Cheap Room Treatment

[ScottGardner]

:stop::banghead:

You seem to be under the illusion that something is science only if we understand it 100% and it is basically a law, like the law of gravity. That is not accurate. Science is the systematic study of the natural and physical world through observation and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Fair enough, given your definition of science; acoustics is a science, but then again so too is numerology and astrology.

I prefer the definition of science that refers to a set of well-defined laws and reliable knowledge.

So is acoustics a science? That depends upon how you define science. Are there a set of well-defined laws that define it in a way that can be deemed reliable knowledge? Not yet.

 

[ScottGardner]

At the end of the day there are only 2 things that matter about acoustics:

1.

The truth is, if you understand just a few basics, that will get you 90% of the way there in most rooms.

Your ears will get you the rest of the way.

2.

What i learned was this: not everyone hears things the same.

So, you can do it yourself and it's not that hard.

Scott

 

[Rich]

Fair enough, given your definition of science; acoustics is a science . . .

This is not just my definition. From the Oxford American Dictionary:

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement and experiment, and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses.

From Wikipedia:

"Science is the effort to understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate events under controlled conditions."

. . . but then again so too is numerology and astrology.

Good try, but no. Both of those belief systems are based on the idea of a metaphysical or mystical relationship between numbers or planetary positions and the physical world and human affairs. Because this metaphysical relationship doesn't hold up under the scrutiny of examination under the scientific method, these belief systems have been rejected by scientists.

I prefer the definition of science that refers to a set of well-defined laws and reliable knowledge.

Science is the process which leads to well-defined laws and reliable knowledge. The term science encompasses well-defined laws and reliable knowledge, but it also encompasses much which we do not yet understand but are trying to study. By the way, the science of acoustics holds up even under your definition. Acoustic science is filled with well-defined laws and reliable knowledge.

I think the problem you are having is the ability to distinguish between our understanding of the scientific principles underlying acoustical science and the difficulty that is involved in applying these principles in a particular application that involves the subjective responses of an individual's music taste. It is always difficult to apply scientific principles to areas where human subjectivity is involved in the outcome. That does not make the principles any less scientific.

At the end of the day there are only 2 things that matter about acoustics:

Your ears will get you the rest of the way.

So, you can do it yourself and it's not that hard.

I absolutely agree. Because each of us must be satisfied with our own systems, it is imperative that we use our own ears to tune the room. They are the best measuring devices we have available to us to determine the sound quality of the room based on our subjective preferences.

And if we bother to do a little research into the basic principles of small-room acoustics, it really isn't that difficult to treat most listening rooms ourselves and achieve spectacular results.

 

[C.A.P]

. . . . . . and if the noodles are the ones with the holes in the middle, slice the left overs into 5" lengths and thread them over your speaker cables. They make great cable lifters!

That is a good idea! I have lots of them things as I have kids and a pool !

Man now my wife is really gonna wonder if I have lost it !

 

[ScottGardner]

Rich,

What’s the point?

Your references to ‘science’ are not painting the whole picture. Your reference to Wikipedia for example only refers to one part of the history of science. If you read further you will see that your definition is falling out of favor with the scientific community. Your definition continues to focus only on the ‘study’ and not on the usability and ultimate reliability.

What is the goal of your definition of ‘science’? Is it ultimately to provide useful information to humans? Has the knowledge gained in study of acoustics reached a state where it is useful? YES. Can it be used to calculate how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ the space under consideration will sound? NO. Can its calculations be relied upon to yield the results desired? NO.

Is there value in continuing the postulation that in order to do acoustics you have to be an expert? NO. (Unless you have some vested interest). It seems to me that acoustics is one of those topics that is purposefully kept shrouded in mystery by the individuals that claim to be experts precisely because they don’t want others to know how lacking their knowledge really is.

This thread is in the ‘Cheap Room Treatment’ section of the DIY topics on this board. Is your goal to keep acoustics in the realm of experts or to make it more accessible to others? Mine is the latter. So what’s the point?

Scott

 

[ScottGardner]

I think the problem you are having is the ability to distinguish between our understanding of the scientific principles underlying acoustical science and the difficulty that is involved in applying these principles in a particular application that involves the subjective responses of an individual's music taste. It is always difficult to apply scientific principles to areas where human subjectivity is involved in the outcome.

Hogwash. Lets test that assertion...

So let’s start with some basic information that is highly useful. For those of you that already know this information please forgive my digression.

1.Power:
a. For each 3 db increase in Sound pressure Level you will need to double the power supplied.
b. You lose 6 db SPL for each doubling of distance from the source.

So how can we use this info in acoustics?

1.a. Tells us that to get just 3db louder than say 95db SPL (which by many ‘experts’ estimation is the minimum difference most of us can hear) we would need to double the power (wattage) being supplied. So if your amp is using 100 watts to get to 95db you would need an additional 100 watts just to get to 98db. Why do we care about this? Because the more db robbing absorption we put into a room the more power we are going need to get back up to a given loudness. And why we would really want to use diffusion before absorption.

1.b. tells us that as we move away from a given source of sound its loudness will be lower. We can use this to calculate the relative loudness of a reflection by how far it has to travel. This tells us what kind of absorption may help.

How do we know if any of this is working? Primarily our ears will tell us. But there are some tools that can help. See my previous post that refers to Smaart and IR testing.

Was that so difficult?

If you want me to stop just say so.

Scott

 

[Rich]

Is your goal to keep acoustics in the realm of experts or to make it more accessible to others?

When did I ever say anything about acoustics being in the "realm of experts?" I said it was a science and that there are lots of things about it that we do know and understand and can apply in our own rooms. The amount of information that is freely available regarding the concepts of acoustics and room treatment is amazing. I touched on just a few of the many sources of information in my post above. There is a ton of useful information on the web and in print regarding the physics of sound and acoustic properties and it is all available to the layman who is designing his own listening space. To say a field is a science does not relegate it to use only by "experts." Chemistry is a science too, but I use the concepts from it every day of my life. Same with acoustics.

Remember, I jumped into this thread because of this comment:

Acoustics is really a black art. Meaning the truth behind it is hidden (or being hidden). And the truth is that we don’t currently know enough to call it a science. People who claim to be all knowing are full of it.

You would have folks think that we know virtually nothing of acoustics and it is all some sort of mystical voodoo, the truths of which are conspiratorially hidden by folks who want to make money off of you. What a bunch of hogwash!

So what’s the point?

The point is that we must begin by trying to understand the science behind acoustics: the physics of sound waves and music reproduction, the psychoacoustics of stereo imaging, the effects of different materials on sound absorption and reverberation, and so on. Only then will we be able to make good decisions regarding speaker placement, room dimensions and construction, acoustical treatment construction and placement, etc. to get the best performance possible out of our listening rooms. It's not voodoo -- it's science. And the knowledge is available to anyone who cares to look for it.

But if you want to wring your hands together and bury your head in the sand because the "truths are hidden" and it is all a "black art" that's fine, I guess, but it really doesn't lend itself to your stated goal of making acoustics "more accessible to others."

 

[Rich]

Scott, you lost me on post #26 above. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make there.

I would note, however, that in your example 1b, that particular formula is incorrect for Martin Logan speakers, which are a line source speaker and don't lose their energy with distance at the same rate as point source speakers.

Also, I would question your insinuation that it is better to use diffusion over absorption to keep sound levels up to a certain level. Using reflected sound to attenuate a certain db level in the room will do nothing good for the sound of your system. In a small to medium-sized listening room, better to absorb the reflections and hear the db levels that are a result of the direct wave of the speaker. Your imaging and soundstaging will improve dramatically.

The size of most listening rooms makes diffusion a rather poor choice over absorption because there is just not enough distance for the sound to be properly diffused in time before it reaches the listener's ears, resulting in comb filtering and other ill effects. Of course, I would agree that you don't want to over-absorb either. Balance is key. You could even say there is some art to obtaining the proper balance in any given room.

I find it interesting that you are using all of these scientific formulas and concepts regarding acoustics to try to rebut my statement, when just a few posts ago you were steadfastly arguing how acoustics wasn't a science at all.

 

[ScottGardner]

When did I ever say anything about acoustics being in the "realm of experts?"

It is implied here:

I think the problem you are having is the ability to distinguish between our understanding of the scientific principles underlying acoustical science and the difficulty that is involved in applying these principles in a particular application that involves the subjective responses of an individual's music taste. It is always difficult to apply scientific principles to areas where human subjectivity is involved in the outcome.

and here:

Now for the layman to understand that technical knowledge and apply it in his own room, that is another matter.

