John,
You are simply repeating what you have been saying over and over, and refuse to listen to what I am saying. I don't see how this is a discussion. I give you a reason why I believe what I do, and you say the same thing you have said 5 posts in a row that does nothing to address what I have said. As JCC said, saying it loud over and over doesn't make it any more convincing. You theories are not your's at all. It is the same logical but incorrect information that audiophiles and hi-fi dealers hav ...
Hi Nathan,
I'm not sure why you have interpreted my questions and suggestions as "loud".
Also, I am not sure why you don't think I am listening to you.
I am, and very intently. I have great respect for your knowledge and products, but you have yet to answer my questions sufficiently.
You, state:
No, you just don't get it. There is no test equipment that can accurately seperate a direct wave from the reflections at any but a few very high frequencies. In the time between the "direct wave" and the first, second, third reflection and so forth, there is not enough time to even CREATE a midrange or bass tone, based on how long the cycle of that frequency is.
I am not sure what I don't get here. I never said new tones are created.
I said reflected sound is "distortion" of the original sound, and make it less than accurate. While you may argue that the distortion is imperceptable, there are thousands who treat 1st reflections, and hear the differences everyday.
Additionally, you state that reducing reflection "attenuates" specific frequencies. This seems to be one of the chief areas of contention.
If it attenuates by removing it, then that means you are summing the two signal sources (direct and reflected)
So I agree if you run a test tone and measure that frequency at the listening area, and add or subtract reflected sound you will see an attenuation in the direct versus the summed.
However, in music where we have microdynamics, there is a specific time that the ear brain interprets both the timing dynamic, and the directional cues of that sound. I think (or should I say have heard) there are distinct and repeatable differences between treatment and not treating, various room surfaces. Even having a coffee table, with very little angular incidence in front of you between the speaker, will both blur the sonic and "pull" the directional perception of that sound. Same with projection TVs. I can't imagine you telling someone that the reflections from a RPTV will not negatively impact the soundstage and imaging of a system when it is used in 2 channel.
Even the concept of a wave front having a direct wave and then multiple reflections is not very useful, as all the air in the room is excited at a certain frequency at a time, not tons of different frequencies that are travelling behind one another. Sound moves too fast for that. By the time the next frequency is being manifested, the first frequency is already declining into the background as it has bounced around in the room hundreds of times (based on the frequency and the duration of it's tone).
Sound is perceived on a moment by moment basis, based on the frequencies available to the ear/brain. If we take the "room" out of the equation, by using headphones, there is little doubt that clairty and detail, as well as micro and macro dynamics improve.
I do not dispute that sound in a room excites all the air in the room but your ears are the only area that is important to perceiving that sound. They only hear what the pinna collects.
Acoustic products, by there very nature, are designed to "control" the damage, and distortion done by the sound energy that "doesn't" go directly to the ear, on a direct route from the speaker.
In the outdoors, a sound originates and travels outward. We hear it, and if nothing is there to reflect it, we never hear it again. In a room, it does not leave immediatley and its remants are perceivable and damaging in some instances.
We are on the same page here.
I think the reason this conversation continues is that you are telling me that these "room" created sounds aren't harmful, yet I can clearly hear that they are.
Then you tell me that I don't hear these differences for the "reason" I think I hear them, and while I doubt that, I can accept it. But the fact remains, greater accuracy is achieved and there are differnces in accuracy the more we take room sound away.
You mention that while other frequencies are being produced,
the first frequency is already declining into the background as it has bounced around in the room hundreds of times (based on the frequency and the duration of it's tone).
Exactly and "this" energy can be perceived and damages the new sound, at our ears.
I don't know how I can be more clear. You are welcome to disagree. The thing is, you have NO personal research that can begin to prove that any human can hear an individual wave front, and it is illogical to assume so.
I don't quite understand what this means? The ear/brain perceives what it is exposed to, in total. If it is given a rather pure sound sample, it will hear that, if it is given a mixture of direct and reflected it will hear that.
It might be that you don't provide for the difference between the environment of "reproducing" a recorded event, and actually being present in the environment of a live event.
In a Live Music environment, your suggestions are 100% correct.
In a reproduction environment they are not.
Is this possible? Are you treating a performance environment the same as a reproduction environment for that would certainly explain our differences.
And as I have said again and again, your OBSERVATIONS are simply that, observations. I am giving you scientific proofs (whether they are right or not, they are logical scientific arguments) as to the reasoning behind your observations.
Observations are very strong in that they are based in reality. Science is too. The two are not exclusive to one another. Science is only accurate if applied accurately. Observations are only accurate if "understood".
You are not, you are simply guessing based on what everyone has told you and everyone else for the last 5 decades, and giving no scientific or even logical arguments for why your line of thinking could possibly be correct.
While this is a little condecending, I understand your frustration.
I guess you can assert that I do not know what I am talking about and that I am parroting some audiolore from the dark ages, but I am not.
I have no idea of your sophistication as an audiophile. I have no idea of you abilities to discern differences between speakers, components, and the set up of such to acheive maximum potential.
In order for you to understand, it is important that you have these types of experiences.
I find my "logic" flawless. If you want to hear what happened at the original recording, you don't "add" or allow anthing to be added.
How can I make that any more clear or logical.
I think most of those who are into Serious Listening with preferences to accurate and lifelike reproduction, would question, your suggestion to "not" treat first reflections, and I think you once even suggested minimal treating of the front (center) wall.
I would also think that it is easy for most to see that acoustic treatment is "combating" room created distortions so we agree there are some that need addressing.
Additionally it seems difficult to understand how "reflections" of any kind can help a critical listener enjoy accuracy, in a "reproduction environment".
So here we are. Since this thread is well read, I feel obligated to repost that for most intent and purposes, Nathan and I agree on room treatment and its need for the best sound.
I think it is also important to re-state that I feel the Eighth Nerve Products represent "extreme" value and should be considered at least the minimum treatment, or maybe the "primary" treatment, when and where applicable.
Just because we may disagree on the extent or effectiveness or even the methods to be used to "further" treat a room does not take away from the product that started this thread.
From my awarness, I think it addresses with effectiveness, some of the most "ugly" of the room interaction problems.
My tenacity of viewpoint, is not motivated by any gain (since I don't deal in acoustic treatment), but more an extreme interest at finding truth, performance, and "stimulating" interest, in what I consider a component that should receive equal consideration in assembling a "high performance audio" system, and that is the listening room itself.
