How NOT to set up speakers and room treatment ( Goldensound)

[hemiutut]

No, no numbers (except from somewhere else, by experience: unrelated)


No, no numbers (at all)


Being funny entertaining with and about "stereo" of course, but for sure in worst audio quality. Can't these magnificent gurus afford a correct mike? A daily tool of theirs?! It hurts every other time. What I have for my work, unrelated to audio, yo guys, a cardiod of Rhode operated--analog, by my Focusrite interface. And folks feel the difference, granted! Anyway, regarding content as far as intelligible, what actually is all the wisdom worth without numbers? So that one could adopt the methods or, if it wouldn't fit, not.


Some other numbers, but is that an o/k statement in this or any other context?

****
Some don't know how to calculate the delay of reflections in their room, ok. What helps more, either to teach the calc (it's not 'math' actually) or ... what? List absorption coefficiants and RT60 magic?

What numbers do you want them to put ?
It is very clear what Ron Sauro says,the Sabine formula is wrong for small rooms acoustically.
Do you know what that means and what it entails?

Have you listened to the video of the small room that tuga posted?
My choice is with treatment without hesitation.

I propose to you and to everyone a very easy test.
to do by recording a simple video with a cell phone and then you can refute the results with measurements.
I call this test the " Cave effect ".
All the people who do this test in their living rooms without treatment
acoustic treatment and listening point more distant than near,
say that the reverberation that you hear in the video they do not have it in their room.

Of course they have it and the test is very easy to do:
Follow these steps:
If they use room calibration it has to be turned off since we want to.
see the acoustics of the room.
Record the video of a song at your main listening point,
let's say it is for example at 3 meters and then record the same video at 1.50 meters.

Let's hear both videos and see where the "Cave effect" is more noticeable,let alone the fan who has the listening point at 4 meters.
Turn off and let's go.

And whoever wants measurements to confirm what is heard in the video recording,as easy as watching
the ETC at 3-4 meters vs 1.5-2 meters.

Written with translator

Greetings

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Listen, I’m not going to say much because with ~700 replies it’s a drop in the bucket. That said, here’s my piece:

Read broadcast standards and white papers. Materials by AES and EBU that start with ‘BS’ and ‘REC’. Toole is not the only game in town but he is a valid voice. There are other books as well, like the Cox/D’Antonio one.

My targets are +-10dB SPL, -20dB decay within 150ms with a smooth taper above 63Hz, and -10 to -15dB spectrally-similar impulse response envelope reflections within 20-40ms with a regular pattern. I do not use RT60 for small rooms (under about 10,000ft3). These standards are referenced directly from the REW site, linked to from there, or from Ethan Winer or Nyal Mellor. I am an audio creator an not a home theaterist.

It’s important to recognize that Toole is not an audio creator and he’s been misinterpreted as an advocate for reflective rooms. His free materials on the harman/audio-innovations page have him acknowledging that audio production frequently uses deader rooms. If you’re a home theaterist, you may prefer Toole. If you’re a producer, you may prefer AES and EBU.

I’m not trying to be controversial and I can back up everything I say (I’d rather not link hunt but I guarantee I can find references). But that’s the point: relying on forums and youtube is no guarantee of truth. I recommend drinking directly from the fountainheads. Forums, imo, are best for opinions or maybe clarifying certain ideas. It really depends who’s available and reads your thread. That said, there are a number of valid ways to treat a room and valid target parameters. My way is not the only way and neither is yours. The best way is to study, experiment, and keep an open mind.

I understand and respect your perspective. I worked in audio for broadcast video production for 40 years and I am most comfortable hearing my mix with minimal interference from the room. I designed my own speakers for minimal adverse room interaction.

It's not a one-size-fits-all situation. If someone likes to listen standing on their heads, so be it. No one is required to "conform," charts and focus groups notwithstanding. Listening is an extremely personal experience, and no one need seek approval from authorities on how they like to work. Please don't try to interior decorate me out of my comfort zone.

 

[MattHooper]

Can we trust short listening sessions for preference?
We know that short listening sessions is the best method in ABX tests in order to distinguish something. However, I'm not to sure that is the better approach in relation to preference. The believe there are certain aspects that aren't discovered quickly and it will much also depend on the music material.

