Posted by Wayne Parham [ 151.193.213.23 ] on March 01, 2006 at 14:59:32:

In Reply to: Re: decorrelation posted by Earl Geddes on February 24, 2006 at 20:25:22:

Please don't take offense, Earl. Your work is not being discounted, not in the least. Let me try to phrase this differently.

My problem with random placement is that it is, well, random. I do not see how you can assert with any confidence that a random placement is better than an ordered placement. You can say that a random group arrangement will smooth the sound field by averaging, but that can be said of an ordered array too. In general, the more sources the better, whether random or ordered. But the question remains, where are the best places to put the subs. I am not convinced that a random arrangement is best.

What I'd like to see are 3D energy distribution plots of each of a handful of test setups. Not just the average and deviation, and not just the plot of a single position or small area in the center of the room. I'd like to see energy distribution charts of the whole room, showing various room sizes and speaker placement configurations. So far, Welti has provided the most data. Perhaps his study is incomplete, but that has yet to be seen.

Replies: