NFC Team most likely to win at Seattle in playoffs?

[Breaker99]

10x is an obscenely over exaggerated response. The sound that is reflected back is just the sound that would have otherwise risen out of other open air stadiums. That sound is a fraction of the overall available. The sound source is already pointing at the field of play. No one is turning around to shout into the roof. We are not even talking about a 1x amplification, but really a fractional increase.

Apparently you know more than an architect that worked on the stadium and has worked on many others...

Paul Griesemer, an architect with AECOM, has worked on numerous NFL stadiums and sporting venues, including the redevelopment of Lambeau Field and the post-Katrina renovation of the Superdome in New Orleans. He reflects on the key home-field advantage elements created by the AECOM team that designed Centurylink. “Having the most compressed footprint of any NFL stadium concentrates fan noise. The partial roof shades 70 percent of spectators and reflects noise back onto the field. The steel stands of the ‘Hawks nest,’ the stadium’s signature seating bowl element, amplify foot-stomping.”

 

[SonnyCID]

Apparently you know more than an architect that worked on the stadium and has worked on many others...

Paul Griesemer, an architect with AECOM, has worked on numerous NFL stadiums and sporting venues, including the redevelopment of Lambeau Field and the post-Katrina renovation of the Superdome in New Orleans. He reflects on the key home-field advantage elements created by the AECOM team that designed Centurylink. “Having the most compressed footprint of any NFL stadium concentrates fan noise. The partial roof shades 70 percent of spectators and reflects noise back onto the field. The steel stands of the ‘Hawks nest,’ the stadium’s signature seating bowl element, amplify foot-stomping.”

Where does it say anything about a 10x noise increase in that?

 

[Breaker99]

Where does it say anything about a 10x noise increase in that?

Where does it say less than 1X?

I read that it was nearly ten times as loud in some parts of the field as it is in the upper reaches of the stadium. If I find it, I will provide it. While you wait, maybe you can find something to back up the comment...

"We are not even talking about a 1x amplification, but really a fractional increase."


Just admit it, Bill Burr nailed it when he called it a symphony stadium.

 

[Doublejive]

Still talking about crowd cheering and bleachers Breaker,really?

 

[Podunkparte]

Still talking about crowd cheering and bleachers Breaker,really?

And his biggest argument is that a comedian says it's unfair.

Everything you post is such a fucking joke

 

[WizardHawk]

Apparently you know more than an architect that worked on the stadium and has worked on many others...

Paul Griesemer, an architect with AECOM, has worked on numerous NFL stadiums and sporting venues, including the redevelopment of Lambeau Field and the post-Katrina renovation of the Superdome in New Orleans. He reflects on the key home-field advantage elements created by the AECOM team that designed Centurylink. “Having the most compressed footprint of any NFL stadium concentrates fan noise. The partial roof shades 70 percent of spectators and reflects noise back onto the field. The steel stands of the ‘Hawks nest,’ the stadium’s signature seating bowl element, amplify foot-stomping.”

There is no mention in any of that as to the quantity of feedback from the roof system. So you like your made up numbers and use an article that doesn't support it and then claim you will go with him over my assessment? You are quite desperate to make something out of nothing.

Where does it say less than 1X?

I read that it was nearly ten times as loud in some parts of the field as it is in the upper reaches of the stadium. If I find it, I will provide it. While you wait, maybe you can find something to back up the comment...

"We are not even talking about a 1x amplification, but really a fractional increase."


Just admit it, Bill Burr nailed it when he called it a symphony stadium.

So in your mind having the sound being up to 10x louder in some parts vs other parts equals the roof causes a 10x amplification? Seriously now, that's your claim.

Put a speaker in a very long room near one end pointed at the other and turn it up. You will hear some sound echoing off the side walls and even the wall from behind the speaker. At the other end where the speaker is pointed you will hear only a small fraction of the directed sound compared to the reflected sound. This is quite basic actually.

The fans are facing the players on the field and directing their sound at them. Some sound is picked up from the back echo and reflected back down toward the field. There is also extra sound created by the metal bleachers and people stomping their feet which is omnidirectional in nature.

