If I'm understanding this, you seek proof that non-axials do or do not matter? And you do not wish the proof to come in the form of:
(a) A literal citation?
OR
(b) The word of anyone on this or any other forum?
Well, that certainly poses a challenge.
No challenge, all I ask for is a side by side comparison of predicted versus measured results. Not "Tangentials have been accepted for 136 years" (so was blood letting) or "I measure rooms for 25 years so you can believe me."
If non-axials really matter, all I ask for is some hard evidence. You'd think such evidence would be abundant! But apparently not.
> Why don't you prove that they don't matter? <
For the same reason you can't/won't prove that UFOs don't exist. Perhaps a UFO analogy is more relevant than you'd think.
> If you find that, across the board, tangentials are (e.g.) 17.6% less relevant that axials in all rooms <
Not all rooms, and I was 100 percent clear when I stated earlier that the best way to assess this is to determine the percentage of small rooms where non-axials are a significant problem. For you to turn this into "all rooms" is disingenuous.
Again, I am not arguing this one way or the other! I am trying to get to the bottom of this for my own understanding. If you read my very first post in this thread you will see my problem with the "conventional wisdom" that is now blindly accepted and parroted by many.
That's just a distraction to avoid explaining why your mode calculator is so far off from reality. And to cover for the fact that you have yet to show even one concrete example of non-axial modes being a problem. I'd have thought someone who has measured rooms for 25 years could show some evidence by now.
No challenge, all I ask for is a side by side comparison of predicted versus measured results. Not "Tangentials have been accepted for 136 years" (so was blood letting) or "I measure rooms for 25 years so you can believe me."
You've been given at least two in this thread - one from me and one from Beranek. I don't blame you for discounting my example. But you shouldn't dismiss Beranek. He's been at this a lot longer than you and I combined...
Quote:
If non-axials really matter, all I ask for is some hard evidence. You'd think such evidence would be abundant! But apparently not.
Oh, it is. You're just asking for too much, I think, considering the audience. You have to admit, some of the people your requesting such things from here on RO are people you don't get along with very well. IMO, some folks aren't willing to stick their necks out when it appears you've just sharpened your axe...
Quote:
Not all rooms, and I was 100 percent clear when I stated earlier that the best way to assess this is to determine the percentage of small rooms where non-axials are a significant problem. For you to turn this into "all rooms" is disingenuous.
Fair enough. If you're not looking for universal proof, then isn't this thread finished? You've been given examples, references, and explanations. Do with them what you will...
Quote:
Again, I am not arguing this one way or the other! I am trying to get to the bottom of this for my own understanding. If you read my very first post in this thread you will see my problem with the "conventional wisdom" that is now blindly accepted and parroted by many.
I understand why you might think that. But it's neither "conventional wisdom," nor is it "blindly accepted." It's acoustic physics and it's understood by quite a few folks, myself included. Some of us have tried to explain it to you. It seems we've done a lousy job. You might consider other resources, perhaps? If we haven't irritated you too much, do come back and let us know what you found!
_________________ ---lovecow---
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra
eric_desart Recording Org Pro Audio Forums
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 816
Location: Belgium Antwerp
That's just a distraction to avoid explaining why your mode calculator is so far off from reality. And to cover for the fact that you have yet to show even one concrete example of non-axial modes being a problem. I'd have thought someone who has measured rooms for 25 years could show some evidence by now.
--Ethan
I have an idea to solve this.
LEARN ACOUSTICS RATHER THAN PLAYING THE GURU AND FILLING PAGES WITH FURTHER NONSENSE, and ANALYSE YOUR OWN MEASUREMENTS OF YOUR OWN ROOM.
THE TANGENTIAL ARE IN YOUR OWN ROOM.
LEARN TO MEASURE.
AND LEARN THAT INTERPRETING MEASUREMENTS IS DIFFERENT AND MORE THAN SEEING NULS, THE DEEPER THE BETTER.
LEARN HOW ROOM MODES LOOK LIKE.
AND VISIT A DOCTOR.
