Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

@mapman easy to slay when many just act in bad faith.

@prof , your arguments are mainly sound, but one of Feynman’s points you keep referencing, The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, also applied to Amir.

Amir keeps quoting that there is extensive research showing reflection and no treatment other than regular furniture is not only good enough, but that it is superior for home listening. This is not true. There is very little research specific to home listening and room treatment across a range of other variables including what treatments, what speakers, etc. There is some modestly direct research with limited variable adjustment and limited listening panel. There is some anechoic work on specific properties. There is adjacent but not direct research that cannot be directly applied unless the conditions are similar.

As I noted above, that research indicates that specific application can result in specific improvements that can be interpreted as technically superior, even if not as preferred. A bit of cognitive dissonance to insist on electrical purity (absent evidence to prove preference across use cases and type of deviation) while accepting subjectively superior based on what is limited direct research and use cases.

That is furthered with the straw-man argument about mattresses all over the walls and other hyperboles about acoustic treatment as if the only binary options are no treatments and bad treatment. That is further illustration of bias.

I made the point of the Lyngdorf graph and system photos together indicating boundary issues which was casually dismissed though clearly there to someone who has experience with room measurements and the causes. This is something that can be addressed with specific implementations. Not stapling mattresses to the wall.

As concluded by Toole and others (not so much specifically researched), controlled lateral reflections can be better or worse, depending on the person, music, use case, etc. While anecdotal experience is not research, there is strong indications from professionals not prone to hyperbole that dynamic monopole speakers close to the side walls will produce a result that many audiophiles, including those who prefer critical listening, will likely not prefer and that this can be addressed with acoustics.

Even hyperbole about massive amounts of velocity absorbers will not fix deep bass in a small room while correct, is not helpful, as no acoustic professional would even attempt that (nor would most audiophiles) as they are well aware it will not. They will use other products and means to reduce the peaks and valleys of room modes and may or may not include room correction, though professionals would almost as a rule recommend it as it not only corrects level issues but can assist in time (reverb) issues depending on implementation.

There are enough misconceptions in audio based on either no science or limited science. I don’t think we need any new ones.

It was what led to Room EQ eventually becoming standard in every AV processor or Receiver you buy today. 

This is probably hyperbole. It was a great product for its time, but pioneering work at B&W is probably what kick started room correction.

Someone saying that small room acoustic is not good or something to even consider is so ignorant, apart from hearing theory ignorance, that i am speechless.😁

i know nothing... I experimented a bit ...But i am able to read Toole book or some others and think by myself... Toole did not have the time and taste to transform his living room in an acoustic laboratory; it was his work day job, and he must be married, you know what i means ?

But this does not means that passive materials treatment with a good ratio between diffusion/reflection/absorbtion and timing , large band mechanical controls of the room with Helmholtz principles and a bit of frequencies refined electronical equalization are not ALL complementary...They may give so astounding results that no acoustician is an obsessed upgrading fools.. They know how to extract the best sounds from any relatively good gear...

A journalist asked to perhaps the greatest pianist of the century why he does not have a piano in his living room, he answered with humor, no mechanics keep their tools in the living room...I dont think Toole was different... And he know very well the difference between great hall acoustic, and studio acoustic, and living room acoustic and acoustically dedicated small listening room .. Same physical laws , but completely different applications..

They clearly put magico in the rip off snake oil category. I was illustrating to @prof how snake oil isn’t just used with the definition he stated on ASR. That snake oil is at times synonymous with rip off or expensive.

@texbychoice its truly mind boggling. I’m experiencing hive mind not for the first time but with such vigor. I don’t have a dog in this fight. You’re right Amir. I don’t subscribe to any religious view of audio or audio equipment. I use research, data, my ears and instinct. I’m a free thinker and trust audio professionals who make music say in and day out.

I will say it again because it’s worth repeating. Science and religion are two sides of the same outcome. We want to know the unknowable. Science gets it wrong all the time. So does trying to distill the unknown in a church. But what remains important is seeking that out. Learning and remaining interesting in the possibilities. Go look at psychology and how addiction has been treated over the years. They would give opium patients heroin. Doctors did that. Men of science. You have your head in the sand. Being adaptable is important. 

I’ve never seen anyone staple mattresses to the wall 

Being disingenuous to feign incredulity, no intellectual dishonesty to found in this thread. Or, is it really a case of I did not understand what was actually meant, to the outside observer it is the same result.