Hi Bare,
Thank you for your input.
Well yes ours society does indeed apprehend issues in dividing the reality into small facts much easier to explain by themself than taking the full picture. Kind of fractal way.
We should blame Descartes for this as he is the one which theorized this approach and principle giving rise of the science the way it is done this days. It does have pro ( it is easier to handle issues at micro or macro stage) and cons ( as interesting was the Descartes approach he didn't give the inverse approach from micro view to full zoom out to whole picture so we are kind of lost when it come to take a whole and understand it as sometimes the whole is more than the sum of his parts).
All that to say i see and understand your point.
That said i'm pretty sure you know we face a multiple answer problem: each kind of loudspeaker ask for a somewhat different approach and having this information burried into different parts of the forum doesn't make the access to this info easy especially for beginners.
Not everybody does have as much knowledge has you have.
Anyway thanks for taking time to explain your view, this is constructive in my view.
Thank you for your input.
Well yes ours society does indeed apprehend issues in dividing the reality into small facts much easier to explain by themself than taking the full picture. Kind of fractal way.
We should blame Descartes for this as he is the one which theorized this approach and principle giving rise of the science the way it is done this days. It does have pro ( it is easier to handle issues at micro or macro stage) and cons ( as interesting was the Descartes approach he didn't give the inverse approach from micro view to full zoom out to whole picture so we are kind of lost when it come to take a whole and understand it as sometimes the whole is more than the sum of his parts).
All that to say i see and understand your point.
That said i'm pretty sure you know we face a multiple answer problem: each kind of loudspeaker ask for a somewhat different approach and having this information burried into different parts of the forum doesn't make the access to this info easy especially for beginners.
Not everybody does have as much knowledge has you have.
Anyway thanks for taking time to explain your view, this is constructive in my view.
For someone trying to solve a loudspeaker issue that could make sense.
Someone building or remodeling a listening room and wanting appropriate advice to incorporate into construction would find no appropriate place for those questions here. An Acoustics subsection under Design and Build would make sense for that.
Oh there will have to be a thread on “The Most Ridicules Things” you’ve seen and heard.
I vote yaa.
Barry.
I sure hope so.
There will be enough debate over what is reverberation verses modal decay.
Barry.
There is no "acoustics" at DIYaudio that doesn't have humans in the loop. In other words, it is all related to psychoacoustics.
I challenge anyone to name a topic that doesn't relate to human hearing.
OK, it is true that I was in the founding cohort of the Canadian Acoustic Assn and I definitely can think of acoustic topics that do not have humans in the loop. Just not any topic with of any relevance to DIYaudio. Here's an example: sonic transducers to locate submarines. That has no relevance here.... pretty sure.
But as soon as you say, "flat, 20-20kHz" you are invoking the human range of hearing, not some abstract number picked out of the air.
Let's say you are getting into reflections from walls. The delays, loudness, and spectrum are tied to the facts of human hearing and how the stereo illusion would be influenced since everybody knows the influence depends on human hearing perception characteristics related to the delay, etc.
B.
Last edited:
I see acoustics as being inseparable from speaker design and placement with the acoustics component of speaker design being rather fixed (WAF and cost and room size as examples).
As much as I would like to understand more about the art of acoustics I cannot see how it stands alone. Much better for it to be the strategic consideration for and before and firmly attached to each speaker design.
Thus I vote no, regrettably.
As much as I would like to understand more about the art of acoustics I cannot see how it stands alone. Much better for it to be the strategic consideration for and before and firmly attached to each speaker design.
Thus I vote no, regrettably.
Easy to say, until you want to post some finding about rooms. Does it go to multi-way or does it go to subs or where does it go? I welcome your answer.
B.
I agree with Bentoronto, what we call acoustic treatment is strongly correlated to psychoacoustics.
In fact it rely on psychoacoustic to achieve a goal or target and give a particular rendering which depend of the kind of preference we have.
By itself the behavior of sound into a room have not real interest, this is how you play with this to have a kind of rendering which is interesting and for this we rely on the way our brain interpret things.
Johno, like for Bare i see your point. I agree a loudspeaker type will dictate a kind of behavior thus a kind of treatment for the room it should play in, so yes it is directly linked.
The main problem i see is that this is almost always not known by the diyers, the choice for a kind of speaker in a project is almost always dictate by the number of ways the diameter of drivers,... well a kind of technology.
For me this is only one side of a problem in which the room is here again almost always forgotten. In my view this is only half of the system taken into account. If we have a place we could discuss the choice that can be made and their outcome it could be a great benefit for everyone.
If we can have example of realisation/application at the same time...
It does exist at the moment in some thread ( E.G. the one of Wesayso) but it makes it difficult to extract infos except for the one which already have some knowledge about it imho.
In fact it rely on psychoacoustic to achieve a goal or target and give a particular rendering which depend of the kind of preference we have.
By itself the behavior of sound into a room have not real interest, this is how you play with this to have a kind of rendering which is interesting and for this we rely on the way our brain interpret things.
Johno, like for Bare i see your point. I agree a loudspeaker type will dictate a kind of behavior thus a kind of treatment for the room it should play in, so yes it is directly linked.
The main problem i see is that this is almost always not known by the diyers, the choice for a kind of speaker in a project is almost always dictate by the number of ways the diameter of drivers,... well a kind of technology.
For me this is only one side of a problem in which the room is here again almost always forgotten. In my view this is only half of the system taken into account. If we have a place we could discuss the choice that can be made and their outcome it could be a great benefit for everyone.
If we can have example of realisation/application at the same time...
It does exist at the moment in some thread ( E.G. the one of Wesayso) but it makes it difficult to extract infos except for the one which already have some knowledge about it imho.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.