[Andrew Haley]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:

So, nothing short of proving that radiation pattern, speaker
positioning, and room acoustics are not audible will make you doubt
your theories. But we already know that thse things are audible, so
there is no experiment that could be done by anyone that would make a
diference to you.

Er - excuse ME, but then you agree with me.

Insamuch as I agree that these factors change the sound, yes. If
that's all that your theories amount to, we're done. But I don't
think it is.

I have said that those factors are audible and we should study the
reproduction problem from the standpoint of what those do to the
sound. Linkwitz asked the same question, is there a way to
distinguish which variations of those factors lead to greatest
realism in the reproduction.

But there is a way to visualize the whole situation, a method that
is time honored and not controversial, and it is called image
modeling. My contribution is to propose that we study the
reproduction problem from the standpoint of comparing the image
model of the live event to that of the reproduction system of
speakers and room. Most studies about stereo have dealt with only
the direct sound radiated from a pair or a line of speakers. I
point out that this approach sees the problem as a "windowing" or
portaling process, but that it might operate more like a model of
the real thing in which we should pay attention to the sound
patterns produced in the room by the full model, not just the direct
field.

I think you're arguing against a straw man. Nobody disagrees that you
have to model the room. Toole, with whom you say you have some
disagreement, does not disagree with this, and talks at length about
the beneficial effects of room reflections, particularly on apparent
source width.

Without an understanding of what causes all this three
dimensionality and speakers disappearing, you are just as liable to
place your speakers right up against the walls, or in the corners of
your room, and never experience what I am talking about.

Well, yes. But no-one with a clue does that.

Again, I'm going to ask the question: what experimental results would
it take to convince you that Toole at al are right, and you are wrong?
Note that Toole goes to some length to explain why dead rooms are far
from ideal, the recordiong indistry's preference for them is a
historical mistake. The difference, as far as I can see it, is that
you prefer a greater amount of reflected sound, and you have some
uncommon theories about speaker placement.

Andrew.