Most rooms don’t need acoustical treatment.

Not sure I agree with you there- that it doesn't matter.  While its true those of us without direct studio or live music experience have an extreme challenge knowing for certain what is sonically  "correct", I think the goal of many audiophiles is a piano needs to sound like a piano.  Many of us have heard a real ones so not the impossible target. 

Some room treatments are ill advised and don't help, but it is true that the speaker and room are a bonded pair.  One influences the other in more ways than most understand including most manufacturers.  The science of acoustics and sound is not simple, easy to explain or linear.  Just trying to explain a decibel gives most us a brain freeze, and the entire subject of how a the environment influences a speaker can be a lifetime of study.  It truly is a rubik's cube.

@deep_333

It is kinda funny when guys spend thousands of dollars on power cables and such, but refuse to spend a dime on the room.

If we were smart, we’d spend 50% of our budget on our rooms. But we aren’t smart (myself included)

Even though I know it works as I have experience of it, I loath to spend $500 on diffusers but will happily spend $2,000 on power cables. 😂🤣

my rooms have furniture and clutter.  These rooms don’t really have a need for treatment.  It’s snake oil, voodoo science.  

If your furniture addresses all the acoustical issues in your room, yes. However, that is somewhat doubtful. Many home theatre setup have auto IQ systems precisely because very few rooms are acoustically neutral. 

I'm normally a person that scoffs at measuring equipment as my ears almost always proves the measurements to be of no value, but acoustics is an area where measurements by and large correspond with our hearing. 

If you take a simple sound pressure meter (i.e. decibel meter), you can feed different frequencies into your system and measure the sound pressure (volume). You will see swing of 20db, 30db, sometimes even more across the audible frequency range, and these swing will be differ in different areas in your room. 

Addressing some very simple things, like the first reflection point will dramatically increase the focus and sound staging of your sound system. The changes are not subtle. You'll be bowled over by just how good your system really sounds.

Ps. A little stone or clock in the corner of the room isn't going to do it. Have a look at what the pro audio guys do. 

I am by nature a skeptic. And many things (IMHO) in the audiophile world are indeed snake oil.
That said, in my 13x16 living room, couch chairs and all… I bought two 24x24 box difusor’s and sat them on top of a chair back, which sits between my speakers, no doubt about it, hands down, immediately beyond a reasonable doubt completely changed the room dynamics for the BETTER. The sound stage suddenly had depth and basically a larger presence.
I was truly amazed.

Of course. Because that is nothing to do with it. In fact, of all the different ideas audiophiles have about what they are trying to do, to recreate the sound the recording engineers heard in the studio has got to be the furthest from it you can get! 

I mean, think about it. Sinatra-Basie was done back in 1962. Are we supposed to have systems that make it sound like it did coming off those 1950's era speakers? With all their colorations? I don't think so! 

Some think the goal is to recreate the sound of the original performance. This is a little closer to the truth. This is also probably a lot closer to what the producer and recording engineers were trying to do. Capture the sound of the performance. 

But still, not quite right. Closer to the truth to say they are trying to capture the spirit of the performance. The feeling. The vibe. Otherwise, why place microphones inside drums, and stuff like that? See? Who ever sat with their head inside a kick drum?   

So why on Earth would anyone talk about recreating the sound heard in the studio? It is nuts. 

What they do instead, they create art. Auditory art. Just like Picasso did not draw a woman to look anything like what you see with your eyes, but he did somehow capture the spirit of woman. Not "a" woman. Woman. That kind of thing.  

What we do with our systems is put our auditory art on display.   

I was in the home one time of a man who was really into Remington. No not the guns, the bronze sculpture artist. He must have had 20 of them, with the best ones in a living room. Wired with lights and a panel he could push a button and the lighting would fade out on one and fade in on another. Or several at one time. Just amazing.  

Probably Remington never had anything like this in his studio. Probably Picasso never saw any of his paintings under MOMA lighting.  

I wonder, are there art snobs who would sniff at how they were there in the loft and they never have seen any of his paintings that looked anything like what they did there? A perfectly good metaphor that shows how silly it is to try and recreate the sound in the studio. 

I love reading this thread.  Its really clear window into the real world of home audio: part misinformation, some hearsay, some reality.   For example, the idea that you can "fix" anything in your playback system about a recording is impossible.  You can change it, for sure, but its like cables, who knows what is "correct"?  I have the unique benefit of walking into the famous LA studios and knowing what the room sounds like and talking to the engineer who built the record and understanding the sound of the pro gear he used to make it.  I walk the hi fi shows and I can tell you its a very rare day when I hear a playback system sound ANYTHING like the recording.  

What amazes me is that such a blatantly ignorant and bellicose original post has garnered 4 pages of replies.  Why do people come here and do this?  Seems so pointless.

 Sure it was posted by Troll otherwise ^ stupid is as stupid does.

I haven't read the whole thread for a long time. but since I'm an acoustic engineer, I can only say one thing to the OP.
how stupid is ignorance

Lone mountain, live music is what it is, and sometimes really great sq.

i am talking about crappy studio efforts. Accoustic treatments will improve crappy recordings, but wont make all crappiness go away.

" These rooms don’t really have a need for treatment. It’s snake oil, voodoo science. "
acoustics is literally physics. how sound waves interact with your room is well understood by now and critical for good sound. True with big operas and theaters, just as true with your small room

Though an interesting premise that acoustic treatments are poppycock, I find the OP to be that instead, and rolling this into the snake oil channel is just ignorant.

My experience was the exact opposite and by adding a few treatments to my room and a throw rug my audio enjoyment was increased by 10 fold. 
Now I do thing is all works together and is part of the formula in the search for acoustic perfection, a goal we will never achieve. Treatments, furniture, cables and yes even fuses all play a part, but many not in every system or listening room.

Just go into this hobby or obsession with an open mind. A closed mind limits your friends, audience, and enjoyment and makes you a lonely and angry. 
 

Jumia- All the variations in recording qualities that endlessly frustrate?  You mean all the good bad and the ugly of trying to record and recreate a real live music event?

Lone Mountain Audio

I know what you mean but the answer is: apparently not.

@millercarbon - @jumia has not heard many power cords in even a middling quality audio system.  Sheesh.  Why are there so many posters who don't believe that cabling sounds significantly different?   Don't they have something better to do in their lives?

Power cords in a stable supply of power seem like snake oil.  Other things are better pursued.

You clearly have not heard very many power cords. D'oh!

Electronics and speakers are at most 50% or less and the other 50% or more is easily the room. But, we seem to have ’know it alls’ like the OP who seem to think the room doesn’t matter. It is kinda funny when guys spend thousands of dollars on power cables and such, but refuse to spend a dime on the room. For instance, if the upholstery on your big couch is leather or something else will have a much bigger impact on the sound than if your power cable cost 40 bucks or 4000 bucks (facepalm!).

DSP is just a tool, which most professionals use as part of their toolkit. Room design, acoustic treatments, speaker location, and DSP together is the best solution for most. Sometimes you can’t treat the room, sometimes you can’t place the speakers where you want to.

I agree with you...

My mechanical equalizer so powerful it is cannot be used in a living room and setting it by ears is not for everyone... Not much more that setting a piano strings is for everyone...

But i learned much in the process about speakers/ room /ears relations...

Audiophile experience is here not in electronic design upgrade...

Acoustic is key but you know yourself already that...But most did not....

 Thanks for your numerous interesting threads....

DSP is just a tool, which most professionals use as part of their toolkit.  Room design, acoustic treatments, speaker location, and DSP together is the best solution for most.  Sometimes you can't treat the room, sometimes you can't place the speakers where you want to.

I considered Helmholtz resonators decades ago but purchased two pair of Hallographs supplemented by SR HFTs.  I agree with Mahgister.   My tuning is for music, not scientific measurements just as an anechoic chamber is made for testing, not music.

I forgot to say that my room is now near perfectly refined for my particular structured hearing abilities and potentials not for ALL human ears like in a very great hall...But i dont doubt that my room sound relatively  well tuned for all ears...It seems so if i see the reaction of my children...

