I clearly stated it is my opinion, right?

Sure, you're right. I can't prove that. I can just say that I prefer not to listen to my music in a bathroom, that's all. It's just that I've never come across someone who does, but indeed, that is no proof.

Since I already said something to the same effect earlier, I doubt the following will discourage similar posts like that which was made two posts back; but alas, I'll try it again...

NO ONE[/b] is saying treatment can't make audible differences. The point of interest is whether expressed preferences are ever backed by bias-controlled testing.

The only test brought forth so far doesn't support what the lot of you are espousing.

• If the music recording itself is too dry for a given listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a more live/less treated room.
• If the music recording already has the ideal amount of reverb for a given listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a more dead/more treated room.
• If the music recording itself has a frequency balance that aligns perfectly with the listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a room with a flat response.
• If the music recording itself has a frequency balance where certain ranges are too low in level for the listener's preferences, then s/he would probably prefer the sound of a room that emphasises those frequencies.
• To take things to extremes, if the room is currently hugely reverberant with a very uneven response (e.g. "bathroom" situation) or an anechoic chamber, then it's likely to align with few or no people's preferences.

I call the whole notion of room "treatments" being constantly parroted as a panacea, BS.

It is almost automatic on every audio (Home and Studio) forum now, for someone, often unsolicited, to tell others that room "treatment" products are mandatory for "better" sound.

I find the evidence for the "better" sound to be lacking in vigor...and far more a sighted, expected, personal preference being expressed, despite whatever Toole, McGill et al have found. Bass "traps" being one form of "treatment", specific for LF of course.

Played out in public on the AVS forum maybe a year ago.

Do we really need DBTs to agree that 20 dB SPL level differences @ 1 KHz are audible?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-11-15 14:22:52

Do we really need DBTs to agree that 20 dB SPL level differences @ 1 KHz are audible?

I would suggest you look up Red Herring as Greynol has warned against multiple times.

Wouldn't it be better to make a recording from the listening position, with and without the room treatment, and use whichever has a flatter FR and/or less distortion?

My question is, why should I trust a DBT preference test to tell me whether or not to make a change to my audio system (assuming the change in question is already established to make an audible difference)?

What's to stop the participants in the preference test from picking the version with +3dB bass, because it's sounds more "fun"?

Wouldn't it be better to make a recording from the listening position, with and without the room treatment, and use whichever has a flatter FR and/or less distortion?

Based on DBTs, my former comment is not a red herring.

That is the essence of most procedures that are used to treat rooms by means of measurements.

One might do some deeper thinking about the meaning of flat system response.  For electronic components. it is easy to know what that means. For complete systems including instruments, playing and recording, maybe not so much.

No reason that I can think of.

Ooops.

Quote

My question is, why should I trust a DBT preference test to tell me whether or not to make a change to my audio system (assuming the change in question is already established to make an audible difference)

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2015-11-15 20:52:50

No reason that I can think of.

yet another reason why I no longer take you seriously ... jus' sayin'

Well, to give you some credit, you did also say this within the hour (to which others in this discussion should take note):
poorer technical performance can be preferred by some

I'm not about to guess why such sensibility has been lost in this discussion.

Quote from: apastuszak on 2015-11-15 15:53:48

I did read somewhere that DSD is being used as an archival format by record labels. So, the "master" is in DSD format. and CD quality PCM is generated from that master. But that may just be because the equipment being used to master is Sony.

SACD is a solution looking for a problem, pure and simple/

Quote

I have often wondered, since SACDs contain a Red Book audio layer also, if that layer is purposely messed with to make the SACD layer sound better.

The layers are separate and independent. They don't even have to be the same musical work.

Remember, Better or worse in this context can relate to preference, not global fact.

The common preference for vinyl shows that poorer technical performance can be preferred by some.

Gosh ... too bad I have just caught a cold, so popcorn doesn't even taste good.

Toole and Olive and the AES authors generally, employing standard scientific language, report results...

But to the extent a treatment brings room measurements into the ranges and curve shapes that *have* been shown to correlate to population preferences, you can predict they'd *probably* be reported as beneficial on average, if the comparison could be blinded.

Personally, I would take that sort of evidence-from-measurement as 'good enough' to guide my purchases, absent actual DBTs.  (I use that reasonign for loudspeaker buying.) But even that data doesn't seem to exist in any handy form...not for many loudspeakers, and certainly not for many room treatments.

It's a dilemma.

I said I was out of this discussion, but I think it has become abundantly clear that we're arguing about personal preference here.

Now I know why AJ calls you Amir.

It has been conclusively proven that casual sighted listening evaluations are 100% susceptible to false positives and false negatives

Probably because he calls names when the discussion is over his head.