I very much agree that there's something intruguing with late arriving side wall reflections when the speakers have a good directivity, frequency response is still good, and especially with certain genres of music. There's a clear added widening of the image. But again again in ABs tests I've found that over a bit more time, I start to hear what I perceive as tonality aberrations for certain frequencies and listening fatigue kicks in earlier.

With treatment on the side walls, the stereo image isn't as wide, and which immadiately doesn't sound as impressive. But the tonality sounds more correct over time with different types of music, and there's a calm and smoothness to the sound. So in the long run, I've always gone back to side wall treatment. Even when reflections arrive as late as after 9-10 ms.
I continue to test and challenge myself in this though.

The question has been raised before as to whether the blind testing scenarios could have been subject to the "Pepsi Challenge" effect: A may be preferred over B in quick tests, but over the long haul it turns out A is preferred (or is found satisfying).

One could consider examples like the "brighter" picture looking better in Best Buy, or a speaker with a goosed treble and bass sounding "better" than a neutral speaker in store demos. Seems if the goosed treble thing wasn't actually effective in any way there'd be no reason for the "show room sound" that many reference for speakers with a smiley response.

Are the blind listening tests subject to this possibility? Unless someone managed long term blind listening tests, or it was shown the blind tests predicted longer satisfaction with the blind test winners, I guess it remains a sort of variable. Not sure how likely though.

As to trusting short listening sessions to preference, generally speaking: my personal, anecdotal experience is that the characteristics that attracted me to the sound in my first blush encounter with a speaker are the characteristics that persist and the source of later, long listening pleasure. The characteristics I enjoy so much my current speakers are the very ones that grabbed me in the store audition. That's been typical for me.

 

[Axo1989]

Same here, concert is not stereo.

Haha, after previous conversations with you on stereo, I've wondered how many ears you really have. Just one apparently?

I mentioned before that for a long time I've played with varying sidewall reflections with thick curtains, and the more I deaden the sidewalls the more prominent
the recorded (or added) acoustic becomes. (I don't find a big change in imaging per se, though).

I stumbled upon what for me has been the best combo I've experienced. I can deaden the side walls quite a bit so the ambience and timbral qualities are more precise.
But I've played with adding a small curved diffusor in between and just behind my stereo speakers (I place the diffusor actually on top or in front of my home theater center channel). The effect is wonderful: imaging is more dense and solid, and it livens up sound of instruments and voices, but not to the detriment of the recorded acoustic. So it's like taking the specific acoustics in the recording that just takes over the front 1/2 of the room, and within that instruments and voices sound more present and real, like the "recording comes to life."

Yes, I mentioned upthread that I reckon those single-curve diffusors are interesting (phase-coherent initial reflection apparently) haven't tried them though.

I was listening to an old, gorgeously recorded, soundtrack by Roy Budd, early 70's, and it's just filled with pastiche-like changes in reverbs and acoustics - one moment drums sound gigantic and placed waaay off in the distance of a reverberant hall, the next a drum set "appears" utterly dry, like it's in the room. A zither-like instrument strikes up and ignites a totally new acoustic that expands in to one half of the room then dissappears, then bongos appear in the other side of the stage in their own little alcove of reverb. But it all had a you-are-there tonality. Tons o fun!

I sometimes want to describe a great stereo image in detail (ie when the program material has it, and it's working a treat via speakers and room) but it would often take a short essay. Plus some diagrams, maybe even Cardew's Treatise. One interesting thing is that I hear elaborate/specific holography (for example) but listening again (and again, ad nauseam) for diagnosis (or production) the effect/s change presumably as my brain figures out what's going on (artificial sound from speakers). It's like channeling my inner @fineMen to banish the stereo spirits. Also why (producing music especially, but also critical/diagnostic recreational listening) you just trust things work (mix/effect/treatment-wise) use the measuring tools (who doesn't love scopes) and take a fresh listen after.

 

[theREALdotnet]

You guys really struggle to calc a reflection's delay? Please confirm, can't believe!

You need to evaluate the Taylor series like 1−x^2 / 2!+x^4 / 4!−x^6 / 6!+… ad infinitum for highest score, you get the point ... better you start -> now! We'll keep in touch.

No. For our intents and purposes, which are:
- estimating the arrival time of the first reflection from nearby walls, to see whether it’s likely problematic and
- identifying problematic first reflection points (and the efficacy of their treatment) in the ETC,
this comes down to simple geometry. We just need to calculate (or measure) the extra path length from the speaker to the listener via the reflection point compared to the direct path and assume a speed of sound (like 343m/s). Remember, we’re not landing a man on the moon here.

