Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Amir keeps quoting that there is extensive research showing reflection and no treatment other than regular furniture is not only good enough, but that it is superior for home listening. 

We have hardly discussed room acoustics so the claim that I "keep quoting" research is obviously wrong on the face of it.  The other bit is what you are manufacturing on my behalf and then complaining about.  Really, the plot is lost.

 

Whether I paraphrase what you said or waste time quoting you absolutely have referenced research or existence of (without quoting), and used that to promote a particular view that is very much due to variability subjective.

 

 

 

We got here because someone claimed I must not have good enough equipment to hear the difference between cables. 

Since you are responded to me, at least initially, we did not get here that way. You made claims about rooms and acoustics that were inaccurate.

 

And that the focus must be to deal with the modal response first and foremost as that is a constant in every room. 

Why do you have your speakers far out from the front wall (front from an audiophile perspective, not 2034). Was that modal, or to minimize boundary issues?   Are those boundary issues gone completely, the ones that DSP cannot correct?

 

Importantly, I made no statement about superiority of furnishings relative to acoustic products. 

Paraphrasing because I don't feel like going back and cutting and pasting, but pretty much yes, you did state that furnishing and natural reflection was superior, though your responses had an air of arrogance as you later made the assumption the acoustic implementation would be haphazard at best. I will state at this point, that unlike some other audiophile additions which likely are inaudible, a couple acoustic panels will make a readily audible and measurable change. While controlled listening would be preferred, it would be near impossible in this case, hence accepting preference ratings is valid. That is furthered by the reports of many who would less susceptible to expectation bias. The result is not always positive.

 

I quoted from the very research you put forward that it had nothing to do with listening for enjoyment but that it was a test of recording/mix engineer productivity.  And even there, a reflective sidewall as preferred by majority so quoting that was totally inappropriate and wrong.

Therein was a bit of an intentional trap. For one, the majority did not prefer the reflective sidewall. Go read it again. The sum of the diffuse and absorption preferences exceeded the reflective wall. As I previous noted, the conditions in this test were not at all like what would be experienced in your room or probably any typical listening room. The trap is that research like this is used to make conclusions that cannot be made due to vastly different usage conditions. The only part of that test that was like sidewall reflections in your setup was the baseline.  Trap are effective at illustrating bias formed through incorrect usage of information.

 

3. The path of treating all reflections with absorption will inevitably lead to people slapping absorbers over every surface they can find.  After all, if a little bit is good, a lot is better. Soon the room is deader than the steak on your plate, sounds lifeless and the room ugly as heck.

This is very rare in practice and would go against most recommendations from acoustic professionals and most of the audiophile community who recommend absorption and diffusion, being careful not to over deaden a room, that preference plays a large part in what is done, and hence accept you may or may not like the results and will have to adjust.

 

Bottom like, get speakers that are well designed, do some EQ for low frequencies where acoustic products have little prayer of fixing issues there

You should probably qualify low frequencies. However, as noted by Mahgister, Helmholz resonators work at low frequencies and while narrow band, that can be good. So can diaphragmatic absorbers. So can multiple subwoofers. EQ is absolutely beneficial, but effectiveness is localized and EQ will work even better if acoustic methods are used first.

 

And certainly don't let them shame you into throwing blankets on the wall or else your system sounds like "crap." 

Would this be akin to someone shaming someone buying, owning, and using an amplifier that has poor distortion measurements, highly likely to be audible, even though they prefer the outcome?

 

Mainly what I see is audiophiles, from their own experience, and that of acoustic professionals, is that they have added a limited number of panels to fix a perceived problem, usually caused by limited space, and that the majority have been happy with the results. That is not to say there is over use of panels in some particular ways, but those are likely not doing harm, they are just not doing anything.

 

There is more to audio life than proving 1+1 = 2. You have that part down pat. Think harder problems.