[TRADERXFAN]

I think that is a misconception, that parallel walls create resonance, so therefore non-parallel walls won't create a resonance. They both will, just former is a lot more predictable than the latter!

If you think about it, a pop bottle has a resonance and there isn't much parallel there.

Tony

[John Casler]

I like the walls rigid at HF, but not at all at LFs.  This takes some doing to achieve, but it can be done.  Too much absorption at HFs is a major problem in most small rooms.  Makes them sound dead and unappealing.  But at LFs absorption is the only way to smooth out the modes so it is a necessity.

Hi Earl,

Would you mind expanding on that?

I am of the opinion that "if" your goal is to reproduce the recorded event, then "any" reflected" sound from a room surface is a distortion to that goal.

I also might suggest that a room should sound dead and lifeless as to itself, since unless you are trying to improve of the recording in some way, any room sound is again a distortion.  It might be likened to a Signal to Noise measurement.  We certainly don't want our electronics to add noises to the sound, so I feel the same way regarding the room.  The ideal room IMO, is one you don't hear at all.  It is supposed to be dull and lifeless until the music is added, then it produces just what is on the disc.

I have a room/system that moves toward anechoic in the higher and mid freqs and when music is playing it is anything but dead and lifeless. In fact it is "more" lifelike than if it has an additional set of room sonics that overlay the original recording venue's sound. 

While I find it a perfectly reasonable goal to "shape" the sound of your room to your preference (which is likely the most common acoustic/room goal) I might disagree that "using" listening room reflected sound, at any frequency can produce accuracy to the original recording, and reproducing it.

This wasn't meant as a challenge to your post, but to the concept of reflections in general in this thread.

Thoughts?

[TRADERXFAN]

He addressed this idea a bit in that link to his philosophy paper, above...
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Philosophy.pdf

"An obvious question always comes up – “Why not just make all the reflections and modes go away? Doesn’t this solve many of these problems?” That approach is
(unfortunately) used in a great many situations, but it is far less than ideal. Without real
room reverberation the perception of the playback is dead, lifeless, in acoustics parlance
it lacks spaciousness or ambiance – the feeling of being engulfed in an acoustically
spatial environment. If a non-echoic space were desirable then an anechoic chamber
would be the ideal listening room, but as anyone who has ever listened to speakers in this
kind of space will tell you, it really isn’t a good listening environment. One is always
aware that they are listening to speakers –  the room adds nothing. It’s something like
listening to headphones, which admittedly some people like."


So its probably a matter of taste.


-Tony

[FullRangeMan]

I think that is a misconception, that parallel walls create resonance, so therefore non-parallel walls won't create a resonance. They both will, just former is a lot more predictable than the latter!

If you think about it, a pop bottle has a resonance and there isn't much parallel there.

Tony

Its easy to understand any room create a resonance of his walls. I can attest any small room or near square room has poor acoustics.
By the Cardas site impressions of the non-parallel walls of the ''GoldenTrapagon'' room, this non-parallel GoldeRatio room has a very musical acoustics resonance.
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=36
Gustavo