Complex high-Q objects multiply echoes while each weakens

Evidence

The key idea being communicated in Figure 4.10 is that neither the amplitude of the peak in the frequency response nor the duration of ringing is a reliable clue to the audibility of the resonances, at least above the transition frequency. It is counterintuitive. Adding damping reduces the Q, and therefore the ringing. It also reduces the amplitude of the peak in the frequency response, all of which would seem to be good. But the peak is now much wider and is therefore more frequently energized by components of the program. This means that it will be more often heard; the threshold ends up being lower—this well-damped resonance is easily heard. In contrast, the Q = 50 resonance is energized only when a musical component is precisely at the right frequency and remains there long enough to allow it to accumulate energy—to build up—which is easily seen in the center column of data. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 385 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Lower-Q resonances are more audible than high-Q ones despite seeming better-damped — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 385; Reverberation masks high-Q ringing but amplifies low-Q resonances; Echoes arise only when reflected sound exceeds a 30-millisecond delay (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Reverberation masks high-Q ringing but amplifies low-Q resonances #expands (0.85)
• Lower-Q resonances are more audible than high-Q ones despite seeming better-damped #qualifies (0.80) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 385
• Early reflection delay below 30 ms avoids echoes while adding spaciousness #qualifies (0.72)
• Echoes arise only when reflected sound exceeds a 30-millisecond delay #qualifies (0.70)
• A 30-40 ms delay separates fusion from echo in the precedence effect #qualifies (0.70)