[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by DanDan

Do you not accept that the two bass octaves contain enormous amounts of energy, compared to the upper octaves?

Absolute energy levels don't matter because Fletcher-Munson evens that out.

Building Acoustics is focussed on Noise issues, not Tonality.

That's simply not true. The design of recording studios focuses on both equally.

Noise above 4kHz does not often make it through a wall. Below 125 Hz is not measured because the Measurement rooms would be too enormous and thus expensive.

Yes, and that might be why whoever gathered the data failed to include lower and higher ranges. Because of the presumed audience. But I'm sure those ranges were measured in the lab! When I've tested my products the report covers from 25 Hz up to 10 KHz. The data below 100 Hz is not certified as accurate, but it's not useless either.

but the LF Measurement difficulty is unresolved.

I totally agree. But in the context of surface reflectivity for materials placed on a rigid concrete floor, we all know that LF absorption is not relevant. Believe it or not, I'm still trying to stick to what happens with wood flooring over solid concrete.

If the 8kHz Octave is important, how can your 'proof' be valid.

You are correct, which I already acknowledged. But at least the "proof" is relevant for the vast majority of the range.

Reflectivity is not enough to describe how something sounds.

In the context of a surface applied over rigid concrete, what else is there? Please be very specific.

The source of all of this is the statement that a concrete floor will sound the same or near enough to wood.

The source of this is a guy who has an existing rigid concrete floor, who was considering adding wood on top.

Of course it is possible [everyone else is wrong] but what are the chances.

Pretty high IMO! And Yes, I'm serious.

Didn't someone way back run the same numbers and come up with a 3dB difference?

See my post above about that. The whole notion of expanding numbers like that is flawed.

--Ethan