this tells me something.
I'm thinking in terms of physics...
hmmm, seems to me I read that same thing somewhere else...oh yea. The Master Handbook of Acoustics...oh, and somewhere else...er...lets see...where was that? Oh yea...RPG/QRD's.
Just kidden with ya Frank. Although I have to say one thing. Maybe you haven't read any of my rants about this subject yet. They starrted FIVE YEARS ago, after posting a question here to John Sayers about QRD's. I won't go over it again as I'm more convinced than ever now that its all about "opinion" Let me give you a PERFECT example.
A few weeks ago, over at Studiotips, a guy posted a plan of his room in Sketchup, and wanted to know how to treat it. Well, I'm no expert in acoustics, but I know enough from following this subject since 1985 what small room treatment is about by now. Maybe not in mathamatical terms, but general knowlege. The guy only had (10) 2'x4' panels of absorption material available to use, but had some existing quirks in the room construction that made for difficult placement of the panels in corners. So, even though I have limited expertize in acoustics, I decided to post my .02, as I'm pretty adept at Sketchup, having been a 2d CAD detailer for 15 years. So I took his file and arranged his 10 panels with the standard corner traps, cloud, first reflection point panels, AND the last two remaing panels on....YUP...the REAR WALL.
Lo and behold, immedietly, Scott(I'm sure you know him from ReadyTraps..right? or at least I would think so
) posted an affirmation of my layout....but THEN...said...of all things..."HOWEVER, he would move the panels from the REAR wall.....TO THE FRONT WALL"!!!!
Soooooo, what does this suggest to me? I'll tell you. IF, by virtue of PHYSICS, your assessment(which I don't disagree with) of the importance of absorption at the rear wall.... is exactly OPPOSITE of a peer who is part owner of a competitor of yours, on top of the fact that Eric told me flat out he could hardly believe the Master Hanbook was a book on acoustics, and John told me he's seen MILES of QRD's torn out because they DON"T WORK..even though this concept was designed by Phyisicist/acoustician/scientists, backed up by a published acoustician.....etc etc etc...I'm actually amused anymore.
Want more? For YEARS, John has used and even advocated the use of at SAE, HANGERS. Only to read Eric say(from my understanding) he doesn;t think they work, or at least doesn't acknowlege them. Its getting to the point that I've come to view this whole thing like doctors...who will NEVER dispute what another doctor does...or attorneys who battle in court, and then go have lunch together.... PROFESSIONAL CURTESEY outweighs outright DISPUTE...except maybe Eric/Ethan/Scott's outrageously rediculous netfight type things.
(which I've chimed in a few times in Ethans defense and actually told Eric to either drag Ethan into a court of law, or SHUT THE FUCK UP
)
Anyway, hence my "Not saying your right or wrong," viewpoint. I've actually tried to pin down MANY people on this "diffusion vs absorption thingy", only to get 10 different opinions from 10 different people. What this tells me is this......Hire 10 different acousticians to design a control room/studio..and you are likely to get 10 different sets of solutions...ea of which may be totally different than another. Maybe not in small rooms...however, if Scotts reply as opposed to yours isn't a perfect example of this bullshit I don't know what is.