No one has the exact numbers, but really simple logic dictates we are talking about a very small amount of the overall sound actually coming just from the roof itself.

It would really take a special kind of stupid to really believe the roof creates 10x more sound at the field of play than would otherwise be there with a completely open air stadium. That kind of escape from logic doesn't come easily.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

It's got to be a team that can just win without using audibles. GB or SF, i think GB receiving is better than the SEA secondary and i think SF can/should have ran the option more. Taking the crowd noise out is a must and one way to do that is without audibles and i think these two teamd can do that and win.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

There is no mention in any of that as to the quantity of feedback from the roof system. So you like your made up numbers and use an article that doesn't support it and then claim you will go with him over my assessment? You are quite desperate to make something out of nothing.

So in your mind having the sound being up to 10x louder in some parts vs other parts equals the roof causes a 10x amplification? Seriously now, that's your claim.

Put a speaker in a very long room near one end pointed at the other and turn it up. You will hear some sound echoing off the side walls and even the wall from behind the speaker. At the other end where the speaker is pointed you will hear only a small fraction of the directed sound compared to the reflected sound. This is quite basic actually.


The fans are facing the players on the field and directing their sound at them. Some sound is picked up from the back echo and reflected back down toward the field. There is also extra sound created by the metal bleachers and people stomping their feet which is omnidirectional in nature.

No one has the exact numbers, but really simple logic dictates we are talking about a very small amount of the overall sound actually coming just from the roof itself.

It would really take a special kind of stupid to really believe the roof creates 10x more sound at the field of play than would otherwise be there with a completely open air stadium. That kind of escape from logic doesn't come easily.

Breaker is getting his lunch money taken away.....again.

 

[Podunkparte]

It's got to be a team that can just win without using audibles. GB or SF, i think GB receiving is better than the SEA secondary and i think SF can/should have ran the option more. Taking the crowd noise out is a must and one way to do that is without audibles and i think these two teamd can do that and win.

Completely disagree

 

[cdumler7]

Completely disagree

Is there any receiving core that you think can line up and be just as talented as the secondary of the Seahawks?

 

[bksballer89]

saints

 

[STBR 27]

It's got to be a team that can just win without using audibles. GB or SF, i think GB receiving is better than the SEA secondary and i think SF can/should have ran the option more. Taking the crowd noise out is a must and one way to do that is without audibles and i think these two teamd can do that and win.

You also said SF would beat SEA 35-10 so I don't have much faith in anything you think.

 

[SonnyCID]

Is there any receiving core that you think can line up and be just as talented as the secondary of the Seahawks?

Atlanta or Denver at full strength. It would need to be a physical group to beat this defense at home. Even those teams I would give Seattle's defense the edge at home. GB's receivers got manhandled against Seattle last year.

I still believe that the best chance a team has to win here is with a great defensive performance, not offense.

 

[WizardHawk]

Breaker is getting his lunch money taken away.....again.

Wasn't hard to set it straight. For the stadium to be amplifying the sound 10x on the field it means without the roof the MAX sound would have been 13.6db? I've had belches louder than that ffs. You'd have to be a total tard to think that.

 

[cwood]

The stadium obviously amplifies the noise, but Seattle has also developed a tradition where it's expected that the fans scream like maniacs. Seattle fans would be loud in any stadium, just not to the extent they are in a stadium specifically designed to magnify the noise they make.

 

[bksballer89]

Keep sleeping on my Saints lol

 

[WizardHawk]

Keep sleeping on my Saints lol

I don't know about you, but I sleep on a saint every night.

 

[bksballer89]

December 2nd MNF....Seattle loses their first home game since the 2011 season

 

[HaroldSeattle]

December 2nd MNF....Seattle loses their first home game since the 2011 season

That's not what happened last they played and that was when the Seahawks were pretty bad.

 

[bksballer89]

That's not what happened last they played and that was when the Seahawks were pretty bad.

The Saints defense that year was pretty bad. The defense this year is much improved.....And it is irrelevant about what happened 3 years ago