early reflection of sidewalls: absorption or not?

[scottjoplin]

It makes me smile when people say one should aim to reproduce what the engineer heard at the mixing desk.

[Pano]

People with a little more experience will want what the mastering engineer heard.
Not a bad goal, expect that there is no standard (not even defacto) for music mastering suites.

[scottjoplin]

Why? It varies so much, some very good some very poor

[DualTriode]

Originally Posted by Bill Coltrane

....
This is the circle of confusion.
....

The term "Circle of Confusion" Belongs to Optics or Photography for more than 100 years.

Circle of confusion - Wikipedia

It is the Folks at Harman that are confused.

What I see and hear Harman doing is that they have 6 or 7 standard listening rooms around the globe. They have groups of standard trained listeners. They have standard Spinorama speaker testing including Directivity Index. Putting it all together the standard listeners will prefer standard speakers in a standard listening room. If all that happens they will put the speakers in a box and send them to market and the speakers will "sound good" in your standard living room.

Thanks DT

Pano +1

[Bill Coltrane]

You've mentioned before that the term "circle of confusion" originates from photography. That doesn't mean it can't be applied somewhere else.

The scientific method will make sure that in the long run, the truth will be unraveled.
Can you point out where the publications of the scientists working at Harman are not following the scientific method?

[DualTriode]

Not specifically to scientific method.

Developing the Spinorama tests including Directivity Index is rigorously technical.
Developing and documenting standard listening rooms (AES Paper published) is rigorously technical.
Developing a program to train listeners to do preference (ABX) testing is rigorously technical.
To do correlation statistics to put all the above together to predict listener preferences based on Spinorama tests alone is rigorously technical.

To get cutesy and obfuscate the term Circle of Confusion to point out that other manufactures have not been nearly so rigorously technical, it is only marketing.

My complaint about the use of the term Circle of Confusion is that it is not used correctly. It is used only to be cutesy. Harman read it somewhere and grabbed it without reference or footnote, not rigorous or technical.

Thanks DT

[Bill Coltrane]

What specifically is not correct in your opinion about the circle of confusion as used by the scientists Olive and Toole? For reference, this is what we're talking about:Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Audio's Circle of Confusion

[DualTriode]

Originally Posted by Bill Coltrane

What specifically is not correct in your opinion about the circle of confusion as used by the scientists Olive and Toole? For reference, this is what we're talking about:Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Audio's Circle of Confusion

Harman holds themselves as the model of precision. They measure and standardize everything in the audio chain. They can reliability predict listener preference from speaker Spinorama tests. This is where scientists and technicians morph into marketing and sales guys. This is where they point to the other manufacturers and audio industry and say they completely lack all precession, they are in a “Circle of Confusion” (Think, Circular Logic fallacy.)

“Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and reproduction chain due to the lack of a standardized, calibrated monitoring environment. Today, the circle of confusion remains the single largest obstacle in advancing the quality of audio recording and reproduction.”

On the other hand, Optics and Photography for over 100 years has used the term “Circle of Confusion” precisely and rigorously.

In a weak moment Floyd Toole put on his marketing and sales hat and borrowed the term “Circle of Confusion” from Optics and Photography.

Thanks DT

[Bill Coltrane]

Originally Posted by DualTriode

Harman holds themselves as the model of precision. They measure and standardize everything in the audio chain. They can reliability predict listener preference from speaker Spinorama tests. This is where scientists and technicians morph into marketing and sales guys. This is where they point to the other manufacturers and audio industry and say they completely lack all precession, they are in a “Circle of Confusion” (Think, Circular Logic fallacy.)

Strawman argumentation. The circle of confusion is about the lack of a standard in the recording industry. It's a fact, nothing more nothing less.

[plasnu]

Originally Posted by scottjoplin

Don't sound engineers work to a standard regards reverberation?

Professional studio's control room is usually a trapezoid shape to avoid the direct reflection from the side wall to hit the engineer's ears, and to reduce room mode. I have never seen a mastering studio room that is not a rectangle. My impression is mastering rooms are not too different from high end audiophile shop's listing room with heavy carpet, while mastering rooms are usually larger. I have seen a cloud is attached to the ceiling in both type of studios. I think it's reasonable to think that the direct reflection from the ceiling should be treated well.