|
Post by philietes on Jan 19, 2017 21:05:08 GMT
So there is this guy who is not as well known as Ethan Winer: Dr. Earl Geddes. He takes a somewhat similar approach to audio namely the scientific one and has written quite some renowned papers it appears. Ethan and Geddes agree on a lot of things that is clear. This is interesting because they come to almost opposite conclusions. A interview with him about his views to read: www.dagogo.com/an-interview-with-dr-earl-geddes-of-gedlee-llc. One of the best about audio in general from my point of view. For example, he states: "In the study that Lidia and I did we confirmed that THD and IMD were basically useless indicators of sound quality because the measured values for either of these metrics did not correlate with the perception of music played through the system."
Now before you come in criticizing him using the word 'perception' to prove his claim; read the interview. He has a small speaker company and claims that his speakers are the best value for the asking price. He sells his designs as a kit or assembled. The reviews are VERY good. His company is for sale now due to his age and no new speakers are manufactured. The latest design is his Geddes NS15 speaker a few months old. His approach designing them is in short this: - Low distortion where the human ear is most sensitive - Speaker directivity to avoid reflections thus avoiding ugly and expensive room treatment Do you believe that these speakers could possibly sound better than Mackie HR824's? Have a larger sweet-spot? In an untreated vs a treated room? Looking forward to hear your opinions! Philietes
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 20, 2017 5:54:35 GMT
ugly and expensive room treatment
Get out
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 20, 2017 5:55:26 GMT
jk
But srs - you can't directionalize low frequencies so.. Good luck.
-m
|
|
|
Post by philietes on Jan 20, 2017 13:22:19 GMT
Hahaha you are right, but I was just phrasing, and while in professional studios it might not be important: at home you do have to take the design and WAF into account. Anyhow, I was just trying to start a discussion. Here is a interesting paper of Earl Geddes about exactly this; achieving accurate bass in smaller rooms: drive.google.com/file/d/0BxgUOGOB5HbfR0JTRF9XZjkyUms/view?pli=1You know, it might be a better approach to life if you are open to different views than your own. Even when you wholeheartedly believe yours is right. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jan 20, 2017 15:46:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 20, 2017 19:28:59 GMT
But at what frequency? philietes - What am I right about? Apparently QSC and other manufacturers have directionalized low frequencies. How much and at what frequency I don't know. Ethan has posted polar patterns of speakers and they tend to be frequency-dependent. You seem to be talking about the appearance of acoustic treatment. What is with this ubiquitous prison of the so-called WAF? I'll leave the stronger aspects of my opinion out of this post - look for it on YouTube. Suffice it to say I have no problem with this fatal fallacy. No one is busting on you for starting a discussion. Needless self-justification noted. Your "interesting paper" heavily recommends absorption. Ironic considering it's title is "Why Multiple Subs?" Clickbait? Thanks for the pro tip, Buddha. You know what is also good advice? Don't assume what other people think. If you think my life approach is faulty or that I'm stuck in my convictions then you are just burning up a straw man. GOOD LUCK -m
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jan 21, 2017 16:54:29 GMT
Hey Hexspa, Just to be clear, the reason I shared that link for that sub was because apparently speaker makers are working with the directionality concept and I for one, held the belief that all subs were omni ... so that's news to me. Also, please note that the intended application of the QSC is live sound and probably has more to do with efficiency than accuracy. In addition, live venues being larger, mode issues seem to be farther down on the list. I get the impression you don't agree with Geddes but why don't you tell us how you really feel? Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 21, 2017 20:47:17 GMT
I really feel that I should put a funktion one system in my living room.
|
|
|
Post by philietes on Jan 21, 2017 22:56:58 GMT
You are right that I should not call room treatment ugly here without mentioning why. My opinion: in a normal living room it is downright ugly, which in a studio or a dedicated listening room should not be an issue. WAF just means that not everyone is willing to give up their interior design and wall decorations for better audio. You seem to interpret this as an insult to room treatment panels, or you, and I do not see why. (At first I thought it was because you just lack taste, but then I visited your YouTube channel as you asked and figured this could not be the case... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz0UQg07Fd8)Anyway; room treatment is functional, but not exactly a design piece as of yet. If you read my first post you would see that I asked for opinions. Can I suggest you do this now so you will be able to actually contribute something to this thread? You will see I was not making a case pro or against room treatment; just phrasing Geddes. If you read one or two articles by Geddes, you can avoid posting a reply like: "clickbait?" in the future . I am not saying his approach is the end-all in any way, but he is making at least some sensible remarks. Maybe the views of Geddes and Winer can actually be merged in this thread, let us see. No thanks though, Sariputta. Now please explain how Geddes offended you in his writing, causing your disgruntled reaction; show us so we can learn why Geddes is mistaken. Bonus points if you explain how your advice "don't assume what other people think" bears any relevance to this thread, or life in general. Philietes
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 22, 2017 5:33:15 GMT
Your opinion is that it's ugly. I find it to be a nice design feature.
I think I have contributed to this thread. Whether it's up to your standards is another issue.
You asked, "Do you believe that these speakers could possibly sound better than Mackie HR824's?" They say there are no stupid questions but that one pushes the limits. I used to believe in gravitational pull but some documentaries tell me I'm wrong. Believe? Isn't science the opposite of belief? I don't care about his speakers or the Mackies. So if you want to narrow down this thread to that singular point I guess I can't help.
