| Last Chance
Clearly neither logic or rationale will modify the absolute intransigent statement ' Measurement trumps hearing every time'.
I have voided the source of your calculations, those numbers, as incomplete, and inapplicable. You have not validated them using accepted Science, but simply brushed aside the voiding argument.
Once again, the wood is normally resiliently mounted, not a rigid slab. The three octaves being omitted contain more musically vital energy than all the rest combined. The numbers do not apply in a non diffuse space. How can you simply say they are still useful? Show me the science behind that assertion? Can you Prove or even show that your numbers, which came from where? can be usefully applied to how something 'sounds'. Even when applied correctly in the right space, Sabine calculations rarely come near reality.
By all means prove your point, by using full scientific method, not some cherry picked aspects which simply ignore and omit bigger realities. Please, no more of that Hi Fi myths stuff. You are the only one here who said wood sounds 'warm', which it isn't, when placed in context. The repeated suggestions that our opinions are in some way related to buyers of 2000 dollar power cables is silly. All of the contributors here have expressed the considered conclusion that science cannot stand alone in the evaluation of heard sound, coincidentally agreeing with Everest. So, are we all simply wrong?
Dan
|