Mr Edwards (I think that's your name):

I find the issue you raise, rather inadvertently, a very interesting one. As a matter of habit, I come across a lot of people, a bit like yourself, who know absolutely nothing about audio, and in fact are deaf (or 'tone deaf', for the present purpose, it makes no difference), but propose to make audiophile products based on what they have read here and there on forums or Wikipedia. May I ask you, if you are incapable of discriminating results from an audio perspective, why you think that suddenly you might be competent to make or develop a product intended for this particular field? Is this because, quite correctly, you have worked out that this is a hobby dominated by irrationally superstitious and self-deluded individuals, who are a perfect clientele for all sorts of premium products of doubtful efficacy?

After all, you no doubt would agree that a structural engineer who had no understanding of the maths involved in calculations of loads would be ill qualified to design the foundation, wall and roof structure of a house. You would think that someone who is blind would not offer himself for a career as an airline pilot no matter what level of competence he might have in other related fields. But somehow the fact of being tone deaf does not stop you from pursuing an area which requires an ability to discriminate in terms of sonic results. Well, I am baffled!

In addition to being tone deaf, you have no training or clear understanding of room acoustics, and the interface between loudspeakers (not to mention the different designs with their own set of problems) and their surroundings but you feel that with some research here and there you can come up with a commercial product. Well, I wish you good luck; in these economically uncertain times, we all need to make a living, but I must say that your approach and the domination of audio generally by individuals of your ilk is what makes this the most difficult hobby to pursue. Please let me know the name of your company and products, so I make sure I label it alongside the many others that I would avoid like the plague.

Again, please do not take any of this personally, it is just an interesting topic and your rather, shall we say, cynical opening gambit made it difficult for the rare contributor that I am to resist a comment about audio, which your initial post truly wasn't after all. You only want to know whether there is money to be made in offering walls with curved corners. By the way, have you ever wondered why our heads have a slightly ovoid shape with no square corners? And why our ears are the shape they are? Maybe the answer is lurking in these considerations.

Kind regards
Rakesh

fulcrum wrote:

Wow, you guys are a really tough crowd.If I wanted to sell crap to "irrationally superstitious and self-deluded individuals" it would have been the easiest thing in the world to do. So many people looking at what we make, jump to the assumption that they will help acoustics. It would have taken little or no effort on my part to persuade them. However that is not what I wanted to do, so I set out to seek experts who might be able to advise.  As a result, I have found some great contacts who we will work with to determine what value, if any such curves would bring. Your logic, by the way is flawed.  My personal hearing deficiency is not an impediment to figuring out how to manufacture products for the audio industry any more than my being color blind prevented my from working on the design of components for color TVs, or my friend with an artificial leg from developing cutting edge materials for racing skis - just means somebody else has to judge the results. Anyhow, thanks for all your replies, I really did get a kick out of them.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I didn't read the entire thread, but enough to get the gist... This guy admits he's tone deaf, but he's likely also a good fabricator, is not afraid of large-scale work and seems willing to listen. Doesn't that make him a potentially good source for someone who knows what they want and can supply a set of plans; someone looking to do a custom listening room or even a pair of bass horns?    On top of that, he's from Michigan (!), home of some of the best fabricators, prototype builders and generally sincere people in the world. Granted, he'd have been better received had he simply come out and proposed his services as a skilled fabricator, willing to listen. jd*

Hi guys, no harm – no foul.    However incapable I am of appreciating music and however ineptly or provocatively I asked the question, truly my only aim is to understand if the curved corners make sense.  As I said, we are starting to sell the drywall corners (and literally can’t make them fast enough).  The thing that bugs me is that probably 1 in 3 of the folks who want them have already decided that they are going to improve acoustics.  It would be the easiest thing in the world to nod & take their money but that isn’t what we are about.  So at the risk of revealing more ignorance: The top to bottom frequencies of a piano are something like 4200Hz to 32Hz.  Likely there are both higher and lower frequencies of interest so for the sake of argument call it 20Hz to 10,000Hz.  That means the wavelengths of interest range from 56 feet down to barely an inch.  Presuming the reason rounded corners help is that they reduce the instances of ‘rogue waves’ heading in different directions as the sound bounces off corners then it seems like pretty much any radius above an inch helps some portion of the sound.  Everyone in the know seems to want bigger radii than the 4” picture I showed so I presume that means low frequencies are most troublesome or most noticeable when distorted?

(BTW - the Isorast system looks pretty neat)

fulcrum wrote:

Hi guys, no harm – no foul.    However incapable I am of appreciating music and however ineptly or provocatively I asked the question, truly my only aim is to understand if the curved corners make sense.  As I said, we are starting to sell the drywall corners (and literally can’t make them fast enough).  The thing that bugs me is that probably 1 in 3 of the folks who want them have already decided that they are going to improve acoustics.  It would be the easiest thing in the world to nod & take their money but that isn’t what we are about.  So at the risk of revealing more ignorance: The top to bottom frequencies of a piano are something like 4200Hz to 32Hz.  Likely there are both higher and lower frequencies of interest so for the sake of argument call it 20Hz to 10,000Hz.  That means the wavelengths of interest range from 56 feet down to barely an inch.  Presuming the reason rounded corners help is that they reduce the instances of ‘rogue waves’ heading in different directions as the sound bounces off corners then it seems like pretty much any radius above an inch helps some portion of the sound.  Everyone in the know seems to want bigger radii than the 4” picture I showed so I presume that means low frequencies are most troublesome or most noticeable when distorted? (BTW - the Isorast system looks pretty neat)