraints that are necessary to understand!) and even the inappropriate copyrighted term "time aligned" (by Ed Long) is a result of the collaboration of interested folks called SynAudCon. (Warning! A TANGENT!: It is inappropriate because you CANNOT align time, you can only align events within the time domain! A BIG difference!) And all of the popular understanding is simply a result of their years of research!

So its nice that you have picked up a touch of it, while simultaneously rejecting the source from which it originated and has continued. My problem with some of it, is that the simplistic model also has limitations that should be understood! The basic model and concept has indeed changed, and it has caveats and constraints and mitigating issues that are prudent to address.

And as a result, the proper instrumentation is required. And I don't care if you have bat ears! The human ears are notoriously poor, and are subject to many illusory experiences! The science of psycho acoustics is like studying the science of fun house mirrors. And it is developing at an amazing pace as well, again primarily due to the advances of investigations within the time domain. So you can't get away from it. The genie is out of the bottle. Humpty Dumpty has fallen. And you can no longer ignore or relegate the time domain to some out of the way niche, any more then classical physics can ignore the implications of quantum or TOE, where all certainty is removed and all becomes matters of probability. (Oops! Sorry if a few of you can't follow the analogy! But if you even care, you are welcome to ask! If not, oh well... )

So, the bottom line, if you want to ask me specific questions, or ask for clarification or simplification of a concept, ask away. And private posts are encouraged. But if you simply want to complain about the presence of the time domain in acoustical physics, or that I dont always spend my time explaining first principles but will segue to more advances subtleties or variations on the theme, or that I make multiple references to other posts then simply YOURS, or simply want to ***** about me without taking the time to inquire for an explanation, or assume that every reference, instead of being a collage of references, is simply about YOU, find someone who cares.

___________________________________________________________________________

For the others who have more to do then explain what an EQ is and state that early reflections are common knowledge, and that simply absorbing them is the siolution, I have already suggested a more practical and worthwhile project.

For those who might be interested, I am interested in developing a library of response curves and transfer functions that can be imported into some forthcoming 'freeware' tools that I have heretofore not mentioned, as they are not quite released (preferring to comment on real goods and not vaporware), that can post-process (convolve) them. These curves would include individual transducers, crossovers, speakers (assemblies), etc.. If the companies who have them do not wish to release them, I was interested in building a library beginning with the Heritage line and expanding to the various optional third party components as folks might wish to help provide the means to do this, and as logistics permit.

This library, along with CLF files, will allow many to import them into the convolving tools as well as into room modeling software (and some additional tools) to help others build an acoustical model of their rooms, thus allowing a more accurate treatment of the particular issues addressing their room and their particular speakers.

While I have suggested this in the past, it seems to get lost in the hysterionics of individuals running around yelling ' burn the witch', or claiming that calculus and physics are flawed (perhaps their understanding of the tools are flawed, as well as their understanding of the tools limitations, but the tools themselves are hardly flawed!), or claiming we already know enough and thus they dont need them. Well, at least the last part is easy!

Not only would this increase the ability for people to address room response issues, it would also aid greatly in designing and prototyping speakers and performing what if modeling based on real component responses.

I had also fancied, but now realize that this was a stupid idea, that as logistics permitted, it might have been possible to even shoot a few peoples rooms, providing them with a complete TDS and MLS library of curves and transfer functions for your specific equipment as well as their interaction with each other and within the room....These would allow you to post porcess to your heart's content...

Thus, it would be possible to move beyond the limitations of a laser and mirrors in a room and deal with the non'linear frequency dependencies that this simplistic ray tracing model ignores, and to actually model and address the ab-fusion (a balance of frequency dependent selective absorption and diffusion) that has superceded the older absorption model.

And, as mentioned above, this would GREATLY aid in the complex what-if modeling of speaker systems. (My own obsession being an exploration of a Jubilee like clone to replace the La Scala and possibly even the KHorn hey, a fellow can fantasize, cant he !?)

And additional option would be to build room models that can be then auralized for one so interested without them having to make the investment in the software or measuring tools. (the process of mapping a real 3 space room into a program such as EASE or CATT-A can be done in a pretty amazing fashion. And then very specific reflective coefficients assigned to each specifc surface. From this, a model that closely correlates with the actual room and speakers (as we add them too the library) would seem to be a best option for those unable or unwilling to bring in a qualified pro (but of course those of you who would bring in an unqualified pro would still be free to do so).