Geddes didn't offend me. My reaction wasn't disgruntled. I didn't say he's mistaken.
I appreciate your offer for bonus points. I'll take them in cash. Assuming what others think is problematic. For example - I can assume you are attracted to men, present to you a heavy sexual offer and assume all your thrashing and screaming is the way you show affection.
Edit - One last thing. Regarding assumptions - to postulate something that another said without them having said it is the definition of a straw man fallacy. Since rape is one thing (being somewhat informal) and Logic is another (taught at University) then you can see that even in a legitimate arena, assuming the views of another is flat out wrong.
Any intelligent person can read this exchange and judge for themselves. I feel I have defended the facts and made myself clear. My initial impression was that you're not worth talking to. I gave the benefit of the doubt and yet, like frequently, was proven correct in my intuitive response.
I will not respond to you again. I hope we can both grow from this.
Peace,
-m
|
|
|
Post by philietes on Jan 22, 2017 12:55:24 GMT
There is not a lot in your post worth replying to in my opinion, but let me try anyway. Really? So you use them in rooms without speakers? Maybe you do lack taste after all. Mackie HR824 measure completely flat. Better than everything in their price class. Also their distortion is low, measured in THD. These two things make it an interesting comparison if what Geddes says about THD turns out to be true. I do not follow your criticism about using the word believe. Probably an example of a straw man fallacy as you call it; you decide to criticize the word believe, contributing to this thread nothing but a discussion about the word believe which nobody asked for. Well, now that you started it, let me answer. If somebody ever said that no stupid questions exist, this one actually proves them wrong. Apparently you do not know much about science. Theory of relativity published by Albert Einstein was just a belief for example. Only later proof for some not all parts was found. Quantum mechanics indeed, is just a belief. By the way, quantum mechanics is the main hobby of Geddes. I already guessed you could not. But why bother replying if you know, yourself, you can't help is beyond me. "you can't directionalize low frequencies" "your "interesting paper" heavily recommends absorption. Ironic considering it's title is "Why Multiple Subs?" Clickbait?" "needless self-justification noted" "thanks for the pro tip, Buddha" Seem to indicate otherwise but this could just be me so forget about it. There is indeed a fine line between assuming somebody wants to be raped (especially by you), and at least listening when somebody tells you their view on something. Nothing to add here. I support you on this one, although I do not believe this to be a very mature choice.
Philietes
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jan 22, 2017 17:53:13 GMT
Hey Hexspa,
In the past, you have been generally reasonable and helpful. In this thread though, and for some unknown reason, it really sounds like you've got a bug up your ass. Please take a chill pill, get laid or something. Hope you feel better soon!
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 22, 2017 23:29:42 GMT
Hey Hexspa, In the past, you have been generally reasonable and helpful. In this thread though, and for some unknown reason, it really sounds like you've got a bug up your ass. Please take a chill pill, get laid or something. Hope you feel better soon! Cheers, Rock Rock, I wasn't aware of your credentials as a proctologist. You're a many splendored man. The bug up my ass (mistaken diagnosis - your medical skills suck) is due to a reasonable cause - philietes is constructing a character of me that I've never presented and don't represent. You guys just keep making personal attacks and I've done nothing but present a logical counter with a little humor. Putting words in someone's mouth and calling them names is fallacious and call for you both to stand down. So, rather than attack me, deal with your own problems. I've quit drugs, find little satisfaction with women and in general feel fine. Maybe I'm not the one who's sick. -m
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jan 23, 2017 1:01:37 GMT
Hey Hex,
Glad you're felling OK but my first clue something was amiss was your 48 point type in your first response to this thread. The OP was just trying to start a discussion and you blasted him with a giant quote. What's with that? C'mon man, this forum is to discuss acoustic treatment and possibly other ideas. Even if you KNOW someone else is absolutely wrong, why belittle their ideas and take an adversarial stance. I'm sure you can find better way to present your point.
Sorry about the bug up the ass comment but your perceived tone is really quite unprofessional and I really don't see how the OP provoked you. Let's all try to remember to be openminded, professional, respectful and polite.
Cheers, Rock
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Jan 23, 2017 22:19:38 GMT
I don't think room treatment is ugly, but those who do can hide it behind false fabric walls etc. With acoustic treatment you can have (1) effective, (2) attractive, and/or (3) affordable. Pick any two! So there is this guy who is not as well known as Ethan Winer: Dr. Earl Geddes. LOL, I think he's more well known than me! Google his name and it reports 404,000 hits, versus 178,000 for me. So there. To say that a distortion spec is "useless" is ridiculous. Maybe there was a germ of truth to that 40+ years ago. But today most audio gear is transparent, with extremely low distortion. If the distortion is below 0.01 percent, which is common and available for little cost, then the device has no sound at all. So in that sense distortion specs are not only useful but they tell pretty much the whole story! Now, there's also noise and frequency response, but those too are plenty good these days even with cheap audio devices. In Geddes' defense, when distortion is great enough to be audible, and thus cause a difference between devices, it also helps to know the nature of the distortion. But that's just a need for more info, not discounting the entire notion of the spec. --Ethan
|
|