It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
His data is fine (for the most part). But the person and the means of how he tries to separate himself by others by discriminating against or degrading them otherwise is not something I will let slide. I’ve never liked bullies in all my years. Now that I've retired I don't mind spending my time exposing them when I see them.
I'm curious if you give equal time to your "anti-bullying" crusade.
It's been my experience both in participating in, and watching many discussions, that in threads in which someone is voicing reasons for skepticism about an audio claim, that in forums that trend towards "subjectivism" all sorts of catty vitriol is thrown at the skeptic and virtually NONE of it is called out because the subjective stance is simply assumed as the default. Therefore "anyone voicing skepticism about what people might be hearing or not" is just a trolling muckraker.
In fact, it's often the "objectivist" who actually says "I'm open to believing what you believe, and here is the type of evidence that would convince me."
It's often the highly subjective-based audiophiles who have an essentially unfalsifiable belief "I can hear it, even if you can't measure it" and they take any questioning of this as a personal affront, and then often hurl ad hominem back at the objectivist. Because in the subjective world, there is no actual other way to settle things. If the subjectivist claims to hear something, and someone else says "no, I don't hear any such thing" then the subjectivist comes back with the usual "well then either your gear isn't resolving enough or your ears aren't resolving enough." That's already played out in this thread, as it *always* does.
The objectivist says "like any human I'm capable of error in my perception, so here are the ways I want to account for that fallibility in my method of evaluating audio gear and claims." Whereas the subjectivist tends to just take his own perception as The Gold Standard, all other methods of inference are subservient to the truth of their own perceptual abilities. And so, again, any statement by a skeptic that implies "I didn't hear what I KNOW I heard" isn't taken in the proper scientific mindset, but as a personal affront and hence name calling or derision is thrown back.
And there is a complete blind spot - only the "objectivist/skeptic" is called out for making 'arrogant claims,' where in the subjective context people make strong claims all the time and no-one blinks. Say "These new X cables I bought made a great difference to the sound of my system" and it's "amen!" Someone like Amir says "X cables will not change the sound compared to low priced cables" and then it's a pile on for making arrogant claims. But the claim that the cables DO make a difference (in such conditions as Amir would deny) is just as strong an opposite claim! But that slips through unnoticed, due to the operating bias of a forum.
This thread started off with plenty of derision thrown at Amir and ASR before Amir ever showed up.
So I'm wondering: How often do you direct your attention to the derision, ad hominem etc that come from the subjective-oriented side, those who constantly snipe at Amir or other people who propound the relevance of measurements and science to objective and subjective claims in audio?
No one can tell you whether/how your system, room and/or ears will respond to some new addition. There are simply too many variables.
LIKEWISE: no one can possibly know whether a new addition (ie: some kind of disc, crystal, fuse, interconnect, speaker cable, etc) will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves.
Some companies offer a 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee, so- those that are actually interested, have absolutely nothing to lose, by trying (experimenting with) such.
Anyone that knows anything about the sciences, realizes that something like 96% of what makes up this universe, remains a mystery.
For centuries; humanity’s seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it.
The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!").
Theories have never proven or disproven anything. It’s INVARIABLY testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories/hypotheses.
IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF.
The Naysayer Church HATES it, when THAT happens!
^^^ This is as perfect a product of scientific ignorance as one would like to find.
It's the life-blood of companies that sell products with dubious technical claims.
You can see exactly that attitude repeated over and over from every fringe belief system showing up at your local New Age and Psychic Fair.
"Only YOU can tell FOR YOURSELF if these Healing Crystals work! Trust Yourself and your perception Above All"
It's basically the epistemology that ran rampant before science arose. It misses out precisely on why science had to arise: Yes, test. But, *control for known variables* (which include your ability to fool yourself). If you aren't doing that, your tests are no more rigorous than those used for bloodletting or the Power Of The Local Witchdoctor to Heal.
i discussed with Amir...I thank him 15 times for his measures information by the way... Nobody can accuse me to be anti-Amir...
i provided many arguments with dozen of articles about the relation between measures and hearing theory as a context to interpret measures..*I will not repeat this because others will kill me...😊
Amir never answered to my point, use many times ad hominem arguments, dismiss anything in false pretense or go beside central point..VERIFY BY READING MY DISCUSSION...
Read my posts... I never insulted but gave a consistent argument..
I lost my respect for his "scientific" status at the end ... he play with measuring toys and give us useful measures Thats all...It is a marketer not a scientist... A scientist use method , theory and context for interpretation..not only measuring instruments.. Hearing theory is the center here... the center of design, the center of research, the context where all measures are evaluated.. Sounds are not physical abstracted Fourier waves, these waves must be interpreted by the ears brain... And sound qualities in nature are not reducible to Fourier reconstruction tool... because the ears/brain ask for more... I will stop here: we need an ecological theory of hearing to encompass the Fourier theory of hearing..
By the way the separation between subjectivist and objectivist was created by market designer or techno babbling people about the gear electronics measures ... The central subject of audio is not design, it is psycho-acoustic , because all design is based on this science not only on electronics circuits ... There is no subjectivist or objectivist in acoustic science... iT is MEANINGLESS completely stupid distinction...In acoustic any measures is interpreted in hearing context and any subject submiited to strict experiment controls.. Blind test are used yes but not to sell a limited set of measures as replacement for hearing truth...
I’m curious if you give equal time to your "anti-bullying" crusade.
It’s been my experience both in participating in, and watching many discussions, that in threads in which someone is voicing reasons for skepticism about an audio claim, that in forums that trend towards "subjectivism" all sorts of catty vitriol is thrown at the skeptic and virtually NONE of it is called out because the subjective stance is simply assumed as the default. Therefore "anyone voicing skepticism about what people might be hearing or not" is just a trolling muckraker.
In fact, it’s often the "objectivist" who actually says "I’m open to believing what you believe, and here is the type of evidence that would convince me."
It’s often the highly subjective-based audiophiles who have an essentially unfalsifiable belief "I can hear it, even if you can’t measure it" and they take any questioning of this as a personal affront, and then often hurl ad hominem back at the objectivist. Because in the subjective world, there is no actual other way to settle things. If the subjectivist claims to hear something, and someone else says "no, I don’t hear any such thing" then the subjectivist comes back with the usual "well then either your gear isn’t resolving enough or your ears aren’t resolving enough." That’s already played out in this thread, as it *always* does.
The objectivist says "like any human I’m capable of error in my perception, so here are the ways I want to account for that fallibility in my method of evaluating audio gear and claims." Whereas the subjectivist tends to just take his own perception as The Gold Standard, all other methods of inference are subservient to the truth of their own perceptual abilities. And so, again, any statement by a skeptic that implies "I didn’t hear what I KNOW I heard" isn’t taken in the proper scientific mindset, but as a personal affront and hence name calling or derision is thrown back.
And there is a complete blind spot - only the "objectivist/skeptic" is called out for making ’arrogant claims,’ where in the subjective context people make strong claims all the time and no-one blinks. Say "These new X cables I bought made a great difference to the sound of my system" and it’s "amen!" Someone like Amir says "X cables will not change the sound compared to low priced cables" and then it’s a pile on for making arrogant claims. But the claim that the cables DO make a difference (in such conditions as Amir would deny) is just as strong an opposite claim! But that slips through unnoticed, due to the operating bias of a forum.
This thread started off with plenty of derision thrown at Amir and ASR before Amir ever showed up.
So I’m wondering: How often do you direct your attention to the derision, ad hominem etc that come from the subjective-oriented side, those who constantly snipe at Amir or other people who propound the relevance of measurements and science to objective and subjective claims in audio?
@amir_asr Thank you for posting your system photo. For someone so into the science of audio, I am very surprised that you have seemingly given no consideration to room acoustics! There are a number of great room acoustic products/treatments that i am certain would do marvels for your SQ in your room. You may want to try some of them, although I admit, they are all passive, and as such, pretty hard to measure! Your ears would be in for a treat though....if you would allow yourself to believe in them.
Don't forget the rest of that post, which (obviously) applies to you, as well.
That you assume so much, regarding the possible listening experience, aural acuity, professionalism, education, cognition and a host of other variables, regarding the members of this forum, the vast amount of your bloviating and condescension; I can only infer that the Dunning-Kruger Effect has deep roots in your skull.
Red and blue socks? Science and Engineering? Dark Matter and my car?
SPARE ME!
What I believe regarding the behavior of electromagnetic fields, how dielectrics, conductors and Poynting Vectors (which are affected by the frequencies in our music/signals) might affect our presentation is based on the Physics (QED and Particle-Wave Theory), studied in college.
Unlike you and the rest of the planet's Naysayer Church members (Denyin'tologists), some: so proudly touting their extensive knowledge of antiquated (1800's) Electrical Theory, that feel it necessary, to SAVE US from our broken, worthless and deceitful mental faculties.
That you have a website makes you somewhat of a Pope of Deyin'tology, I suppose, able to feverishly spread your Gospel, to more lost sheeple.
The room where is system is does not have the right balance at all between reflective/absorbing/diffusive materials...the soundfield cannot be optimal...
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I'm that old).
He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!"
For all his genius, he never grew overly confident in his beliefs. The perfect obverse to the Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
ie: “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.”
and: “I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”
Tesla is probably my favorite innovator, who (despite the incessant, projectile vomit, from his day's naysayers), took the World, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, with his inventions.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." (Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse , 1872)
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," (Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873)
"The super computer is technologically impossible. It would take all of the water that flows over Niagara Falls to cool the heat generated by the number of vacuum tubes required." (Professor of Electrical Engineering, New York University)
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923)
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." (Dr. Lee DeForest, Father of Radio & Grandfather of Television)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible!" (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." (Admiral William Leahy, re: US Atomic Bomb Project)
When the steam locomotive came on the scene; the best (scientific) minds proclaimed, "The human body cannot survive speeds in excess of 35MPH."
Until recently (21st Century); and the advent of the relatively new science of Fluid Dynamics, the best (scientific) minds involved in Aerodynamics, could not fathom how a bumblebee stays aloft.
Often; Science has to catch up with the facts/phenomena of Nature and/or, "reality" (our universe).
I haven't been in school since the 60's, but- at Case Institute of Technology; the Physics Prof always emphasized what we were studying was, "Electrical THEORY." He strongly made a point of the fact that no one had yet actually observed electrons (how they behave on the quantum level) and that only some things can really be called, "LAWS." (ie: Ohm, Kirchoff, Faraday)
PERHAPS: that's changed in recent years and I missed it?
Inescapable FACT: No one understands exactly how electricity works.
That’s why there’s so much Electrical THEORY.
The number of Wiki-Scientists on these pages, attempting to win the IG-Nobel Prize in Pseudo-Physics, is always amusing.
Whenever some highly educated person actually does discover exactly how electricity functions, they’ll be lauded by the scientific community, will have solved some of the disparities between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, receive a Nobel and we’ll hear about it.
Newton’s THEORIES were largely superseded by Einstein and Bohr's. Then came Feynman’s. For now; none of you can absolutely prove your statements (theories), regarding electricity, fuses, wires, or anything else, as regards our systems.
The following articles, read in sequence, illustrate my point:
The model for Tesla was Goethe... His mentor... He get the idea about his electric motor at 25 years old reciting Faust ...Goethe is on par with Darwin as a natural scientist... Jay Gould say it in his own words not me...
@amir_asr Thank you for posting your system photo. For someone so into the science of audio, I am very surprised that you have seemingly given no consideration to room acoustics! There are a number of great room acoustic products/treatments that i am certain would do marvels for your SQ in your room. You may want to try some of them, although I admit, they are all passive, and as such, pretty hard to measure! Your ears would be in for a treat though....if you would allow yourself to believe in them.
My pleasure. Did you think the system is resolving enough to tell the difference between cables? If so, or not, how did you determine that.
