My copy of the 4th edition of The Book did not arrive; what I received was a torn mailing envelope with the packing slip still inside. Presumably it was ripped open by either postal service machinery or postal service personnel.
I've had all three editions (ie, #1, #2/3, and "#4" which is really the third since 2&3 were the same book but just from different publishers) and I am surprised how very different the 4th is. So far it feels like a complete re-write. Same science at the core (with updates and more depth, especially from the guest authors) of course. I think the new tone and approach is going to be a bit more accessible for many folks, without watering down any of the science.Came in just a couple of hours ago. Looked through the TOC, despite the fact the book is titled 4th ed, and If shouldn't have expected huge difference from 3rd ed, but I somehow did.
I think I will have to shelf this for a little bit and get to it later after other books that's been waiting on the queue. But still good to have this book in waiting.
View attachment 486412
Thank you, great feedback, perhaps it can skip the queue!I've had all three editions (ie, #1, #2/3, and "#4" which is really the third since 2&3 were the same book but just from different publishers) and I am surprised how very different the 4th is. So far it feels like a complete re-write. Same science at the core (with updates and more depth, especially from the guest authors) of course. I think the new tone and approach is going to be a bit more accessible for many folks, without watering down any of the science.
I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture (and am grateful the event organizers shared is via YouTube, which is not as common a practice as I would like).Hello everybody, I just returned from giving a lecture to the Toronto section of the AES, as noted above. It was great to meet some old friends and to introduce some new audio enthusiasts to the science of audio.
The 4th edition is more than a book. It has a website - not yet accessible, but should be soon. I have already complained to the publisher.
Books are always limited by page counts and old content must be omitted to include anything new, and this time I have two extra authors. We planned in advance to have a website and the first version of it contains some historical stuff that some greybeards may find interesting, some on LP playback systems that will no doubt upset a few fans of the format. There is an expanded discussion of ITU and EBU recommendations that are in bad need of updating.
Perhaps the most important website content are some slide shows that summarize some book content, including some new material. Educators may find them useful, but I think almost anyone should scan them for an overview of specific topics. The last slide show is about "translation" and it shows spinoramas on a wide selection of pro monitors and different kinds of consumer playback devices. There are some surprises, I think. The audio world has changed for the better - dramatically.
What is now need is for people to pay more attention to trustworthy measurements and less to "opinions" formed under biased circumstances. But human nature is powerful. I focus a bit on this in my Toronto lecture, which you might find interesting. I apologize for my voice giving out near the end - age is showing . . .
I have ideas for more, and we have a window of several weeks after which we can have some revisions and new material uploaded, so stay tuned.
Cheers,
There is a detailed analysis of ITU and EBU recommendations in the Chapter 3 website content , whenever it is activated - needed more space. The RT recommendations were clearly based on these documents. The CEDIA "optimum area" looks suspiciously as if it was designed by someone selling low-frequency absorbers. In my humble opinion it is overkill. The precision required for RT performance in small dead rooms (not performance spaces) is not supported by any psychoacoustic research I am aware of. RT is the oldest metric of room acoustics, it is easy to do, so people do it, get paid for it, and doing it precisely makes it seem fundamentally important. Early reflections are much more audibly important, but harder to measure. Broadband ETCs are widely used, and give the wrong answer: pp 185-86.I thoroughly enjoyed the lecture (and am grateful the event organizers shared is via YouTube, which is not as common a practice as I would like).
I found the comments on the ITU and EBU standards for reflection decay time (or "RT60") interesting. The one standard that CEDIA points to is based on an ITU standard -- but it doesn't seem to suffer from the "only treat the room to tame things above 1k" problem that you discuss. Is the CEDIA "standard" more what you would like to see?
View attachment 486751
Edit: I see that you discuss this topic in the new edition and reference rp22 so I think I know which chapter I am reading next....though after reading that chapter, I don't see the criticism that you mentioned in your lecture (about an ITU standard that focused on the RT above 1k and ignored stuff below that) so maybe I misunderstood that point in the lecture.
I will say that Dolby has specified what the RT should look like in a control room, right down to variations by octave, in their Design Tool (not the written specification but the EXCEL sheet they offer for professionals to design the studio rooms). (https://www.avsforum.com/threads/th...ainment-dolby-audio-room-design-tool.3245554/) Whether this is not a "requirement" as your book indicates on page 344 I cannot say for sure, but it is their "recommendation." I have copied it here for convenience.
View attachment 486884
For the most part, as one would expect, it is similar to the targets on page 343:
View attachment 486885