Hey, if you can't make your point clearly, don't expect me to work too hard to try figure it out.
The physics of sound is not changed by the design of a loudspeaker. How a given speaker performs in a given space may be. You can focus the energy but it still lost at the rate stated.
Careful, you are showing your ignorance. Loudspeaker design doesn't change the physics of sound, but different designs take advantage of different physical aspects of soundwave propagation. A line source speaker radiates in sound only two directions, thus the sound energy is lost at a slower rate than a point source speaker, which radiates sound in three directions.
This excerpt from this
article explains it well, although there are numerous other sources for the same simple mathematical concepts:
The cone-type class of loudspeaker produces a characteristic radiation pattern that is best described as “point source,” with output level diminishing rapidly as the distance increases between the listener and speaker. The classic expression of this phenomenon is that sound pressure level is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The practical acoustical effect is that there is a 6 decibel (4-fold) drop in level with every doubling of distance.
. . .
Line-source radiators like [Martin Logans] do not suffer the same physical and psychoacoustic limitations, as they are characterized by sound pressure levels that are linearly inversely proportional to the distance, resulting in a 3 decibel reduction in level with every doubling of distance rather than the 6 decibel drop with point-source radiators.
This principle is also the reason why ceiling and floor reflections are less of a problem with line source speakers than point source speakers, another point you have shown your ignorance on. If you are going to post on a forum dedicated to line source speakers, you might want to learn a little bit about them before spouting off. You can start by reading through some of the previous threads on this forum, where these topics have been discussed at length. Actually, this information is pretty common knowledge among line source speaker enthusiasts and it just makes you look foolish to proudly proclaim: "the physics of sound is not changed by the design of the loudspeaker." I guess you don't think loudspeaker design is a science, either.
Exactly my point regarding the reliability of acoustics as a ‘science’.
If that was your point, you failed miserably in making it. You can't make decisions about acoustic treatments in a vacuum using one or two points of knowledge. To make informed decisions, you need to understand and take into account a lot more than that. The scientific knowledge is there but it is useless if you don't learn it and take advantage of it.
Good to see you are finally coming round.
Actually, I just said that to try to be magnanimous toward your point of view.
Diffusion is a poor choice for small rooms because there are many reflection points and its just not practical to effectively diffuse them all.
No, it is a poor choice because it is relatively impossible to create a cost-effective diffusor that can
effectively diffuse the sound waves so that they don't reach the listener's ears within that critical 20 ms timeframe in a small room. There is not enough space between the reflective surfaces and the listener's ears to keep them from reaching the listener's ears within that time frame. In a larger room diffusion works better because there is more space for it to work and the sound wave can be effectively diffused before reaching the listener's ears.
How can you state something it is repeatable and then go on to say but you’re not sure when, and then claim that this is more scientific than astrology?
Do you have a clue how the scientific discovery process works? Hypotheses are constructed regarding specific phenomena, controlled experiments are conducted, and conclusions are drawn which either refute or further refine the hypotheses. As these experiments are repeated, hypotheses develop into working theories. Each little bit of knowledge that is learned is combined with other little bits of knowledge and an entire field of knowledge slowly develops.
I said "every aspect of acoustics is observable, measurable, and repeatable." But just because you can observe, measure, and repeat any particular aspect of soundwave transmission and propagation in a controlled experiment (such as in an anechoic chamber), that doesn't mean that we have sufficient knowledge or data available to
predict with absolute certainty how all of the aspects of sound will interact in the real world in varying environments. Having knowledge and making 100% reliable predictions based upon that knowledge are two entirely different things. We can, however, make many highly reliable predictions based on the knowledge that we have. But if you are looking for a magic formula that we can plug in and say "voila, this is what it is going to sound like if you do x, y, and z," sorry but we are not there yet.
Again, you seem to be equating the term "science" with the idea of absolute certainty. Just about every field of science continues to evolve as we learn more about the physical world. Just look how much quantum physics has changed our understanding of the universe in the last few decades. And it continues to change as we continue to learn. Science is the process of learning, not the endpoint of absolute knowledge. I don't know how to explain it any better than that. But ask any scientist and I expect they will tell you the same thing.
How do you plan on measuring these? Repeating them?
Again, the physical aspects of sound that make up "sound quality" and "acoustic quality" can be measured. How do you think equalization programs such as PARC work, anyway? These results are repeatable as well. If you change nothing, you will get the same measurements as you got before. What is more difficult to measure is the variation in the interpretation of those sound qualities by different people.
By the way, since you are still arguing the same tired point while proposing no evidence to back it up, here is another
link for you from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, defining acoustics as the "science of sound." But what do they know? They are just a highly respected University publishing an Encyclopedia of Knowledge.
