MD wrote:

What sounded better about the non-processed system (by the way I have
until recently been a believer in less is more. I tried the DSP and
can't hear the negative. What do you think I am missing? is it
possible the digital DSPs are better now and you need to update your
experience?)

I doubt it, because the theory is still bad. Part of the issue is that
I tend to prefer no low end rather than bad and out of control low end.
And the dsp boxes didn't really do anything to help the out of control
low end.

On bumping up the low points. I agree it seems they move a bit - maybe
3 db - but then no matter how much you add you get nada (except for
damaging your system I am sure). How would traps help this? Aren't
these caused by certain frequencies bouncing off certain surfaces and
canceling at my ear? Traps don't affect phase so where's the benefit?

Traps stop the standing wave problem in the first place, so you don't
have the peaks and nodes. If you can stop standing waves from forming,
most of the low frequency room issues go away.

Sit in a bathtub and wave your hand back and forth... you will find
that there are several different frequencies at which you can create
standing waves in the tub. That is, the wave reflects off the wall,
and returns in phase with the outgoing wave, so there are obvious peaks
and troughs that don't seem to move.

You can think of the reflection as being the result of an impedance
discontinuity between the water and the side of the tub. The side
of the tub is much more solid and less compliant than the water.

If you do this in an Olympic swimming pool, you can't make the same
thing happen, because the wave dies out by the time it gets to the
end of the pool. There are still frequencies at which it would occur,
it's just that they are very, very low and you'd have to excite it
very strongly.

If you put a wooden box inside the pool, you'd get the same effect
with the water reflecting off the side of the box. BUT, if you put
a flexible box made of rubber, the wave would strike the box, the box
would excite the water outside, and the wave would continue to expand
without being reflected back. This is because the impedance of the
rubber diaphragm becomes approximately the same as the water behind it.

The whole notion of the bass trap is that it's a gadget that provides
the same impedance as the free air, so the wave goes into it and is
not reflected back.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

So I can build traps (not Helmholtz resonators) for 48, 68 and 130hz?

Roughly how many and what size would they be?

The several books by F Alton Everest on studio & acoustical
construction detail this & provide the formulae. A flexible membrane
bass trap doesn't require as much depth as a Helmholtz resonator & can
be made to have a very tight Q. As an example, I built a pair of traps
for a control room measuring about 11 x 25 x 8. The traps were plywood
boxes built according to the formula for interior volume for the
primary problem resonance, & IIRC were about, oh, 20" deep x 3.5 feet x
4.5 feet. Filled with R19, with the front surface of 1/4" ply. Pound on
the front & it rang like a bass drum, at exactly the main problem
frequency of the room. The acoustic benefit to the room was dramatic, &
since mixes from that room generally received no, or at most a half db
of correction in the low end during mastering at high end facilities
around LA, I'd have to conclude that the resulting room was very
accurate as an acoustical work space.

Scott Fraser

I agree I wouldn't want to record in my room
I get the time component and that DSP doesn't help much (as decay is
relative, at least to the ear to volume, the DSP can help a bit -
albeit
not as much as absorption).

If it's your contention that the brain averages amplitude response over
a certain time window & thus perceives a time smear as an increase in
volume, I'd say we need to bring in an expert in acoustics &
perception. I don't believe the brain does this at all, which is why I
feel that the time issues are more important as a detriment to sound
system accuracy than amplitude issues.

However decay or resonance is only one
contributor (and maybe the more significant one - I don't know enough
to
argue this). The other issue is phase addition.

Phase, of course, is a time domain element.

A lot of what I hear
is certain frequencies bouncing off surfaces adding or subtracting at
my
ears. I can move my head a couple inches and hear tones - straight or
warble- increase and decrease. My DSP helps with this.

Your EQ lessens your ability to perceive the ringing in the room by
removing energy at a frequency prone to ring. The nature of the
acoustic circuit is that it still rings, but at a lower volume.

(Question -
isn't the plus of warble tones to switch phase fast enough to cut down
on ringing? If so isn't the fact that i can hear differences in warble

tone volume, when moving my head, demonstrating the phase
addition/subtraction issue is just as or more apparent than ringing?)


A warble merely spreads the energy over a range of frequencies & is
slightly more related to the experience of music than a single tone. It
doesn't change anything in the room though.

My point on the brain and amplitude/ringing perception was that there

would be ringing cycles that would exist but that you wouldn't hear. I

was suggesting those to be of less importance than the ones I could.

And I'm suggesting that unbalancing the amplitude response with EQ is
merely fooling you into thinking that the room resonances have been
rendered unintrusive by allowing other frequencies to dominate or mask
the offending ringing, which now occurs at a lower volume, but for the
same duration as before.

If I built tuned bass traps wouldn't they still absorb frequencies i
don't ant touched or cause my valleys to get a bit worse?

Not if they're tuned right.

Most recording engineers and musicians posses very poor listening
abilities and make poor sounding recordings (not all genres and not all

the time but most).

This is utter & completely mindless bull****.

Most musicians have crappy home equipment and most
recording engineers use too much crap/process too much.

Total bull****.

For rock have
you ever noticed that the poorer the group the better they sound.

Totally unsupportable bull****.

That's because they can't afford all the extra stuff.

Total bull****. You obviously have no personal experience with the
recording industry.

Check out the
Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions. One stereo mike and a DAT. It sounds

great.

True, it's a great recording of a great performance. The fact of this
in no way supports your previous statements, which serve only to
demonstrate a complete if not willful ignorance of the profession
you're attacking. And it certainly does nothing to support any sort of
credibility you may have wished to claim for your argument favoring the
use of EQ for room correction.

Scott Fraser

Mike,

I'll take the risk.

I still fail to see any risk, but thanks for that. Many people might not
care who they're talking to, but I do.

I was bothered by your wholesale comment on DSP. You said they were in no
way useful. You didn't say they had their use - but it is limited or that it
could be part of a fix or anything like that.

I still believe EQ/DSP is mostly useless. Just as you object to someone
overstating their case, I object to the case for EQ being overstated
repeatedly in online forums and print magazines. I do understand that people
want very badly to believe that a small inexpensive electronic gadget can
replace big ugly bass traps. That doesn't make it so. It's a band-aid. A
band-aid is okay - it can stop the immediate bleeding! But it's not a
substitute for surgery and stitches and antibiotics.

And none of that justifies your initial personal attack on me. A large
number of professionals here, who don't sell acoustic treatment, have
explained to you why EQ is not a substitute for bass traps. I admit I am on
a mission, but that mission is to educate people about a subject that few
people outside of pro audio understand. I am not here to sell stuff.

For a stereo listening environment where one has a sweet spot I think it's
a reasonable substitute and a bit more than a band aid.

You can think what you want, but it doesn't change anything. The ringing is
still there, and bass notes played in an ascending scale (for example) will
still be uneven in many cases CAUSED by the EQ. Forget the "sweet spot" - EQ
can't even correct both ears at the same time because they're too far apart.

Traps have there problems ... they could cause small negative affects (and
much larger ones if you use too many).

That simply is not true. There's no such thing as too many bass traps - how
much ringing and peaks/nulls are you willing to put up with? And there's no
problem having traps present to absorb frequencies (you think) are not a
problem. I have written about this extensively on my company's site, and
I'll be glad to explain further here too if needed.

The problem is that most high need shops and most demos at audio shows
don't use either and none that I have come across have both.

I agree it's a huge problem that most "high end" audio stores do not have
bass traps or even basic reflection control. This is the "mission to
educate" I referred to. As for demos with and without traps, there will be
one soon. I can't say more now because it's not finalized.

If there was a way for me to get 2 or 4 traps in my room and run the tests
and listen I would.

Where are you located? If you email me I'll be glad to discuss this further
with you.

How much are the 4? Will I see as flat a response with 4 as I get with my
DSP?

No, because you can EQ a single (test microphone) location to be perfectly
flat given enough time and EQ bands. But that's beside the point. It is
clear to me that AUDIBLY bass traps will give much better results. Many
people wrongly think that bass problems are well below 100 Hz, when the real
problems are more in the range of 80 to 300 Hz. Much of the improvement in
clarity from adding bass traps is in the higher bass range where even EQ
proponents understand EQ is not useful.

The whole right side of my room has no wall and opens to a vaulted ceiling
area with carpeted stairs.

If your room is very large then four bass traps may not be enough to make a
big improvement.

Do all bumps have ringing or could they simply be phased additions?

You got it now - this is exactly why narrowly tuned traps are not a good
approach in most small rooms. All rooms need bass trapping at all
frequencies because not every peak and null is related to the room
dimensions. With non-modal peaks and nulls, as soon as you move a few inches
the peak and null frequencies change.

--Ethan

MD wrote:

Regular EQ's work on an octave basis with fixed bandwidth and center
frequencies - all you can vary is attenuation or boost.

"Regular EQ's"? Sheesh, MD, you've not seen many EQ's.

--
ha

MD wrote:

I don't know what giving it will prove unless I were
lying about any agenda I may have.

Your agenda is that you've purchased an EQ and it is your selfproclaimed
panacea. From that you have abstracted enough bull**** to keep the White
House press corps busy for years.

Go the **** away. Glue your ass in some sticky **** in your sweet spot
amd get back into your illusion.

That you can't afford traps don't mean **** to most of us. And quit
blaming your wife for this.

--
ha

Scott Fraser wrote:

I do not want to spend the money (thousands)
on traps or have that many in my room. If 2 or even 4 were enough I
would do it

As has been pointed out previously in this thread, you can build
bass traps tuned to very precise frequencies for under $100 of lumber &
several hours of work. Whether this would pass the spouse test is
another matter, but the $1,000s you mention is not really an effective
argument.

This guy could hurt himself in a wood shop.

--
ha

MD wrote:

Scott Fraser wrote:

I do not want to spend the money (thousands)
on traps or have that many in my room. If 2 or even 4 were enough I
would do it

As has been pointed out previously in this thread, you can build
bass traps tuned to very precise frequencies for under $100 of lumber &
several hours of work. Whether this would pass the spouse test is
another matter, but the $1,000s you mention is not really an effective
argument.

hmmm

So I can build traps (not Helmholtz resonators) for 48, 68 and 130hz?
Roughly how many and what size would they be?

I refer you to Ethan Winer's generously informational site. First, learn
how traps work. Then go back to highschool and sign up for shop.

--
ha

"Ethan Winer" wrote:

EQ can't even correct both ears at the same time because they're too far
apart.

But maybe not in the case of this particular poster, "MD"...

--
ha

MD wrote:
How would traps help this? Aren't [the low points]
caused by certain frequencies bouncing off certain surfaces and
canceling at my ear?

Yes, typically a reflected sound cancelling a direct sound.
So reduce the reflected wave and there'll be less cancellation.
Seems obvious enough to me.

And at frequencies where there's adding instead of cancelling, the
resulting boost be reduced too.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Scott Fraser wrote:
Regular EQ's work on an octave basis with fixed bandwidth and center
frequencies - all you can vary is attenuation or boost.

This is an error in terminology. What you call a 'regular' EQ is
generally known as "fixed" or "fixed frequency" EQ. Most, but not all,
graphic EQs are fixed, but not all fixed EQs are graphic. Nor are the
center frequencies necessarily spaced on octaves. The most common
graphic EQs have 1/3rd octave spacing, while many have 2/3rd octave
spacing. One octave & half octave band spacing are also available.
Similarly there are sweep EQs which are not parametric, although all
parametric EQs are a subset of sweep EQs. Then there are graphic EQs
with variable center frequencies.
So, in professional usage, there's no such thing as a regular EQ. There
are a number of generic types & they are known by their specific
characteristics.

Scott Fraser

OK - I was trying to say standard - most common

hank alrich wrote:

MD wrote:


Regular EQ's work on an octave basis with fixed bandwidth and center
frequencies - all you can vary is attenuation or boost.


"Regular EQ's"? Sheesh, MD, you've not seen many EQ's.

--
ha
OK - the second correction from what I can see are very smart people

I was trying to make the point that the EQ the person- who seemed to be
a novice - was the most common or standard version - especially for
those not in the recording field or hobby.

I sit corrected

Steve King wrote:

"MD" wrote in message
...

Scott Fraser wrote:


Plots I have seen - both mine and others- show that for single seat
listening - stereo- that DSP is very effective.

Once again you fail to address the major point here. You previously
said your plots were spectrum analyzer graphs, which hopefully you will
ackowledge portray amplitude response solely. So how can you have any
meaningful information whatsoever about the time response of your room?
Continuing to quote inapplicable tests does nothing to make your point.

Now I will agree it
could be masking. However - all that matters is that it sounds better.


Now we have something we can agree upon. If you like it, it's better,
for you at least. That's all that matters since it's your personal
listening/living room. This is not to be confused with a studio where
professional audio work takes place.

Scott Fraser


The program I run shows time domain as well. And I agree the DSP solution
mostly deals with levels (which do have a slight impact on the time
domain. Higher levels mean the time domain issues last longer especially
to the ear).

