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.
You spoke to me as if i was a child and not really there adressing a crowd and as if i did not do it already with complete success... You are right on one point, it takes me one year of tuning non stop ... It was very fun but very complex... By the way it COST ME NOTHING.... I
I don't know what you know or have done. I am not a mind reader. You asked me "what I think of Helmholtz resonators" and I answered.
As to you having deployed that, these tuned products are designed to solve a specific problem with a very specific solution. The only way to know both of those components is with high resolution measurements of bass frequencies. You have not provided anything of the sort. For all we know, you may not have had the problem you thought you had, nor solved it the way you think you have.
I have had people report building these things, deploying them, and unlike you, measuring them only to see that they don't do much of anything for them.
And that statement about costing nothing is absurd. Even if you built it yourself, there is material cost. The thing doesn't materialize itself out of thin air, pun intended.
Are you playing with me ? why deforming my thinking ?
I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time... You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them...
You proved you know little in acoustic because you never done it yourself... using EQ is not an acoustically "tour de force"...
State for me the fundamental problem in psycho-acoustic and show me your deep understanding ...
You never did it a bit in the last 5 days... 😊
What is even more comical is thinking any of those disciplines teach you anything about acoustic science. My piano teacher doesn’t know a tweeter from a woofer.
What astonish me with your arrogance and despise for audiophiles here, is not what you say, it is the fact you are not even conscious that anybody reading your posts with a brain know you know NOTHING in psycho-aqcoustic save the tools instruction manual of your psycho-aqcoustic costly toys..
you dont impress me and me, apart my acoustic experments, i am a nobody in audio .. I learned how to listen tough... Try to tune your room from your basement plumber and house discarded materials and come back to show me the soundfield results ? We will see if you had digested Toole information as more than ABSTRACT recipe ... I know designer here who i read and i KNOW that they KNOW what they speak about... They dont play boss..
That’s a hell of an investment. $100k on a measurement system as opposed to $100k on a system. Whatever boat you float….
I am thankful and fortunate enough to have both. Didn't you see the picture of my system earlier?
You only have audio as a music hobby. I also have it as a hobby when it comes to discovery of performance of those systems and sharing them with others. The joy that comes from that easily rivals if not beat listening to music. Take today's review, the superbly designed Neumann KH120 II Studio Monitor:
Check out its frequency response:
Absolutely stunning. It is nearly as flat as audio electronics yet what you see is an electromechanical device. Read the comments and see the level of appreciation and tell me doing this review didn't bring joy to my heart.
it is comical if you realize there is top musicians here, designer engineers and others very informed people about all aspects of audio...
What is even more comical is thinking any of those disciplines teach you anything about acoustic science. My piano teacher doesn't know a tweeter from a woofer. A design engineer is taught how to put electronic circuits together, not deal with psychoacoustics of sound in a room. As to other "informed people," I don't know who they are and what their qualifications are if they are hiding behind aliases.
Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.
Do a bit a research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding, of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.
A rewind:
It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.
It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.
*heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
OR, two:
The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (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. THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!
Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.
At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.
But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.
They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.
Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).
Solid State amps?
OOPS (back to tubes)!
Your Smart Phone?
FA'GET ABOUT IT!
Your car's GPS?
NOPE!
Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.
Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?
*Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.
Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.
But, I digress:
Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?
Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their beliefs, education, experience and biases
Remember this?.
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.
Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda.
There is more to audio life than proving 1+1 = 2. You have that part down pat. Think harder problems.
Oh, I think of the hard problems. I have purchased $100K speaker measurement system and put up with schlepping around these heavy boxes around to test them to solve that hard problem. I also spent years educating myself on acoustic science. I suggest you stop trivializing the topic and leading people to screw up the sound and look of their rooms.
That’s a hell of an investment. $100k on a measurement system as opposed to $100k on a system. Whatever boat you float….
Tuned resonators are a bad idea for any unskilled audiophiles to dabble in. They are very narrowband and their response can be screwed up easily in construction. Measurements to tease out the specific frequencies you need to deploy them can be difficult (due to multiple axis resonances can occur).
A single PEQ filter can solve the same problem and lower distortion of the speaker to boot.
Net, net: don’t do it.
You spoke to me as if i was a child and not really there adressing a crowd and as if i did not do it already with complete success... You are right on one point, it takes me one year of tuning non stop ... It was very fun but very complex... By the way it COST ME NOTHING.... I did it for two reasons :
it was the more fun experience ever in audio ... Upgrading pleasure related to a component dont even compared in fun and upgrading power..