Last edited by eric_desart on Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
eric_desart Recording Org Pro Audio Forums
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 816
Location: Belgium Antwerp
I don't want to be resonsible, for the impact and possible consequences on/for the readers if you start writing expert articles for medical journals in 3 weeks.
Ethan Winer Respected Past Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
Posts: 3209
Location: New Milford, CT USA
> You've been given at least two in this thread - one from me and one from Beranek. <
For the 40th time, I am not looking for an example of the odd room where non-axial modes are noticeable or measurable. The point of my original post is room mode calculators and how "profoundly important" it is they report non-axials. So far, not one person who's criticized my program for omitting non-axials has stepped up to the plate and backed up their claims.
> But you shouldn't dismiss Beranek <
I dismiss nobody that has something useful to offer. But you have repeatedly ignored my question: How many rooms does that book show, and of those how many have a "problem" with non-axial modes? I'm not trying to be combative here, but for all of your posts you haven't addressed the most important thing I've asked!
> some of the people your requesting such things from here on RO are people you don't get along with very well. <
That Eric and his friends start trouble with me is their doing, not mine. I could actually like all of them if they weren't so unbelievably rude and unfair to me. For example, I admire Paul's incredible craftsmanship, and I find Eric quite likeable except for the way he treats me. Andre obviously knows his stuff, and you know how I feel about you!
> some folks aren't willing to stick their necks out <
Ah, this is exactly the point, and you/they can't have it both ways. If someone claims my mode calculator program is lame because it omits non-axials, and I call them on it and ask for evidence that non-axials even matter, in all fairness the answer can't be "I don't like you so I won't help you." If this forum is about science, and I like to think it still is, then quite a few people here have failed to provide any evidence at all for their claims.
For example, Eric made the claim that my own room measurements clearly show non-axials, and when I asked him to point out which modes he means - especially since none of the modes shown by his calculator make any sense - all I got was silence.
> Some of us have tried to explain it to you. <
I'll include being condescending in my "fairness" example above.
If nobody has anything concrete in the form of real measurements showing non-axial modes mattering in more than one or two odd rooms, I'll consider this thread done and my assumption correct that non-axials really aren't very important.
If nobody has anything concrete in the form of real measurements showing non-axial modes mattering in more than one or two odd rooms, I'll consider this thread done and my assumption correct that non-axials really aren't very important.
All things considered, this idea is as good an idea as any, IMO!
(As a final thought concerning your program, you might want to look up Pascal's Wager... Omitting non-axials might be fine in your own mind, but including them might be prudent in the absence of a thorough understanding...)
_________________ ---lovecow---
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra
Last edited by lovecow on Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
jazzman_in_pa Recording Org Pro Audio Forums
Joined: May 12, 2003
Posts: 796
Location: Philadelphia
If nobody has anything concrete in the form of real measurements showing non-axial modes mattering in more than one or two odd rooms, I'll consider this thread done and my assumption correct that non-axials really aren't very important.
Failing sufficient pursuit of evidence, you'll consider your assumption correct? What kind of "science" is that?!?
That sounds an awful lot like, "If no one will prove to me that the earth is round, then I shall consider my assumption correct that it's flat."
That's been thoroughly discredited as faulty logic many times in the skeptic press. I'll be glad to explain why if you'd like. But if you want to debate religion with me, we really ought to move that to email!
Lee:
> "If no one will prove to me that the earth is round, then I shall consider my assumption correct that it's flat." <
Nice try. In fact, I'm the one claiming the earth is round, while others claim it's flat yet offer no proof. Heck, I'm the only one who has offered any data at all!
As I explained above in my UFO reference, I can't prove that something doesn't matter. But those who claim it does matter can prove it, and they need to do that pretty soon.
If you have some evidence that non-axials matter, other than the unsubstantiated say-so of others, I'd love to see it. Again, I have explained countless times that I'm willing to reconsider, but only if someone can show some hard proof. I'm still waiting for that proof.
Heck, I'm the only one who has offered any data at all!
Oh? What about all the data presented by all the researchers that you just don't know about, and that you would have run across if you had studied acoustics more formally, or at least with more openness and curiosity?
That's been thoroughly discredited as faulty logic many times in the skeptic press. I'll be glad to explain why if you'd like. But if you want to debate religion with me, we really ought to move that to email!
That explains enough, thanks.
Quote:
> "If no one will prove to me that the earth is round, then I shall consider my assumption correct that it's flat." <
Nice try. In fact, I'm the one claiming the earth is round, while others claim it's flat yet offer no proof. Heck, I'm the only one who has offered any data at all!
As I explained above in my UFO reference, I can't prove that something doesn't matter. But those who claim it does matter can prove it, and they need to do that pretty soon.
Listen to yourselves. There is no proof the sun will rise tomorrow. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to pay my mortgage based on that lack of proof. There's at least several thousand years of documented sunrises that will make me send that check on time.
Ethan, if either
(a) our unwillingness/reluctance to provide you with proof
OR
(b) there is in fact no proof
is enough to make you drop this - as you said above - then drop it.
_________________ ---lovecow---
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra
eric_desart Recording Org Pro Audio Forums
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 816
Location: Belgium Antwerp
> What about all the data presented by all the researchers that you just don't know about <
What about all the UFOs you just don't know about?
More to the point, what about all the points I have made in this thread that you and others have conveniently ignored?
> or at least with more openness and curiosity? <
Yikes, nobody is more curious than me. Heck, I'm the one doing all the research and all the reporting here!
I was curious about density versus LF absorption, so I measured it and reported. I was curious about the difference between peaks and nulls caused by modes versus caused by simple interference, so I measured and reported. Twice. I was curious about the importance of non-axial modes, so I showed the output from Eric's calculator side by side with my room's dimensions and asked if anyone had an explanation for the huge disparity.
If you have a point, other than to say I'm ignorant, I'd love to hear it! But so far you're batting about the same as the others here: Lots of negative words about me and all that I don't know, yet not one single point about the acoustics issue at hand!
> You've been given at least two in this thread - one from me and one from Beranek. <
For the 40th time, I am not looking for an example of the odd room where non-axial modes are noticeable or measurable. The point of my original post is room mode calculators and how "profoundly important" it is they report non-axials. So far, not one person who's criticized my program for omitting non-axials has stepped up to the plate and backed up their claims.
> But you shouldn't dismiss Beranek <
I dismiss nobody that has something useful to offer. But you have repeatedly ignored my question: How many rooms does that book show, and of those how many have a "problem" with non-axial modes? I'm not trying to be combative here, but for all of your posts you haven't addressed the most important thing I've asked!
> some of the people your requesting such things from here on RO are people you don't get along with very well. <
That Eric and his friends start trouble with me is their doing, not mine. I could actually like all of them if they weren't so unbelievably rude and unfair to me. For example, I admire Paul's incredible craftsmanship, and I find Eric quite likeable except for the way he treats me. Andre obviously knows his stuff, and you know how I feel about you!
> some folks aren't willing to stick their necks out <
Ah, this is exactly the point, and you/they can't have it both ways. If someone claims my mode calculator program is lame because it omits non-axials, and I call them on it and ask for evidence that non-axials even matter, in all fairness the answer can't be "I don't like you so I won't help you." If this forum is about science, and I like to think it still is, then quite a few people here have failed to provide any evidence at all for their claims.
For example, Eric made the claim that my own room measurements clearly show non-axials, and when I asked him to point out which modes he means - especially since none of the modes shown by his calculator make any sense - all I got was silence.
> Some of us have tried to explain it to you. <
I'll include being condescending in my "fairness" example above.
Ethan!
Being famous ( infamous ) in any social circle maybe good for the ego ( and there's nothing wrong with that ), but you have to realise that the level of scrutiny by others will rise in proportion to the, for want of a better expression... amount of stuff you spew out.
Particularly if you've a history of making solid claims above your level of acoustic knowledge.
IMO you can't handle bad press very well. It's all fine and dandy when you're getting praised for helping newbies all over the Net, but as soon as you get people contending your writings then you get overly defensive, unnessarily unsulted and indeed atack those who question you. Not to mention accusing them of campaigns against you or deliberately trying to ruinb you and your company by publishing fraudulant data about your products.
Have you ever actually stopped to think exactly WHY you're getting all this negative attention?
It's your attitude!!!
An example relevent to this thread: Eric and Jeff have obviously throughout their long and experienced acoustic careers known of many occasions where non-axial modes have had measurable and profound effects on a room's acosutic quality.
With some effort I'm sure they could put together some papers with concrete examples of non-axial phenomena, but why should they bother?
After all the person asking for this evidence is insulting them and disrespecting their acoustic experience.
i.e Eric says something along the lines of... "I've been measuring rooms for 25years ( in proffesional labs, not as an amateur with ETF or sine waves ) and I can tell you that non-axial modes DO make a big difference"
Instead of respectfully taking his word for it, and asking how you can go about learning more about those non-axial effects for yourself....
you instead....
....dismiss his claims as 'Hearsay' and ATTACK him for not being forthcoming with any backup evidence.
So why be suprised or cry foul when people aren't forthcoming?
Why do you think Jeff suggested "Find out for your fukking self then!"
You really ain't doing youself any favours.
I think one of the biggest problems is that find it difficult to trust people. And I would wager that stems from judging others by youself. This is a big catch 22 of self perpetuating negativity.
If you can learn to trust people, you might find yourself not having to resort to 'stretching the truth' to get where you wanna be in life. There'll be no need, as once you start trusting people you'll find people comeing out of the woodwork to help you in your quest for better acoustics knowledge. And you won't have to constantly waste negative energy watching your back.
Currently wherever you go you seem to leave a trail of negativity? Doesn't it ever occour to you that it's NOT the rest of the world that's causing this, but it might in fact be yourself.
There's no shame in being humble for once. You'd certainly get far more respect if you showed some of that for once.
I don't know exactly what you aim's and goals in life are, but if my observations of your behaviour over the last couple of years or so are anything to go by, then you're going the WRONG way about it.
Quote:
If nobody has anything concrete in the form of real measurements showing non-axial modes mattering in more than one or two odd rooms, I'll consider this thread done and my assumption correct that non-axials really aren't very important.
--Ethan
You see that's exactly the kind of childish emotional blackmail that put's people off you.
You mean you're REALLY gonna turn an assumption into a 'fact' becuase no one's willing to help you give the right answer.
You know in the past I've convinced myself of some theories and notions too. I've been so conviced of them, that I've also questioned the contentions of peple more expert than myself.
But eventually I've had to eat humble pie, because evenutally the penny dropped that I'd missed something important, causing my initial and bombproof theories to be quite erronous. yes it is embarrassing, but it didn't ruin my social standing or, ahem, Mini-Trap business.
This is why now, and even if I'm TOTALLY conviced of something, I work WITH others ( not AGAINST ) to make sure the theory is correct.
Anyway, before you come back and attack me for being personal and insulting, take some time out to think about what I've said. You see the reason I took time out to write this post, was to try and help both you AND increase the quantity of positivity on these forums.
Thankyou for listening. .....back to Studio Building
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
For more information on advertising, investing ,
merging
or any other ideas you may have for this community" Feedback
Pro Audio forums, Pro Audio Dealer, audio reviews and all the moderating here is
volunteer. Please remember no-one is being paid to be here or deliver
hot coffee. Play Fair, be polite, patient and considerate to others. Title your
topics properly and do not slander anyone, ever online. Read this before your post here:Recording
Org Disclaimer
This site can be translated into 13 languages. 錄音工作室幫助下，新聞和信息，數位專業音頻論壇, Opname studio helpen, nieuws en informatie, digitale pro audio forums, Studio d'enregistrement à l'aide de nouvelles et d'information, forums de l'audio numérique pro, Tonstudio helfen, Nachrichten und Informationen, digitale Pro-Audio-Foren, Estudio de grabación ayuda, información y noticias, foros de audio digital profesional. help, pro tools, cubase, nuendo, DAW, AD/DA, microphone, preamp, compressor, equalizer, Music Education, Arranging, Composing, collaboration des musiciens,
professionelle Musiker und Ingenieure,
colaboración de músicos profesionales y los ingenieros lo que pensamos acerca de una banda
Our new beta site is now online for testing The New Recording.org CMS