I don't buy the "if I like it thing" . There has to be an objective
component here. If you think the DSP corrections are more negative than
positive then tell me what I am hearing or not hearing. How am I worse
off. If you can point that out and I agree i will stop using the DSP. I
am not married to the idea. I ran sweeps, single tones, pink noise and
all types of music - blind and sighted. I could not pick up a problem
(other than a slight amount of white noise when cranked way up)

Now for the studio thing where the "professional" work takes place.
Most -and I don't mean you because I have no idea- studio engineers and
technicians don't know how to make a good recording. Most use too much
processing, limiters, expanders etc. Aside from audiophile recording and
classical music a lot of other formats, to varying degrees, suffer from
poor studio and mixing work. I have noticed that the poorer the band is
the better they sound and I think that is because they use less stuff (try
the Cowboy Junkies trinity sessions or Stevie Ray Vaughn s first). Now I
have heard excellent recording from all genres and even from those who
have money so my point is not absolute. My point being I would trust an
audiophile to get things right way before I would trust a studio tech or
engineer - again - on average.


Your generality above borders on offensive, but I'm going to pretend you
don't understand what a working audio engineer does. Are many recordings
today overprocessed, overlimited, over EQed, over everything? Yes. If you
want to take the time to Google it, you will find a few hundred posts by
frequent contributors here expressing distaste for this approach. However,
the same people expressing that feeling, faced with a client who says,
"Louder, louder, louder. I'm paying the bills, so do it my way," will patch
in the brickwall limiters or any other damn thing. Pleasing the customer
keeps the doors open. You, on the other hand, have only yourself to please,
or you can, by virtue of your amateur status, afford to say, "take a hike,"
if someone wants you to take an approach that you don't believe in. Most of
the people here, through long years of experience and trial and error and
collaboration with other similarly experienced professionals, feel
comfortable recording a classical recital, or a jazz trio, or a full
orchestra film score, or five whacked out kids with guitars and more money
than talent trying to copy their hero's latest hit. In my case, I don't
think I've done a dozen studio sessions in (gasp) forty years, where I was
the only one in the control room making the decisions. It is this great gap
between your entirely selfish needs and the wide experience, often
collaborative, of most in this newsgroup that get in the way of
communication.

As far as DSP to correct your room... forget the traps. Do your DSP. Nail
your chair to the floor. Arrange a fixed brace to settle your neck into.
Make yourself happy. Your room will suck worse than it does now for every
position but that one, and that position won't sound as good as it might.
Don't move a chair. Don't open a door. Because then everything will
change. Run your low oxygen speaker wires. Do your audiophile thing. I
think your mind was made up before the thread started. And, in fairness,
since I've been there, done that, been disappointed, tried again, licked my
wounds ($$$) before going back to basics, my mind was made up, too. Still
is. I've enjoyed the contributors to the thread, but I think the only thing
left is to repeat stuff you don't want to hear.

Steve King

Steve King


My you're touchy. I made a general comment - and specifically stated
not in all cases - and you get uptight and tell me there are hundreds of
engineers who don't like the over processed mess. So - we agree. Don't
let it bother you. OK so the engineer isn't the boss and many people
get to weigh in. OK. My guess is that the people making the decisions-
including engineers - don't know any better. What kind of rooms or
systems do you think MOST (not all) engineers, producers and artists
have? Most have crap - set up like crap. So there reference is crap.
Then they get in their car and listen to more crap. None of this is due
to stupidity. It's learned behavior - hence the popularity of Bose
systems. (I used to own a lot of this stuff and didn't know any better
either)

Why the attitude on DSP. I asked if someone who thinks this method is
wrong can describe to me what I am or am not hearing that is wrong and
NO ONE has told me. I am NOT married to the DSP. I would prefer to
have as little electronic gear in my system as possible. However - the
3 nodes are huge and I like what the DSP does- and seems to not do.
Tell me what to listen to - tones, sweeps, white noise - particular
music - and I will blind test it and get back to you. My mind is not
made up, I am open minded and I will admit when i have it wrong.

So please - pay attention to what i write, don't read between the lines
and decide that I am a lost cause too early. (Ironic that it seems your
mind is made up about my mind being made up)

hank alrich wrote:

MD wrote:


I don't know what giving it will prove unless I were
lying about any agenda I may have.


Your agenda is that you've purchased an EQ and it is your selfproclaimed
panacea. From that you have abstracted enough bull**** to keep the White
House press corps busy for years.

Go the **** away. Glue your ass in some sticky **** in your sweet spot
amd get back into your illusion.

That you can't afford traps don't mean **** to most of us. And quit
blaming your wife for this.

--
ha
Dude - lighten up

You don't pay attention well

I said I wasn't married to the device and that I would rather have as
little equip in my system as possible. I tried it, measured it,
listened to it and liked it.

My points about wives liking or not liking it was made in response to
someone looking for opinions. I do not have that problem because I have
a dedicated room. For me the drawback would be mostly cost and
potentially room impact if I need a large amount of traps

I can afford them. It's simply a choice (kids and all). I would prefer
to hear and measure the difference first.

hank alrich wrote:

Scott Fraser wrote:


I do not want to spend the money (thousands)
on traps or have that many in my room. If 2 or even 4 were enough I
would do it


As has been pointed out previously in this thread, you can build
bass traps tuned to very precise frequencies for under $100 of lumber &
several hours of work. Whether this would pass the spouse test is
another matter, but the $1,000s you mention is not really an effective
argument.


This guy could hurt himself in a wood shop.

--
ha
hmmmm

After reading a couple threads I am starting to believe you may be a
bitter little man. That's unfortunate.

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

"MD" wrote:

On bumping up the low points. I agree it seems they move a bit -
maybe 3 db - but then no matter how much you add you get nada (except
for damaging your system I am sure). How would traps help this?
Aren't these caused by certain frequencies bouncing off certain
surfaces and canceling at my ear? Traps don't affect phase so
where's the benefit?



When you get to high school, enrol in "Really, Really, Really Basic
Physics For Kids Who Ride The 'Special' Bus To School." They'll explain
it in terms even an "expert" like you can understand.

Or just get out a pencil and piece of paper and see what happens when
you get rid of the ****ing reflection altogether... it ain't rocket
science.

Why the hostility? I was agreeing with the premise and then asking
questions. They weren't rhetorical or sarcastic.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

MD wrote:

What sounded better about the non-processed system (by the way I have
until recently been a believer in less is more. I tried the DSP and
can't hear the negative. What do you think I am missing? is it
possible the digital DSPs are better now and you need to update your
experience?)


I doubt it, because the theory is still bad. Part of the issue is that
I tend to prefer no low end rather than bad and out of control low end.
And the dsp boxes didn't really do anything to help the out of control
low end.