You cannot KNOW IT by reading Toole by the way ,formula are only that : formulas in a book ....This is learned by DOING it...
You are right about a point though, it is so long to do and ask for so many listenings experiments to do it right that i did not recommend it save to someone who want to train his ears and learn dedicated small room acoustic at all cost and retired because i cannot imagine doing it in the evening after works in a living room 😊..
it was really fun... Each day a new problem arise... Each day i was partially satisfied and frustrated, i searched the timbre problem and how to solve it...It was a slow incremental process like tuning a piano but on one year time ...
There is also more to say as how to distribute the Hemholtz grid around the room to increase the speakers frequencies response on some band to compensate for the room , because the speakers had his frequencies response and the room too but i will not be able to describe that here...Anyway it is not useful save if someone want to experiment... No speakers is the same and no room either... The main problem was creating a timbre experience right, the second was at the same time creating the right ratio relating sound sources positions and dimensions and the listener position , it is called ASW/LV... japanese acoustians research was inspiring and useful for me here...
The reason i did not like your attitude now is because you never spoke to me really, you adressed the crowd reading the posts and you swim to keep your face clean, drowning the fish ... You had no good faith in this discussion ... It is my conclusion... or if you were of goode faith, you are completely ignorant out of your tools manual of use... I dont know.. Anybody reading my posts and your answers can figure it out for himself ...
But listening to people online about acoustic science will absolutely lead to screwing up the sound in your room. Don’t do it. Don’t listen to these people.
it is comical if you realize there is top musicians here, designer engineers and others very informed people about all aspects of audio... i dont put myself in this group ... I only know how to read...And i make a few experiments..
You adress grown up as if they were all children...
Why could you not imagine that some if not many here can read and interpret and experiment with ACCURATE principle and information ?
I know for sure a few things about you :
You are able to read and interpet the dials and maps of your toys tools..Thanks for the information...
You dont know how to create "immersiveness in a room...because it is not a simple recipe precisely with the furniture ... It is related to a complex set of factors you NEVER adress...it is not a sin...Most people cannot adress it in a living room, i never could either...But why then disparaging small room acoustic ? You suffer from tool idolatry perhaps...
You have no cue about hearing theories and their relation to measures interpretation in a fundamental way...Sorry... In all this pages you have been unable to set one argument about that... i am not even sure if you understand the basic problem...
Your site has many good aspects but alas! is insuferable if some dare to post there with a different take on hearing and measures than the groupies around you entertain... I know because i read an thread dialogue between a designer and some of your groupies...This designer was a "saint"... Or a very wise man , unlike me, conscious that debating with someone unable to figure out crucial points is of no interest...
Then thanks for the set of measures...But i will keep friends here, i am not interested by a discussion on ASR as the one i had with you with ZERO argument coming from you about my central point in hearing theory and measures set...
i will read only on ASR some useful information like Dr. Choueri discussion...
That's what happens when a bias causes you to ignore stuff that isn't supporting your current interpretation. I mentioned it more than once after posting.
Where do you think i get ideas about Helmholtz resonators ?
Tuned resonators are a bad idea for any unskilled audiophiles to dabble in. They are very narrowband and their response can be screwed up easily in construction. Measurements to tease out the specific frequencies you need to deploy them can be difficult (due to multiple axis resonances can occur).
A single PEQ filter can solve the same problem and lower distortion of the speaker to boot.
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.
Oh, you are going to convince yourself that you are happy after spending all that time online reading incorrect information, buying and slapping those things on your walls. And as long as upstanding citizens like you encourage them to think that way, they will be starving their ears for good sound.
The wrong information about room acoustics is so entrenched online that it takes incredible amount of effort to finally shake someone to rethink their assumptions/knowledge. To wit, it took more than 1,600 post in the acoustic thread on ASR to get that to happen:
Hmmm...not sure how to start this post. I wish I had better writing skills and knowledge of English. Please bare with me and let me try.
I feel like a Neo in Matrix where @amirm is Morpheus and he's offering a blue pill in one hand (absorption on the side walls) and a red pill in the other (no side wall treatments). After all Amir's efforts in this thread, I decided to say fuc*@ and take a red pill. LOL.
Well after I got unplugged from Matrix and first puke, I was sitting in my listening chair in disbelief at what I just heard. I was not sure what to expect but I prepared myself for the precise imaging to be gone or at least affected to some degree and to be bothered with extra brightness. To my surprise, imaging was still there, the sound stage was bigger and (for lack of a better word) the overall presentation was more natural. Oops, Gulp, what now?
Look, I don't care if you go and spend $2,000 on a USB cable. That is not going to degrade your sound. But listening to people online about acoustic science will absolutely lead to screwing up the sound in your room. Don't do it. Don't listen to these people.
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.
A picture IS worth a thousand words and can be amusingly appropriate.
Kinda like satire in an image. Some of the best political commentary comes from cartoons.
@mitch2I have not objected to the science on ASR. It's sound and I find no issue with it. What I take issue with is the interpolation of said aforementioned data as gospel and all that really matters when determining a quality component. It would be like doing a psychological study of medication on the body. Measuring the physical effects and not asking the participants what their experience was like. Or telling people to go buy a Tesla model 3 because it outperforms or matches another car like the m5 in performance and technical specs. The driving experience will be different and just because something is good on paper doesnt mean it translates.
@profShow me where you object to anything Amir has said? All I see is soft pedaling and brown nosing.
The snake oil discussion I linked to, in it someone directed peoples attention to a 600 thousand dollar Magico speaker saying it was basically snake oil. Some corrected him, but this is very common. There is another discussion on ASR just about extreme snake oil and someone linked to a million dollar system. More often than not, high prices are synonymous with bad. How can someone afford it? The blame and shame shift to anyone who would be dumb enough to buy such a product. All of this without ever having heard it, and wait for it, or testing it scientifically or otherwise.
I agree there is a lot of pseudo science out there, and I applaud ASR for helping people sort out what is bogus and what is real. However when that tips the scale where Amir is tipping it, it becomes just as bad as the people who say buy my crystal cable holders to improve your sound. Tossing out the experience of audio, which is what many people want is not productive. Ive had studio engineers in my space, and been to many production facilities. All recommended bass traps as standard basic treatment as most rooms encounter bass bumps. Cardioid and dutch and dutch use their physical designs to avoid room problems and then further smooth it out with eq.
From the dutch and dutch guide:
"These room resonances can be attenuated by means of acoustical treatment in the form of bass traps. With the 8c, one also has the possibility to do a low-frequency equalization in the 8c to compensate for the effect of the room resonances and obtain an equalized, i.e. “flatter”, low-frequency response in the listening area."
Measurements have their place. BUT, your ears should be the ultimate arbiter of whether a component is right for you. Many components that measure great sound like cr*p, and vice versa.
Amir made a point that audiophiles driven to do things like that cable lifter seem more indicative of cult-like thinking than those that appeal to more objective evidence - offering data for critical scrutiny and debate by others - such as he posted.
You could rebut his point, but of course using the word "trolling" is always easier, isn’t it?
Do you know that every scholars research is available on the internet ?
On the Internet? What does that have to do with anything? For the record, vast majority of research into acoustic science is NOT on the internet. Papers are behind paywalls at AES, ASA, etc. I am a member so get access. If you want an extremely cogent synopsis of them for almost nothing, again, buy Dr. Toole's book.
Amir give us something positive... Nobody can deny that... ASR is useful... Once this is said ...
By Jove! he must return to school in the evening 😉...Learn how to read a text... Learn why philosophical question matter to understand the relation between technology and science...I suggest Feyerabend ...
And learn in psychology course that you can isolate some bias but you cannot erase all biases and you cannot make all biases negative or positive... Biases are not only prejudices they can be the results of training...Biases must be controlled and became conscious not eliminated...
Do you know that placebo effect and nocebo effect can be observed WORKING REALLY and EFFECTIVE exactly as benzodiazepin drug for example in the same nervous system zone under pet scan imagery ? Then trusting you ears induce in training something positive or very negative if you think you are ONLY the prey of illusions... the ears mut not be believed, it must be trained.. i learned that this week listening the best virologist in the world...
Than those who negate to classical musicians and to acoustician or to well trained mmusic lover any competence in hearing ability are IGNORANT ...They call that hard acquired gift a pretense : "golden ears"
Those who want to shame you because you trust your ears are ignorant ... They ev en dont know how to serach for serious papers on the net it seems.. 😊
Amir made a point that audiophiles driven to do things like that cable lifter seem more indicative of cult-like thinking than those that appeal to more objective evidence - offering data for critical scrutiny and debate by others - such as he posted.
You could rebut his point, but of course using the word "trolling" is always easier, isn’t it?
Fortunately subjectively is not as bad as it seems (due to bandwidth of our auditory filters). Still, there is no reason to put up with such a response (and distortion) when there are plenty of superior choices at those price points.
This was my conclusion:
Conclusions
The Tannoy Revolution XT 6 brings distinct looks to a crowded market which I liked. Objectively though, the coaxial design brought with it a choppy and uneven frequency response which research and my experience shows to not be good. Fortunately the audible effect is not severe. What is severe is level of measured distortion. This distortion in my opinion is audible and serves to produce a distorted sound. Fortunately careful EQ seems to deal with them but then wind up with so many patches to get the speaker to sound right. The designer should have done this, not us.
So overall, I can't recommend the Tannoy XT 6.
Bottom line, don't run with concepts such as coaxial. Insist on measurements to show efficacy.
Good faith means you are able to repeat the opposite side arguments as they stated it...No ad hominem attacks and no caricature...
Here a caricature with an appeal to an affective reaction instead of a rational thinking...
Bottom like, get speakers that are well designed, do some EQ for low frequencies where acoustic products have little prayer of fixing issues there, put standard furnishing if this is an everyday room, and start enjoying your music.
What about Helmholtz resonators for taming the bass ?
What is a well designed speakers ? Is Tannoy dual concentric bad design ? They sound way less good in my living room than my Mission Cyrus in a better acoustic environment.. Guess why ?
Do NOT listen to people claiming expertise based on stuff they have read online.
Do you know that every scholars research is available on the internet ?
Even doctorate thesis in acoustic ?
is this observation include ASR or just audiogon ?
And certainly don’t let them shame you into throwing blankets on the wall or else your system sounds like "crap." They don’t know what they are saying.
You are right here... I will only add, dont let them shame you because you use your ears not only measures and trust your ears to experiment and pick you gear... Because those techno babble measuring zealots they dont know that a set of measures describe SOME ASPECTS ONLY OF the design and cannot alone predict "musical qualities" ...As demonstrated Amir , they dont even know what hearing theory science is and why a debate exist there and what is at stake..
And for those who use technology to DEBUNK not to design , so useful it can be, the adjective "musical quality" which can made sense for a craftmanship designer of amplifier using psycho-acoustic concepts about distortion and the non linear working of the ears, this adjective suddenly is a word devoid of simple numbers meanings on their limited set of dials..Guess why ?
Amir, what of the fact that all along, you have only been measuring just the electrical half of electromagnetism. Can you explain the loss of logic in basing your entire belief system on that?
Huh? What do you call speaker and headphone testing? Devoid of magnetism? How do they make sound then (putting aside electrostatics and such).
Power supplies in audio gear use transformers so their magnetic properties are also encapsulated in the overall performance of a device.
The ending of that sentence is key: don't try to get ahead of the train. As an audiophile, your only concern should be what comes out of your audio gear. Not how some physical theory acts on the design of said equipment. You don't listen to that phenomenon.
One thing about "science" in these discussions. Much of what we want to convey has nothing to do with "science." Ordinary engineering knowledge and methods are more than adequate to prove or disprove marketing claims or fidelity. Equipment is said to have darker background and hence, lower noise floor. Well, we can trivially measure that and we do that day in and day out at ASR. We do not need to invoke "science" in that.
When we do use science, it is not in the process of creating more of it. Example: more than four decades of scientific research shows that speakers that are most preferred are the ones with on axis and smooth off-axis (not flat). So we measure those parameters and get to use science to predict what sounds good to us.
Sadly, the word science is being used as a weapon in these discussions. Folks claim that "science says it doesn't know everything" so we should pretend we know nothing about how a piece of wire works. Well, no, again, we are not attempting to create science. Simple testing shows whether said wire does something good, nothing, or makes things worse. Science doesn't get involved or invoked in that.
Much of what audiophiles worry about is subject of any scientific research. Why? Because such research is not deemed necessary. We know the answers. We don't need to keep looking for an alternative.
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.
We got here because someone claimed I must not have good enough equipment to hear the difference between cables. So I grab a picture I happen to have of my room and post if that is good enough. Neither that poster, or another who came to his defense would answer that. So let's agree that the system was good enough and the claim that the system was the problem was fallacious.
Folks then tried to deflect by claiming that my room must sound like crap. Why? Because they saw no acoustic products in there. I explained that ordinary room furnishings can act as acoustic products and that if you have a speaker with excellent directivity, above modal region, there is not much of an issue. And that the focus must be to deal with the modal response first and foremost as that is a constant in every room.
Importantly, I made no statement about superiority of furnishings relative to acoustic products. I did note that audiophiles tend to not understand room acoustics and slap these things everywhere on their walls and ceilings, and then start to shame others who don't have them. This is just wrong. This is a complex field and doesn't yield itself to such approach.
You then chimed in claiming this:
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 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. Ergo, the claim that "almost universal that treatment of first reflections in a small rooms is recommended by professionals" is also misinformed.
This led to this admission:
Here is the thing, though, referencing this paper was a bit of a intentional trap.
If you don't mind, we rather have a proper discussion here than laying "intentional trap" for readers.
Back to your claim, I have repeatedly said that acoustic products are likely a good choice for a dedicated room. If you know what you are doing of course they can be used. What makes room furnishing superior is this:
1. Often they cost nothing. Acoustic products can get quite expensive. Yes, you can DIY them to save money but that is miserable work and at any rate, still cost more than decorating the way you like to live and look.
2. Ordinary furnishings look nice and don't create conflict with others living in the same household.
These are hugely important benefits to audiophiles. Not necessarily on acoustic front but from point of view of deployment.
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.
Bottom like, get speakers that are well designed, do some EQ for low frequencies where acoustic products have little prayer of fixing issues there, put standard furnishing if this is an everyday room, and start enjoying your music. Do NOT listen to people claiming expertise based on stuff they have read online. And certainly don't let them shame you into throwing blankets on the wall or else your system sounds like "crap." They don't know what they are saying.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."
And now, the REST of the story:
More in context:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. "
Dr Feynman was speaking at Caltech (CIT), in 1974, on the subject of Cargo Cult Science. No: I didn't make it to that one (not my commencement).
For anyone actually interested in HIS thoughts and WHY* he felt it necessary, to spend valuable time lecturing a body of future scientists on the topic, following are some verbatim excerpts.
Preceding the infamous quote:
"I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."
"We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science."
The sentence after the (more in context) quote, above:
"I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
Further on:
One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of result. For example—let’s take advertising again—suppose some particular cigarette has some particular property, like low nicotine. It’s published widely by the company that this means it is good for you—they don’t say, for instance, that the tars are a different proportion, or that something else is the matter with the cigarette. In other words, publication probability depends upon the answer. That should not be done."
Betwixt the above quotes and before concluding with this, he gives many examples (skipped, in deference to the limited attention spans, extant):
"So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. May I also give you one last bit of advice: Never say that you’ll give a talk unless you know clearly what you’re going to talk about and more or less what you’re going to say."
For any interested- the full the address given, here:
Incredible that some people after reading dont understand that everyone welcome his set of measures... At least me...Even more, ASR present also some informative discussion...
I thank Amir 16 times for that... Who among you thank him 16 times ?
But his ideology about measures, supported by some zealots, stating on the basis of mainly the small set of linear measures taken by him did not make any sense for PREDICTINGAUDIBLE MUISICAL qualities of components then are useful to verify official specs, some engineering design problems and help for synergetic pairings... THATS ALL... The word qualitative "musical" did not have even meaning for him...
You must trust your ears to pick a component or judging it...You must trust measures to pass over the worst design and coupled it optimally with other components.. Is it a mystery to understand ?
I explained why this is so with basic psycho-acoustic... Amir had not ansd cannot contradict me... he only distorted the 10 articles i suggest, use ad hominem attacks against 2 physicists... And never adress the problem of the link between gear measures and deesign and the hearing theory context...
i attacked his good faith ONLY after his behaviour convince me , he did not understand what is at stake or does not want to...
There is very knowleadgeable people in Audio here and on any audio sites ASR included..
But there is there and here too techno babble ignorant who use technology without understanding his relation to psycho-acoustic basic...
And there it is, one of the ASR faithful has joined the effort to hijack Audiogon. The day to day content on ASR is exactly why the hypocrisy is being called out.