In practice this works really well. Looking at the ETC I can see which first reflections I should pay the most attention so, and which treatments are effective or do bugger all.

 

[Pudik]

I mentioned before that for a long time I've played with varying sidewall reflections with thick curtains, and the more I deaden the sidewalls the more prominent
the recorded (or added) acoustic becomes. (I don't find a big change in imaging per se, though).

I stumbled upon what for me has been the best combo I've experienced. I can deaden the side walls quite a bit so the ambience and timbral qualities are more precise.
But I've played with adding a small curved diffusor in between and just behind my stereo speakers (I place the diffusor actually on top or in front of my home theater center channel). The effect is wonderful: imaging is more dense and solid, and it livens up sound of instruments and voices, but not to the detriment of the recorded acoustic. So it's like taking the specific acoustics in the recording that just takes over the front 1/2 of the room, and within that instruments and voices sound more present and real, like the "recording comes to life."

I was listening to an old, gorgeously recorded, soundtrack by Roy Budd, early 70's, and it's just filled with pastiche-like changes in reverbs and acoustics - one moment drums sound gigantic and placed waaay off in the distance of a reverberant hall, the next a drum set "appears" utterly dry, like it's in the room. A zither-like instrument strikes up and ignites a totally new acoustic that expands in to one half of the room then dissappears, then bongos appear in the other side of the stage in their own little alcove of reverb. But it all had a you-are-there tonality. Tons o fun!

Interesting. What is the material you made it of?

 

[Axo1989]

No. For our intents and purposes, which are:
- estimating the arrival time of the first reflection from nearby walls, to see whether it’s likely problematic
- identifying problematic first reflection points (and the efficacy of their treatment) in the ETC
this comes down to simple geometry. We just need to calculate (or measure) the extra path length from the speaker to the listener via the reflection point compared to the direct path and assume a speed of sound (like 343m/s). Remember, we’re not landing a man on the moon here.

In practice this works really well. Looking at the ETC I can see which first reflections I should pay the most attention so, and which treatments are effective or do bugger all.

I came across these (as you do, tidying up the computer as a means of procrastinating from more physical chores) from a while back. I was checking out the effect of a listening position further back in the room (for practical reasons). Don't appear to have plan view for lateral reflections but the principles are the same for floor/ceiling/back-wall bounce:

Spoiler: ray tracing reflection paths

Not conceptually difficult. First reflection paths are within milliseconds of direct in normal listening rooms (but maybe longer for some open plan, etc). So as others have noted, precedence effect helps maintain localisation. More complex to measure variation of image focus (apart from diagnostic listening, I mean).

Worth considering second/third reflection paths with fully reflective side walls etc, they get a lot longer. I read someone suggesting diffusion (specifically, simple curved reflector/diffusor) at first reflection and absorption at higher-order (contra-laterals are the ones we'd expect to mess with imaging/focus the most). Interesting thinking.

I wish we had such a tool as SketchUp plug-in and could use with detailed 3D models, assign surface behaviours, emitter characteristics and so on (I've seen people have fun with that using tools that don't match my budget or learning curve). Incidentally that's the main space and being renovated, listening is in the loft above currently, like sitting inside a strange speaker cabinet.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, I mentioned upthread that I reckon those single-curve diffusors are interesting (phase-coherent initial reflection apparently) haven't tried them though.

In my case, I bought this diffusor just as an experiment. My Left speaker sits near a fireplace with hard reflective tiles and it sounds somewhat nasty if I leave it just like that. So I've long had a thick brown velvet panel that I put over that for listening. It does a great job of taking away the nasties and evening out the sound with the Right speaker (at least subjectively). But I was curious about diffusion so I bought this thing. Turns out it didn't really work very well for the side wall first reflection point. I think it was either too close, or just not the right thing for the job, but it too made the upper frequencies a bit prominent and "hard" sounding. But when I experimented with other positions I noticed it still had an effect placed on the wall slightly behind the speaker. Now the sound wasn't aggressive, but there was a bit of liveliness and density added to that side of the imaging/soundstage. When I finally got around to trying it right between the speakers as I mentioned, that's when everything snapped together in a happy way for me.