There is a ton of useful information on the web and in print regarding the physics of sound and acoustic properties and it is all available to the layman who is designing his own listening space.

Most of which is hyperbole for our purposes here.

Remember, I jumped into this thread because of this comment:

Acoustics is really a black art. Meaning the truth behind it is hidden (or being hidden). And the truth is that we don’t currently know enough to call it a science. People who claim to be all knowing are full of it.

You would have folks think that we know virtually nothing of acoustics and it is all some sort of mystical voodoo, the truths of which are conspiratorially hidden by folks who want to make money off of you. What a bunch of hogwash!

My point is that the folks who are trying to make money off you are not giving you the whole truth. And the whole truth is that they don’t know as much as they would have you believe.

The point is that we must begin by trying to understand the science behind acoustics: the physics of sound waves and music reproduction, the psychoacoustics of stereo imaging, the effects of different materials on sound absorption and reverberation, and so on. Only then will we be able to make good decisions regarding speaker placement, room dimensions and construction, acoustical treatment construction and placement, etc. to get the best performance possible out of our listening rooms. It's not voodoo

My point exactly.

-- it's science.

That’s debatable

And the knowledge is available to anyone who cares to look for it.

Most people don’t have the time or inclination to dig through tombs of information just to find a few pieces of useful information.

But if you want to wring your hands together and bury your head in the sand because the "truths are hidden" and it is all a "black art" that's fine, I guess, but it really doesn't lend itself to your stated goal of making acoustics "more accessible to others."

See my post above to see just how accessible I’m trying to make it.

 

[ScottGardner]

Scott, you lost me on post #26 above. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make there.

I’m not surprised.

I would note, however, that in your example 1b, that particular formula is incorrect for Martin Logan speakers, which are a line source speaker and don't lose their energy with distance at the same rate as point source speakers.

The physics of sound is not changed by the design of a loudspeaker. How a given speaker performs in a given space may be. You can focus the energy but it still lost at the rate stated.

Also, I would question your insinuation that it is better to use diffusion over absorption to keep sound levels up to a certain level. Using reflected sound to attenuate a certain db level in the room will do nothing good for the sound of your system. In a small to medium-sized listening room, better to absorb the reflections and hear the db levels that are a result of the direct wave of the speaker. Your imaging and soundstaging will improve dramatically.

Exactly my point regarding the reliability of acoustics as a ‘science’. And why YOUR ears must be the final judge.
I maintain that there are only a few basics and that they are only to be considered helpful. Not definitive.

Balance is key. You could even say there is some art to obtaining the proper balance in any given room.

Good to see you are finally coming round.

I find it interesting that you are using all of these scientific formulas and concepts regarding acoustics to try to rebut my statement, when just a few posts ago you were steadfastly arguing how acoustics wasn't a science at all.

Your statements regarding science are debatable. You statements regarding the reliabibility of the ‘science’ of acoustics are doubtful at best and potentially expensive and useless at worst.

 

[ScottGardner]

The size of most listening rooms makes diffusion a rather poor choice over absorption because there is just not enough distance for the sound to be properly diffused in time before it reaches the listener's ears, resulting in comb filtering and other ill effects.

It is generally a poor choice but not for the reason you state.

Out of phase reflections combining with the primary wave are what cause comb filtering. This happens at all distances. The ill effect you are referring to is the psychoacoustic effect that occurres in your ear when two waves, one direct and one reflected -regardless of phase, reach it within 20ms of each other causing clarity issues. This is most problematic with early reflections because they tend to have the most amplitude and thus are most noticeable.

In order for a diffuser to be effective it needs to have a completely random surface so that all waves reaching it will be uniformly spread. In practice this is very difficult to achieve. In fact the more of them you use (that are of the same construction) the less effective they become because the randomness is lost in the repeating pattern.

Diffusion is a poor choice for small rooms because there are many reflection points and its just not practical to effectively diffuse them all. Having said that it is my opinion that it is best to diffuse (where practical) these early reflections and then use absorption to dampen the rest.

 

[ScottGardner]

Rich,

Early in our debate you stated:

I say every aspect of acoustics is observable, measurable, and repeatable.

Then you go on to say:

you can['t] predict with absolute certainty what the acoustics will be like in any particular room.

and

I said it can't be predicted with 100% accuracy

How can you state something it is repeatable and then go on to say but you’re not sure when, and then claim that this is more scientific than astrology?

You have used phrases like

acoustic quality

and

sound quality

How do you plan on measuring these? Repeating them?

 

[Rich]

It is implied here:

No such implication is present in that paragraph. That paragraph was simply intended to try to offer a possible explanation for your personal irrational belief that acoustics is not a scientific discipline. There is certainly a factor of human subjectivity that goes into any hi-end audio setup and makes it more difficult to apply known scientific principles to everyone's satisfaction. I figured perhaps this is what you were referring to when you state that acoustics is not a science.

and here:

And the rest of that paragraph (which of course you omitted to make your point seem valid) qualifies that implication, by stating clearly:

I am not saying it is not difficult to understand and apply, but it is not a complete mystery or outside the realm of science. The truth is, if you understand just a few basics, that will get you 90% of the way there in most rooms. Getting great sound is not rocket science, but it is science.

The rest of my posts in this thread also make very clear that I am not relegating acoustic science to the realm of those so-called evil "experts" but am in fact encouraging everyone to take advantage of the scientific knowledge that we do have available to make their own rooms sound better. You are obviously trying to imply otherwise for the sheer fun of arguing over nothing. That's a great tactic for someone who has no logical basis for their own arguments: create a straw man argument and then trash it.

While you seem to be fairly well-versed in some of the science of acoustics, you still make the absurd contention that it is not science, although you have presented no rational arguments or facts to support your viewpoint. (By the way, the point is only debatable if you can, in fact, put up some facts or rational arguments to support your contention). Since it is taught in schools as a science and engineering discipline, I would say you have pretty heavy burden to try to prove otherwise. And the more you spout off scientific facts and truisms to support your arguments, the sillier it makes you look when you insist it is not a science.

My point is that the folks who are trying to make money off you are not giving you the whole truth. And the whole truth is that they don’t know as much as they would have you believe.

Talk about hyperbole! Why not try to give us one fact to support your broad statement condemning all the acoustic engineers and manufacturers of acoustic products? Are there some idiots and scam artists out there? Sure, just as in any field. But the majority are quite knowledgeable in their field and are interested in helping the consumer get better sound out of their rooms, while still trying to make a living from their endeavors. You can enjoy your conspiracy theories if you want to, though.

My point exactly.

What? When did you make any point about understanding the science of acoustics in order to make good decisions regarding acoustic treatment? You were too busy debunking it as a black art!

Most people don’t have the time or inclination to dig through tombs of information just to find a few pieces of useful information.

Like I said, there is not just a few pieces of useful information. There is tons of useful information freely available. And if someone doesn't have the time, inclination, or ability to research it, well . . . then I guess they shouldn't complain that others are hiding the truth from them.

 

[Rich]

I’m not surprised.

Hey, if you can't make your point clearly, don't expect me to work too hard to try figure it out.

The physics of sound is not changed by the design of a loudspeaker. How a given speaker performs in a given space may be. You can focus the energy but it still lost at the rate stated.

Careful, you are showing your ignorance. Loudspeaker design doesn't change the physics of sound, but different designs take advantage of different physical aspects of soundwave propagation. A line source speaker radiates in sound only two directions, thus the sound energy is lost at a slower rate than a point source speaker, which radiates sound in three directions.

This excerpt from this article explains it well, although there are numerous other sources for the same simple mathematical concepts:

The cone-type class of loudspeaker produces a characteristic radiation pattern that is best described as “point source,” with output level diminishing rapidly as the distance increases between the listener and speaker. The classic expression of this phenomenon is that sound pressure level is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The practical acoustical effect is that there is a 6 decibel (4-fold) drop in level with every doubling of distance.

. . .

Line-source radiators like [Martin Logans] do not suffer the same physical and psychoacoustic limitations, as they are characterized by sound pressure levels that are linearly inversely proportional to the distance, resulting in a 3 decibel reduction in level with every doubling of distance rather than the 6 decibel drop with point-source radiators.

This principle is also the reason why ceiling and floor reflections are less of a problem with line source speakers than point source speakers, another point you have shown your ignorance on. If you are going to post on a forum dedicated to line source speakers, you might want to learn a little bit about them before spouting off. You can start by reading through some of the previous threads on this forum, where these topics have been discussed at length. Actually, this information is pretty common knowledge among line source speaker enthusiasts and it just makes you look foolish to proudly proclaim: "the physics of sound is not changed by the design of the loudspeaker." I guess you don't think loudspeaker design is a science, either.