As to acoustic products, this is my field of study as I post yesterday. Quickly: there is a lot of money wasted there on stuff people intuit and read online. The confusion there is much worse than it is in audio cables!
But addressing your question anyway, did you not notice the measurement microphone and computer in that picture?
They were there in the process of testing Lyngdorf's excellent RoomPerfect EQ system. I clicked on your profile and i see no DSP solution. Shame as that *guarantees* your bass response is poor. And that what you are hearing is bloated bass that is obscuring the detail in the rest of the spectrum.
Forget everything we have been discussing here. If you are not measuring your room and correcting for bass errors, you have a lousy audio system. Period. Measurements will absolutely show that the acoustic stuff you have thrown in there have little to no impact in this regard (don't be fooled by the name "bass trap, " they do no bass trapping).
Anyway after my arguments unanswered... there is no discussion only bashing opposite sides...
Why people are so unable to think? because they trust gear, toys, anything but not what matter : concepts BEFORE experiments... Concepts AFTER experiments...
I like acoustic because we hear qualities and they inform us about the world and people...
Hearing is more deep than touch... Because with ears we touch inside things and at distance...
Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer (yeah: I’m that old).
And yet in the post I quoted I saw no inkling that you have taken one of Feynman’s most famous cautions to heart, when it comes to investigating reality:
FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Do you understand what he was getting at there? I don’t see that you do, since the post I quoted admonished people:
"IF you’re interested in the possibility of improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and trust your own senses: actually TRY whatever whets your aural appetite, FOR YOURSELF. "
You were clearly, against Feynman’s advice, telling people to trust in themselves, to accurately understand what is going on. Not a hint of Feynman’s scientific caution that any method ought to control for the ways in which we are prone to error and misconception and bias. Just "try it and trust yourself."
And of course the rest of what you’d written in that quote about science and everything else was one long strawman.
Forget everything we have been discussing here. If you are not measuring your room and correcting for bass errors, you have a lousy audio system. Period. Measurements will absolutely show that the acoustic stuff you have thrown in there have little to no impact in this regard (don’t be fooled by the name "bass trap, " they do no bass trapping).
Ok, there I have to disagree. I think a statement like that is unhelpfully dogmatic.
You could make the point that measuring will help show bass response deviations from neutral, and that these can be corrected for if you want a neutral bass response.
But...one can also get a fairly smooth bass response by ear. Not as accurate as an instrument, but it is the ear, how we perceive the sound, that one can care about pleasing. Remember: there’s little point in caring about things you can’t hear. The point of addressing bass nodes is that you can hear them. Which means you can hear them without an instrument (even if not as precisely quantified).
So one can experiment with speaker/listening positions, with test signals or well known tracks, to hear when a bass node or dip may be intruding on the sound. If a bass error response is something you can’t notice, or it occurs so infrequently that it rarely infringes on your enjoyment of the sound, then big whoop.
I haven’t used measurements in my set up. Is there some bass node somewhere that would show up in measurements? No doubt. Does it regularly stand out in some deleterious way? Nope. I’ve heard many of my test tracks (which include bass torture tests for tightness/depth etc) on systems that have some correction for room response (e.g. numerous times with the Kii Audio 3 speakers) and the bass I hear at home is similarly smooth. (I did at one point have subwoofers and room correction for the bass - it wasn't much smoother to my ears than what I'd achieved without the correction).
And declaring any system that wasn’t arrived at with measurements and room correction to be "lousy system" is a subjective opinion - nobody need take your subjective opinion as the basis for what they want in their own system, or in place of their own goals or judgement.
I suppose it’s quite possible if you listened to my system at some point you might hear a room interaction that could have been fixed, and then declare it "lousy" by those standards.
But by the standards I seek it’s wonderful, and by the standards of what my guests experience when listening - joy and astonishment, I’ve had people moved to tears - well, if that’s "lousy" I’ll take "lousy." ;-)
@amir_asrYou may notice that I did NOT call your system a ’lousy audio system’...I wonder why?? I could have stated that having a big screen TV between the speakers and having your gear placed on your auntie’s dining room side board cabinet is not exactly anything but...laughable! But, for some reason i did not say that before, however since you want to play that card....;0)
I’m done on this thread, there really is nothing here anymore, and I don’t want to debate with Amir about my hearing acuity, his hearing acuity, my system quality or anything else that he thinks can be used to support his never ending quest for ’superiority’.
BTW, Amir, do you really think as an ex-pro musician and music teacher, plus being in the a’phile hobby for over forty years( dates me), that I cannot set up a couple of subwoofers in my system? Instead, i need to have an artificial tool to aid me...get a clue.
If I understood your last post correctly: you own Lyngdorf gear.
Nice stuff, not to mention: a good looking listening/media room.
Having been in the loop so long: you've got to remember Peter & Boz's TacT venture.
I'm still using the old Tact RCS 2.2Xaaa (with a number personally addressed mods/updates, of course).
Forget everything we have been discussing here. If you are not measuring your room and correcting for bass errors, you have a lousy audio system. Period. Measurements will absolutely show that the acoustic stuff you have thrown in there have little to no impact in this regard (don't be fooled by the name "bass trap, " they do no bass trapping).
Yep!
However: I wouldn't make the assumption that any non-DSP corrected room/system interface has to be, "lousy".
My last nice one (pre DSP by about a decade) was about 24 x 13, with a slanted ceiling (8 above speakers, to 12 at back wall)*. Woofers didn't need time-alignment, as they could stand next to my Acoustats, per design.
*Easy to control most of what Sabine had to offer.
Can't decide what's more entertaining the MLB home run hitting contest or the I'm smarter than you battle of words right here. I guess I'm easily entertained.
@brianlucey @deceoony what is the "disinformation" you speak of ? No one can dispute a well made measurement. The issue it’s validity.
Hi Brian, long time no chat since the last V12R amp chat about tube reduction down to 2 or 3 per side - years back. Good times. Nice to hear from you. It partly has to do with recommendations and information shared about a measured component that "measured the best" and reportedly "sounded great", or "one of the best for sound". All according to the hard core measurement gang with strong beliefs this was the best for sound. What sound is the question. Clearly we may all just be hearing differently. A quick recap - I took the bait, bought it, tried it, and was sorely disappointed. Shockingly so. I for one can dispute a measurement, a "well made one" too, who knows, and this is part of the great debate here perhaps.
I won’t disclose details as the component designer/builder was gracious and provided a full refund. With all due respect, I wish them well. No harm, no foul. However, learned a lesson, some of these measurement practices do NOT tell us everything. I agree with your prior posts. Ended up buying something else for 1/2 cost which sounded notably better [to me], and measured worse. Go figure. Are we measuring the right things then, I digress. Call it one person’s opinion perhaps and we’ll leave it at that. High praise for those with confidence and a great return policy, you simply can’t please all of us- and that’s okay. Is what it is.
It’s up to you how much you care to be taken seriously.
Continually avoiding a major point made against your argument to instead rant out insults, however good it makes you feel, won’t help you be taken seriously, though.
If I understood your last post correctly: you own Lyngdorf gear.
Nice stuff, not to mention: a good looking listening/media room.
Having been in the loop so long: you've got to remember Peter & Boz's TacT venture.
I'm still using the old Tact RCS 2.2Xaaa (with a number personally addressed mods/updates, of course).
The Lyngdrorf was a loaner from a member so got returned. I did however purchase the TacT TCS 8 channel system. Nothing transformed my audio system and ideas more than that processor. My jaw fell on the floor in the way it seemingly removed the walls from my listening room!
Alas, the story did not end well. After spending $10K on the processor, I spent another $5K to upgrade it. I didn't get to use it for a couple of years and when I went back to turn it on a couple of channels were flakey. As a last resort, I tried to update the firmware from the image on the website. The firmware completely bricked the system by causing it to get stuck in the start up screen!
I sent an email to Boz (or did I talk to him?). As soon as I told me I upgraded the firmware he demanded to know why! I told him the issue and he said you should not have upgraded the firmware. I told him that he had the firmware on his website. How was I supposed to know I was not going to use it?
I then asked him if there is a fix. He said no. I asked how that could be. Wouldn't he have a way to force a factory reset or something? He said no. That was that and to this day, I have this gorgeous looking but broken door stop. :(
@amir_asr You may notice that I did NOT call your system a ’lousy audio system’...I wonder why?? I could have stated that having a big screen TV between the speakers and having your gear placed on your auntie’s dining room side board cabinet is not exactly anything but...laughable! But, for some reason i did not say that before, however since you want to play that card....;0)
It is only laughable if you have gotten your knowledge of acoustics from stuff you read online and lay intuition. Due to precedence effect, the on-axis sound, and not the reflections rule predominantly what you hear. And this is naturally not impacted by the room (above transition frequencies). What reflection there is, gets attenuated due to much longer path length of that front wall.
Now, if you have a speaker that has screwed up directivity/off-axis response, these reflections than change the tonality of on-axis sound. This is why our speaker measurements include such information:
Notice how smooth the back-wall reflections are and how similar they are to on axis. The only ones that deviate are the ceiling and floor ones. For that reason, I have a special rug that is very thick and is designed to absorb down to that frequency. Yes, not every acoustic product needs to look like a child blanket hung on a wall!
Back to this speaker, see how nice the sum of early window reflections are (in blue) relative to on-axis response (in black):
This is nearly textbook perfect. You can see it in the predicted in-room response which includes all the reflections you think are "bad:"
This matches top class studio monitors used to produce content:
Perceptually, your brain adapts to the room above transition after a short period. It learns that the room reflections are a constant secondary data that adds little to the primary sound. So it starts to filter them. For this reason, a specific speaker sounds similar when placed in many different rooms. The speaker dominates, not the room.
If the speaker has really awful off-axis response however, the brain thinks that it is bringing more to the table so adaptation doesn't occur as much. For those speakers, which you should have avoided, you may want to put more absorption on the walls.
BTW, Amir, do you really think as an ex-pro musician and music teacher, plus being in the a’phile hobby for over forty years( dates me), that I cannot set up a couple of subwoofers in my system? Instead, i need to have an artificial tool to aid me...get a clue
As a musician, you hear sounds from a different vantage point than listeners. So that doesn't train you as an audiophile anyway. That aside, physics of sound don't stop in your room because you learned to play an instrument. That physics says that at frequencies below transition the modal density is low so you can get pretty narrow resonances at multiple frequencies. There is no way, no how you can just use your ears to tease them out let alone correcting them. Even the best acousticians in the world measure and then correct using DSP. No number of subs, or acoustic bandages is going to remove the need for this. Your room is ringing at some frequencies regardless of any manual tuning you have done.
Get a DSP and a measurement mike and be ready to transform the sound of your room and arrive at your next stage in audiophile life. Don't keep chasing the next cable, tube amp, etc. And oh, get speakers that have proper directivity or your acoustic life will be very difficult.
As a follow up to above with respect to multiple subs, this is a computer (CFD) simulation used to optimize placement of multiple subs in our theater. Even with that optimization, response is still on even and requires EQ:
So the rule is simple: if you are not measuring your room and correcting for bass, you don't have an optimized system. Yes, you can reduce some of the impact by proper placement of speakers/subs and listening location but you cannot get the proper response without equalization.
You can take a measurement all you want of this room, but room correction is not going to fix some glaring issues visible in this graph and system photo. No call to authority is going to change that but appropriate well placed panels will.
Wall panels will not do jack for those measurements. They won't even register on the graph! Go ahead and show the measurements before and after you hang a panel on the wall.
Here is the real image of that measurement:
We see bass response going down to 20 Hz which is great given the fact that there are no subs involved (the one in the picture is not used). I don't listen to the No-EQ graph. I turned off my own Room EQ to test Roomperfect. We see how the room created that large peak and dip -- both of which were mostly corrected by RoomPerfect EQ.
A system can sound wonderful if you have the right speakers, apply bass EQ, and have ordinary furnishings in your room. Do NOT let anyone shame you into slapping ugly panel on the room as to fit in the club. Folks advocating that have not read a single piece of research into acoustics of room. They are just repeating what they have read online...
