Cathedral vs flat ceiling

[knightrupert]

Hello all. I want to build a small garage-style studio (approx 20'x30'X12') on my property and I'm wondering if a cathedral ceiling would be better than a flat ceiling? I'll be recording acoustic instruments only (violin, cello, guitar). Thanks.

[Black Shadow]

You mean a curved roof, like an inverted smiley? Since this would diminish the total number of corners in the room, theoretically it would be better I guess - though I'm a complete novice.

[Ethan Winer]

Yes, when all else is equal a higher ceiling is better than a lower ceiling, even if only part of the ceiling is higher. However, be aware that a peak shape focuses sound under the peak, and you should use absorption as shown in the photo below to avoid that.

--Ethan

[knightrupert]

Thanks Ethan! If you don't mind I'd like to ask another quick question. Is there a big difference between a concrete floor and a hardwood floor assuming I've done some treatment on the walls/ceiling? I was thinking of having radiant heat in the floor and acid staining the concrete, but all the studio pics I've seen have had hardwood. Thanks again!

[Ethan Winer]

There's no difference in sound between concrete and wood, or at least not enough to worry about. Both reflect sound.

--Ethan

[knightrupert]

Thanks Ethan!

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

There's no difference in sound between concrete and wood, or at least not enough to worry about. Both reflect sound.

--Ethan

Ethan you may be an expert but you are also biased, as a dealer in acoustic materials. I think and know that there is a big difference between wood and concrete acoustically! A Huge difference!!

Just walk into a wooden building and then a concrete one - the reflections are totally different. I won't bother describing the differnces, as it is so obvious to me!

You have lost some respect from me for your statement that they "both reflect" - they reflect differently! Club where I work has concrete walsl and wood floors and ceilings, and the difference is very clear. Extremely so, in my experience! In fact, there are differences in what kinds of wood, too, just as in instrument construction.

Lou

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by loujudson

Ethan you may be an expert but you are also biased, as a dealer in acoustic materials.

Huh? I don't sell floor materials.

Just walk into a wooden building and then a concrete one - the reflections are totally different. I won't bother describing the differnces, as it is so obvious to me!

Tell you what Lou. Assuming you have access to both surfaces, run a reflectivity test and post the results here. This is very easy to do with room testing software, more or less as I show in Figures 1 and 2 of this article:

Comb Filtering

I'll also mention that stained cement is the "new wood" these days, and is becoming popular for flooring even in high-end studios.

--Ethan

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Huh? I don't sell floor materials.
edit
I'll also mention that stained cement is the "new wood" these days, and is becoming popular for flooring even in high-end studios.

--Ethan

Whatever. I like wood better, let's just leave it at that.

L

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Tell you what Lou. Assuming you have access to both surfaces, run a reflectivity test and post the results here. This is very easy to do with room testing software, more or less as I show in Figures 1 and 2 of this article:

Comb Filtering

I'll also mention that stained cement is the "new wood" these days, and is becoming popular for flooring even in high-end studios.

Ethan, with all respect I have to disagree.

I won't argue with the test data you presented Ethan, but that says *nothing* for the subjective element which absolutely *is* there, *is* valid and *must* be considered. You can't just summarily dismiss empirical data in favor of another type of data just because one is on a plot and the other isn't. I'll bet you anything that if you took 10 guys and played snare hits from exactly the same location in rooms exactly the same size and shape, one made of concrete and the other made of wood, all 10 would be able to tell which was which. A plot won't tell you that though.

Frank

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

I'll bet you anything that if you took 10 guys and played snare hits from exactly the same location in rooms exactly the same size and shape, one made of concrete and the other made of wood, all 10 would be able to tell which was which.

I suppose there could be a small difference between the reflectivity of cement versus wood, depending on what sort of finishes are used. A high-gloss wood finish will reflect highs more than cement, almost like glass. Versus unfinished rough-hewn soft wood that will reflect highs less than cement. My point is that for practical purposes there's no meaningful difference. Both surfaces reflect sound more or less the same, and both create damaging comb filtering. I suppose I could have stated it that way rather than just say "no" difference. But the idea that wood will sound "warmer" or any of the other subjective terms often used is wrong IMO.

It's also worth mentioning that I'm addressing surface reflectivity only, not whether a wood floor on joists might resonate at subsonic frequencies.

A plot won't tell you that though.

So you believe there's a property of reflectivity that is audible but not measurable? Please elaborate!

--Ethan

[jwl]

I think one key point to consider is, what's behind the wood?

Ethan alludes to this in his most recent post. A 12" thick concrete wall has so much mass that very little sound will escape. On the other hand, a standard framed wall with wood paneling over it and insulation inside will likely absorb some bass, and let some bass out as well.

Plus there is the surface to think about, as Ethan says (smooth vs. rough).

Additionally, many studios with "wood walls" are actually slot resonators built into the wall, so of course these will have a very different sound than a bare concrete wall.

I think it might be more accurate to say something like, given the same mass and finish (smooth or rough), wood and concrete will sound the same. But there are some variabilities.

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

So you believe there's a property of reflectivity that is audible but not measurable? Please elaborate!

Ethan, when you make that statement you are engaging in a methodological fallacy that's been around for about 2,500 years (it was originally an error in Platonic philosophy). It states that a thing that can be "known" must be known via processes deemed "objective". The problem is, no one has ever been able to settle on exactly what that means...ironically. It summarily dismisses any evidence other than what can be measured with an instrument, such as empirical data. In the original Platonic error, Plato dismissed any evidence that could not be gathered using external sensory organs such as the ears, nose, fingers, eyes...you get the point. He completely dismissed the brain as a valid instrument for the collection of data.

The data in a plot is simply a description of data that is analyzed in the brain and is expressed by us in phases such as "that sounds like wood", or "that sounds like concrete". those descriptions are just as valid as the plotted data; in fact for the plotted data to have any meaning those descriptions of the room the data was taken from should be equative with respect to the plots. They should be adverbs that describe what a certain plot sounds like. Of course I should think that a wood room and a concrete room plot differently. That doesn't mean I think that it's "audible but not measurable".

When I say that 10 people out of 10 would be able to tell one room from the other I'm not saying anything that the plots wouldn't show; I'll bet they would. I'm challenging your assertion to the contrary, which is essentially the opposite: that no matter how different the plots are, all the rooms sound the same so long as they are the same size and shape and assuming that the measuring apparatus is identically placed.

Frank

[loujudson]

Thanks, Frank, for adding to the discussion. I am too intuitive to argue so deeply. It was beginning to look like the wires things, which RCA cable "sounds better" to an audiophile...

Carry on, gentlemen!


Oh, and did not intend to hijack the thread. the floor is not the ceiling...
L

[jwl]

Interesting discussion! I was a philosophy major in college, so especially so...

I agree there is a difference between empirical data about a room, and what I would describe as the listener's experience within that room. In fact, this distinction is what keeps me sane when dealing with some of the audiophile community.... (ie, "wow, you spent $2500 on a replacement power cable? OK, I don't understand the physics behind what that's doing for you, but if it improves your listening experience then go for it....")

I think when Plato was talking about "objectivity," the main point is repeatability. If something "tests out" the same way every time, then for all practical purposes we have an "objective" test.

In addition, if you are going to talk about Platonic philosophy then you have to talk about the foundations of his epistemology, which is how things can be "known." The only realm of true existence for Plato was the world of forms (sometimes translated as ideas), which is completely inaccessible to human experience. Therefore, according to Plato, anything a human consciousness can definitely "know" doesn't really exist, because forms are the exclusive realm of pure existence. Even the most stubborn "fact" in human experience can only be, at best, educated guesswork about how what we experience as reality is a mere reflection of the world of forms.

