[Xenon]

Originally Posted by terry j

I do understand that, but you rip (what I presume are the equivalent of 8*4) sheets down don't you?

Well actually... All the framing and faces are cut at the Home Center. Our 2.5mm panels are 1830 (6') x 921 (3') -- this is the approx. ply sheet size in Japan. It's still too long to carry in our car (for the fins alone we bought 33 sheets of this stuff). So we get the sheets for fins cut in half. To be honest we have little interest in ripping a 6'x 3' 2.5mm sheets of ply on our saw. So we came back from the home Center with about 300 4cm faces, 66 half-panels for fins, and 48 frame members (of 12mm) ply. May as well assemble it all first! (The key to white glue removal involves damp rags.)

Originally Posted by terry j

Ie, you don't go out and buy the 40 odd mm strips of ply in bundles.

Au contraire, monsieur.

Originally Posted by terry j

So, I am not talking about staining 200 fins and 200 faces etc individually, I would stain the 1200 by 600 sheet as a complete piece, even varnish it too, THEN rip it into individual strips.

It makes great sense, if we could manage it that way. I will say though that there is a big issue in ripping 2.5mm plywood. Even with our 100-tooth 10" saw, you always get that natty-ragged-flaky edge, which we sometimes have to lightly sand (with 80 or 120 grit). So this would involve a lot of re-staining, actually for every piece, on both sides, and by hand (versus a sprayer). For such thin wood, pre-staining panels may not be so time-effective as a result.

Originally Posted by terry j

It is highly possible that the cut 'face' would need some sort of stain, it is then a simple matter to use the side of a brush dipped in the stain and gently wipe along the edges (usually only one is required).

Sure, could be done, but you are talking about 2-sided edges of hundreds of pieces, which also need to (re)dry.

Originally Posted by terry j

An alternative (which for all I know you are going to do) is spray. I have not tried it, but I can just imagine the spray droplets acting like the soundwaves...diffusing and bouncing back out of it in a cloud of mist!!!

Ah, you haven't done low-viscosity spraying then. When you get the pressure and droplet-size set (with test pieces) it's really a dream. When outside, in good weather, and wearing a respirator that is. Anyway, perfect for the wells -- like with shooting lacquer, you want a number of fast-drying light coats, without trying to cover every little spot with any one coat ... We have enough room outside to line up all 8 N23 units in a row--by the time you get to the end, you can re-shoot the first (in theory).

Originally Posted by terry j

hah, if anyone can take this thread off topic, surely it's you!!??

Thanks -- I mentioned the Capitol Studios Mastering Room 1, because I've thought a lot about it --

Originally Posted by terry j

I must say, I fully and totally see collos point. I am not arguing against him at all. But it *seems* that the method outlined by jason is, somewhere, somehow, accepted and used as a valid implementation of the barker code.

Really? It seems questionable when near-symmetry between the +1/-1 periods differs by only one well-position. What I wonder about is say, with N23 as an example, if you were to position +1 as a split (left-right) zero well, and the -1, with a zero well in the middle. In other words move the wells over so that there is a 'greatest visual difference' between the two panels (real scientific, huh).

Originally Posted by terry j

Then again, I personally am very wary of internet lore, and in this case there does seem to be valid objections??? So, where does the truth lie.

In measurements in a room... And it doesn't seem easy to get proper readings in rooms with other issues. It does bring up the question of which software and what particular tests would be most helpful. Do you or does anyone have an answer for this?

Originally Posted by terry j

Boy, I must be quite skeptical at heart, re the RPG 'claims'...well there is of course always the advancement of knowledge, no-one is denying that. But equally, there is also defending one's turf, and there are many ways to do that job. (I feel for them, in the sense that here we are trying to back engineer all *their* work...)

I'm in no position to judge. I do have immense respect for the RPG acousticians, and am grateful they post so much specific information online and in textbooks.

Originally Posted by terry j

It makes sense to 'advance' the technology from your competitors.. hmm, being cynical can also tie you in knots!!

Well I have a background in software design and simple electronics (building stompboxes, small amps). Many excellent amps and 'boxes are based on the same circuits (1930s design, with tube amps), and the same for ss circuits. With software, who doesn't use building-blocks of routines? These are in the public domain, and huge chunks of change are made by applying them, every day. Likewise, the math of Schroeder diffusors is free and 'open source,' and various people apply and use it. It's a gift of science to humanity, in this sense (Schroeder's in particular). And if someone can make a buck with my build design, good on 'em. But I hope they'll improve it and post the results here. So I'm all for figuring out all implementations, so I can improve my own design. And I wish I owned all my own genes, but I think this might not be true anymore.

Originally Posted by terry j

Let's just sort what WE can eh? And that is forget about secret schroeder advancement voodoo, and just get the twenty year old technology correct first.

Well topology and boundary mathematics is over my head, but if someone (hint hint) can calculate realworld examples, I'm all for it! It would be cool to make diffusors without wells, and you are working on the fractal insert which is very cool -- so there you go. Probably our end has to do with inexpensive, easy-to-build solutions. One QRD per child, I say.