Acoustic of irregular or difficult small normal room obey and react to sound in a different way than a theater, or than an ideally acoustically designed audio rrom... Geometry, topology and content matters.... The mechanical equalizer was a cheap way in money to design my own audio room without the need to reconstruct my room...Passive absorbing, reflecting, and diffusive materials, even well balanced are not enough sometimes...Especially in 13 feet, irregular, but square room with 2 windows and with a complex acoustic content.... We must accomodate the response of the room to the speakers not only the speakers to the room... the mechanical equalizer can do the 2 function at the same time without modifying the basic parameters of the speakers directly...The different pressures new zones created by the equalizer itself are intermediary between the speakers and the room in the 2 directions, because the pipes grid begin with a few inches straws from the speakers and increase to 8 feet high, like observed an astute observer, oldhvymec ,the organ tuning pipe in a church...

We can call the Helmholtz mechanical equalizer, a "silent organ" indeed and i called it so indeed in my first post about it in my thread...

My best to all....

It seems that human ears react better to first wavefront of relatively "large" bandwith called a " voice timbre" not to a precise test frequency signal one after the others, like a microphone feeding it back to a correcting program...

Then i succeeded to correct my room with materials passive treatment but mainly with an Helmholtz "mechanical equalizer" calibrated by the the first wavefront of sound created by the specific timing of the frequencies of early and late reflections adding themselves to the direct waves from the speakers and coming also from the waves modified themselves by their near 80 crossings of the different zones pressure of my room each one second...

This mechanical equalizer is made, not of bottles like the original one, but of tubes and pipes, sometimes one inserted in an another thinner one, with a short or longer neck(various type of straws) which length i tuned with hearing and listening experiments... It takes me a week and perhaps 50 hours to tune the 22 tubes and pipes....Location is important... All refining parameters were dictated by sound like a piano tuner use his ears and implemented by cut in section of various diameter of straws inserted in one another....

I also use golden section in 3 set of 3 pipes among all the other singular 13 tubes and pipes... My longer tube is 8 feet long under my 81/2 feet ceiling.... Correcting these 9 pipes together was the more easy part , they were very impactful ...I also used 5 smaller pipes of various size near the tweeter of one speaker (3) and near the bass driver of the other speaker (2) to create a more audible first wavefront signal without changing the basic identical parameters of the speakers but only their response to the room but not their frequency response more their first wavefront timing response... It worked marvellously.... It was my adding modification piece in relation to speakers, to the original mechanical equalizer before the invention of the speakers itself....

I say all that because Helmholtz was able to set a room without DSP better than DSP... WHY?

We forget that, and we called DSP a progress and it is one indeed for "precise" measurements of a tested frequency in relation with a "precise" location in millimeters...

BUT we forgot that human ears is used to hear not a frequency alone, but a wavefront constituted of many frequencies together, usually a human vocal timbre, and we forgot that a room must be tested for itself not from and for a precise location in millimeter mainly ... And a room is not a set of passive bouncing walls waiting for the tested emitted frequency anyway, but an enclosure for the human voice, and an heterogeneous set of variable presssure zones, with the tubes and pipes being some of them...

The mechanical equalizer work on all audible frequencies not only on bass like many think, and they work at same time from near listening location and regular location in the room...not from an ideal "imaging spot" that is never an ideal spot anyway, the ideal spot is not made only for "imaging" but also for the " listener envelopment" factor ....The belief that near listening shield us from the room problems is completely erroneous in "small" room...

DSP is and could be a marvellous tool, but those who think that he can replace human ears must wait that new learning neural algorithm implement it in  an A.I. expert system... Soon it will be done.... But the cost will be high.... In few years tough we will use it...

For now my ears is the main tool and it is enough...

It is a good thing also to learn acoustic by ears not by equations mainly....

I am not a scientist at all.... All that is my experience only and could be wrongly explained .... But here we describe our own experience and i tried....

I dislike the use of DSP for acoustic corrections for speakers.   Some manufacturers feel that is the solution to mate their speakers to rooms.   I built my listening room to accommodate most speakers, especially those that reach deep bass (my cut-off is now 25 Hz).  My room isn't perfect but it is good in so many factors that I can concentrate on minor tweaks (or upgraded cables/equipment).  Lonemountain is correct-DSP won't make an adequate sounding room great sounding.

Right. Well said. There are simply too many notes. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vci4wM6jDDM

Tooo damn complicated.  Brilliance is the ability to paint complex things in simple terms.  Very few succeed. 
And then enter all the variations of recording qualities that endlessly frustrate.  If only 60s and 70s music were produced presently.  So we fall back and listen to just a few names that bring us comfort over and over again.

Setting up a system in a nearly empty room, once you have studied and obtained a theoretical grasp of acoustics, is a great way to learn the science and the art.  And you don't need to spend a lot of money to experiment ..... piles of boxes, wool and cotton blankets, large pieces of foam can all be used for the experimentation.  Once you've figured out how to optimize to that three-dimensional image we all strive for along with natural ambiance, if the room is to be a listening room, then make the dollar committment.  And you won't waste any, so you'll know exactly what you need.

Once you've got those experiences under your belt, in my experience, it is fairly easy to arrange a living room or family room so that it works acoustically.  If you've moved a couple of times, you can even get to the point of visualizing the acoustics as you lay out the room patterns, and won't have to change much once you have things in place.  Setting up in multiple rooms over time also has the advantage of teaching you what imperfections you can tolerate and which you can't.  Ah, it's good to be an old geezer! :-)

There are two basic issues in rooms: absorption and reflection.

A room is not a passive set of walls where we put reflecting or absorbing surfaces sorry... Save for sellers of acoustics panels publicity...You even forgot the diffusive surfaces...

A room is a living animal resembling to a violin when a musician plays it...Any room speak his own language translated for human ears  in a universal meaning by acoustic....

I cannot go further because i will type too much words.... Some people hate me already for my long posts and too numerous posts.... 😁

My metaphor is so right and good i will stay with it at the risk of being completely not understood...

I go back to music anyway....


Chopin Mazurkas by Jakob Flier....

There are two basic issues in rooms: absorption and reflection.

Yes. And timing. Three basic issues. And the relationship of direct to indirect sound. Okay four basic issues. Well, and the timing and relative volume of reflected sounds. Dang alright five basic... what? Aww come on, you got to be kidding me! Construction of ceiling, walls, and floor. But that's the last basic issue! No kidding! I am drawing the line at 6! Noise? What do you mean, noise coming in? Or noise going out?! Crap! No freaking way. Plug up the outlets, seal up the door, whatever you do make believe we didn't just go to 7 basic issues.....

There are two basic issues in rooms: absorption and reflection. Acoustics panels are usually absorbers sucking up sound, some are diffusers (add more reflections).  Most home listening acoustic problems are related to too many similar reflections off large surfaces like walls and floors and windows.  All of these emphasize particular frequency bands.  Bass problems are different, usually related to the room dimensions of the room our speakers are in. Few rooms can accommodate a 32Hz note (that wave length is well over 30 feet long so you'd need a minimum 30 foot room dimension) but the energy of that too long wave is still in your room and causes all kinds of issues at harmonics (64 Hz, 128Hz etc).  We use bass traps to absorb these "extra" low frequency waves so the original flat response from the speaker is not covered up with room modes and standing waves.   

Because the materials used to address our two basics (absorption and reflection ) are effective only in select portions of the audio band and to a different degree depending on materials used, we need to know "where" in frequency our absorber works in and how much does it absorb?  That's why its quite complicated and we all have varied results because we usually don't know how much absorption or reflection to use and where?  That's why there is such a mix of results when we compare notes. 

The Dynaudio quote earlier in then thread is ridiculous, written by a marketing person no doubt.  DSP solves absolutely nothing in the acoustic realm.  You cannot fix acoustics with an electrical solution any more than you can fix electrical problems acoustically.   What DSP "room correction" does is sum all the direct + reflected audio at your [measurement mic] location and then apply an opposite signal to the original.  When this opposite or corrective signal is added back to the original direct+ reflected sound [based only on that one mic location or an average of multiple locations] this new sum looks better in linear frequency response terms.  Sort of the noise cancelling headphone idea: add the unwanted noise back in at 180 degrees and its magically gone! .  It cannot address delays, or echoes or long reflection times, phase linearity of the speaker, source issues, etc.  These DSP fixes are band aids on wound that never heals, but they can still be helpful.  It can take a system from unlistenable to listenable.  It cannot take a listenable system and make it great.     Basically you are changing what's theoretically right (the direct sound from good sounding speakers) based on "what's wrong" (the reflections of these speakers in the room).  Now everything is changed and undergoes the same room/reflection based changes it always did. 