On bumping up the low points. I agree it seems they move a bit - maybe
3 db - but then no matter how much you add you get nada (except for
damaging your system I am sure). How would traps help this? Aren't
these caused by certain frequencies bouncing off certain surfaces and
canceling at my ear? Traps don't affect phase so where's the benefit?


Traps stop the standing wave problem in the first place, so you don't
have the peaks and nodes. If you can stop standing waves from forming,
most of the low frequency room issues go away.

Sit in a bathtub and wave your hand back and forth... you will find
that there are several different frequencies at which you can create
standing waves in the tub. That is, the wave reflects off the wall,
and returns in phase with the outgoing wave, so there are obvious peaks
and troughs that don't seem to move.

You can think of the reflection as being the result of an impedance
discontinuity between the water and the side of the tub. The side
of the tub is much more solid and less compliant than the water.

If you do this in an Olympic swimming pool, you can't make the same
thing happen, because the wave dies out by the time it gets to the
end of the pool. There are still frequencies at which it would occur,
it's just that they are very, very low and you'd have to excite it
very strongly.

If you put a wooden box inside the pool, you'd get the same effect
with the water reflecting off the side of the box. BUT, if you put
a flexible box made of rubber, the wave would strike the box, the box
would excite the water outside, and the wave would continue to expand
without being reflected back. This is because the impedance of the
rubber diaphragm becomes approximately the same as the water behind it.

The whole notion of the bass trap is that it's a gadget that provides
the same impedance as the free air, so the wave goes into it and is
not reflected back.
--scott
OK - thanks

Still looking for an answer to why the DSP is bad as opposed to not as
good. What am I hearing or not hearing? What test can I run to tell?
I can run sweeps, single tones, white noise and music. tell me what to
A/B and I will try it. I am not sure how I got this label, on this
thread, of being hard over on DSP - HOWEVER - if I experience something
different I will have no problem admitting I was wrong.

anahata wrote:

MD wrote:

How would traps help this? Aren't [the low points]
caused by certain frequencies bouncing off certain surfaces and
canceling at my ear?


Yes, typically a reflected sound cancelling a direct sound.
So reduce the reflected wave and there'll be less cancellation.
Seems obvious enough to me.

And at frequencies where there's adding instead of cancelling, the
resulting boost be reduced too.

OK - thanks

Then wouldn't a DSP help?

Scott Fraser wrote:

So I can build traps (not Helmholtz resonators) for 48, 68 and 130hz?

Roughly how many and what size would they be?

The several books by F Alton Everest on studio & acoustical
construction detail this & provide the formulae. A flexible membrane
bass trap doesn't require as much depth as a Helmholtz resonator & can
be made to have a very tight Q. As an example, I built a pair of traps
for a control room measuring about 11 x 25 x 8. The traps were plywood
boxes built according to the formula for interior volume for the
primary problem resonance, & IIRC were about, oh, 20" deep x 3.5 feet x
4.5 feet. Filled with R19, with the front surface of 1/4" ply. Pound on
the front & it rang like a bass drum, at exactly the main problem
frequency of the room. The acoustic benefit to the room was dramatic, &
since mixes from that room generally received no, or at most a half db
of correction in the low end during mastering at high end facilities
around LA, I'd have to conclude that the resulting room was very
accurate as an acoustical work space.

Scott Fraser

If I have 3 peaks - 48, 68 and 130hz wouldn't I need several sets?
Wouldn't I wind up with 6 or more?

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:20:38 -0500, MD wrote:


If I built tuned bass traps wouldn't they still absorb frequencies i
don't ant touched or cause my valleys to get a bit worse?


1. Broadband bass traps will absorb more of high-pressure energy
frequencies than lower pressure ones.
2. The high-pressure ones are those that correspond to the modes for
the dimension(s) when the traps are located at the wall-boundary for
those modes.
3. Since the nulls are due to the cancellation of modes (just as
nodes are due to the summation), reducing the energy will raise those
nulls and reduce the nodes.

Kal (who, otherwise, will try to sit this one out)
Your a brave man

Thanks

Scott Fraser wrote:

I agree I wouldn't want to record in my room
I get the time component and that DSP doesn't help much (as decay is
relative, at least to the ear to volume, the DSP can help a bit -
albeit
not as much as absorption).

If it's your contention that the brain averages amplitude response over
a certain time window & thus perceives a time smear as an increase in
volume, I'd say we need to bring in an expert in acoustics &
perception. I don't believe the brain does this at all, which is why I
feel that the time issues are more important as a detriment to sound
system accuracy than amplitude issues.

However decay or resonance is only one
contributor (and maybe the more significant one - I don't know enough
to
argue this). The other issue is phase addition.

Phase, of course, is a time domain element.

A lot of what I hear
is certain frequencies bouncing off surfaces adding or subtracting at
my
ears. I can move my head a couple inches and hear tones - straight or
warble- increase and decrease. My DSP helps with this.

Your EQ lessens your ability to perceive the ringing in the room by
removing energy at a frequency prone to ring. The nature of the
acoustic circuit is that it still rings, but at a lower volume.

(Question -
isn't the plus of warble tones to switch phase fast enough to cut down
on ringing? If so isn't the fact that i can hear differences in warble

tone volume, when moving my head, demonstrating the phase
addition/subtraction issue is just as or more apparent than ringing?)


A warble merely spreads the energy over a range of frequencies & is
slightly more related to the experience of music than a single tone. It
doesn't change anything in the room though.

My point on the brain and amplitude/ringing perception was that there

would be ringing cycles that would exist but that you wouldn't hear. I

was suggesting those to be of less importance than the ones I could.

And I'm suggesting that unbalancing the amplitude response with EQ is
merely fooling you into thinking that the room resonances have been
rendered unintrusive by allowing other frequencies to dominate or mask
the offending ringing, which now occurs at a lower volume, but for the
same duration as before.

If I built tuned bass traps wouldn't they still absorb frequencies i
don't ant touched or cause my valleys to get a bit worse?

Not if they're tuned right.

Most recording engineers and musicians posses very poor listening
abilities and make poor sounding recordings (not all genres and not all

the time but most).

This is utter & completely mindless bull****.

Most musicians have crappy home equipment and most
recording engineers use too much crap/process too much.

Total bull****.

For rock have
you ever noticed that the poorer the group the better they sound.

Totally unsupportable bull****.

That's because they can't afford all the extra stuff.

Total bull****. You obviously have no personal experience with the
recording industry.

Check out the
Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions. One stereo mike and a DAT. It sounds

great.

True, it's a great recording of a great performance. The fact of this
in no way supports your previous statements, which serve only to
demonstrate a complete if not willful ignorance of the profession
you're attacking. And it certainly does nothing to support any sort of
credibility you may have wished to claim for your argument favoring the
use of EQ for room correction.