Continually avoiding a major point made against your argument...
What, "major point" was that?
Are you referring to your Feynman quote? If so: had he lived by YOUR version of HIS philosophy: he'd never have won his Nobel.
The man was all about experimentation and observation.
He learned that from his father, who was often mentioned by Feynman, during lectures.
One anecdote that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how his father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.
It saddened him, that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.
At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.
FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
What do you think Feynman means by that, Rodman?
How might we fool ourselves? And what is he indicating in saying "and you are the easiest person to fool?"
What steps, would this suggest in a method of empirical inquiry? What variables might he be referencing? Are you aware of the long scientific literature on the subject that would bear on this question in terms of how human beings think? And what steps science often takes to minimize that variable?
Feynman wants us to learn from experience....but it is a *specific type of carefully controlled experience.* The type that separates scientifically gained knowledge from, say, dowsing, or astrology, or religion, or new age healing crystals etc.
"Try It For Yourself" does not capture the specific rigor of the scientific method.
I’ve given you all the pieces, I’m sure you can put it together in to answering what Feynman meant (and thus how your previous post had ignored Feynman’s warning).
Was that around the time that Peter and Boz were having their falling out?
Or, possibly: after Boz had TacT up and running (maybe didn't want to deal with their combined/older efforts)? Just guessing!
I required Boz's assistance a few times and always found him helpful, thankfully. Always with the software end of things though.
ie: Once bought a 64 bit laptop, that wouldn't run the 2.2.X program, written in 32 bit (no emulator, that model, year or something). Important info, not in TacT User Manual.
That was the short, sweet and easiest call.
Still have the dedicated, 32 bit, Toshiba laptop, that I bought for the TacT program.
Glad I've been able to keep up with maintenance on my own, since there's zero, anywhere else.
That's a pretty piece of gear.
re: flakey channels
Did you try cleaning all the internal pin connectors? Especially: the ones from the power supply to the boards?
They* were known to corrode, at the slightest provocation.
Your opinions on Richard Feynman's philosophies are irrelevant to me.
What are your objections to the references, facts and history, regarding electromagnetism and Physics/QED, posted by moi, that you've so easily dismissed, "prof"?
Just in the spirit of discussing things that might make our systems sound better.
Quick, tell me what frequencies in this graph are room modes, and which are boundary issues? Hint, there are some obvious ones that the Lyngdorf was not able to do anything with that are the boundary issues and those absolutely can be improved significantly with proper use of acoustic panels. That is simple physics. You are correct that multiple subs won’t get rid of your room modes completely, but they will soften them considerably and present more consistent bass across a larger listening space whereas room correction improvements will be more localized.
As a point of information, what Ansi-CTA-2034 uses for Front Wall and Rear wall is opposite what most audiophiles will call the front and rear wall. In 2034, for instance, the front wall bounce is the spatially average 0º, ± 10º, ± 20º, ± 30º horizontal responses and 0 degrees is pointing forward from the speaker, so when looking at the speaker, it is what most would consider the back wall. The Rear Wall Bounce is what most audiophiles call the front wall reflection, hence why it declines rapidly at high frequencies due to the directional nature of the speaker at higher frequencies. The rear wall bounces is the spatially average horizontal responses at ± 90°, ± 100°, ± 110°, ± 120°, ± 130°, ± 140°, ± 150°, ± 160°, ± 170°, 180°.
Due to precedence effect, the on-axis sound, and not the reflections rule predominantly what you hear. And this is naturally not impacted by the room (above transition frequencies). What reflection there is, gets attenuated due to much longer path length of that front wall.
This is of course correct.
Also correct is that the early reflection graphs are spatially averaged over a large number of angles and hence both masks acoustic interference, both constructive and destructive and provides no weighting for angles that may be more or less relevant in a given room, speaker position, listener environment which can impact acoustic interference as well as timing and intensity as it relates to early arrival reflections that may interference with the precedence of the direct sound.
A case in point is the room response curve you posted which has clear boundary interference, however, that would not show in a 2034 report. Nevertheless it occurs, it is audible, and it can be addressed.
The second issue not readily evident in the room response though there are some indications is the strong reflections from the very close side walls that will arrive both close in time and relatively high in power compared to the direct response. Yes it is correct that your speakers are well designed with smooth off axis response hence this won’t cause any weird tonal issues making assumptions about your wall materials, but back to the precedence effect, it will affect imaging, and while side wall reflections can make the image seem more expansive and the result pleasurable, when the wall is that close the result is invariably negative. You may not trust audiophile listening reports, but in similar situations, almost without exception where an audiophile was required to place their speakers near side walls, the addition of appropriate acoustic panels resulted in a significant perceived improvement. Anecdotally, you will not find a large professional studio with speakers placed that close to a side wall without use of acoustic treatments.
I won’t say it is universal, but it is almost universal that treatment of first reflections in a small rooms is recommended by professionals. Unfortunately, there has not been extensive research on this topic to draw on and what does exist is mainly around speech intelligibility, however, Brett Leonard in his PhD dissertation did some excellent work showing effects of a rather early intense reflections on perception and even the variability of that perception across music genres. Your position does not appear to be based on the fundamental science, available research, or professional recommendation.
I won’t say it is universal, but it is almost universal that treatment of first reflections in a small rooms is recommended by professionals.
Those are the professionals you want to stay the heck away from. That is old school thinking invalidated by a ton of research into what makes a pleasant listening environment.. The advice persists because people don't bother reading any research in this area and really learning the topic.
Unfortunately, there has not been extensive research on this topic to draw on and what does exist is mainly around speech intelligibility, however, Brett Leonard in his PhD dissertation did some excellent work showing effects of a rather early intense reflections on perception and even the variability of that perception across music genres.
His thesis is excellent but you are completely misrepresenting it. That work was completely focused on ability of professionals to get *work* done in different acoustic environments. It had zero to do with listening for enjoyment. If you had just looked at the abstract you would have realized that:
"This new methodology involved constant interaction with the test, and provided highly trained recording engineers a set of tasks and controls similar to their normal work."
