Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

SAC · 6th March 2010

Again, gibberish, reflecting no understanding of energy content versus frequency content.

So now ONLY bass traps are sufficient to control specular reflections that cause comb filtering.

For as you will now note, it is proposed that one must employ bass traps in order to tame specular reflections in order to mitigate comb filtering - as the initial null occurs at a frequency not determined by the frequency content of the reflection , but by the time offset of the reflected energy itself. Apparently it requires "high level maths" to appreciate the problem with this approach. Time, frequency, frequency, time...its all so confusing.

What still really confuses DD is that the very seminars and workshops using the very tools that ole DD derides as meaningless (not to mention the content of the workshops extolling the utility and usefulness of the ETC in particular and of a well controlled semi-diffuse soundfield) were personally lead by 'questionable'(sic!!!) folks such as Russ Berger and Peter D'Antonio and involved many others not limited to Don Davis, Don Keele, Alton Everest, Dr. Eugene Patronis and MANY others, and B&K was one of the very first to jump on the measurement tools to license and manufacture them.

Not to mention Richard Heyser, the obviously MOST uninformed and confused individual who introduced the ETC measurement. One has to seriously suspect such a consortium of obviously uniformed and confused folks who should read more of ole DD's treatise on the universally adequate applicability of the frequency response.

But what do they know?

Obviously more than the ole clapper himself.

And in another exciting, yet terrifying, bit of news... I have heard an unsubstantiated rumor that says the AES is about to withdraw the collection of Richard Heyser's papers and replace them with DD's treatise on the universal applicability of the frequency response to solve whatever ails you. Apparently it is reputed to work on all ailments except for ignore-ance.

And all of this from someone who takes great pride in parading his repeatedly mentioned self-admitted inability to understand how a SIMPLE gain versus arrival time plot can be productively used to identify, isolate, and treat specular reflections and the issues they create.

So please dan, we all await your next incredibly insightful utterance regarding that which you take great pride in not understanding and misrepresenting. After all, you did write a paper 'on it' once. right? I guess it wasn't in either the AES or ASA journals, as that is where all of the myriad papers extolling the use of such time based measurements as the ETC, as well as the collected works of Richard Heyser himself, are published... You see how lucky we are folks? Where else can one go to learn that such new-fangled ideas are not only unfounded, but of little or no use!?

6th March 2010	#22
SAC Registered User Joined: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,622	Again, gibberish, reflecting no understanding of energy content versus frequency content. So now ONLY bass traps are sufficient to control specular reflections that cause comb filtering. For as you will now note, it is proposed that one must employ bass traps in order to tame specular reflections in order to mitigate comb filtering - as the initial null occurs at a frequency not determined by the frequency content of the reflection , but by the time offset of the reflected energy itself. Apparently it requires "high level maths" to appreciate the problem with this approach. Time, frequency, frequency, time...its all so confusing. What still really confuses DD is that the very seminars and workshops using the very tools that ole DD derides as meaningless (not to mention the content of the workshops extolling the utility and usefulness of the ETC in particular and of a well controlled semi-diffuse soundfield) were personally lead by 'questionable'(sic!!!) folks such as Russ Berger and Peter D'Antonio and involved many others not limited to Don Davis, Don Keele, Alton Everest, Dr. Eugene Patronis and MANY others, and B&K was one of the very first to jump on the measurement tools to license and manufacture them. Not to mention Richard Heyser, the obviously MOST uninformed and confused individual who introduced the ETC measurement. One has to seriously suspect such a consortium of obviously uniformed and confused folks who should read more of ole DD's treatise on the universally adequate applicability of the frequency response. But what do they know? Obviously more than the ole clapper himself. And in another exciting, yet terrifying, bit of news... I have heard an unsubstantiated rumor that says the AES is about to withdraw the collection of Richard Heyser's papers and replace them with DD's treatise on the universal applicability of the frequency response to solve whatever ails you. Apparently it is reputed to work on all ailments except for ignore-ance. And all of this from someone who takes great pride in parading his repeatedly mentioned self-admitted inability to understand how a SIMPLE gain versus arrival time plot can be productively used to identify, isolate, and treat specular reflections and the issues they create. So please dan, we all await your next incredibly insightful utterance regarding that which you take great pride in not understanding and misrepresenting. After all, you did write a paper 'on it' once. right? I guess it wasn't in either the AES or ASA journals, as that is where all of the myriad papers extolling the use of such time based measurements as the ETC, as well as the collected works of Richard Heyser himself, are published... You see how lucky we are folks? Where else can one go to learn that such new-fangled ideas are not only unfounded, but of little or no use!?