Currently my TEF is on loan to friends (C. Spence, etc.) in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Nashville who are currently working on Neil Young's studio (Hows that for name dropping!! I guess that will give my TEF quite an attitude and make it (the TEF) will be a real pain to work with! ) And it won't be back until the end of August or September... So I will just have to see how the logistics thereafter shape up.

But then I want to start shooting a few of the Heritage speakers and will do whatever else is of interest or of need or use for others who are interested.

And of course, for those curious as to what this is all about (and arent already convinced that it is all BS and witchcraft (of which one well known popular measurement system, in large measure, is! PM me if you give a damn), you are free to visit the web sites and peruse the credits of some of those actively doing this (check out the Russ Berger Design Group, or do various searches on TEF and studio &/or acoustical design, noise level analysis, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Or not, as you choose.

[jacksonbart]

----------------

On 5/25/2005 3:40:31 PM dragonfyr wrote:

You know, my assumption is that all are not ignorant fools. So I don't always refer to basics. I refer to more advanced related concepts and I refer to basics, and hence your constant whining about tangents. Because most of the tangents make reference to something a little more involved then basics! And I am sorry if you get lost. But there ARE a few who are more advanced. And I do enjoy obscure references and irony that I find amusing.

So no, I do not only post for

your

individual benefit. And for those who think I use too many words. Stop now. Frankly, I don't care. That's what that scroll bar or mouse is for. So, for you, I'll just say 'Bye!', now.

And regarding the idea of reflection free zones, early reflections, etc., the entire concept was a result of the time based research! And yes, this concept does originate with several people! So I get a bit tired of some biitching about a voluntary association of people which grew solely from the desire to pursue and share information and questions regarding many subjects. The difference between this forum and that group is quite frankly that that group has advanced a plethora of what are now considered either routinely accepted concepts, technologies or ideas, or the ideas are still sufficiently on the cutting edge representing ideas not yet well understood by many - and hence the attempt to present some of the ideas! But thanks for the introduction to an EQ. Funny, but Don Davis conceptualized the 1/3 octave equalizer and

literally

developed it! He was also the one who presented not only it's usefulness but

also

its fundamental limitations! So thank you for that tidbit of info about EQs! But you are a little late to preach to that choir! But its nice you picked up on that bit of info too! And when you have time, you might wonder why, with all the great minds who have been involved with audio and acoustics, Richard Heyser is the ONLY individual to have his works anthologized by AES? Especially as

so

many have known about early reflections for soooo long. Yup...

But instead of legitimate queries, a couple of you either want detailed 25 cent answers to general questions - which by the way have

ALL

previously been posted with some degree of detail that are easily graspable by just about anyone!!! - or your continuous complaining - And as far as providing names of practitioners, there are many, not in every city, nor with the same expertise, but I dare say that this is true for this forum as well. And you want me to provide a list of practitioners for You or You? Who in hell are you? In most cases I neither know where you live nor who you are! And with respect to those who have done nothing but attack me personally or my presentation and have not asked a single follow-up question regarding my audio or acoustics posts, but instead simply like to whine, I really have no desire to know you! Should that be a surprise!? And not ONE of you has asked for a reference! So don't expect me to read minds! It not only begs for a smart *** comment here, but you best call the psychic hotline if you want someone to guess that information and to do the research to find someone in your neighborhood, especially as all you have done is to denounce the very idea! So, if you think this applies to you, it probably does!

But if ANYONE had ever asked me to try to find someone qualified to provide that service, I would have tried! So don't cry about a potential solution that you never posited as a possibility! And I am not going to do national searches to find a qualified source of the service for someone who simply whines about how ridiculous it is! Those I would find are professional, but I certainly wouldn't be responsible for exposing them to the likes of some of the whiners here! I can only imagine the reception they would encounter!

But for those few who have asked private questions and have asked for additional information in private posts, I would certainly welcome the opportunity to try to locate someone! Can I GUARANTEE someone is sitting by the phone just waiting for you? NO! But I can certainly try!