It's my hunch that the way I'm using the diffusor doesn't necessarily match best practices...and maybe it's not even a very good diffusor to begin with. I just happened upon a happy effect that I really like with the thing.

I sometimes want to describe a great stereo image in detail (ie when the program material has it, and it's working a treat via speakers and room) but it would often take a short essay. Plus some diagrams, maybe even Cardew's Treatise. One interesting thing is that I hear elaborate/specific holography (for example) but listening again (and again, ad nauseam) for diagnosis (or production) the effect/s change presumably as my brain figures out what's going on (artificial sound from speakers). It's like channeling my inner @fineMen to banish the stereo spirits. Also why (producing music especially, but also critical/diagnostic recreational listening) you just trust things work (mix/effect/treatment-wise) use the measuring tools (who doesn't love scopes) and take a fresh listen after.

Ha. Interesting.

As you say...there is actually so much happening in many stereo reproductions to describe, let alone differences produced by different speakers playing everything in those tracks, if one wants to describe it.

The vast majority of people, including audiophiles, can't look at a bunch of measurements and know exactly how all sorts of music will sound through that speaker. General inferences? Maybe. But not much detail. For me the ideal of a subjective report on speakers (yes I know, much disparaged here) would...at least in principle...paint a detailed mental image for the reader as to "what it's like listening to these speakers." And the *ideal* outcome is that the reader upon hearing the speakers finds "Yes, the sound really is as that person described."

To that end, since I (and many others) tend to sort of "see" the sound in visual terms, I always thought it might be cool in the subjective portion of a review to have visual representations of the sound, both in terms of color representing the overall timbre, soundstage size, imaging size etc (where you could compare the images - one showing for instance more tightly rendered images of instruments vs another showing the instruments represented as perhaps larger, more diffuse in outline etc.
So a visual representation of the mental "sonic images" the reviewer hears. I actually think that would have been pretty cool and as a sort-of-long-ago-artist, think I could have somewhat pulled it off. The benefit would be limited to those who would care about such representation, and perhaps those who tend to think of sound in a similar way. But then, I've found some of us audiophiles have been able to communicate with one another by "painting pictures of the sound with words" so I don't see that doing so with images wouldn't also be informative to some.

*Actually, now that I remember: I believe there actually was an online reviewer I saw at some point who was representing some impressions of things like different soundstage/imaging from different speakers via crude images. I can't remember where I saw it though.

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting. What is the material you made it of?

Details are here. Small Curved Diffusor:

Curve Diffusors | Accurate acoustic spaces | Acoustic geometry

Curve Diffusors are the most affordable improvement you can make to room acoustics… and the easiest. They are combining aesthetics and functionality.

acousticgeometry.com

Again: per my remarks to Axo1989, maybe there are better options for diffusion given my or anyone else's set up. I can only say that in my room I've happened upon a cool effect when placed behind my speakers. It's fascinating how various aspects of the sound can be dialed in - the upper frequencies, density, punch, dimensionality can all be slightly nudged by pulling the diffusor closer or further, etc. If I put it in front of my center channel, with the full curved surface facing me, the sound gets very vivid, dense, punchy and a sense of bringing the instruments closer in to the room. But the bass region seems to get too congealed and overwarm. Placed on top of the center channel, the curved surface facing the ceiling, I get a nice balance of depth to the soundstage, and the extra density taken on by drums, sax, voices etc seem to place them in more vivid relief from one another - the sense the imaging gets a bit more "real and dimensional."

(Sorry...gonna make no apologies for my subjective impressions. They are what they are, take 'em or leave 'em...)

 

[Axo1989]

the Sabine formula is wrong for small rooms acoustically.

Eyring equation for small rooms (it log scales the absorption term) they reckon.

 

[Axo1989]

In my case, I bought this diffusor just as an experiment. My Left speaker sits near a fireplace with hard reflective tiles and it sounds somewhat nasty if I leave it just like that. So I've long had a thick brown velvet panel that I put over that for listening. It does a great job of taking away the nasties and evening out the sound with the Right speaker (at least subjectively). But I was curious about diffusion so I bought this thing. Turns out it didn't really work very well for the side wall first reflection point. I think it was either too close, or just not the right thing for the job, but it too made the upper frequencies a bit prominent and "hard" sounding. But when I experimented with other positions I noticed it still had an effect placed on the wall slightly behind the speaker. Now the sound wasn't aggressive, but there was a bit of liveliness and density added to that side of the imaging/soundstage. When I finally got around to trying it right between the speakers as I mentioned, that's when everything snapped together in a happy way for me.

It's my hunch that the way I'm using the diffusor doesn't necessarily match best practices...and maybe it's not even a very good diffusor to begin with. I just happened upon a happy effect that I really like with the thing.

Yes I came across the type you linked. Interesting you thought it too hard. Is it a hard surface model or covered one? Also just noticed, looks like they have a mass-loaded vinyl membrane back ...

Ha. Interesting.

As you say...there is actually so much happening in many stereo reproductions to describe, let alone differences produced by different speakers playing everything in those tracks, if one wants to describe it.

The vast majority of people, including audiophiles, can't look at a bunch of measurements and know exactly how all sorts of music will sound through that speaker. General inferences? Maybe. But not much detail. For me the ideal of a subjective report on speakers (yes I know, much disparaged here) would...at least in principle...paint a detailed mental image for the reader as to "what it's like listening to these speakers." And the *ideal* outcome is that the reader upon hearing the speakers finds "Yes, the sound really is as that person described."

To that end, since I (and many others) tend to sort of "see" the sound in visual terms, I always thought it might be cool in the subjective portion of a review to have visual representations of the sound, both in terms of color representing the overall timbre, soundstage size, imaging size etc (where you could compare the images - one showing for instance more tightly rendered images of instruments vs another showing the instruments represented as perhaps larger, more diffuse in outline etc.
So a visual representation of the mental "sonic images" the reviewer hears. I actually think that would have been pretty cool and as a sort-of-long-ago-artist, think I could have somewhat pulled it off. The benefit would be limited to those who would care about such representation, and perhaps those who tend to think of sound in a similar way. But then, I've found some of us audiophiles have been able to communicate with one another by "painting pictures of the sound with words" so I don't see that doing so with images wouldn't also be informative to some.

*Actually, now that I remember: I believe there actually was an online reviewer I saw at some point who was representing some impressions of things like different soundstage/imaging from different speakers via crude images. I can't remember where I saw it though.

Probably take a bit of work/iteration to come up with something good but fun for visual/spatial people like me. I did post B&O diagrams upthread. As much to show an instance of 'yep, this is done intentionally' for the stereo-deniers, as not a perfect visualisation.

 

[amirm]

Here the benefits of treating a small room are, to me, very obvious. Some may not like it and that's fine.
(the effects may not be as pronounced when listening in situ as they are when picke up by a microphone)

Putting aside that the recording mic moves from before and after music playback, look at his post correction frequency response:

You have massive peaks and valleys.

The right approach would have been to put a couple of large planters on each side of the back wall. Put a bookshelf behind the speakers. And a thick throw rug between speakers and sofa. If the room is still too live, put some absorbers behind the sofa. Then measure and apply EQ to correct below transition frequency (which could be quite high due to small room). This combination would sound superb with no needed to turn that already small room into an ugly padded cell. And would save you good chunk of money as well.

 

[amirm]

You appear to have extrapolated and extended my preference for reducing direct early reflections, into a preference for a dead room.

I am critiquing the common technique and path stated in the youtuber video. The moment you are indoctrinated to think any spikes in ETC measurement needs treating, you will land on a dead room. You would have to because otherwise those spikes in ETC will remain. I have followed countless people's journey on forums after reading the chase the ETC and they always land there.

My preference for reducing early reflections applies to any that are thought to integrate and be masked/mixed with direct signal...like Haas etc.
Imo, they may be perceived as a single sound, but they don't add to clarity or speech intelligibility...other than maybe increased loudness, but that's a bogus way of giving attribute.

Then you are not understanding the research. I have quoted some, and there is ton more. Here is the intro from Dr. Toole's paper I quoted earlier: Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction—A Scientific Review*

After going through studies from a number of researchers, he concludes with:

There is no question in my mind that those of you who advocate otherwise continue to go by the lay intuition that any reverberations must be wrong. I suggest doing as I did: forget everything you know and read through huge volume of research here.

Lay intuition makes an audiophile believe in burning in his power cables. We don't accept that because science and engineering says otherwise. I implore you to allow science and engineering to speak again in this domain.

