OK, if you take that one sentence out of context it doesn't - but if you look back everytime he says it's not to do with room modes, he also says that it is to do with reflections. For example:Quote:
However, the underlying concept of a standing wave remains, as does my original point: At a predictable distance from a reflecting boundary there are a series of points where the wave is completely motionless. If a wave approaches a boundary at a right angle, the first point is 1/2 wavelength from the boundary. Other points occur at 4/4 and 6/4 and 8/4 wavelengths, etc. (comb filtering). At other angles the distance will vary but still be predictable. Again, the main point is this has nothing to do with room modes, and everything to do with reflections. Standing waves can occur at any frequency outdoors against a wall where clearly there are no modes.
CC, with respect....
Ethan's argument that standing waves exist outside of room modes and then using that argument to say the following "In fact, this is further proof that standing waves have nothing at all to do with room modes. " is IMO nonsense.
Just becuase a standing wave can occour in situations OTHER than room modes, DOES not mean that mode frequencies are 'nothing' to do with standing waves.
And hether you say "modes have nothing to do with standing waves", OR "standing waves have nothing to do with modes", is exactly the same.
'nothing' is a symetrical argument, and means the same both ways around.
Just becuase a steering wheel is used on a bus, doesn't mean steering wheels have nothing to do with cars.
That's why this discussion has gotten ridiculous IMO.
All I wanna do is learn a bit more about the subject. And I would suspect, do others reading this.
This stupid trail of wordplay and logical nonsense designed to cover up some people's lack of acosutical knowledge is doing nothing for anyone's education here.
let's look at at what's really happening here....
Do you really think that if Ethan explained the science of acoustics, including standing waves, correctly then people like Eric or Jeff would still take issue with him. Of course they wouldn't. Science is science, reagrdless of whether someone is liked or not.
Yet Ethan's psuedo scientific writings have been challenged by experts on many threads on may forums.
That says something to me.
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1