Please stop with the cheap attempts to pigeonhole rather than produce intelligent arguments.
I’ve been an Agon forum member years before I ever joined ASR. I’m a member of all types of forums, Steve Hoffman, AVScience forum, What’s Best forum, long time Audio Asylum member, etc.
I’ve been discussing gear here in a "subjective" context for many years but also anyone who knows me knows I have defended the relevance of measurements and science to audio claims as well. Well before I joined ASR. So it’s hardly like I’ve been sent to hijack a thread. (Where of course "hi-jack" in your terms would mean "not letting us produce any b.s. and insults we want, without pushback").
Once again, the cult like mantra appears - Amir is right, everyone else is wrong.
Again...facile insults in place of actually trying to understand what someone has said.
Not once, ever, in this thread or anywhere else have I even implied "Amir is always right, everyone else is wrong." I’ve been explicit that isn’t the case! Did you still miss my critique IN THIS VERY THREAD of Amir’s post in this very which I argued was too dogmatic? I critique Amir on his site, so do plenty of ASR members. Your lazily throwing around labels like "cult" is not helping your credibility. Instead you are feeding in to stereotypes about people on this site - stereotypes about not having strong evidence against Amir’s claims, and so resorting to empty insults instead. Fortunately that doesn’t represent most on this site, but you seem bent on exemplifying this behavior.
Once again, I’m not saying "Amir is always right" but rather, if he’s pointing to empirical/measurable evidence for his claims, it’s best to up your game from insults and assertions to bringing strong evidence against his case.
And I’m just pointing out b.s. characterizations of a forum I know well, when I see them in this thread. For instance:
@texbychoice
ASR routinely labels anything "expensive" as snake oil when there is a cheap ASR endorsed option, regardless of real or perceived performance difference.
somethingsomethingaudio
07-12-2023 at 12:51am
@prof Okay your call. I was responding to what you said. My point remains that people on ASR call products snake oil based on their expensive price. All day long.
Both you guys claimed ASR routinely declares claims/gear "snake oil" simply based on high prices, and that is flatly wrong. I’ve argued that is NOT "typical" of how people apply the term on ASR. As I said, a search for "snake oil" on ASR will demonstrate my claim to be true.
And somethingsomethingaudio searched, found an ASR thread discussing what snake oil means, and completely ignored that it demonstrated he was wrong and I was correct: that vast majority of replies - making it "typical" - put snake oil as some version of a product "not doing what the product claims it can do," not mere "high price." somethingsomethingaudio had to ignore all that and hunt and peck for one example where he *thought* contradicted this. But that he had to choose that out of all the other posts, just shows I was right about what is the "typical" view on ASR. And it didn’t even turn out to support his point, as Amir pointed out.
So, yeah, you guys are spouting some real nonsense about ASR, and you are being called on it. Characterizing this as "hi-jacking" is weak tea when you are caught being lazy or disingenuous in your claims.
I am confused about this thread. Two things that jump out at me are first, that Amir seems to be trying to keep the discussion mostly on-point and related to the science behind his opinions, and second, that a vocal few here would rather jump to name-calling and disparaging remarks than debate the science. I have never seen a reviewer so called out for every single word they write and every opinion they hold as has happened on this thread.
The equipment Amir has issues with seems to mostly fall into two categories: either the measurements do not corroborate the manufacturer’s specifications or claims, or the equipment is priced higher than comparable equipment that measures at least as well as the reviewed piece. That doesn't mean it will sound better to everyone since IMO, measurements alone cannot account for the impression an individual will have about how something sounds. I can’t understand why there is so much concern and animosity over Amir’s personal opinions about reviewed equipment, since we all have our own opinions. If you generally don't agree with Amir's opinions, so what, simply don't read ASR. If his measurements were inaccurate or erroneous, wouldn’t the manufacturers be calling him out? I just don’t understand what he is doing that creates the level of concern displayed in this thread.
Understanding is a wonderful thing but unfortunately little of that is happening here. At least with the heavy posters. Most probably just read this thread and roll their eyes because they actually get it and therefore could care less what other people think.
Being disingenuous to feign incredulity, no intellectual dishonesty to found in this thread. Or, is it really a case of I did not understand what was actually meant, to the outside observer it is the same result.
They clearly put magico in the rip off snake oil category. I was illustrating to @profhow snake oil isn’t just used with the definition he stated on ASR. That snake oil is at times synonymous with rip off or expensive.
@texbychoice its truly mind boggling. I’m experiencing hive mind not for the first time but with such vigor. I don’t have a dog in this fight. You’re right Amir. I don’t subscribe to any religious view of audio or audio equipment. I use research, data, my ears and instinct. I’m a free thinker and trust audio professionals who make music say in and day out.
I will say it again because it’s worth repeating. Science and religion are two sides of the same outcome. We want to know the unknowable. Science gets it wrong all the time. So does trying to distill the unknown in a church. But what remains important is seeking that out. Learning and remaining interesting in the possibilities. Go look at psychology and how addiction has been treated over the years. They would give opium patients heroin. Doctors did that. Men of science. You have your head in the sand. Being adaptable is important.
I’ve never seen anyone staple mattresses to the wall
Someone saying that small room acoustic is not good or something to even consider is so ignorant, apart from hearing theory ignorance, that i am speechless.😁
i know nothing... I experimented a bit ...But i am able to read Toole book or some others and think by myself... Toole did not have the time and taste to transform his living room in an acoustic laboratory; it was his work day job, and he must be married, you know what i means ?
But this does not means that passive materials treatment with a good ratio between diffusion/reflection/absorbtion and timing , large band mechanical controls of the room with Helmholtz principles and a bit of frequencies refined electronical equalization are not ALL complementary...They may give so astounding results that no acoustician is an obsessed upgrading fools.. They know how to extract the best sounds from any relatively good gear...
A journalist asked to perhaps the greatest pianist of the century why he does not have a piano in his living room, he answered with humor, no mechanics keep their tools in the living room...I dont think Toole was different... And he know very well the difference between great hall acoustic, and studio acoustic, and living room acoustic and acoustically dedicated small listening room .. Same physical laws , but completely different applications..
@mapmaneasy to slay when many just act in bad faith.
@prof, your arguments are mainly sound, but one of Feynman’s points you keep referencing, The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, also applied to Amir.
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. This is not true. There is very little research specific to home listening and room treatment across a range of other variables including what treatments, what speakers, etc. There is some modestly direct research with limited variable adjustment and limited listening panel. There is some anechoic work on specific properties. There is adjacent but not direct research that cannot be directly applied unless the conditions are similar.
As I noted above, that research indicates that specific application can result in specific improvements that can be interpreted as technically superior, even if not as preferred. A bit of cognitive dissonance to insist on electrical purity (absent evidence to prove preference across use cases and type of deviation) while accepting subjectively superior based on what is limited direct research and use cases.
That is furthered with the straw-man argument about mattresses all over the walls and other hyperboles about acoustic treatment as if the only binary options are no treatments and bad treatment. That is further illustration of bias.
I made the point of the Lyngdorf graph and system photos together indicating boundary issues which was casually dismissed though clearly there to someone who has experience with room measurements and the causes. This is something that can be addressed with specific implementations. Not stapling mattresses to the wall.
As concluded by Toole and others (not so much specifically researched), controlled lateral reflections can be better or worse, depending on the person, music, use case, etc. While anecdotal experience is not research, there is strong indications from professionals not prone to hyperbole that dynamic monopole speakers close to the side walls will produce a result that many audiophiles, including those who prefer critical listening, will likely not prefer and that this can be addressed with acoustics.
Even hyperbole about massive amounts of velocity absorbers will not fix deep bass in a small room while correct, is not helpful, as no acoustic professional would even attempt that (nor would most audiophiles) as they are well aware it will not. They will use other products and means to reduce the peaks and valleys of room modes and may or may not include room correction, though professionals would almost as a rule recommend it as it not only corrects level issues but can assist in time (reverb) issues depending on implementation.
There are enough misconceptions in audio based on either no science or limited science. I don’t think we need any new ones.
It was what led to Room EQ eventually becoming standard in every AV processor or Receiver you buy today.
This is probably hyperbole. It was a great product for its time, but pioneering work at B&W is probably what kick started room correction.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
What does it means for hearing theories if we pounder this deep quote...
The problem-solutions in a field of study is the passage from one level to the next in a deeper spiralling wheel at each steps...
What does this means for hearing ?
Hearing is related to the way human produced sounds with their body and to the way evolution tuned together the perception of sound which is at the same time the child and the father of the gesturing body which is in a constant resonant synchronized relation with the various natural sound sources as INFORMATIVE AFFORDANCES as called them J. J. Gibson , or concrete qualities, around him at each step of the evolution spiralling wheel ...
When we separate now artificially in a laboratory the perception of QUALIFIED sound in an abstract theory ( Fourier MAPS of abstract linear factors : frequencies, amplitude, phase, duration ) we loose the dynamic link with the NATURAL way to produce sound by gesture of the body members and mouth in the real world ...Then we are at lost to explain concrete qualities of sound in music and speech and in natural environment by only the linear composition of abstract factors...the map become confused with the territory...
Where are concrete factors of hearing ? They are the physical qualitative invariant in the vibrating sound sources we learned by evolution to accurately predict and analyse in the time dependant domain where we live and in a non linear way...
Then uniting together the separate abstract factors of Fourier analysis with the concrete ecological and physical invariants linked to real qualities perceived in the real world we can solve the acoustic problem at the level where it emerge after Helmholtz and Fourier to the next level : a complex synthesis of new proposed set of experiments in the ecological environment where sound are perceived and produced since the beginning...This is the Magnasco and Oppenheim proposition and conclusion after 60 years of experiments in this direction..
Staying at the level of the problem, confusing our tools with the solution to the problem of hearing is non sense scientifically... With Amir it is marketing ideology of tools... He does not even recognize the terms of the problem confusing the Fourier maps with the hearing concrete territory ... The solution stay invisible for him ...There is even not a problem in psycho-acoustic for Amir deluded as it is with his tools-toys...
«The separation between philosophy and science exist only for bad engineers, imagination is the father and the child of thinking »Anonymus Einstein reader
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.Knowledge is limited.Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein
I have over 5,000 posts on ASR. How many do you have in terms of actual familiarity with day to day content?
And there it is, one of the ASR faithful has joined the effort to hijack Audiogon. The day to day content on ASR is exactly why the hypocrisy is being called out.
Stop spreading misinformation, and then maybe Amir won't have to spend his time showing up to correct it.
Once again, the cult like mantra appears - Amir is right, everyone else is wrong. Is that pile of backlogged equipment to measure getting any smaller?
If Amir really thinks correction is needed then allow discussion on ASR as on display here. Oh no, sorry, that would not work. Only group think allowed on ASR, so Audiogon is now the soapbox for Amir.
Our mission at ASR Forum is to see if a product is well engineered or not.
It will be perfectly weel if it was the case...
But ASR impose through a fanatics kernel of techno babble groupies of him what are the NORM of engineering that will produce REAL sound qualities, the so called "transparency" with no distortions... To do so they negate the ears/brain real working ways , non linear and time dependant, and they bashed and attacked a well known competent designer using basic psycho-acoustic facts about the way we perceived harmonics signals and accused him bluntly to create BAD DESIGN to please deluded audiophiles...Incredible arrogance coupled to complete ignorance...
Amir called this dogmatic ignorance about psycho-acoustic , science...
And me, who tuned my room using my ears learning concretely acoustic, i am supposed to be the deluded one...😊
No one deny there is information on ASR and useful one...No one deny there is balanced mind people on ASR not only Amir groupies ...
No one can deny there is also a basic dogmatic ignorance of elementary psycho-acoustic pushed as SCIENCE, because they use some set of measuring tools..
By the way, i did not used only material treatment with the right ratio for reflective/absorbing/diffusive surface and volume, i created my own large band MECHANICHAL equaliser with one hundred distributed tuned Helmholtz resonators all around critical spots in the room... I used equalization in my own way with SUCCESS...No cost...
Am i deluded ? Yes for Amir...
He read Toole book but never apply it... He trust only tools not his ears...
He think the brain /ears work like a Fourier computer...
He really claim all the phisicists i used to explain all my points were deluded, incompetent or they are as Van Maanen gear seller...
Bad faith at his top expression...
Not a SINGLE argument to counter the fact that we need a non linear and time dependant theory of hearing for interpreting sound qualities real meanings in an ecological theory of hearing and to MEASURE the limits of our Fourier tools themselves ... it is WHY any acoustician know that the Fourier hearing theory need to be complemented by an ecological hearing Theory... Amir does not know how to spell e-c-o-l-o-g-i-ca-l ... 😊 He never wrote this word to counter it with an argument...
read all his posts...
He sell his tools and site ideology...nothing else...
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.