Since we rarely hear direct sound, most of us are unfamiliar with what our speakers actually sound like.  We can find out by taking our speakers to a boundary free environment like outside in our back yard and pointing the speaker up at the sky: boundary free playback.  This is why speakers usually sound better in a larger room- the boundaries are further away.  So we are always stuck listening to a sum in our room of direct + reflected energy.  This is why I find speaker demos so useless, for if you buy "what sounds good in my room" you are buying a speaker with the opposite problems of your room!  Unless you have a great sounding room.  The "home demo" is more about your room than the speaker, nearly 100% of the time.    Its really more about what your room will do to the speakers than the other way around.   

Room correction DSP banks on the idea that the NEW sum  (direct +reflected+ corrective DSP audio signal ) sounds better than the direct + reflected signal alone.  Sometimes it does.  But your ear/brain is way more sophisticated than this simple new sum of injecting a "fixer" signal into what already sounded good but was messed up by your room.  Sit closer to the speakers, reduce the level of reflected energy at your ear vs the direct sound.  (This is exactly the idea of nearfield monitors: sitting closer to speakers reduces the amount of "room sound" at your ear compared to direct sound.)  Fix your room so it sounds good.  But most importantly, find the places in your room that sound better than others.  I often find people shocked when i walk in, move the speakers one inch and everything is better.  They look at me like is magic or something.   People rarely move speakers around in a room to experiment how different it can sound.   

So while DSP can help, it can make a really awful situation better.  But it's a major compromise.  No DSP is as good as not having the acoustics problem to begin with!  Solving acoustic problems with acoustic solutions is the unavoidable answer and we all hate the idea but its true. Now if we could just know the target it would help, right? 
Brad
Lone Mountain Audio -ATC USA.

Only 4 rooms competed in my last audio show in L.A. 2017.

Thanks interesting post...

I am not surprized at all tough..... 😁😊

Acoustic is most of there is about audio experience....

I moved from a 5500 cu.ft. listening room of good but not great construction (windows to the side and front walls, 5/8" drywall & 5/8" acoustic wall material) which reflected too much sound despite my 2 pairs of Hallographs and full array of SR HFTs.  My new home has a near SOTA listening room with built-in bass traps (16" thick multi-material acoustic walls w/4 chambered activated charcoal filters, 12" - 15" 3000 psi steel bar reinforced slab, etc).  No windows, doors the same construction.  I still require those Hallographs and SR products for the mids and highs with side and ceiling acoustic foam treatment.  My audio system is wonderful now, getting the most out of 30 year old Legacy Focus speakers.   Not needing to change electronics (other than DAC) for 15+ years.  Cabling upgrades when manufacturer has made a breakthrough.  This is not the typical audiophile or listener setup.  However, my living room has silk and cotton battened wall treatment on front and rear walls which alleviate one open side and one side with full french doors.  (Oh yes, 90 oz carpet in each room).  The sound of the $5K audio system is also excellent.   Going to audio shows is a crapshoot due to the awful acoustics.  If a system can sound great there, something in the that system must be great (or most of the components).   Only 4 rooms competed in my last audio show in L.A. 2017.

I think if people understood basics of what happens to a sound wave and what reverb means, the accoustical trade profession would collapse.

It aint that complex. Heres what you need to know.

dont want reflected sound interfering with fist waves from a speaker. They collide and muddy sound. Solution, buy an absorp panel.

The first part is correct the simplification part is too simple and wrong...

It is a precise timing of early and late reflections, that will create the essential wavefront that will produce imaging,and soundstage...The interference from reflected sounds are not a problem and could be a solution if the timing is right....In fact reflection coming from the back can contribute greatly to the listener envelopment (LEV)... Then nothing can be simple before understanding it...I tried myself to figure it out, being ignorant in acoustic, in the last week when designing my "machanical equalizer" i just finish to refine it after a week of fine tuning...

My audio system sound right for the first time really,unbeknownst to me before... I refined my Helmholtz equalizer in listening choral music, orchestra, and very complex instrumental timbre like some harpsichord... But you know that all elements falls into place ONLY when the human voices are distinctly perceived each one in his space with his natural timbre...50 hours of listening experiments to adjust all pieces...Nothing is simple... 😁😊 Human ears are designed by evolution and history to perceive accurately timbre tonal speech in all circonstances...Music come ONLY from this fact save for the rythmic body movement accompanying language...

What is simple is buying a costly acoustic materials or gear....But it is not my way....I prefer peanuts costs....
But we cannot spare the use of a room nor spare the great amount of time for listenings experiments tough....The room may or may not cost peanuts....It is a WAF..... 
😁




«One is an auditory source width (ASW) which is defined as the width of the sound image fused temporally and spatially with a direct sound’s image and the other is listener envelopment (LEV) which is the degree of the fullness of sound images around the listener, excluding the sound image composing ASW.»Internet

I think if people understood basics of what happens to a sound wave and what reverb means, the accoustical trade profession would collapse.

It aint that complex.  Heres what you need to know.

dont want reflected sound interfering with fist waves from a speaker. They collide and muddy sound.  Solution, buy an absorp panel.

buy a diffuser panel to also improve clarity without deadening all the sound. Why does it work?  It scatters sound better to room. Less collisions. Makes room seem bigger.

there it is, most of what i wished i knew alot earler.

it aint that complex, unless u want it to be.

I've got my system set up in our master bedroom with a big queen bed on one side of the room and nightstands on both sides. No, the room is not cluttered at all, but it also doesn't look like a typical listening room with monoblock speakers on the floor and industrial looking audio racks. WAF as well as my own visual acceptance factor were major considerations in the audio furniture that I put into this room.

I added one 2" acoustic panel on the one 1st order reflection in the hexagonal shaped room which balanced out the sound reflection time from the left and right speakers. With that one panel, my room is one of the best sounding rooms I've heard anywhere. The other sound absorbing furniture in the room helps, but doesn't necessarily address specific acoustic problems.

How many of those who set up audio in a cluttered room care about room treatment?
I think room treatment is for those who set up audio in a dedicated room with nothing but components and speakers in the listening room except maybe CD or Vinyl racks.

Are their many speakers built with bass traps? My Gershman Grand Avant Garde sits on top of bass trap. The bass is very tight and clean, and also deep. 

The lower the frequency the longer the wavelength and so therefore the larger the treatment must be. Low bass waves are 50 ft and more so bass traps are relatively large. I had one in my room, tried it all over the place, it is now hanging from the ceiling where it does a great job absorbing the high volume output from my Delta Unisaw. Yeah my shop has some old discarded acoustic panels too. Would call it a dedicated sawing room but that would be a groaner, it does have quite good acoustics though, for a shop. 

So in my room one was too much. There's more than one way of doing this. Townshend Podiums cleaned up my bass a huge amount, without any of the problems of the bass traps. I'm not the only one to notice this either. So watch out, a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction that it must be the room. Sometimes they may even be right.

Makes sense, thanks,


bass traps seem relatively small. Is it just alittle goes a long way? Or an ample amount of bass traps will be more beneficial? How much is too much?

What a bass trap does is act like a shock absorber that dampens resonance. Any normal room the bass waves hit a wall, or ceiling, floor, bounce back, and then basically bounce back and forth until gradually the sound fades out. This takes a big fraction of a second or longer during which time the bass is reverberating in the room adding to the volume of bass you hear, and also the reflections make the sound of the original bass note less distinct and clear. What people call muddy or bloated bass. 

Bass traps are designed to absorb some of this pressure wave. So yes you hear less bass. But they affect mostly the later reflected resonant bass not  the initial bass coming off the speaker. So the bass you are left with is less but more clear. 

This is exactly the same as when you put a small panel on a wall that absorbs midrange or treble. You hear a little less mid and top end, but what you do hear is more clear and distinct. 

Does a bass trap absorb bass (ie.reduce amount of bass heard in a room) or make bass better? Will i hear improvement in bass? Thanks

Miller Carbon’s words are an excellent explanation of why cables can sound so different even if we can’t identify exactly why.
“But you might want to keep in mind that just because we cannot explain why something works, does not mean it does not in fact work. Happens all the time. Can you explain how your car works? Yet it does.”

mahgister,

I am not accusing you of anything. Even less of psychosis. Never said it, never meant it. And even then, it could not be accusation. Short of taking some hallucinogenic drugs, people do not get psychotic by intent. Why you found yourself in my general observation is not known to me.

As you, as everyone else, frequently strays from strictly audio-related topic I responded to that Carlo quote which hardly has anything to do with betterment of any sound anywhere.

If you dont means any harm it is Ok with me...

But discussing with someone who bash others and treat me with the saying that i am an idiot from the beginning , i only answered by a quote from a book you dont know, in a discussion you did not participate to for the last week, then refrain yourself to comment the author of the book out of the context of this discussion...

It is free to read this book on the net anyway and the general meaning is in 5 lines on wiki by the way....

I only answered and discussed with arguments, but when to my arguments someone reply by authority affirmation and attack me and others i answer accordingly....

It was or would have been simple for you to read the context of this discussion in ONLY the few last posts to UNDERSTAND that i spoke about audio related matter : a japanese scientific article first about the acoustic concept of "depth imaging", and second a new device i created after reading this article which make me able to refine greatly depth imaging in my system...These 2 contents were my unreplied answers to audio2design who dare not to give any argument but authoritative rejection and call all audiophiles, me included idiots...

Instead of answering to this article and the possibility and usefulness and modalities of this new device of mine, audio2design then bashed my posts with no arguments, save blind test claim ...

Then who discuss audio related matter with a content here ? Me...

Who do resolve to pure authority and bashing without giving ANY arguments to the article and to my claim about my new device? Audio2design...





You are a grown man you know that speaking like you just did, "insinuating" psychosis and borderline personality trouble is NOT AUDIO RELATED....but insulting, even if you did it not "openly", especially if you are a stranger or a newcomer in this precise discussion between me and someone else ...

Have you read the japanese article yourself? are you interested by my new device? I dont think so.... If i am wrong if you are interested, i am here to discuss audio related matters...

Am i clear?


I respected you, never insinuated anything about you if you revise ALL my post here TO YOU for months, respect me accordingly , in audio related matters and in friendly term...

I will do the same...

I am direct and frank and an open mind easy to read, and i always spoke my mind.... Sorry for this clarification post but i dont like to be manipulated....Things are better said between grown men....Life is too short to hate.... I prefer to be creative at risk of being like you said "borderline"....Or worst....

mahgister,

I am not accusing you of anything. Even less of psychosis. Never said it, never meant it. And even then, it could not be accusation. Short of taking some hallucinogenic drugs, people do not get psychotic by intent. Why you found yourself in my general observation is not known to me.

As you, as everyone else, frequently strays from strictly audio-related topic I responded to that Carlo quote which hardly has anything to do with betterment of any sound anywhere. I also stand behind my worry that too much creativity may be a sign of other issues. Art history is full of very creative people who did not do well in the long run.

Even if one gets pleasure of bashing others, it is worth it. Not to you or me, but to the person getting that pleasure.

glupson i accepted your advice about moderation... Because it is wise advice...and i accept all wise advices...


For the rest if i can accept a friendly advice about moderation, i cannot permit you to judge me accusing me of bipolar disorder or psychosis... This is insulting... Am i insulting you?




i respected you, why not also respecting me?



My pleasure HERE is communicating friendly with those who partake passion for the sound improvement....





For my critical faculty it is not necessary to say anything....

TROLL.

Of course room treatments don't matter.  Neither does the room size or shape, nor the surface materials, nor the type, size and placement of furniture, nor where you sit nor even which direction your speakers are facing.