 

[Axo1989]

I am critiquing the common technique and path stated in the youtuber video. The moment you are indoctrinated to think any spikes in ETC measurement needs treating, you will land on a dead room. You would have to because otherwise those spikes in ETC will remain. I have followed countless people's journey on forums after reading the chase the ETC and they always land there.

Then you are not understanding the research. I have quoted some, and there is ton more. Here is the intro from Dr. Toole's paper I quoted earlier: Loudspeakers and Rooms for Sound Reproduction—A Scientific Review*

View attachment 289881

After going through studies from a number of researchers, he concludes with:

View attachment 289882

There is no question in my mind that those of you who advocate otherwise continue to go by the lay intuition that any reverberations must be wrong. I suggest doing as I did: forget everything you know and read through huge volume of research here.

Lay intuition makes an audiophile believe in burning in his power cables. We don't accept that because science and engineering says otherwise. I implore you to allow science and engineering to speak again in this domain.

Speech intelligibility, eh? Just as well I listen to spoken word:

Not being able to follow a word in my allegedly dead room, thank god for the lyric video. I'm not sure why you often reach for back-and-white.

 

[theREALdotnet]

View attachment 289881

After going through studies from a number of researchers, he concludes with:

View attachment 289882

Completely irrelevant. These are problems for the recording engineer to consider. We’re not building an auditorium or lecture theatre. We’re building a listening room for the playback of recorded music. The recording already contains all of the direct sound, early/middle/late reflections and reverberations of the recording venue. We’re playing them back through two speakers, and expect the room not to muddy them up with its own “character”.

 

[thecheapseats]

Completely irrelevant. These are problems for the recording engineer to consider. We’re not building an auditorium or lecture theatre. We’re building a listening room for the playback of recorded music. The recording already contains all of the direct sound, early/middle/late reflections and reverberations of the recording venue. We’re playing them back through two speakers, and expect the room not to muddy them up with its own “character”.

room like a tomb - if it works for you, great...

 

[Bjorn]

I guess omni speaker must be the design that gives the highest intelligibility and clarity in a small room for playback of music then
But the fact is that it's the opposite. Wonder why, right?
There's a lot of confusion and mixing here. And there exist actually more studies on psycoacoustics then Toole.

 

[Geert]

There is no question in my mind that those of you who advocate otherwise continue to go by the lay intuition that any reverberations must be wrong.

Don't know if anyone is promoting completely dead rooms (just like Toole doesn't promote echo chambers). But we all know too much of a good can turn out wrong. That's why we have certain guidelines for listening rooms, like RT60 or the max. level of early reflections.

Natural or artificial reverb is often used in recordings to re-enforce lead vocals or instruments, but when you apply to much you get the opposite effect and the instrument becomes more obfuse. I also know of people who build very modern houses, all concrete, tiles and glass with minimalistic furniture, who get crazy of the amount of reverb.

I'm also not sure if we can directly transfer the benefits of reverb for speech to amplified music. For the latter I don't need reverb to re-enforce it, I can just turn up the volume. And music can have a faster tempo than speech, which might require shorter reverb times. That's again a known thing in music production where the effect might be applicable to music reproduction.

Just saying the truth might be somewhere in the middle, and dependant on how you listen to music (more analytical or more relaxed). That's also Toole's conclusion I believe.

 

[Geert]

I guess omni speaker must be the design that gives the highest intelligibility and clarity

Open baffle (figure of eight directivity) style speakers can sound amazing with orchestral music. But pop/dance music is another story.

 

[d3l]

I feared that "i can hear something" will be the level of argumentation from people listening in echo chambers and that Toole and his followers avoid any fact based discussion of real mix details, may not be coincidental.

While the focus here may not be on widely spread audiophile BS (very clever, to make discussions about that and suggest, that this was a serious audio forum), but suggesting that every mixing engineer in this world, every professional audio production facility, every professional listening room (cinema) was simply wasting their money, because details can be heard in echo chambers and they would sound better anyway, is partially even beyond the most infantile discussion of young people building their car audio setups. I am quite stunned now, to find this kind of ignorance and level of discussion here.

But at least I must admit, that this campaign around Mr. Toole is at least preventing some cashflow going into acoustic improvement of rooms...
Enough is enough.

Thank you. You said exactly the same I’ve been thinking, just worded better.
I’m quite astounded on the comments on how DSP would be only thing needed to solve these problems.