Back to audio (LOL), I think Ethan's point is, if a concrete room and a wood room sound different, then they will also "plot" differently. Or put another way, if you can hear a difference in a room, then the plot will also be different.

Where it gets interesting is if/when someone "hears" a difference in the room, but the plots are the same. What's going on there? Placebo effect? Or some mysterious, unmeasurable quality of audio that eludes science, or at least the current capability of science?

Since we seem to have a firm grasp of frequency response, distortion, time domain errors, noise, etc, then we have to turn back to consciousness and experience of the listener, and not absorption coefficients of wood vs. concrete.

But anyway, now I have to go engage in beard-stroking and contemplative facial expressions.....

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

you are engaging in a methodological fallacy that's been around for about 2,500 years

Jim already gave you a good "philosophical" response, and there's no fallacy I can see. My comment was based entirely on what you wrote:

"all 10 would be able to tell which was which. A plot won't tell you that though."

Maybe all the time I spend (waste, really) in hi-fi forums makes me overly sensitive to the false idea that we can hear things that "science" doesn't yet know how to measure. But that's exactly how I read your post - drummers could tell the difference between wood and concrete, but an REW sweep wouldn't show any difference. But now you say you agree anything that could be heard can also be measured, so that's cool.

The data in a plot is simply a description of data that is analyzed in the brain

Ah geez, more effin philosophy.

Actually, the data in a plot of comb filtering off a surface is reality, and it shows exactly what frequencies are reflected and by how much. The "brain" may or may not hear it as it really exists, which is a whole 'nother discussion in itself. Glad to go there too if you'd like. That's my specialty!

is expressed by us in phases such as "that sounds like wood", or "that sounds like concrete". those descriptions are just as valid as the plotted data

I disagree strongly. Those descriptions are no different than "that sounds like analog" or "that sounds like digital" which I hope you realize is often not reality either!

I'm challenging your assertion to the contrary, which is essentially the opposite: that no matter how different the plots are, all the rooms sound the same so long as they are the same size and shape and assuming that the measuring apparatus is identically placed.

I never said any such thing!

--Ethan

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by jwl

Interesting discussion! I was a philosophy major in college, so especially so...

I agree there is a difference between empirical data about a room, and what I would describe as the listener's experience within that room. In fact, this distinction is what keeps me sane when dealing with some of the audiophile community.... (ie, "wow, you spent $2500 on a replacement power cable? OK, I don't understand the physics behind what that's doing for you, but if it improves your listening experience then go for it....")

I hear you...

Originally Posted by jwl

I think when Plato was talking about "objectivity," the main point is repeatability. If something "tests out" the same way every time, then for all practical purposes we have an "objective" test.

In addition, if you are going to talk about Platonic philosophy then you have to talk about the foundations of his epistemology, which is how things can be "known." The only realm of true existence for Plato was the world of forms (sometimes translated as ideas), which is completely inaccessible to human experience. Therefore, according to Plato, anything a human consciousness can definitely "know" doesn't really exist, because forms are the exclusive realm of pure existence. Even the most stubborn "fact" in human experience can only be, at best, educated guesswork about how what we experience as reality is a mere reflection of the world of forms.

...but he was wrong, wasn't he?. I mean, Plato and Pythagoras and Parmenedes before him essentially stumbled upon a very early form of the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, didn't they? But the uncertainty principal is a description of what we can know versus a statement about what actually is. The most convincing proof with respect to the logical error in Plato's epistomology is also the easiest one: if there is but one perfect line in the world of forms, then there can be no such thing as geometry in the world of forms because there can be but one perfect line. Uh oh. Plato created an intrinsic impossibility for himself. He also made the very same error in syntax that I think is being made in Ethan's assertion: the plot is not reality itself, but a description of what reality sounds like.

Originally Posted by jwl

Back to audio (LOL), I think Ethan's point is, if a concrete room and a wood room sound different, then they will also "plot" differently. Or put another way, if you can hear a difference in a room, then the plot will also be different.

Right, so far I'm with you. I would assert exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by jwl

Where it gets interesting is if/when someone "hears" a difference in the room, but the plots are the same. What's going on there? Placebo effect? Or some mysterious, unmeasurable quality of audio that eludes science, or at least the current capability of science?

Red herring. We're not talking about getting the same measurements but varying empirical data. We're talking about having two identical rooms in shape and size, but completely different surface compositions.

Originally Posted by jwl

Since we seem to have a firm grasp of frequency response, distortion, time domain errors, noise, etc, then we have to turn back to consciousness and experience of the listener, and not absorption coefficients of wood vs. concrete.

...but would you not consider a multitude of similar subjective experiences convincing evidence that a thing "is" as stated? In other words, if 10 out of 10 people could tell the difference between the wood room and the concrete room, isn't that pretty convincing proof that there is *in fact* a difference? I would certainly be willing to accept that kind of proof.

[jwl]

As long as we're waxing philosophical here, I have to nitpick about one statement:

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Actually, the data in a plot of comb filtering off a surface is reality, and it shows exactly what frequencies are reflected and by how much.

Such a plot, from a philosophical point of view, is NOT reality, but is rather a representation of reality. It is dependent on the "representational apparatus" used, ie, the microphone, the cable, the preamp, the D/A converter, and the software used to measure, etc.

I'm nitpicking, but that's what philosophers do best.... tutt

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by jwl

Such a plot, from a philosophical point of view, is NOT reality, but is rather a representation of reality.

Yes, but it exactly reflects reality much more than subjective opinion which is just that - opinion. An REW graph is indistinguishable from reality, so for all intents and purposes it is reality.

I'm also not at all convinced that 10 out of 10 drummers could tell concrete from wood. I say prove it with a blind test!

--Ethan

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

"all 10 would be able to tell which was which. A plot won't tell you that though."

Maybe all the time I spend (waste, really) in hi-fi forums makes me overly sensitive to the false idea that we can hear things that "science" doesn't yet know how to measure. But that's exactly how I read your post - drummers could tell the difference between wood and concrete, but an REW sweep wouldn't show any difference. But now you say you agree anything that could be heard can also be measured, so that's cool.

That's not at all what I meant. I was coming from the other direction, actually...what I meant by that was that looking at two set of measurements, the average skilled listener would not be able to tell which one was wood and which one was concrete, but that does not mean that the same set of listeners wouldn't be able to tell the difference with their ears. I'll bet they could.

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Actually, the data in a plot of comb filtering off a surface is reality, and it shows exactly what frequencies are reflected and by how much. The "brain" may or may not hear it as it really exists, which is a whole 'nother discussion in itself. Glad to go there too if you'd like. That's my specialty!

No, that is a description of what is occurring from the standpoint of physics. You cannot dismiss the subjective element in audio. Empirical data counts, Ethan...otherwise the descriptions of what is ocurring from the standpoint of physics don't *mean* anything.

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I disagree strongly. Those descriptions are no different than "that sounds like analog" or "that sounds like digital" which I hope you realize is often not reality either!

Another red herring. Two rooms of completely different surface composition is not the same thing as the digital/analog argument.

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I never said any such thing!

There's no difference in sound between concrete and wood, or at least not enough to worry about.

...it sure seems like you did. Surely those two rooms would produce different measurements, right? But there's no difference in the way they sound?

I love these kinds of discussions. The intellectual stimulation is worth the risk of getting crushed by Ethan's huge brain. Thanks for participating, Ethan and JWL!

Frank

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Yes, but it exactly reflects reality much more than subjective opinion which is just that - opinion. An REW graph is indistinguishable from reality, so for all intents and purposes it is reality.

I'm also not at all convinced that 10 out of 10 drummers could tell concrete from wood. I say prove it with a blind test!

I wish I had a wood room...or lived near Oceanway.

Again, without the subjective element the data is meaningless.


Frank

[jwl]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

...but he was wrong, wasn't he?. I mean, Plato and Pythagoras and Parmenedes before him essentially stumbled upon a very early form of the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, didn't they? But the uncertainty principal is a description of what we can know versus a statement about what actually is. The most convincing proof with respect to the logical error in Plato's epistomology is also the easiest one: if there is but one perfect line in the world of forms, then there can be no such thing as geometry in the world of forms because there can be but one perfect line. Uh oh. Plato created an intrinsic impossibility for himself. He also made the very same error in syntax that I think is being made in Ethan's assertion: the plot is not reality itself, but a description of what reality sounds like.

Who's to say if Plato was right or wrong? That's the beauty of metaphysical speculation, no one can be proved right or wrong. :-) That said, I'm not much of a Platonist myself (I think Process metaphysics gives the best theory of how reality works, personally..... at least it's the most fun to think about).

I'm not sure if in Plato's world there is only one perfect line. There could be a perfect 12" long line, a perfect 13" long line, etc. etc., both of which are manifestations of perfect "lineness."

In regard to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it actually states that we can either know a particle's position OR its trajectory, but never both.

I agree with you about the difference between reality and a plot describing reality.

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

Red herring. We're not talking about getting the same measurements but varying empirical data. We're talking about having two identical rooms in shape and size, but completely different surface compositions.

Right, but also differences in mass, absorption coefficients in the wall, etc. etc.

Here's an interesting experiment: get a concrete box of a room, and test it. Then, line the entire inner surface of the room with 1/4" plywood, and repeat the test. Would that sound different?

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

...but would you not consider a multitude of similar subjective experiences convincing evidence that a thing "is" as stated? In other words, if 10 out of 10 people could tell the difference between the wood room and the concrete room, isn't that pretty convincing proof that there is *in fact* a difference? I would certainly be willing to accept that kind of proof.

Perhaps, but we're still talking about probabilities. Psychologically speaking, there is the group-mind phenomenon as well.... people tend to agree with their peers when given a choice, without regard to whether they are right or not.

For instance, millions of people "voted" for Bush in 2000 and 2004.....

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by jwl

I'm not sure if in Plato's world there is only one perfect line. There could be a perfect 12" long line, a perfect 13" long line, etc. etc., both of which are manifestations of perfect "lineness."

True, but there could still never logically be such a thing as a square or an equilateral triangle. That in itself disproves forms as a cogently held theory with respect to mathematics.

Originally Posted by jwl

In regard to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it actually states that we can either know a particle's position OR its trajectory, but never both.

Right, which is a tremendous refinement of Plato's argument that we cannot know what *is*, only what we *perceive*. I am arguing against the idea that there is a world of "reality" described by physics and a world of "perception" described by experience. One is a description of the other; to say otherwise would be an error in syntax.

Originally Posted by jwl

Here's an interesting experiment: get a concrete box of a room, and test it. Then, line the entire inner surface of the room with 1/4" plywood, and repeat the test. Would that sound different?

I'd pick another wood, but yes. It would. And the measurements would bear that out.

Originally Posted by jwl

Perhaps, but we're still talking about probabilities. Psychologically speaking, there is the group-mind phenomenon as well.... people tend to agree with their peers when given a choice, without regard to whether they are right or not.

Physics is all about probabilities as well. The group mind phenomena would not come into play in double-blind testing.

All that beard stroking has made you pretty smart, JWL.

Frank

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

what I meant by that was that looking at two set of measurements, the average skilled listener would not be able to tell which one was wood and which one was concrete

What does that have to do with the price of tea? If wood and concrete sound different in the way they reflect, then the difference is easily measured. In fact, we can measure to a fraction of a dB, where most people would be hard pressed to hear differences much larger. Measuring always beats subjective opinion. Always.

If you think wood and concrete sound completely different you'll have to prove it. You have REW, yes? Would you like to run the test or shall I? I have a concrete floor in my garage, and a nice piece of 3/8 plywood I can lay on top. Or you do it. Your choice. Let me know which you prefer. Or maybe we should both test it and compare results?

Before either of us runs a surface test we should both agree on how much difference is meaningful. Originally I said the difference is "not enough to worry about." So would you agree that reflectivity differences versus frequency of less than, say, 3 dB are not enough to worry about?

You cannot dismiss the subjective element in audio. Empirical data counts

Subjective opinion and empirical data are totally different. Yes, you can trust listening, but only when 1) the change is blatantly obvious to all, or 2) you use a blind test. I assume you're aware of audiophooles and their beliefs? I can point you to dozens of people who all swear they hear an improvement when replacing one competent AC power cord with another. Or swear they hear better imaging after smearing magic cream on their CDs. Or after demagnetizing their LP records. Ad nauseum. I hope you're not saying those 'phooles are correct just because they believe they hear an improvement!

Two rooms of completely different surface composition is not the same thing as the digital/analog argument.

It is if the surfaces aren't really completely different. And concrete is not "completely different" from wood.

The intellectual stimulation is worth the risk of getting crushed by Ethan's huge brain.

You're taking a mighty big risk there bud.

--Ethan

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

What does that have to do with the price of tea? If wood and concrete sound different in the way they reflect, then the difference is easily measured. In fact, we can measure to a fraction of a dB, where most people would be hard pressed to hear differences much larger. Measuring always beats subjective opinion. Always.

If you think wood and concrete sound completely different you'll have to prove it. You have REW, yes? Would you like to run the test or shall I? I have a concrete floor in my garage, and a nice piece of 3/8 plywood I can lay on top. Or you do it. Your choice. Let me know which you prefer. Or maybe we should both test it and compare results?

Ethan, you are completely missing the point and the experiment you're suggesting is silly. How then would you reasonably dismiss the opinions of 10 skilled listeners who report hearing a difference? To be even more centrist, let's say that 82 out of 100 skilled listeners report hearing the difference. How do you dismiss that? Purely opinion? They're all wrong? That's what I'm saying: there is enough subjective opinion by skilled listeners (including my own) to lead me to the conclusion that there is a difference. And I'm asserting (right along with you) that the measurement data would bear that out.

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Before either of us runs a surface test we should both agree on how much difference is meaningful. Originally I said the difference is "not enough to worry about." So would you agree that reflectivity differences versus frequency of less than, say, 3 dB are not enough to worry about?

I'm working from the other direction because it is relevant to the point I'm making. Start with the skilled listener, THEN move to the measurements in a double-blind test. Again, the data describes something real or it doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Subjective opinion and empirical data are totally different. Yes, you can trust listening, but only when 1) the change is blatantly obvious to all, or 2) you use a blind test. I assume you're aware of audiophooles and their beliefs? I can point you to dozens of people who all swear they hear an improvement when replacing one competent AC power cord with another. Or swear they hear better imaging after smearing magic cream on their CDs. Or after demagnetizing their LP records. Ad nauseum. I hope you're not saying those 'phooles are correct just because they believe they hear an improvement!

Please enlighten me as to the practical difference between empirical evidence and subjective opinion assuming that both utilize a consistent testing methodology and a qualified subject pool. The examples you cite are extreme and silly; they are straw men, easy to shoot down to make your point, but not germane to the context of this argument. As a matter of fact, they are more anecdotal than anything; I think most skilled listeners would not report hearing a difference between one cable and another.

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

It is if the surfaces aren't really completely different. And concrete is not "completely different" from wood.

They're not? At the atomic level they most certainly are. I'm certain they'll share some reflective properties, but one is an "apple" and the other is an "orange".

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

You're taking a mighty big risk there bud.

Risk is fun. 10 years in the military taught me that.

Frank

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

Ethan, you are completely missing the point and the experiment you're suggesting is silly.

I miss nothing - the experiment is the most direct route to the answer of whether reflections off concrete sound different than reflections off wood.

How then would you reasonably dismiss the opinions of 10 skilled listeners who report hearing a difference?

Very easy! Because 1) you don't have 10 skilled listeners saying that, and 2) even if you did, I'm sure they did not compare the same room with both surface types in a scientific fashion.

What usually happens with stuff like this is some guy says he was once in a big-name studio that had wood and it sounded really good. Then he wrongly concludes it was the wood that made the drums sound so awesome, when in truth it was:

* A really big room with high ceilings, versus the garage where he usually records.

* A really good engineer with really good microphones.

let's say that 82 out of 100 skilled listeners report hearing the difference.

When you come up with those 82 of 100 skilled listeners saying that, please let me know, okay?

there is enough subjective opinion by skilled listeners (including my own) to lead me to the conclusion that there is a difference. And I'm asserting (right along with you) that the measurement data would bear that out.

Again, you do not have 100 skilled listeners who actually compared this in a scientific fashion. All you have (if you have anything at all) are one or two anecdotal reports from people who may or may not understand the validity of what they think they heard.

Please enlighten me as to the practical difference between empirical evidence and subjective opinion assuming that both utilize a consistent testing methodology and a qualified subject pool.

Empirical evidence is real evidence. Subjective opinion is usually BS, as proven by all the audiophooles who are certain their replacement AC power cables made their system sound better.

The examples you cite are extreme and silly; they are straw men

Unlike your hypothetical 10 or 82/100 listeners?

I'm certain they'll share some reflective properties, but one is an "apple" and the other is an "orange".

But how can you know for sure unless you actually test it? If you prefer to do an audibility test rather than an REW test that's fine too. So let's do both tests. I'll set up a microphone and speaker in my garage, and use REW to test the reflectivity of the cement versus plywood. Then I'll borrow a snare drum from my partner Doug and record it with both surfaces underneath and post the files here and let people guess which is which. Then you do the same so neither of us can accuse the other of faking anything.

Deal?

--Ethan

[mdjice]

and the correct answer is......

!!!
of course !!

[Weasel9992]

Okay, you make some good points Ethan. I'll have to admit that my argument is largely hypothetical, though I would still say that your counter arguments consist mainly of red herrings and straw men.

I want to be clear so I'm sure I'm understanding you correctly: are you asserting that there is no audible difference (or so little difference as to be irrelevant) between a concrete room and a wood room, all other things being equal?


Frank

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

I'll have to admit that my argument is largely hypothetical

Ya think?

your counter arguments consist mainly of red herrings and straw men.

They do not! Every one of my "arguments" was on topic and directly addressed and/or clarified the issue at hand! Sheesh Frank! Please point to one thing I said that was irrelevant or off-topic (straw man, red herring, etc).

are you asserting that there is no audible difference (or so little difference as to be irrelevant) between a concrete room and a wood room, all other things being equal?

No, I am asserting that there is not enough difference to matter between a floor made from concrete versus wood. That was the original question, and that was what I answered.

Now, are you up for both of us doing this test? Then we'll both know the truth for certain, rather than just guessing and each thinking the other guy is full of crap.

Seriously, I especially like your idea to record a drum because that gives us a chance to post files and let people guess blind which is which.

--Ethan

Edit - PS: Don't forget that big fat head of mine:

[Weasel9992]

Well, I didn't mean "big fat head" pejoratively. As to our discussion, obviously it'll have to remain hypothetical unless you or I can run across two rooms of exactly the same shape and dimensions, one of which is concrete and the other of which is wood.

Well geez man...I was talking about a whole room this Ethan, you could have ended the whole discussion by saying that you were talking specifically about floors. Then I would have said, "Oh. Yeah, that's true." Lou wasn't talking about floors either. Then again, I guess I could just pay closer attention to the topic.

Frank