Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Oh really now.  You mean this graph?  I know exactly what it is showing. Do you?  There are clear room modes in the response. There are clear boundary effects in the response (and not low frequency reinforcement which can be corrected). Do you know which is which?   Can room correction fix this? No. Can acoustic panels fix this? Absolutely.

No.  The graph cannot be used to determine modal response or SBR.  It is absolutely the wrong presentation for that use.  Again, it says so right on the graph what it is for.  I only post it because that is the shot you were seeing on the computer monitor, not because it is suitable for the purpose you are asking about.

No.  The graph cannot be used to determine modal response or SBR.  It is absolutely the wrong presentation for that use.  Again, it says so right on the graph what it is for.  I only post it because that is the shot you were seeing on the computer monitor, not because it is suitable for the purpose you are asking about.

The graph on its own cannot, but we also know the speakers and with enough accuracy the speaker placement as I noted we had your system image. Look at that graph, now go do a bunch of measurements on your speakers and their relationships to the walls and your room dimensions, calculate 1/2 and 1/4 wavelengths then start relating multiples of those numbers to your graphs. Science, not conjecture.

Nothing transformed my audio system and ideas more than that processor.  My jaw fell on the floor in the way it seemingly removed the walls from my listening room!

What kind of subjective audio-foolery statement is that?

Does that say more about the processor or more about your room?

What is unfortunate is I agree with you far more often than not, but you like so many here let your ego get the better of you and you let that drive a need to be right to the point that you make poor use of the available science, drawing conclusions that are beyond what the science is able to reliably claim.

Why these continued personal remarks?  Why not stick to the technical topic and leave it at that?  Every one of you is doing this.  How do you not sit back and realize that is bad in the context of trying to prove a technical point?  Who cares what you think of me personally?  They can't use that to get better performance out of the system.  State the technical point and don't keep getting personal this way.  It is like you all copy each other's style.

If what I say is right and you agree with it, leave well enough alone.  Don't detract from the technical point on which there is consensus between us with comments like this.  

But no I did not "make poor use of available science."  You did that by putting forward a research that had to do with ability of professionals getting their jobs accomplished, wanting people to think it had something to do with enjoyment of music.  The study had nothing to do with the topic of interest in this forum.  You either didn't know what the research was about, or if you did, misrepresented it as such. 

It is clear you thought you knew more than me so by mere mention of the paper you expected me to fold.  This is what I call "ego."  After all, you would have quoted the paper if you wanted to have a proper discussion.

Refreshing post with knowledge and common sense...

Thanks..

I could quote more and reference his book, but in summary, nothing is perfect, use what you want (at first lateral reflection). That use what you want is critical, as not all listeners, or even audiophiles listen with the same goals and may not even listen with the same goals all the time. In a music space targeted at casual listening or for the more casual listeners in the household, a space with more side wall reflections has a high likelihood of being preferred. For those who are into critical listening, muting the sidewall reflections can sharpen perceived imaging leading to a higher preference. Are you a casual or critical listener Amir?

but even if you are right about what you say here... In a good small room with balanced ratio between reflective/absorbing/and diffusive surfaces and volumes especially with a room under mechanical control with resonators ( i used them in specific location ) , the preference between musical casual listening and critical listening make no sense at all... We can distinguish these two categories of specfic characterized atmosphere, yes, but we can ALSO CREATED each one of THEM but more importantly we can make them converge in an OPTIMAL dedicated SMALL ROOM ACOUSTIC...This is the goal...Opposing them is erroneous even if it could exist as acoustic conditions...You know that for sure, i only add this precision for Amir... 😊

I learned that by experiments not only by reading Toole ... By the way the concept of a dedicated acoustic room do not coincide with acoustic treatment in a living room AT ALL...Small room acoustic of living room is not small room acoustuic of dedicated Sopeakers/room ....

A dedicated acoustic room , like an anechoic room, is a completely dedicated room too, but a non anechoic one, dedicated to some specfic audio system and to some specific speakers properties, dedicated to specific speakers/ears properties in a specific room with his specific , geometry or form, topology or apertures, and with his specific acoustic material content...This type of room is designed by a owner for his own structural ears filters by him...

No one teach a recipe to devise this dedicated acoustic room... There is no recipe... YOu do it by experiment and adressing all problems and solving them...

Small room acoustic is a very specific acoustic domain of studies which is relatively NEW...It does not really exist few decades ago save for acoustic recipe generalities...