Folks,
First, it is not my intent to create friction. All I care about is having a healthy discussion about the science of audio. Okay?
> Here is one example:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JASMAN000113000006003233000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes <
From that page:
... speech intelligibility tests in simulated sound fields and analyses of impulse response measurements in rooms used for speech communication.
They're talking about making speech more intelligable in airport control towers etc, no? As opposed to faithfully reproducing music and movies in a living room setting.
I also made the point earlier that the direct relation of early reflections to the comb filter changes in frequency response seems the most plausible explanation for why speech could sound clearer in the presence of those reflections:
For example, if the distance / delay creates a null in the tubby range around 200 Hz, I can see how that might make a vocal seem clearer. Especially if it was recorded too tubby to begin with.
> Don't make the mistake in assuming the mixing engineers always know what is best for the home environment. <
I
partly agree with that, though as with any field there are good engineers and bad ones. I too lament the lack of scientific foundation by many recording "engineers" in my Audio Myths article
Most engineering fields require a college degree or at least state certification, and for good reason: If you design a drawbridge or high-rise office building, you'd better be able to back up your proposal with irrefutable science proving the design really works and people won't die. But the audio recording field has no such formal requirements. Anyone can claim to be an audio "engineer" and go about his or her business. Indeed, if you can produce recordings that sound good, nobody will argue about math or electronics theory - a great sound is all the credentials you need.
> It's a wonder as to why so many of them produce unlistenable CD's these days that are loaded with hypercompression and exceedingly high recording levels > +0dBFs. <
I assure you this is a very hot subject in the pro audio forums! Most of the "good" engineers hate when their clients demand they make a recording as loud as possible. In this case those decisions are made by the client and/or producer, and
not the engineers. Not only do they hate being asked to make everything overly loud, they also hate that they get blamed for it!
There are also many excellent recording engineers who really do understand the science of audio and acoustics. This is why I went right to the top and asked the chief engineer of one of the largest TV / movie studios for his take on early reflections.
> Why don't you provide a link to the thread? <
Because I promised the engineer anonymity. His company is large enough to have a legal department that's paranoid about the silliest things, and apparently what he says in public is part of that. That's why I said I promise I'm not lying.
> (in this case, rule #7): <
Sorry. I assumed that since this was just a side-issue from what caused to Gene to feel he had to close that thread, it would be okay to discuss it in a new thread.
--Ethan
[Edit: Commercial links removed - Admin.]