Testers were given some common tasks in mixing content and they were timed in their ability to get them done. Subjective results were also captured on their preference. This subset was published in Journal of AES in paper, he Practical Effects of Lateral Energy in Critical Listening Environments
I cover a synopsis of it in this post. In a nutshell, the most preferred treatment was no treatment (reflective):
Back to thesis paper, in an experiment related to dialing in the right amount of reverb under different acoustic conditions, this was found:
"If consistency and repeatability are desirable characteristics for an engineer in a given environment (which they most assuredly are), the reflective environment may in fact be a better mixing environment. This could in turn contradict the idea that an acoustically untreated facility is inferior, at least in this one regard."
So even in conditions that "everyone thought" absorption was the answer, i.e. studio work, your own cited research indicates the assumption is false.
The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (Denyin'tology, like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.
Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications, as regards our components/systems/listening.
. THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!
(Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.)
Nothing transformed my audio system and ideas more than that processor. My jaw fell on the floor in the way it seemingly removed the walls from my listening room!
What kind of subjective audio-foolery statement is that?
Alas, the story did not end well. After spending $10K on the processor, I spent another $5K to upgrade it.
The snake in snakeoil bit you in the butt. Wonder what kind of reception the above statements would receive over at ASR?
FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
as if an individual could fool himself everytime he trust himself and then must put his trust externally ...
The best way to fool himself for an individual and miss the Nobel prize is believing all that is taught everywhere ... Perhaps to Kuhn and Popper you must add Feyerabend for philosophy of science course...
Doubting is not self doubting first and using blind test as childish thinking from Amir indicate, it is doubting what is taught and experimenting with it to LEARN IT OR TO REFUTE IT by experience and trust in ourself ... We cannot do that all the time for sure , trust in others must be there as trust in ourself, but interpreting this quote out of context as never believing in our own ears and eyes is a more damaging attitude than trusting our ability to train ourself and trust ourself first not others even when we learn...
Tesla opposed his teachers at university who taught him that his electric motor idea was impossible... he did not trusted them but himself and created it after by solving all problems...
individuality and creativity is the root of science and philosophy NOT SELF DOUBT...Science is not the market arena of a circus...Barnum is not a genius in philosophy of science...And if a sucker is born everyday on earth, a genius is born everyday on earth too...
Loosing confidence in ourself and trusting others is the Key road to technocratic totalitarism, scientism, and any deep delusion created by the techno babbling people ...The death of thinking.,.
quote means something in a context :
when Feynmann created his solutions ad hoc to particules paths integrals...In spite of others advices ...
Then this quote means this : for being able to not fool himself a man must LEARN when it is right to trust himself and not others and vice versa when it is right to trust others not ouself...Not knowing that TIMING MOMENT explain why we are the easiest person to fool...
The quote is not a quote of a marketers as Amir or from a car or audio seller,or from Barnum saying a suckers is born everyday, A favorite quote of official "debunkers" sheeps objectivist crowds, it is from a scientist doubting himself and others BECAUSE he look for truth FOR HIMSELF first ...
Feynman for sure never recommend obedience to authorities as Amir or alleged authorities ask for , instead of trust in yourself...Thats is certain...
Prof you miss Feyerabend teachings in the philosophy of science course... 😊
@texbychoiceDidn’t even really catch that. Good eye. It’s a very subjective statement and one that isn’t even backed by Amir’s precious data. How the heck do you buy a processor and then spend that much money only to brick it? I’ve never heard of a product or company being so crappy. He must really not be hurting if he just doesn’t care about a $15,000 loss. Time to ask for more donations.
@amir_asrso room treatments do nothing? All of the producers and sound engineers who record with them to create less issues and surrounding booths with it so the vocals are clean don’t know what they are doing?? You can hear the difference. It’s night a day. You literally use a tool that mimics an anechoic chamber. You really have your head up your rear end.
Small room acoustic is not great Hall acoustic, or even studio recording acoustic.. These three are three completely different acoustic environtment for the goal we want to achieve...
These are completely different acoustical field of experience...You are wrong here, because you confuse small room acoustic and studio acoustic and great Hall acoustic ... Sorry .. Same physical acoustical Laws but completely different applications...Do you need a blind test to catch the deep difference in contextual applications ?
if i did not have adressed my small room by balance control of first reflection and diffusion and absorption, if i had not used a grid of Helmholtz resonators but only your DSP my room soundfield instead of being my greatest sound experience, so imperfect it was ,would have been horrible...
I am sure of two things just inspecting your room in a photo...Your sound potential clarity and transparency will be better than mine BECAUSE OF SUPERIOR COMPONENTS DESIGN at way higher cost , especially the speakers compared to mine...but your soundfield is probably not filling the room in a balanced way with for example in the opera recording of Kurt Weill TEST IT WITH HIS :
here the soundfield in my small room all along the album go from beside my ears as with headphone to all around me IN THE ROOM , behind and in front of the speakers, at different times , and distributed all around at some times, it is relative to each album moments...My SPEAKERS DISAPEARED TOTALLY... This recording is TOP recording for sure by a genius ... I know you dont listen classical but we must begin someday... 😊In my room the soundfield of my 600 bucks system will beat yours if i look at the atrocious way you treat your room acoustic ...And your speakers are better than mine with better frequencies responses.. bUt a soundfield is not created ONLY by frequencies responses, it is created by interaction with the room and the specific EARS of the owner... We dont have the same ears filters and structure and training history ,did you know that ? 😊
i am not an acoustician , i just experimented 7 days each week non stop for one year, because it was fun and it was my hobby being retired ..i learned a lot PRACTICALLY not only by reading equation by specialist and calling it done with a DSP , i experimented too ... By the way i used japanese research among books and papers,for example also Toole recommending using first reflection positively in SMALL ROOM about reflection and immersiveness to guide my experiments...
By the way it is related EXPERIMENTALLY , in each case differently, to the specific ACOUSTIC GEOMETRY (form) AND TOPOLOGY (doors+window) AND TO THE MATERIAL specific CONTENT OF THE ROOM and his acoustic properties (wood do not act as fabric clothes or animal skin etc) and it is then related after all that to TIME AND TIMING hearing and measures it is not related to your OPINION AT ALL and to your toys so useful it can be as a tool...
Contrary of what you said mocking those who informed themselves on the net ALL TOP RESEARCH PAPERS ARE ALL ACCESSIBLE FREE ON THE INTERNET for anybody with a brain...
I just argued with you about your ignorance in ecological hearing theory to balance Fourier theory and their relation to measures evaluation of qualities of sound reading among other papers an unpublished master thesis and papers i discover on the internet..
😊
In a nutshell, the most preferred treatment was no treatment
You are wrong here, because you confuse small room acoustic and studio acoustic and great Hall acoustic ... Sorry .. Same physical acoustical Laws completely different applications which must be discovered by some human ears of an acoustician and applied differently in each different acoustical environment...
If i had listened to you my small room would have been what it was in the beginning , horrible and atrocious, before i used my balance treatment with the right ratio and location between reflection/diffusion /absorption and before i used my MANY Helmholtz resonators mechanically adjustable and tuned resonators HOMEMADE distributed at critical location...... All that by my EARS..
No cost...I used garbage in my basement and i bought some tubes and cheap materials..
i am very proud of my room at the time...
i lost it...
And after 6 months of experiments and the right headphone i recreated a three D. room filling soundstage OUT OF THE HEAD, if the recording is good as in many CLASSICAL recording ... Studio recording did not gave the same spatial impressions..
Your friend is right and it is MY EXPERIENCE not by applying DSP but by experimenting:
The second issue not readily evident in the room response though there are some indications is the strong reflections from the very close side walls that will arrive both close in time and relatively high in power compared to the direct response. Yes it is correct that your speakers are well designed with smooth off axis response hence this won’t cause any weird tonal issues making assumptions about your wall materials, but back to the precedence effect, it will affect imaging, and while side wall reflections can make the image seem more expansive and the result pleasurable, when the wall is that close the result is invariably negative. You may not trust audiophile listening reports, but in similar situations, almost without exception where an audiophile was required to place their speakers near side walls, the addition of appropriate acoustic panels resulted in a significant perceived improvement. Anecdotally, you will not find a large professional studio with speakers placed that close to a side wall without use of acoustic treatments.
I won’t say it is universal, but it is almost universal that treatment of first reflections in a small rooms is recommended by professionals. Unfortunately, there has not been extensive research on this topic to draw on and what does exist is mainly around speech intelligibility, however, Brett Leonard in his PhD dissertation did some excellent work showing effects of a rather early intense reflections on perception and even the variability of that perception across music genres. Your position does not appear to be based on the fundamental science, available research, or professional recommendation.
@amir_asr so room treatments do nothing? All of the producers and sound engineers who record with them to create less issues and surrounding booths with it so the vocals are clean don’t know what they are doing?? You can hear the difference. It’s night a day.
No, room treatments do something. Just not what you think. This idea of copying what "pros" do in the process of creating music is why we are in such a mess. They forget the fallacy of appealing to authority and jump right in both feet.
You are taking it even a step further. What a single microphone picks up in a tiny vocal booth has absolutely nothing with you sitting back to listen to music in a much larger space with two ears and a brain. I am not a recording engineer but I imagine they want a dry recording of that vocal as to then embellish it with as much reverb in post as they need. That has nothing to do with what we do in our listening spaces.
There is this assumption also that if pros do something, it must be right. A pro creating music has expertise in that field, not in science of acoustics. They haven't gone to school to learn acoustics, not have they read massive body of literature on effects of reflections in room. They hire joe acoustician which does what the poster said above: "we need to treat the room" or at least the front if in the form of LEDE or "Environmental Room." Acoustic products are put all of the walls making the room look special. This impresses the client resulting in higher billing per hour.
To be sure, at high level, an empty room is too live to be usable for enjoyable of a lot of music. In that case, if you have a dedicated room like that, you do need to "treat" it. That can be with acoustic products or in my case, ordinary furnishings that perform a similar job, are not ugly and often are much cheaper.
The research I post above shows that even when it comes to getting work done (recording/mixing), the notion that an absorptive room is right was shown to be false. People in that space would do well to rethink what they are doing.
All of this was extensively discussed in the thread I linked to. There is no point you can bring up that was not addressed there with volumes of research, not opinion based on stuff you have read online. This is what we do at ASR. We discuss the science contrary to people who think we only "measure."
BTW, if you were listening to that singer, there is a good chance you would want no absorption in that booth. This hits on the proverbial person's voice sounding best in a shower!
You literally use a tool that mimics an anechoic chamber. You really have your head up your rear end.
The tool is designed to characterize a speaker independent of the space it is placed in. Otherwise, its measurements will be specific to that location so not transportable to others. Research shows that we can use the anechoic measurements of frequency response in 3-D space, combine that with statistical mean of reflections in a number of listening rooms, and predict, with high accuracy, what happens in such a room (above transition frequencies). I post this already:
See the title? "Estimated in-room response" which we formally call PIR (Predicted In-Room Response). This can even be used to predict listener preference although the formula can misfire.
Bottom line, don't go slapping mattresses all of your everyday room. It is not necessary and will uglify your room and likely not have the effect you think it will have. Your "aunt's" furniture will do just fine in providing some diffusion and carpets and such (if thick) provide good bit of absorption. Just get it to the point where talking in there is comfortable and you are golden (if you like, you can measure using RT60 and get in the range of 0.25 to 0.6 second for typical small room).
Quick, tell me what frequencies in this graph are room modes, and which are boundary issues?
The mere question indicates you don’t know what you are looking at. Hint: look at the measurement again. It says right there.
Oh really now. You mean this graph? I know exactly what it is showing. Do you? There are clear room modes in the response. There are clear boundary effects in the response (and not low frequency reinforcement which can be corrected). Do you know which is which? Can room correction fix this? No. Can acoustic panels fix this? Absolutely.
