Which is why I have spent my life doing/researching it. It's a serious issue in sound reproduction.
And yes "raised wood floor construction" is not ideal, which is why I avoid it - sorry for those who can't.
There are many pieces of audio software which are useful, and general purpose in nature, but best not viewed as a magic box for people who don't already know how to get the best from them.
Well there it is in a nutshell. If you actually believe that a sighted listening test is more reliable than actual measurements, then I have little more to offer. This is not about questioning someone's integrity, it's simply telling them they have a lot to learn about audio and acoustics. And hearing perception as well. If someone offered that theory in an article for the AES Journal, they'd be laughed out of the room.
If the sound in the room changes enough for you to hear a difference, then that change can be measured by REW. So again I ask you which of REW's many displays will show what you believe you can hear.
Different arrival times manifest as comb filter peaks and nulls, and those clearly show up in a standard frequency response graph. But microsecond delays will not affect bass "fullness" or "tightness."
No, there is no vibration to pass. At least not with a competent loudspeaker. That's the whole point that you seem to miss again and again. If speaker isolation was useful it would have shown in my measurements. It did not.
Perhaps the extensive work of Dr. Floyd Toole will be of interest to inexperienced listeners. This paper includes many of his AES references.
https://www.harman.com/documents/audioscience_0.pdf
"Probably the single most apparent deficiency of novice listeners was the lack of a vocabulary to describe what they heard.Without such descriptions, most listeners found it difficult to be analytical in forming their judgments, and to remember how various test products sounded. It was also clear that, without the prompting of a well designed questionnaire, not all listeners paid attention to all perceptual dimensions, resulting in judgments that were highly selective.As the understanding of technically-measurable parameters and their audible importance increased, it was possible to design training sessions that improved the ability of listeners to hear and to identify specific classes of problems in loudspeakers.......At this point, it is correct to say that, with adequate experimental controls, we are no longer conducting “listening tests”, we are performing “subjective measurements”."
When you can measure DDR … the depth of the “body of water” … i’ll start to pay attention.
Measurements are useful, but incomplete. Even just poorly presented — your waterfalls. https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/graph_waterfall.html
Earl also has something to say of standard speaker distortion measures.
Earl’s HOMs have been elusive to measure, as has EnABL … i am sure others can be mentioned.
And so much remains unknown … and variable … with the human ear/brain perceprtoion system. For instance (ref Lynn Olson) some 10% cannot create a stereo image ein their head.
A favourite quote of mone from Floyd Toole:
We (humans) still don’t know enuff yet to support the statement that “it can all be measured”
dave
Last edited:
I'm not missing your point, the point is that it is wrong.
The cone moves because a force is applied to it. As Newton told us for every force there is an equal and opposite opposing force. That opposing force is applied to the enclosure. If the enclosure is a rigid body (a "competent loudspeaker") then the force is transferred to whatever is supporting that rigid body. If that support is also a rigid body then the force is again transferred to its support, and so on until this force is dissipated through friction.
If you are trying to imply that a PhD physicist has his physics wrong then you are more arrogant than I would expect.
Everything that we can hear can be measured. That doesn't mean that we know how to measure everything, we just haven't figured out how yet. A classic example is how to measure "imaging". In the past "we" supported a PhD candidate under Dr. Lipschitz doing research on measuring "image". It wasn't very successful, but it was a start. These things take some time to develop. But if you can hear it, it can be measured.
I have supplied evidence of HOMs and they are certainly real analytically. But I refrain from using that term anymore because it has become abused, being used where it doesn't belong. I prefer to call it internal diffraction, since that's what excites the HOMs.
This is simply dynamic range and yes, it can be measured, unless some ethereal definition is applied to it via audiophile dogma.
Except that the poster was talking about ITD (Interaural Time Difference) in which case comb filters do not apply.
One could, of course try to absorb this reaction force in the enclosure but abortion can only come from friction, which requires a velocity. So unless the enclosure is allowed to "flex" (for want of a better term) it cannot absorb this energy. Obviously a well damped mounting structure is the conceptual ideal - think engine mounts (one of the most important aspects of noise control in a vehicle.)
But don't take this too far. I agree with Ethan that it doesn't matter in practice, but we disagree about why.
That is certainly part of it. Is the stuff at the bottom of the range mush or real detail.
dave
Sorry, but I find it hard to ignore the above quote. Why? In part because I find it offensive. Also, its just plain wrong. To clarify, I do believe that measuring the wrong things based on non-scientifically supported assumptions does not constitute doing real science.
Some years ago there was another member here in the forum who was probably the closest thing we had to real perceptual scientist, Jakob2. He was not a native English speaker so some of what he says may be affected by that, but I think he made a good point so I will quote him here:
The traditional peer review process has its inherently flaws, therefore a lot of people now favour the open review version.
But the main point would be that despite the occasional retractions nobody noticed the flaws and all the people think they were doing scientific work.
Of course some are simply cheating (publishing something based on data that never occured), but the majority is simply still following some rituals and works under pressure.
But, if the studies examining the work would not have been done, what about the science?
As said before, it depends on the field; pure physical or mathematical stuff is more robust but if humans are part of the experiments, it gets way more complicated.
As cdbd mentioned the "blind tests" , these are a perfect example where experiments often look like real science but in fact are not so scientific at all.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/349926-black-hole-post6475034.html
There's little doubt that horn propagation is modal. Jean-Michel LeCleach talks about some of the earlier work in that direction.
Last edited by a moderator:
Still a nebulous and undefined set of metrics. Please don't bother with 'any speaker which supports my results.'
It's interesting that people can readily experience listening to music through headphones in a noisy environment, and can switch noise cancellation in and out.
It is very different to correlated noise with a short delay period, as the more common acoustic issues with speakers and rooms.. but at least a person could imagine where it sits as it would be good to take some of the mystery out of the meaning of DDR.
Audiophile beliefs are pretty much all I see in this discussion so I'm out. I expected better from this group, I really did.
Ethan, do you know who gedlee is? Have you read his AES publications at: http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/papers.aspx
Read his books: http://www.gedlee.com/Books/Books.aspx
Resume: http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Earl_resume.pdf
He's an AES Fellow too!
And you think he's talking like an audiophile?
Read his books: http://www.gedlee.com/Books/Books.aspx
Resume: http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Earl_resume.pdf
He's an AES Fellow too!
And you think he's talking like an audiophile?
Last edited: