If someone is going to post about their great DIY Helmholtz absorber treatment, as I have seen done, then why not provide sufficient information for others to achieve a similar benefit? There are many YouTube videos and forum posts - on other topics - that already meet this standard (and, unfortunately, far too many that don't).
There's also the detrimental effect of making it look easy, which leads to the numerous online accounts of people who wasted time and money on a "Helmholtz Resonator" that does nothing. If we're going to present a design concept to people who might attempt to replicate it, I think we ought to demonstrate convincingly that it works.
Exactly what are you asking for? The plans? The tricks? The unpublished "STUFF" that separates my STUFF from others STUFF or better the lack of their "STUFF"?
I love to share with people that I'm confident would appreciate it. There are also people I would NEVER share a meal with, because they think the world is
a place to cherry pick information and without that information no one could possibly figure anything out. There also gawkers that stand on the sideline
picking apart every thing someone says. I find it simpler to tell them, "do your own measurements you still have to have something to measure, FIRST. Words
without actions and hands on experience is all that is required for me. AGAIN some people work with what they have as far as materials while others object
and scrutinized their efforts because their lack of understanding, physical WORK vs pushing chalk across a chalk board.
I don't care for any skeptic requiring my knowledge as proof for their lack of doing anything but crunch numbers. They are worth far less to the actual DIY or anyone
for that matter other than pissing them off. Audio2design comes to mind along with his/her/it/them's 50 aliases.
Debate is great, there is also a way to achieve GREAT debates without demanding proof that was known about 6 thousand + years.
Beating a dead rabbit comes to mind.
I use the same style of tube resonators seen in post #58. It required 12 resonators in a 16x20x8 foot room. I removed 4, I started with 16 total.
ALL of the specs are posted and I don't need to verify their measurement for the simple reason the RESULTS are concrete. Not a theory or
something to be re-proven for the 10,000,000th time in nature alone.
Note to self: I would really like to know why people can't look at a graph play a tone and not be able to remember that tone for the rest of their life.
I would really like to know why so many people demand proof for what was proven by a simple test that holds up in a court of law.
Is that the person you heard in the NEXT ROOM? answer: YES. Can you listen to the 10 voices and pick out the person you heard?
YES. Now, have you heard that voice in this courtroom? answer; YES I HAVE. He did it, now hang the prick. It is NOT eye witness
testimony is it? It is a lot more reliable in a court of law than you think for a REASON. Try to be objective. OBJECT being the operative word about
the testimony.
A lefthanded thought, I suppose.
Time to feed the chickens