Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

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. 

We have hardly discussed room acoustics so the claim that I "keep quoting" research is obviously wrong on the face of it.  The other bit is what you are manufacturing on my behalf and then complaining about.  Really, the plot is lost.

We got here because someone claimed I must not have good enough equipment to hear the difference between cables.  So I grab a picture I happen to have of my room and post if that is good enough.  Neither that poster, or another who came to his defense would answer that.  So let's agree that the system was good enough and the claim that the system was the problem was fallacious.

Folks then tried to deflect by claiming that my room must sound like crap.  Why?  Because they saw no acoustic products in there.  I explained that ordinary room furnishings can act as acoustic products and that if you have a speaker with excellent directivity, above modal region, there is not much of an issue.  And that the focus must be to deal with the modal response first and foremost as that is a constant in every room. 

Importantly, I made no statement about superiority of furnishings relative to acoustic products.  I did note that audiophiles tend to not understand room acoustics and slap these things everywhere on their walls and ceilings, and then start to shame others who don't have them.  This is just wrong. This is a complex field and doesn't yield itself to such approach.  

You then chimed in claiming this:

I won’t say it is universal, but it is almost universal that treatment of first reflections in a small rooms is recommended by professionals. Unfortunately, there has not been extensive research on this topic to draw on and what does exist is mainly around speech intelligibility, however, Brett Leonard in his PhD dissertation did some excellent work showing effects of a rather early intense reflections on perception and even the variability of that perception across music genres. Your position does not appear to be based on the fundamental science, available research, or professional recommendation.

I quoted from the very research you put forward that it had nothing to do with listening for enjoyment but that it was a test of recording/mix engineer productivity.  And even there, a reflective sidewall as preferred by majority so quoting that was totally inappropriate and wrong.  Ergo, the claim that "almost universal that treatment of first reflections in a small rooms is recommended by professionals" is also misinformed.

This led to this admission:

Here is the thing, though, referencing this paper was a bit of a intentional trap.

If you don't mind, we rather have a proper discussion here than laying "intentional trap" for readers.

Back to your claim, I have repeatedly said that acoustic products are likely a good choice for a dedicated room.  If you know what you are doing of course they can be used.  What makes room furnishing superior is this:

1. Often they cost nothing.  Acoustic products can get quite expensive.  Yes, you can DIY them to save money but that is miserable work and at any rate, still cost more than decorating the way you like to live and look.

2. Ordinary furnishings look nice and don't create conflict with others living in the same household.  

These are hugely important benefits to audiophiles.  Not necessarily on acoustic front but from point of view of deployment.

3. The path of treating all reflections with absorption will inevitably lead to people slapping absorbers over every surface they can find.  After all, if a little bit is good, a lot is better. Soon the room is deader than the steak on your plate, sounds lifeless and the room ugly as heck.

Bottom like, get speakers that are well designed, do some EQ for low frequencies where acoustic products have little prayer of fixing issues there, put standard furnishing if this is an everyday room, and start enjoying your music.  Do NOT listen to people claiming expertise based on stuff they have read online.  And certainly don't let them shame you into throwing blankets on the wall or else your system sounds like "crap."  They don't know what they are saying.

@rodman99999 

I appreciate your posting that extended Feynman dialogue to make my point.  Cheers.

Great post! thanks

@prof-

                                                  NOT AT ALL your, "point"!

                          Given your lack of comprehension: NO SURPRISE, either.

                                   Your beliefs precisely define the 'Cargo Cult'.

One thing about "science" in these discussions.  Much of what we want to convey has nothing to do with "science."  Ordinary engineering knowledge and methods are more than adequate to prove or disprove marketing claims or fidelity.  Equipment is said to have darker background and hence, lower noise floor.  Well, we can trivially measure that and we do that day in and day out at ASR.  We do not need to invoke "science" in that.

When we do use science, it is not in the process of creating more of it.  Example: more than four decades of scientific research shows that speakers that are most preferred are the ones with on axis and smooth off-axis (not flat).  So we measure those parameters and get to use science to predict what sounds good to us.

Sadly, the word science is being used as a weapon in these discussions.  Folks claim that "science says it doesn't know everything" so we should pretend we know nothing about how a piece of wire works.  Well, no, again, we are not attempting to create science.  Simple testing shows whether said wire does something good, nothing, or makes things worse.  Science doesn't get involved or invoked in that. 

Much of what audiophiles worry about is subject of any scientific research.  Why?  Because such research is not deemed necessary.  We know the answers.  We don't need to keep looking for an alternative.