In Reply to: Objective acoustics posted by jbmcb on June 27, 2005 at 08:06:49:
On one hand you say, "sure they do" to my facetious comment that "certainly the laws of science must tell us how to design a great sounding hall. Then you say, "...but there's no scientific criteria for what a "Great sounding hall" is." Which is it?Then you say, "Figuring out what people like to hear is another matter entirely." I think you have conceded that the "laws" don't cover enough to design a hall that people want to listen in. I am not arguing that there are no scientific principles but that science does not cover all aspect of hall acoustics anymore than it can fully understand any other principle of electronics or acoustics.
On the Intelligent chip, some state baldly that it cannot work given the laws of physics and therefore is a scam. Here the "laws of physics" cannot fully explain hall acoustics, therefore those saying they can perpetrate a scam.
I do not believe that our understanding can fully account for anything. I do believe that peoples' ears are trustworthy and the best guide.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I am confused by your comment - Norm 17:05:12 06/27/05 (11)
- Re: I am confused by your comment - Jacques 01:49:04 06/29/05 (0)
- Confusion of categories. - Al Sekela 20:30:11 06/28/05 (0)
- Re: "the best guide" - jensw 23:49:52 06/27/05 (0)
- Clear as mud :) - jbmcb 19:59:24 06/27/05 (6)
- Your analogy is 'out to lunch'. - cheap-Jack 11:09:57 06/28/05 (5)
- In like Flynn! - jbmcb 20:10:17 06/28/05 (4)
- Pls don't put the cart before the horse. - cheap-Jack 11:14:01 06/29/05 (0)
- Re: In like Flynn! - Soundmind 05:34:29 06/29/05 (2)
- Re: In like Flynn! - jbmcb 08:15:44 06/29/05 (0)
- You can rant with the best of them (audiophiles). ;^) (nt) - soulfood 07:56:09 06/29/05 (0)
- The promise to clone a hall's acoustics may very well be a scam.(nt) - soulfood 17:54:49 06/27/05 (0)