Was this theory supposed to apply in the home environment only, or in the concert hall as well? Do you have blind tests supporting your theory or only sighted ones?
Yes both, including live venues @ concert halls. It had to do with clothing absorption versus human skin effect. It started with live music concerts @ halls when they are almost empty versus full ones. The acoustics are different. And when you have, say 2,000 people in the audience, all dressed up, their clothing sure has an effect on acoustics.
Then I brought up the point of what if the full audience were not wearing any clothing @ all...everyone totally naked. What would be the overall effect on the hall's acoustics?
That discussion I was referring to took place/happened over @ AVSForum in the Audyssey thread, about six-seven years ago. Kal Rubinson himself contributed with his own thoughts regarding human skin (different textures of leather wise, physical influences on sound absorption and reflective skins, and neuroscience). Other thoughts were expressed relating to the age of the audience, and between males and females...on softer, smoother and rougher, older type of leather (skin). Seats materials, human clothing, halls decors, ...everything is sound bouncing and/or sound encapsulating. Of course the essence of the day was a a humorous and theoretical/scientific discussion among mature audio members.
It was even mentioned that skin could reflect sounds from some type of more reflective skin. The human anatomy, biological physical bodies, when totally exposed (naked) would certainly have different acoustical properties in the overall sound character of the hall. Perhaps not to a great degree but enough to be audible?
But what intrigues me more than that is this: How can a pair of eyeglasses and a watch we wear on our wrist have a different sound perception?
Women wearing earrings, necklaces, bracelets, crowns, ...etc., are they hearing different acoustics than if they were not wearing any jewelry @ all?
* I don't wear my eyeglasses, my watch when listening to music. And I do wear a ring, always. And clothing is also part of my ritual; I don't listen to music in the nude @ home...it never crossed my mind if it would be more "pure/natural".
The only thing that I would ask is to see scientific tests that wearing eyeglasses limit our full music enjoyment in any which way possible.
If I put them on and look through my window @ the beautiful countryside with trees, birds, mountains, lake and ocean, while listening to music from the sweet spot in my room; how can they limit my enjoyment? Would it be just the exact opposite in this particular instance where it would enrich the experience even further by a contemplative visual mood with the music correlating with the visuals and relaxed thoughts in my mind?
Of course it would.
Wearing eyeglasses or not while the music is playing can have multiple effects that contribute or not to our pleasurable listening enjoyment.
We do what we do because that's what we do. And inside of all what we do we find solace and comfort to match our life's harmony.
It's a natural human instinct, just like when we dress up @ the music concert hall with 1,999 other people.
We don't go naked because only the great looking Hollywood stars do dare...with extremely light and revealing transparent fabric...like on the red carpet...beautiful bodies.
Also, because we were born from principles and social affinities in our civilization, we go to live music events fully dressed up.
I think it's better that way, irregardless of the hall's overall acoustic magic. ...Benefits or not.
But, the subject is still scientifically and acoustically interesting. ...If we fill the music concert hall with only beautiful nude bodies from a definite age group; it's a valid experiment.
Also, make the full audience wear eyeglasses versus none @ all and analyse/measure the acoustic results. It would be interesting to see if 4,000 spectacles (2,000 pairs of eyeglasses), can reflect enough sound to make a noticeable difference that we can hear.