Scott Fraser

Thanks for the info (the part before you got touchy)


"And I'm suggesting that unbalancing the amplitude response with EQ is
merely fooling you into thinking that the room resonances have been
rendered unintrusive by allowing other frequencies to dominate or mask
the offending ringing, which now occurs at a lower volume, but for the
same duration as before."

If I am being fooled doesn't that basically mean I don't hear it? And I
don't hear it because the later repetitions of the ringing are below my
hearing threshold. Therefore - I still hear ringing but for a shorter
period. As such - and we can call it a band aid - the DSP lessens the
unwanted effect?

Additionally - I have seen plots of traps being used. They aren't
perfect in this regard either. They don't stop the ringing. (Maybe
with enough they would but then the room would be dead). In Ethan's
charts he used 17 traps and didn't wind up eliminating the ringing or
having a flat response. Maybe we are just talking about degree here?

On recording. Are you a recording engineer? Amateur or professional?
If so your reaction would make sense. When I say most I mean quantity
over all genres (additionally i mean mass distributed. IF you count
small labels - especially indie you may be correct). Having said that
let's look at the most sales - country, pop, hip hop and maybe rock
depending on the sub-genres counted. Most of that stuff is over
processed. Now given the effect someone wants that may be exactly what
they want. But it's not accurate.

There is definetly a correlation between how much money one has as
related to how much stuff one has (or could have) and recording quality.
listen to recordings made in the 50s and 60s - almost any genre
(mostly jazz and big band) and that stuff sounds great. Why - they
didn't do a lot of takes, they didn't do a lot of over dubbing and they
had simple systems. (Heck if you think about it they had to do this
without speakers that could reproduce the higher frequencies. tweeters
didn't catch up to what we could hear until the 70s. these guys took
the time to put the music down in the hope that someday someone would
hear it. Now days we can hear it and still screw it up)

Again - I am making a general statement. Give me an example of an
artist whose recordings sound better over time? (Not classical, jazz or
small label blues). For every one you give me I will give you 5 who
sound worse over time. Why do they sound worse. More money means they
can use more stuff and this stuff is touted as necessary or the latest
thing.

Coming down so hard that most recording engineers or producers or
artists know what they are doing makes me think you prefer the sound you
like over capturing what the instruments or singers actually sound like.
NOW I am not saying this is bad or that I don't enjoy the hell out of
processed stuff - cause I do.

I'll give you some examples. Santana's Supernatural over his early
stuff. Stevie Ray's first compared to the rest. Cowboy Junkies first
to the rest. Older groups like Kansas. They didn't hit it big until
Leftoveture. That LP sounds way better than their very next outing -
Point of Know Return. The Beatles stuff compared to Wings or Lennon's
stuff. Spyro Gyra over time. David Sandborn over time. Listen to Kind
of Blue compared to anything popular today - jazz or otherwise. those
guys didn't everything live and in only one take in some cases. Minimal
recording system - analog on tape.

Ethan Winer wrote:

Mike,


I'll take the risk.


I still fail to see any risk, but thanks for that. Many people might not
care who they're talking to, but I do.


I was bothered by your wholesale comment on DSP. You said they were in no

way useful. You didn't say they had their use - but it is limited or that it
could be part of a fix or anything like that.

I still believe EQ/DSP is mostly useless. Just as you object to someone
overstating their case, I object to the case for EQ being overstated
repeatedly in online forums and print magazines. I do understand that people
want very badly to believe that a small inexpensive electronic gadget can
replace big ugly bass traps. That doesn't make it so. It's a band-aid. A
band-aid is okay - it can stop the immediate bleeding! But it's not a
substitute for surgery and stitches and antibiotics.

And none of that justifies your initial personal attack on me. A large
number of professionals here, who don't sell acoustic treatment, have
explained to you why EQ is not a substitute for bass traps. I admit I am on
a mission, but that mission is to educate people about a subject that few
people outside of pro audio understand. I am not here to sell stuff.


For a stereo listening environment where one has a sweet spot I think it's

a reasonable substitute and a bit more than a band aid.

You can think what you want, but it doesn't change anything. The ringing is
still there, and bass notes played in an ascending scale (for example) will
still be uneven in many cases CAUSED by the EQ. Forget the "sweet spot" - EQ
can't even correct both ears at the same time because they're too far apart.


Traps have there problems ... they could cause small negative affects (and

much larger ones if you use too many).

That simply is not true. There's no such thing as too many bass traps - how
much ringing and peaks/nulls are you willing to put up with? And there's no
problem having traps present to absorb frequencies (you think) are not a
problem. I have written about this extensively on my company's site, and
I'll be glad to explain further here too if needed.


The problem is that most high need shops and most demos at audio shows

don't use either and none that I have come across have both.

I agree it's a huge problem that most "high end" audio stores do not have
bass traps or even basic reflection control. This is the "mission to
educate" I referred to. As for demos with and without traps, there will be
one soon. I can't say more now because it's not finalized.


If there was a way for me to get 2 or 4 traps in my room and run the tests

and listen I would.

Where are you located? If you email me I'll be glad to discuss this further
with you.


How much are the 4? Will I see as flat a response with 4 as I get with my

DSP?

No, because you can EQ a single (test microphone) location to be perfectly
flat given enough time and EQ bands. But that's beside the point. It is
clear to me that AUDIBLY bass traps will give much better results. Many
people wrongly think that bass problems are well below 100 Hz, when the real
problems are more in the range of 80 to 300 Hz. Much of the improvement in
clarity from adding bass traps is in the higher bass range where even EQ
proponents understand EQ is not useful.


The whole right side of my room has no wall and opens to a vaulted ceiling

area with carpeted stairs.

If your room is very large then four bass traps may not be enough to make a
big improvement.


Do all bumps have ringing or could they simply be phased additions?


You got it now - this is exactly why narrowly tuned traps are not a good
approach in most small rooms. All rooms need bass trapping at all
frequencies because not every peak and null is related to the room
dimensions. With non-modal peaks and nulls, as soon as you move a few inches
the peak and null frequencies change.

--Ethan


OK I apologize. When someone who knows as much as you do says something
as black and white as you did - novices will run off and think that's
gospel. Same thing mass advertisement does - like Bose. (By the way I
do not in any way consider myself and expert. Maybe a moderately
learned audiophile? Hobbyist?)

What are the negatives of traps? Other than potential cost or space issues?

I have seen your charts. All ringing is not stopped nor is the response
flat.

Isn't one bad effect the potential to have too dead of a room?

Do you prefer traps only or a traps DSP combo?

Quote - "No, because you can EQ a single (test microphone) location to
be perfectly
flat given enough time and EQ bands. But that's beside the point.

Why is this beside the point? I have a dedicated room for stereo and
sit in one spot. I spent a long time doing exactly that. If I get a
flat response (I brought my 3 problem nodes down between 12 and 20db
each) why haven't i done a good thing? My plot looks excellent. (albeit
not in the time domain. Which looks better than before but not, I am
sure, as good as traps would do)

OK - I was trying to say standard - most common

In professional use, the fixed EQ is not the most common. Sweep &
parametric EQs are far more common.

Scott Fraser

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:00:35 -0500, MD wrote:

After reading a couple threads I am starting to believe you may be a
bitter little man. That's unfortunate.

You have even less of a clue about who you're writing
about than what you're writing about. If you had a clue,
you'd be ashamed.

My sole contribution to this waste of electrons thread is:
Sound comes out of a speaker, travels in all directions;
the sound that travels straight to your ears gets there
first; all reflected sounds get there later.

You figure it out from here.
Good luck; you'll obviously need it,

Chris Hornbeck

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:34:12 -0500, MD wrote:

Scott Fraser wrote:

(snipped because wasted on its intended audience)

On recording. Are you a recording engineer? Amateur or professional?

Are you kidding? Do a tiny bit of homework and you
won't look so foolish.

ps: Good move not using your real name; too
embarrassing.

Chris Hornbeck

"MD" wrote:

Why the hostility?


That wasn't hostility... THIS is hostility:

You're a ****ing idiot. Why? Three reasons.

1. You argue about subjects you obviously don't understand. No one
knows everything and seeking help is admirable. You didn't do that.
You came in declaring a position based on ignorance and defended it,
even to the point of insulting those who actually understand the
physics.

2. You didn't just declare YOUR misguided beliefs, you tried to malign
the reputation and credibility of a really good guy who does a great
deal to improve the world of audio production, and who actually DOES
know what he's talking about (unlike you). We need more guys like
Ethan, and stupid comments like yours discourage people.

3. You won't quit, even though the subject has long since been beaten to
death, because you seem to dig the attention. I guess you didn't learn
growing up that there's "good attention" and "bad attention." Being a
dork just to keep the spotlight shining on you is a clear indication
that you're just an asshole. The upside is that I can save myself some
time by just ignoring you from now on.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

MD wrote:

Still looking for an answer to why the DSP is bad as opposed to not as
good. What am I hearing or not hearing? What test can I run to tell?
I can run sweeps, single tones, white noise and music. tell me what to
A/B and I will try it. I am not sure how I got this label, on this
thread, of being hard over on DSP - HOWEVER - if I experience something
different I will have no problem admitting I was wrong.

Sure, you could do an impulse response test. If the DSP is actually doing
impulse response compensation rather than just EQ, if you measure the impulse
an inch or two away from the reference, a waterfall plot will look just awful.

If it's just doing EQ, well, a waterfall plot will look even worse.

But don't believe the scope. Use your ears.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:47:54 -0500, MD wrote
(in article ):

Why the attitude on DSP. I asked if someone who thinks this method is wrong
can describe to me what I am or am not hearing that is wrong and NO ONE has
told me.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest......

We've been telling, you ain't listening, you're arguing.

STFU and listen, this isn't a debate.

Have a great weekend.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Mike,

What are the negatives of traps? Other than potential cost or space
issues?

None that I know of. I have 38 traps in my living room home theater and the
sound is absolutely stunning. If you are ever in my neck of the woods you
are most welcome to come by for a listen. (I also like to brag about how
"low-end" most of the rest of my HT gear is, because the room matters so
much more than the gear.)

I have seen your charts. All ringing is not stopped nor is the response
flat.

That thread at AVS is huge so I understand that you may not have read it
all. Somewhere in there I acknowledged that most of the traps were not
placed well. My original intent was to show progressively more traps, ending
up with even more than the 17 in the "fully trapped" last example. Only four
of the MondoTraps were in corners, which is where they should be, but the
rest were on stands along the walls to hold up a row of our SoffitTraps in
the wall-ceiling corners. Terry Montlick objected to our using that many
traps, so the data with SoffitTraps was not presented even though we
measured that. Were I to do those tests again there would have been only 8
MondoTraps, and they ALL would have been in corners. Or I would have found a
way to hold the SoffitTraps in place without needing MondoTraps on stands
just for that. In fact, I have tested again (last week) using only
MondoTraps all in corners, and when I get a chance I'll add a post to that
long thread with the updated information.

All of the above is mostly beside the point because even with traps along
the walls instead of straddling corners the AUDIBLE improvement was
incredible. As I mentioned yesterday, the worst bass problems are in the
range of 80 to 300 Hz, and much of the improvement in clarity from adding
bass traps is in the higher bass range. Another unfortunate part of our
tests is the ETF software I use shows low frequency detail only up to 200
Hz. Had we been able to display up to 300 Hz the advantage of traps over EQ
would have been much more compelling, as you'd be able to see the even
larger reduction in ringing at the higher bass frequencies. Even with the
data up to 200 Hz, the reduction in ringing - and corresponding increase in
bass instrument clarity - is still quite evident above the 128 Hz marker.
And even if the ringing below 100 Hz is not reduced four-fold as at higher
frequencies, it is still reduced enough to make a noticeable improvement.

Isn't one bad effect the potential to have too dead of a room?

Not at bass frequencies. While it is definitely possible to have too much
absorption at mid and high frequencies, you really can't have too much bass
trapping. This is a huge feature of my company's traps, because they have an
intentional curve of absorption versus frequency that lets you put enough of
them in a room to really help the low end, but without killing all the mids
and highs as happens with foam and plain fiberglass.

Do you prefer traps only or a traps DSP combo?

I prefer good bass traps as the first line of attack, and if the room still
has a few peaks at very low frequencies I'm not opposed using EQ IN
MODERATION to reduce those. I even posted near the end of that AVS thread
that after getting my new SVS subwoofer recently, I engaged its one-band EQ
to reduce the slight peak around 45 Hz that remained in my living room
system.

why haven't i done a good thing?

As I've said many times, it's a band-aid. This is not to say that you have
not made the room "better" at one location, but you likely added other
problems in the process, even at the listening position. When you use EQ
with a bunch of narrow (high Q) parametric filters you are adding phase
shift, and creating may narrow "ripples" in the response in between the EQ
frequencies. This is audibly much worse than bass traps that may not make
the response perfectly flat, but at least they broaden the peaks and make
each smaller "segment" of the bass range smoother. And of course the ringing
was not reduced, and you may even have added new ringing as shown in that
AVS thread.