IF you're listening on headphones....

mahgister,

See this...

"The pleasure to bash others is not worth anything at all indeed..."

It would be true only if the person stating it (let's say it is you this time) is someone whose statements are not allowed to be scrutinized. Dogma, religion, whatever absolute power one may call it. At the same time, most of the world does not care what your, or mine, opinion is. That does  not mean they are wrong. That means that thinking that someone's way of obtaining pleasure is not worth anything is nothing but an arrogant statement bashing other people. That is why Carlo lost credibility. Even if one gets pleasure of bashing others, it is worth it. Not to you or me, but to the person getting that pleasure. In fact, it has been a while since I have read a statement quoted that was so wrong as this one you mentioned.

I notice you read a lot, but I also notice you do not read critically that much. I may be wrong, but that is how it looks from the side. Just because someone wrote something, does not make it correct. In this example, Carlo is actually not worth considering reading. In my opinion, not in universal opinion.

Creativity is really a great thing to have and you might have not understood my point completely. Creativity that gets self-indulgent ocassionally ends up being recognized as a psychosis, bipolar disorder, or what not. Moderation is the key.

Glupson you are beside the point....

The pleasure to bash others is not worth anything at all indeed...

The book of Cipolla you never read is universally reviewed for being humorous and right on the spot... Then you could criticize my use of the book but the book itself is very good and free...


Here i proposed ideas of my own and i am open to discuss without bashing others nor any group of people.... That was my point...I correct myself when i am wrong....I am not perfect ....

I am open to criticism...About any concept....I am here to communicate and learn...
Creativity is not a defect by the way, even when wrong...To date all my experiments give me pleasure and also to some others who repeat them successfully... If someone is not interested by my ideas it is not necessary for him  to read my posts...

But if someone out of the sky come and trash all others audiophiles ideas, devices, or suggestions, from the start because of his superior knowledge i dont go with that without discussing with ARGUMENTS, if you had read me you already know that...... Bashing audiophiles for being audiophile that seems not too healthy to me...

Perhaps my enthusiasm innerve you then i am sorry....Dont read my posts....And dont add that all "pleasure" are equal.... It is ridiculous and wrong....All pleasures are not right nor equal to each others...I defend myself but i dont take any pleasure to bash anybody, but i am able to defend myself if someone attack me without any sound arguments...Blind test is not an argument nor a reason to reject from the start any unorthodox means to play with sound...And not a reason to accuse all audiophiles to be stupid.... Then i reacted with arguments and experiments to prove my point....


 Is it not enough? you said it is too much.... but for whom? 



If i cannot be of interest for others here i will quit...It seems some others like my contribution.....Then i go on...

"He define stupidity bash others without gaining anything for himself in the process even at the price of losing his own credibility ...Except the pleasure to do it....."

I have not read that book, but assuming that above description is correct, Carlo lost all the credibility. One could even say that he lost credibility by bashing those who are seeking pleasure.

"Without gaining anything for himself...except the pleasure to do it..." Carlo arrogantly decided that one’s pleasure is worthless "nothing". He has never heard of hobbies, passion, love, dedication, or a few more like that?

Creativity is a great thing to have. It becomes trickier when we get carried away by our creativity and do not notice that we have gone too far into some not-so-healthy state of mind. Others usually notice, though.

Figuring where the line between two is may sometimes be harder than pretending.

Thanks...

But i know already that myself.... All my life i tried to learn a bit more out of my window...

You are right but not the way intended... Some idiot are more reformable and recoverable it seems...

By the way read the best book on stupidity by Carlo Cipolla free on the net.... a masterpiece...

He define stupidity being someone who bash others without gaining anything for himself in the process even at the price of losing his own credibility ...Except the pleasure to do it.....

Who knows perhaps i suffer the Kruger-Dunning syndrome like you observe perhaps even rightfully ? But i prefer to be an idiot than being stupid in the Cipolla sense... I dont like despising group of people and any people...

Then the difference between being an idiot and being stupid is the idiot dont bash others, the stupid did it all the times.... I definitely prefer to be a reformable idiot....Even with this Dunner-Kruger syndrome....

😊