And since you have obviously not read some of the other ideas I have posited in other posts, there are some potential solutions that will make this system more accessible to all, but except for several private posts asking about the follow up, the silence has been deafening!

And for the rest of you who only ***** and attack me, here's a bit of news! Frankly I don't really enjoy dealing with those of you who only like to ***** or make claims that physics and calculus is 'wrong' (and, quite frankly, if all you do is make this claim, WHY should I spend my time caring what you think! We obviously disagree, so simply ignore my stupid posts and go argue over speaker cables or the value of MP3 files or how Bose or Wal-Mart are the result of some secret international conspiracy. Write Neil Bortz and debate him!)

But for those who are confused that my post may deal with various references, some more obscure to you as you don't have some level of pre-requisite knowledge, there is a concept of posting or PM’ing me and asking about a particular reference, and asking me for clarification or more information, or why I said it. You might even take issue with the particular concept as you understand it and then enter into a polite dialogue or debate - not an argument! If you haven't figured anything out yet, I love to debate, but I hate arguing, and I have little patience with it. Debating explores an idea without an ego becoming involved. In a debate it doesn't really matter what your pet issue is, you explore the idea and examine what withstands scrutiny and what does not, and you look at what is left standing.

I have neither interest nor desire to become involved in your hang-up or inability to accept or even explore heretofore unknown ideas. And I especially get a kick out of hearing that someone already understands all the nuances of the time based domain! Really?! Then those who have made it a focus of their career would love to talk to you! And I am all ears! I have lots of questions! <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It is akin to a first year physics student declaring that we can skip all that 'quantum stuff', as we already know all about it! It simply provides sufficient evidence that you haven't a clue!

And it has become obvious that you can't decipher much of my humor nor even recognize when it is intended or not. Sorry, but the 'flat' media exacerbates that! But WHATEVER you do, don't ask! That might come dangerously close to making sense!

So, to some of the ego maniacs out there who feel I must speak only to YOU on your level, I disagree. If you are confused by some of what I write, ask regarding the topic for clarification.

So, I will stick my neck out and say that I enjoy exploring the topic on levels other then simply the extremely basic level. I certainly can if asked, and I have repeatedly posted the concept of basic ray tracing in attachments and references to LEDE, room modeling, POGO, LF room mode tutorials and the design and construction of bass traps. And for all of you who are complaining, NOT one of you has asked a question of me regarding follow-up of any aspect of the physics involved! And the issue of basic early reflections, the concept of LEDE (which too many know only from its EARLY concept and are ignorant of it's current form), the concept of reflection free zones and their limitations (as EVERY concept has limitations! And these do not negate the premise! They simply provide reasonable constraints that are necessary to understand!) and even the

inappropriate

copyrighted term "time aligned" (by Ed Long) is a result of the collaboration of interested folks called SynAudCon. (Warning! A TANGENT!: It is inappropriate because you CANNOT align time, you can only align events within the time domain! …A BIG difference!) And all of the popular understanding is simply a result of their years of research!

So its nice that you have picked up a touch of it, while simultaneously rejecting the source from which it originated and has continued. My problem with some of it, is that the simplistic model also has limitations that should be understood! The basic model and concept has indeed changed, and it has caveats and constraints and mitigating issues that are prudent to address.

And as a result, the proper instrumentation is required. And I don't care if you have bat ears! The human ears are notoriously poor, and are subject to many illusory experiences! The science of psycho acoustics is like studying the science of fun house mirrors. And it is developing at an amazing pace as well, again primarily due to the advances of investigations within the time domain. So you can't get away from it. The genie is out of the bottle. Humpty Dumpty has fallen. And you can no longer ignore or relegate the time domain to some out of the way niche, any more then classical physics can ignore the implications of quantum or TOE, where all certainty is removed and all becomes matters of probability. (Oops! Sorry if a few of you can't follow the analogy! But if you even care, you are welcome to ask! If not, oh well...

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif"> )

So, the bottom line, if you want to ask me specific questions, or ask for clarification or simplification of a concept, ask away. And private posts are encouraged. But if you simply want to complain about the presence of the time domain in acoustical physics, or that I don’t always spend my time explaining first principles but will segue to more advances subtleties or variations on the theme, or that I make multiple references to other posts then simply YOURS, or simply want to ***** about me without taking the time to inquire for an explanation, or assume that every reference, instead of being a collage of references, is simply about YOU, find someone who cares.

___________________________________________________________________________

For the others who have more to do then explain what an EQ is and state that early reflections are common knowledge, and that simply absorbing them is the siolution, I

have

already suggested a more practical and worthwhile project.

For those who might be interested, I am interested in developing a library of response curves and transfer functions that can be imported into some forthcoming 'freeware' tools that I have heretofore not mentioned, as they are not quite released (preferring to comment on real goods and not vaporware), that can post-process (convolve) them. These curves would include individual transducers, crossovers, speakers (assemblies), etc.. If the companies who have them do not wish to release them, I was interested in building a library beginning with the Heritage line and expanding to the various optional third party components as folks might wish to help provide the means to do this, and as logistics permit.

This library, along with CLF files, will allow many to import them into the convolving tools as well as into room modeling software (and some additional tools) to help others build an acoustical model of their rooms, thus allowing a more accurate treatment of the particular issues addressing their room and their particular speakers.

While I have suggested this in the past, it seems to get lost in the hysterionics of individuals running around yelling ' burn the witch', or claiming that calculus and physics are flawed (perhaps their understanding of the tools are flawed, as well as their understanding of the tools’ limitations, but the tools themselves are hardly flawed!), or claiming we already know enough and thus they don’t need them. Well, at least the last part is easy!

Not only would this increase the ability for people to address room response issues, it would also aid greatly in designing and prototyping speakers and performing what if modeling based on real component responses.

I had also fancied, but now realize that this was a stupid idea, that as logistics permitted, it might have been possible to even shoot a few peoples’ rooms, providing them with a complete TDS and MLS library of curves and transfer functions for your specific equipment as well as their interaction with each other and within the room....These would allow you to post porcess to your heart's content...

Thus, it would be possible to move beyond the

limitations

of a laser and mirrors in a room and deal with the non'linear frequency dependencies that this simplistic ray tracing model ignores, and to actually model and address the ‘ab-fusion’ (a balance of frequency dependent selective absorption and diffusion) that has superceded the older absorption model.

And, as mentioned above, this would GREATLY aid in the complex what-if modeling of speaker systems. (My own ‘obsession’ being an exploration of a Jubilee like clone to replace the La Scala and

possibly

even the KHorn – hey, a fellow can fantasize, can’t he !?)

And additional option would be to build room models that can be then auralized for one so interested without them having to make the investment in the software or measuring tools. (the process of mapping a real 3 space room into a program such as EASE or CATT-A can be done in a pretty amazing fashion. And then very specific reflective coefficients assigned to each specifc surface. From this, a model that closely correlates with the actual room and speakers (as we add them too the library) would seem to be a ‘best’ option for those unable or unwilling to bring in a qualified pro (but of course those of you who would bring in an unqualified pro would still be free to do so…).

Currently my TEF is on loan to friends (C. Spence, etc.) in

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />

Nashville

who are currently working on Neil Young's studio (How’s that for name dropping!! I guess that will give my TEF quite an attitude and make it (the TEF) will be a real pain to work with!

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif"> ) And it won't be back until the end of August or September... So I will just have to see how the logistics thereafter shape up.

But then I want to start shooting a few of the Heritage speakers and will do whatever else is of interest or of need or use for others who are interested.

And of course, for those curious as to what this is all about (and aren’t already convinced that it is all BS and witchcraft (of which one well known popular measurement system, in large measure, is! PM me if you give a damn…), you are free to visit the web sites and peruse the credits of some of those actively doing this (check out the Russ Berger Design Group, or do various searches on TEF and studio &/or acoustical design, noise level analysis, etc. etc. etc. etc.). Or not, as you choose.

----------------

The last word.

[colterphoto1]

Honestly, if anyone here feels like composing a lengthy diatribe, at least have the common decency to render it readable by staying with the standard black on white lettering. Certain writers' fields of blue type make reading difficult.

Oh, and verbose discourse does not reflect intelligence.

Thank you,

Michael

[dragonfyr]

oh, now there are "standards" for colors too!

hahahaha!

And judging from the above, succint discourse literally adds little at all as well.

Isn't a cable debate calling you?