| Getting there
Frank, agreed almost entirely. However I don't think the conclusion is inevitable. I believe the direction is currently positive.
We are indeed working with undefined terms. Proof, Science, Warm, and so on. Perhaps some of us are not qualifed enough to be dipping our toes in the Science. My understanding of these matters is that generally there is a hell of a lot more to it than I know, but a combination of methods gets me done successfully. One cannot dismiss things like; Coefficients are only valid in Diffuse spaces, the multiple bounces, changing coefficients with angles of incidence. If these tests were scalable why would the ISO etc. tests require such large rooms and large samples? Are they wrong? Perhaps Brian would jump back in to explain how he got that 3dB. It would save me a lot of head scratching and trawling through text books here. I am very interested in that point in particular.
Regarding a Reflectivity test, if the concrete is finished with the same say Epoxy finish as the wood, they will surely be close at MF and HF. Reflectivity is not enough ( A New Bond Movie ;-) )
I suspect there may be a Test Method which would yield something useful. Sound Intensity methods can be wonderfully blind to the test circumstances. Even with such a Reflectivity Test, I think we would still end up with vastly intricate statistical predictions to extrapolate to a real world situation- multiple bounces, angles of incidence and so on. It is my opinion that many theories of Acoustics have come from tests, often involving massive resources, thus the dearth of them, restricted bandwidths etc. The theory is later developed to put some numbers on it.
I have another catch- phrase- joke, I promise the last one. :-)
That's all right in Practice, but what about the Theory?
Best. DD
|