It appears impossible to convince you until you can hear EQ only versus
traps only for yourself. I know that subjective opinions and customer
testimonials are suspect, but please look at the many comments we've
received from customers on our site. Most of these folks are NOT "audiophile
consumers" who might say the same thing about a replacement power cord. :-)

If I have 3 peaks - 48, 68 and 130hz wouldn't I need several sets?
Wouldn't I wind up with 6 or more?

This is a big problem with tuned traps. You already said you can't put in
many traps, so you want each trap to help as many frequencies as possible.
If you put in six traps, each tuned to a different frequency, you really
have only one trap! And that's not enough to make much improvement. If each
trap were broadband you'd have all six traps working to help at all six
frequencies.

--Ethan

Ty Ford wrote:

MD wrote:

Why the attitude on DSP. I asked if someone who thinks this method is wrong
can describe to me what I am or am not hearing that is wrong and NO ONE has
told me.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest......

We've been telling, you ain't listening, you're arguing.

STFU and listen, this isn't a debate.

He can't do that because he's not sitting in his sweet spot.

--
ha

MD wrote:

On recording. Are you a recording engineer? Amateur or professional?

The man uses his real name; he has been posting here for years. You are
making an idiot of yoruself, and doing so without strain. In this
particular case you are headed for a Guinness Book listing for
cluelessness.

If you have a brain use it to do some investigation:

http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en


If you can't figure out who Scott Fraser is and what he does via that,
you have problems larger than your listening room.

--
ha

Thanks for the info (the part before you got touchy)

That's not touchy. Touchy is an unreasonable overeaction. It's very
apparent from all your remarks that you are quite ignorant of the
recording industry & when you make rash & unsupportable generalizations
about something you know nothing of, a declaration of "Bull****!" is
not the least bit out of line.

If I am being fooled doesn't that basically mean I don't hear it?

You apparently don't hear it. That doesn't mean it's not still there
nor that others wouldn't hear it. But since you're listening for
personal pleasure, as opposed to doing audio work for others to hear,
it's OK if you don't hear it.

And I
don't hear it because the later repetitions of the ringing are below my

hearing threshold.

You don't hear it because you are confusing the duration of a lessened
amplitude band for that of a shorter duration at a flat response.

Therefore - I still hear ringing but for a shorter
period. As such - and we can call it a band aid - the DSP lessens the
unwanted effect?

The EQ does lessen the effect you've been perceiving, but in your case
it is fooling you into believing the ringing is no longer an issue.
Some people are sensitive to time effects, some aren't. It's an aspect
of ear training. I referred to your results earlier as masking. You
felt this was a good thing inasmuch as the sustain of your problem
frequencies was hidden from your perception. This is basically how
ATRAC (MiniDisc) & MPEG data reduction works. Below a perceptual
threshold determined by the masking effects of adjacent frequencies,
the energy in given bands is removed, entirely. With ATRAC this results
in an up to 80% reduction in data representing your music. Sony is very
clever & often, with certain program material, this is inditinguishable
from the non-data reduced program. On other material note decays are
audibly altered. This is what your EQ is doing to your listening
experience. It's masking information. If you're pleased with the
results, who are we to tell you it's not good, while pointing out that
it's not an accurate representation of the original recording.
As an aside, your description of your listening space with a right side
which opens into another larger room tells me your listening experience
is going to be hugely inaccurate at best, so the bulk of all this
discussion has to be seen as largely theoretical.

On recording. Are you a recording engineer? Amateur or
professional?

Why don't you email me & I'll give you my credentials there.

The remainder of your post is entirely subjective opinion based on
personal taste & lack of understanding of what engineers, producers &
artists are doing & thinking, & as one who doesn't share your opinion,
but who does understand what engineers, producers & artists do & think,
I'm going to save my breath & let somebody else pick up the thread.

Scott Fraser

If you have a brain use it to do some investigation:
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
If you can't figure out who Scott Fraser is and what he does via that,
you have problems larger than your listening room.

Well, I ain't the hockey player, nor the late stock car driver, nor the
painter, nor the Baptist minister, nor the professor of sociology at
USC, nor the Texan-guitar-playing-bandleader of "Space Opera".

SF

On 3 Mar 2006 09:56:36 -0800, "Scott Fraser"
wrote:

If you have a brain use it to do some investigation:
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
If you can't figure out who Scott Fraser is and what he does via that,
you have problems larger than your listening room.

Well, I ain't the hockey player, nor the late stock car driver, nor the
painter, nor the Baptist minister, nor the professor of sociology at
USC, nor the Texan-guitar-playing-bandleader of "Space Opera".

Professor of Biology at CalTech and the other SF with whom I've been
in contact. (I actually thought you were him in our earliest
interaction.)

Kal

Professor of Biology at CalTech

That's right, I've gotten misdirected calls for him as well. Both he &
the USC prof are unlisted in the LA White Pages.

and the other SF with whom I've been
in contact. (I actually thought you were him in our earliest
interaction.)

Well, him I might be, unless he's a dope.

SF

Scott Fraser wrote:

If you have a brain use it to do some investigation:
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
If you can't figure out who Scott Fraser is and what he does via that,
you have problems larger than your listening room.

Well, I ain't the hockey player, nor the late stock car driver, nor the
painter, nor the Baptist minister, nor the professor of sociology at
USC, nor the Texan-guitar-playing-bandleader of "Space Opera".

I figured pointing him at RAP, in English, he'd have a chance.

--
ha

Ty Ford wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:47:54 -0500, MD wrote
(in article ):


Why the attitude on DSP. I asked if someone who thinks this method is wrong
can describe to me what I am or am not hearing that is wrong and NO ONE has
told me.


A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest......

We've been telling, you ain't listening, you're arguing.

STFU and listen, this isn't a debate.

Have a great weekend.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Again - you go after me for something you are guilty of. I get that you
are telling me there is still ringing. tell me what I can listen to so
I can hear that my DSP is either - not doing what I think it is or doing
something harmful. All you have said - other than being obnoxious- is
that I am not listening or that my DSP doesn't cure ringing. I am
telling you I am willing to try out your suggestion and all you do is
avoid my question and give me crap. If you can't give me something to
try - tones - sweep- music etc - then stop the crap.

You sir are not listening and arguing.

hank alrich wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:


MD wrote:


Why the attitude on DSP. I asked if someone who thinks this method is wrong
can describe to me what I am or am not hearing that is wrong and NO ONE has
told me.


A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest......


We've been telling, you ain't listening, you're arguing.


STFU and listen, this isn't a debate.


He can't do that because he's not sitting in his sweet spot.

--
ha
See - and now your just being sarcastic

Both of you put up or shut up

Ethan Winer wrote:

Mike,


What are the negatives of traps? Other than potential cost or space

issues?

None that I know of. I have 38 traps in my living room home theater and the
sound is absolutely stunning. If you are ever in my neck of the woods you
are most welcome to come by for a listen. (I also like to brag about how
"low-end" most of the rest of my HT gear is, because the room matters so
much more than the gear.)


I have seen your charts. All ringing is not stopped nor is the response

flat.

That thread at AVS is huge so I understand that you may not have read it
all. Somewhere in there I acknowledged that most of the traps were not
placed well. My original intent was to show progressively more traps, ending
up with even more than the 17 in the "fully trapped" last example. Only four
of the MondoTraps were in corners, which is where they should be, but the
rest were on stands along the walls to hold up a row of our SoffitTraps in
the wall-ceiling corners. Terry Montlick objected to our using that many
traps, so the data with SoffitTraps was not presented even though we
measured that. Were I to do those tests again there would have been only 8
MondoTraps, and they ALL would have been in corners. Or I would have found a
way to hold the SoffitTraps in place without needing MondoTraps on stands
just for that. In fact, I have tested again (last week) using only
MondoTraps all in corners, and when I get a chance I'll add a post to that
long thread with the updated information.

All of the above is mostly beside the point because even with traps along
the walls instead of straddling corners the AUDIBLE improvement was
incredible. As I mentioned yesterday, the worst bass problems are in the
range of 80 to 300 Hz, and much of the improvement in clarity from adding
bass traps is in the higher bass range. Another unfortunate part of our
tests is the ETF software I use shows low frequency detail only up to 200
Hz. Had we been able to display up to 300 Hz the advantage of traps over EQ
would have been much more compelling, as you'd be able to see the even
larger reduction in ringing at the higher bass frequencies. Even with the
data up to 200 Hz, the reduction in ringing - and corresponding increase in
bass instrument clarity - is still quite evident above the 128 Hz marker.
And even if the ringing below 100 Hz is not reduced four-fold as at higher
frequencies, it is still reduced enough to make a noticeable improvement.


Isn't one bad effect the potential to have too dead of a room?


Not at bass frequencies. While it is definitely possible to have too much
absorption at mid and high frequencies, you really can't have too much bass
trapping. This is a huge feature of my company's traps, because they have an
intentional curve of absorption versus frequency that lets you put enough of
them in a room to really help the low end, but without killing all the mids
and highs as happens with foam and plain fiberglass.


Do you prefer traps only or a traps DSP combo?


I prefer good bass traps as the first line of attack, and if the room still
has a few peaks at very low frequencies I'm not opposed using EQ IN
MODERATION to reduce those. I even posted near the end of that AVS thread
that after getting my new SVS subwoofer recently, I engaged its one-band EQ
to reduce the slight peak around 45 Hz that remained in my living room
system.


why haven't i done a good thing?


As I've said many times, it's a band-aid. This is not to say that you have
not made the room "better" at one location, but you likely added other
problems in the process, even at the listening position. When you use EQ
with a bunch of narrow (high Q) parametric filters you are adding phase
shift, and creating may narrow "ripples" in the response in between the EQ
frequencies. This is audibly much worse than bass traps that may not make
the response perfectly flat, but at least they broaden the peaks and make
each smaller "segment" of the bass range smoother. And of course the ringing
was not reduced, and you may even have added new ringing as shown in that
AVS thread.

It appears impossible to convince you until you can hear EQ only versus
traps only for yourself. I know that subjective opinions and customer
testimonials are suspect, but please look at the many comments we've
received from customers on our site. Most of these folks are NOT "audiophile
consumers" who might say the same thing about a replacement power cord. :-)


If I have 3 peaks - 48, 68 and 130hz wouldn't I need several sets?

Wouldn't I wind up with 6 or more?

This is a big problem with tuned traps. You already said you can't put in
many traps, so you want each trap to help as many frequencies as possible.
If you put in six traps, each tuned to a different frequency, you really
have only one trap! And that's not enough to make much improvement. If each
trap were broadband you'd have all six traps working to help at all six
frequencies.

--Ethan


Thanks for the invite. Where is your neck of the woods? Just a
city/state will be enough.

I agree. Lower end equip set up right always sound better than great
stuff in a crappy set up (high end shows in hotel rooms will tell you
that. Actually a lot of high end store demo rooms are crap too. it's
hypocritical and unfortunate)

I did read through the whole AVS thread. I actually saw your statements
on this and others relative to having not spent as much time as you
would have liked. didn't want to pick. I figured you went out of your
way to provide data on what you did do. I look forward to the new data.

You say bass traps are most effective above 80hz. My 2 biggest nodes
are at 48 and 68hz. Not to hit a hot button - however - if this is true
isn't my DSP a benefit here? (My plot shows I flattened both out. Each
was up over 15db). If I inly treat these nodes (and too be honest one
at 130hz) wouldn't I be using it in moderation?

You said too much mid/high absorption is bad. Don't traps absorb both?
Additionally I treat all ceiling edges and corners and well as all
first reflections including behind me and the ceilings. With traps
couldn't I wind up with too dead of a room. I have been in one and it
wasn't comfortable. I can only imagine how claustrophobic an anechoic
(don't have a dictionary handy and spell check doesn't register this)
chamber is (actually it was Stereophiles listening room in Santa Fe)

My pushing back and skepticism has nothing to do with you or that I want
to be argumentative. I think if it were an easy thing to demo I would
have done so a long time ago and we wouldn't be having this discussion
now. Doing this listening to or reading opinions is not the best way to
do this. That's unfortunate.

Thanks for taking the time.

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:00:35 -0500, MD wrote:


After reading a couple threads I am starting to believe you may be a
bitter little man. That's unfortunate.


You have even less of a clue about who you're writing
about than what you're writing about. If you had a clue,
you'd be ashamed.

My sole contribution to this waste of electrons thread is:
Sound comes out of a speaker, travels in all directions;
the sound that travels straight to your ears gets there
first; all reflected sounds get there later.

You figure it out from here.
Good luck; you'll obviously need it,

Chris Hornbeck
I understood that in the first place. Actually - and it probably doen;t
matter - but I came up with the room treatment system Echo Busters now
uses - 10 years before they had a product. Went through the whole
patent thing - even soled them to 10 high end stores. Then soemthing
happened and I never got back in to it other than for myself and friends.

I chose my methods to provoke conversation. Unfortunetly for some that
didn't work so good. (Ever notice that ringing and echo disappears when
you get close to the object the sound is bouncing off? The ear is only
so quick. Given the wavelength of frequencies in the bass region how do
you think this figures in?)