The graph below shows that the total number who preferred absorption or diffusion exceeded the number who preferred reflective. The only other conclusion is those that preferred reflective used a higher volume. After adaptation (3rd trial) the diffuse group referenced to a lower volume and worked faster than the other two groups.
Here is the thing, though, referencing this paper was a bit of a intentional trap. The only condition in that paper that applies to your side wall situation well is the baseline. The relative path distance of your first reflection off the side wall (at least on left) is probably at best 2 msec (and looks like less) and those speakers have wide dispersion. I do commend you on using different left/right toe-in to balance the sides, made possible by a speaker with good dispersion.
The majority of the Brad thesis looks at a much different scenario, where "first" reflections are 4 and 8 msec, not to mention large reflections from both left and right speaker from the safe reflecting surface. Those times are more indicative of speakers far from a side wall and also would never occur in a home environment. The primarily lateral reflections would also not be a case for a home environment and would behave differently upon interaction with torso/head/pinna. This is the problem when trying to apply the result of experiments with drastically different conditions. The results of the experiments indicate the potential for preference in a more reflective environment when the first reflections are larger in time, but given the primarily lateral reflections, even that conclusion is suspect. You know, science.
I know you are a fan of Toole. Most of us are. Review specifically what he said,
Chapter 6 shows that in normal rooms the first lateral reflections in rectangular rooms of normal listening and control room dimensions are above the threshold of audibility. They can be heard, but are below the threshold at which the precedence effect breaks down, so there is still a single localized image. They fall into a region where there are varying amounts of "image shift" - the image is either perceived to move slightly or to be stretched slightly in the direction of the reflection. I, and others, spent hours in anechoic chamber simulations of direct and reflected sounds and can confidently state that the effects, while audible in direct A vs. B comparisons, are rather subtle. Was it ever unpleasant? No, the apparent size and/or location of the sound image was just slightly changed. The effect was smaller than tilting the head a small distance left or right of precise stereo center. The dramatic change happened when the precedence effect broke down and two images were perceived – that was a problem. The strength and spectrum of any reflection depends on the strength and spectrum of the sound radiated in that specific direction by the loudspeaker, and by the frequency-dependent acoustical performance of the reflecting surface
I could quote more and reference his book, but in summary, nothing is perfect, use what you want (at first lateral reflection). That use what you want is critical, as not all listeners, or even audiophiles listen with the same goals and may not even listen with the same goals all the time. In a music space targeted at casual listening or for the more casual listeners in the household, a space with more side wall reflections has a high likelihood of being preferred. For those who are into critical listening, muting the sidewall reflections can sharpen perceived imaging leading to a higher preference. Are you a casual or critical listener Amir?
In terms of throwing out those "professionals", I would have to throw you out as well for your insistence on only your way when your luminaries don’t even say what you claim.
What is unfortunate is I agree with you far more often than not, but you like so many here let your ego get the better of you and you let that drive a need to be right to the point that you make poor use of the available science, drawing conclusions that are beyond what the science is able to reliably claim.
Toole (with others) did do testing on reflections, but even those had limited scope, and they were done in anechoic conditions which may have either amplified the effect or muted it. I personally would lean towards the former, but I can only lean, not state, as the data is not there.
One thing is clear, there are not volumes of research on this very specific topic of acoustic panels of diverse properties with the diverse speakers, or even on speakers with good dispersion properties, in listening rooms of diverse proportions. There is some research, sometimes somewhat related, the rare bit closely related and some that is only loosely related.
See the title? "Estimated in-room response" which we formally call PIR (Predicted In-Room Response). This can even be used to predict listener preference although the formula can misfire.
- This is the steady state response
- This is a spatially average response, not the response at a particular spot, in a particular room, with a particular set of speakers, placed in a particular spot, and with the listener at a particular spot.
Bottom line, don't go slapping mattresses all of your everyday room. It is not necessary and will uglify your room and likely not have the effect you think it will have.
Bottom line few are recommending that. As well, carpets only treat the floor and are narrow in absorption no matter how thick
The snake in snakeoil bit you in the butt. Wonder what kind of reception the above statements would receive over at ASR?
Snake oil? No way. Benefits of Room EQ is proven conclusively. There is no snake oil involved. Performing this across 8 channel 20 years ago was expensive. Fortunately it is not today. Here is a nice paper to read on power of EQ in fixing room response:
Three systems beat no EQ (dashed black) in controlled listening tests. Notice the peaking in bass response of the no-EQ system. If you care about high fidelity and you have that in your room, I don't know what to tell you. You can get variations as much as 25 dB in bass without equalization!
Above is not a surprise by any regular menbers and readers at ASR as many deploy EQ just the same. Yes, it took some explaining and repeating for even our crowd there to get it but it is the consensus view.
Bottom line: the first step in creating any performant audio system is to figure out how you are going to perform equalization.
Oh really now. You mean this graph? I know exactly what it is showing. Do you? There are clear room modes in the response. There are clear boundary effects in the response (and not low frequency reinforcement which can be corrected). Do you know which is which? Can room correction fix this? No. Can acoustic panels fix this? Absolutely.
No. The graph cannot be used to determine modal response or SBR. It is absolutely the wrong presentation for that use. Again, it says so right on the graph what it is for. I only post it because that is the shot you were seeing on the computer monitor, not because it is suitable for the purpose you are asking about.
No. The graph cannot be used to determine modal response or SBR. It is absolutely the wrong presentation for that use. Again, it says so right on the graph what it is for. I only post it because that is the shot you were seeing on the computer monitor, not because it is suitable for the purpose you are asking about.
The graph on its own cannot, but we also know the speakers and with enough accuracy the speaker placement as I noted we had your system image. Look at that graph, now go do a bunch of measurements on your speakers and their relationships to the walls and your room dimensions, calculate 1/2 and 1/4 wavelengths then start relating multiples of those numbers to your graphs. Science, not conjecture.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
....