Posted by Thylantyr [ 66.35.226.228 ] on September 02, 2004 at 15:12:14:

In Reply to: Line Array discussion posted by Thylantyr on September 02, 2004 at 11:59:34:

I asked them to close that thread over there because nobody was
able to offer ideas on how to build a good sounding near field
line array even though they claimed that Jim's white paper is flawed.

The data they posted is fine, they explain the 'bad science' behind
line arrays. It's good data. But the data seemed more useful to
dissuade the DIY'er from making an attempt to build. I was expecting
some positive reinforcement on how to combat some of the issues.

It's no big deal. I view this as an example where science clashes
with a subjective topic. The human perception of sound quality
may not be measured variable, everyone has their own tastes in audio.

analogy,

You like Loudspeaker 'A', I don't like Loudspeaker 'A'.

Speaker design is a game of compromise and even though a design
may have 'bad science', that is no indicator that the gremlins
will be audible.

Even if there is mixed opinion on the sound quality of a design,
that is no reason to discard the design either. But if a 100 out
of a 100 people vote 'no' on design due to audition, then you
may have to come to the conclusion that you need a redesign of your
sound system.

The specific part that I'm interested in is wondering how something
with bad science can be interpreted as sounding good. The only
thing that comes to mind is the 'human equation'.

Replies: