Waterfall display parameters can make a room look far worse than it is

Evidence

In Figure 4.17b the frequency response at the back, near, time = 0, is closely similar to the curve in (a), because a narrow 7 Hz bandwidth was chosen. However, the successive curves making up the waterfall all look very much like it because in achieving detail—resolution—in the frequency domain, the time-domain resolution has been sacrificed; it is 142 ms. Within the total 500 ms decay that is shown, nothing much changes because every successive curve moving forward is an average of events within a 142 ms window. The first several curves after t = 0 are almost identical, and those following simply drop smoothly in amplitude. It looks as though this room has uncontrolled ringing at many frequencies, but this is wrong—the data are misleading. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 426

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the recurring theme across acoustics/soundscape readings that measurement decisions shape what we conclude about rooms and noise. — connects to: Room curves cannot define perceived sound quality on their own — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 1561; High-frequency-resolution waterfalls falsely suggest uncontrolled ringing
• SHARE: A stark, concrete warning any audio reviewer or forum participant would find bracing — narrow frequency-resolution waterfalls routinely mislead.

Broader Connections

• High-frequency-resolution waterfalls falsely suggest uncontrolled ringing #corroborates (0.95)
• Room curves cannot define perceived sound quality on their own #expands (0.82) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 1561