Exactly my point regarding the reliability of acoustics as a ‘science’.

If that was your point, you failed miserably in making it. You can't make decisions about acoustic treatments in a vacuum using one or two points of knowledge. To make informed decisions, you need to understand and take into account a lot more than that. The scientific knowledge is there but it is useless if you don't learn it and take advantage of it.

Good to see you are finally coming round.

Actually, I just said that to try to be magnanimous toward your point of view.

Diffusion is a poor choice for small rooms because there are many reflection points and its just not practical to effectively diffuse them all.

No, it is a poor choice because it is relatively impossible to create a cost-effective diffusor that can effectively diffuse the sound waves so that they don't reach the listener's ears within that critical 20 ms timeframe in a small room. There is not enough space between the reflective surfaces and the listener's ears to keep them from reaching the listener's ears within that time frame. In a larger room diffusion works better because there is more space for it to work and the sound wave can be effectively diffused before reaching the listener's ears.

How can you state something it is repeatable and then go on to say but you’re not sure when, and then claim that this is more scientific than astrology?

Do you have a clue how the scientific discovery process works? Hypotheses are constructed regarding specific phenomena, controlled experiments are conducted, and conclusions are drawn which either refute or further refine the hypotheses. As these experiments are repeated, hypotheses develop into working theories. Each little bit of knowledge that is learned is combined with other little bits of knowledge and an entire field of knowledge slowly develops.

I said "every aspect of acoustics is observable, measurable, and repeatable." But just because you can observe, measure, and repeat any particular aspect of soundwave transmission and propagation in a controlled experiment (such as in an anechoic chamber), that doesn't mean that we have sufficient knowledge or data available to predict with absolute certainty how all of the aspects of sound will interact in the real world in varying environments. Having knowledge and making 100% reliable predictions based upon that knowledge are two entirely different things. We can, however, make many highly reliable predictions based on the knowledge that we have. But if you are looking for a magic formula that we can plug in and say "voila, this is what it is going to sound like if you do x, y, and z," sorry but we are not there yet.

Again, you seem to be equating the term "science" with the idea of absolute certainty. Just about every field of science continues to evolve as we learn more about the physical world. Just look how much quantum physics has changed our understanding of the universe in the last few decades. And it continues to change as we continue to learn. Science is the process of learning, not the endpoint of absolute knowledge. I don't know how to explain it any better than that. But ask any scientist and I expect they will tell you the same thing.

How do you plan on measuring these? Repeating them?

Again, the physical aspects of sound that make up "sound quality" and "acoustic quality" can be measured. How do you think equalization programs such as PARC work, anyway? These results are repeatable as well. If you change nothing, you will get the same measurements as you got before. What is more difficult to measure is the variation in the interpretation of those sound qualities by different people.

By the way, since you are still arguing the same tired point while proposing no evidence to back it up, here is another link for you from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, defining acoustics as the "science of sound." But what do they know? They are just a highly respected University publishing an Encyclopedia of Knowledge.

 

[ScottGardner]

Careful, you are showing your ignorance. Loudspeaker design doesn't change the physics of sound, but different designs take advantage of different physical aspects of soundwave propagation. A line source speaker radiates in sound only two directions, thus the sound energy is lost at a slower rate than a point source speaker, which radiates sound in three directions.

This excerpt from this article explains it well, although there are numerous other sources for the same simple mathematical concepts:

This principle is also the reason why ceiling and floor reflections are less of a problem with line source speakers than point source speakers, another point you have shown your ignorance on. If you are going to post on a forum dedicated to line source speakers, you might want to learn a little bit about them before spouting off. You can start by reading through some of the previous threads on this forum, where these topics have been discussed at length. Actually, this information is pretty common knowledge among line source speaker enthusiasts and it just makes you look foolish to proudly proclaim: "the physics of sound is not changed by the design of the loudspeaker." I guess you don't think loudspeaker design is a science, either.

I stand corrected.

Actually, I just said that to try to be magnanimous toward your point of view.

Thanks

No, it is a poor choice because it is relatively impossible to create a cost-effective diffusor that can effectively diffuse the sound waves so that they don't reach the listener's ears within that critical 20 ms timeframe in a small room. There is not enough space between the reflective surfaces and the listener's ears to keep them from reaching the listener's ears within that time frame.

That was my point. You were calling it comb filtering which is incorrect.

Do you have a clue how the scientific discovery process works? Hypotheses are constructed regarding specific phenomena, controlled experiments are conducted, and conclusions are drawn which either refute or further refine the hypotheses. As these experiments are repeated, hypotheses develop into working theories. Each little bit of knowledge that is learned is combined with other little bits of knowledge and an entire field of knowledge slowly develops.

So we have we moved on to 'discovery' now?

I said "every aspect of acoustics is observable, measurable, and repeatable." But just because you can observe, measure, and repeat any particular aspect of soundwave transmission and propagation in a controlled experiment (such as in an anechoic chamber), that doesn't mean that we have sufficient knowledge or data available to predict with absolute certainty how all of the aspects of sound will interact in the real world in varying environments.

Now you’re getting it

if you are looking for a magic formula that we can plug in and say "voila, this is what it is going to sound like if you do x, y, and z," sorry but we are not there yet.

The point I have already made many times and since you have now adopted it I will take that as evidence of its truth.

Again, you seem to be equating the term "science" with the idea of absolute certainty.

Absolute 'reliability'.

That is my preferred definition. Yes.

Again, the physical aspects of sound that make up "sound quality" and "acoustic quality" can be measured. How do you think equalization programs such as PARC work, anyway?

These results are repeatable as well.

The result of EQ is subjective and not all agree its good.

By the way, since you are still arguing the same tired point while proposing no evidence to back it up, here is another link for you from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, defining acoustics as the "science of sound." But what do they know? They are just a highly respected University publishing an Encyclopedia of Knowledge.

The only thing in question about your 'science' is its reliability and you have yet to prove that it is. That fact that you have now adopted my position regarding its questionable reliability is evidence enough.

 

[Rich]

You were calling it comb filtering which is incorrect.

Not exactly. I said "comb filtering and other ill effects." Inadequate diffusion of early reflections in a small room can still result in comb filtering, along with the other ill effects, including smearing and flutter echo.

So we have we moved on to 'discovery' now?

If you go back and reference the definition of science I quoted originally, you will see that it refers to it as the "systematic study" of the physical world. Study generally leads to discovery. That is the whole reason for the scientific method: to have a reliable, systematic process for discovery. Science is all about discovery. How about providing just one citation that supports your definition of science as solely referring to a set of well-defined laws and reliable knowledge?

The only thing in question about your 'science' is its reliability and you have yet to prove that it is.

So that is what this whole debate comes down to? You don't believe acoustics is a science (despite numerous citations to the contrary) because we can't use our knowledge of it to make absolutely reliable predictions about what will happen in a unique room with a particular setup? Welcome to the real world. By your definition, there are no fields of science. (By the way, I thought you earlier mocked the notion that forecasting had anything to do with science? How then can you define science as that which leads to 100% reliable predictions?)

Honestly though, I give up. As they say, you can lead a horse to water (you can even throw him in it) but you can't make him drink. I am tired of debating with someone who makes sweeping generalizations of opinion but provides no citations of fact or logical reasoning to back them up, and who argues semantics based on their own made-up definitions of common terms like "science."

I apologize to Bernard for totally hijacking his thread with a three page debate about the ridiculous notion that acoustics is not a science, but a black art. May the force be with you.

 

[ScottGardner]

So that is what this whole debate comes down to? You don't believe acoustics is a science

It has not reached a state where its predictions can be relied upon.
That has been my contention from the start.

Honestly though, I give up.

me too.

 

[ScottGardner]

All,
I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was certainly not my intent. I was hoping to take some of the mystique out of acoustics. I tried to keep my arguments to the point and not let it become personal. That must have gotten lost in my fervor to defend my position.

Rich,
I’m particularly sorry we couldn’t reach a friendlier outcome.
I will go back to lurking in the background and try not to step on anyone’s toes.

Scott

 

[Bernard]

I apologize to Bernard for totally hijacking his thread with a three page debate about the ridiculous notion that acoustics is not a science, but a black art. May the force be with you.

No apology necessary, Rich. I enjoyed the thrust and parry. I was glad to see that in the end you were both in violent agreement - you both gave up !

 

[Bernard]

All,
I will go back to lurking in the background and try not to step on anyone’s toes.

Scott

Why would you want to do that ? We all step on each other's toes at some point or the other. It would be boring otherwise.