Over on the REG Forum I instigated a spirited discussion of loudspeaker preference testing of the type done by Floyd Toole. This accompanied my recent reading of Toole's book, Sound Reproduction (3rd Edition), as well as my recent acquisition of speakers, the Dutch & Dutch 8c, which perform well in the Spinorama test advocated by Toole.
I highly recommend reading Toole's book, but if that seems too daunting, you should at least watch his video presentation here: Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts - YouTube
As I understand Toole's position, what he calls the Audio Circle of Confusion can be reduced by designing and using in mixing and mastering speakers which do well in double blind loudspeaker listening preference tests which he has developed and refined over the years. This Circle of Confusion can be further reduced if home listeners also use such speakers for playback of music at home.
What could be wrong with this approach? It has long been recognized that there is a disconnect between what the recording folks hear in the control room versus what one hears at home if for no other reason than the speakers used to judge the quality of the recording are not the same as those usually used at home by audiophiles. We all know how much different speakers sound from one another; thus, if recording monitoring and home playback are not done with the same or similar speakers you will not hear the sound the recording engineers intended.
Toole's Research for NRCC & Harmon
In the words of his book:
Toole, Floyd E.. Sound Reproduction (Audio Engineering Society Presents) (pp. xix-xx). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
As is evident, Toole's research has from the start been strongly motivated by marketing loudspeakers to the public. While the NRCC was government funded, this was not ivory tower stuff at all. It was aimed at helping companies develop products which would be more competitive in the marketplace.
I highly recommend reading Toole's book, but if that seems too daunting, you should at least watch his video presentation here: Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts - YouTube
As I understand Toole's position, what he calls the Audio Circle of Confusion can be reduced by designing and using in mixing and mastering speakers which do well in double blind loudspeaker listening preference tests which he has developed and refined over the years. This Circle of Confusion can be further reduced if home listeners also use such speakers for playback of music at home.
What could be wrong with this approach? It has long been recognized that there is a disconnect between what the recording folks hear in the control room versus what one hears at home if for no other reason than the speakers used to judge the quality of the recording are not the same as those usually used at home by audiophiles. We all know how much different speakers sound from one another; thus, if recording monitoring and home playback are not done with the same or similar speakers you will not hear the sound the recording engineers intended.
Toole's Research for NRCC & Harmon
In the words of his book:
Upon graduation I was employed as a research scientist at the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) in Ottawa. My job was to ask questions and find answers by applying the scientific method. I was in the Applied Physics Division, so the emphasis was on real-world issues. A major performance metric was peer-reviewed publications, but also, for my chosen line of investigation, evidence that industry benefitted from the work—the NRCC was taxpayer funded. There could not have been a better place to engage in this kind of research. First, I worked among, and was tutored by, some of the best acoustical scientists in the world. We had access to excellent anechoic and reverberation chambers, as well as all of the latest measuring equipment necessary to quantify sound. There was also the budget and space to create listening rooms for subjective evaluations. The research was successful, and publications resulted. The embryonic Canadian loudspeaker industry rented the NRCC measurement and listening facilities to design products, and, importantly, Canadian audio magazines paid for the facilities to perform product reviews—anechoic measurements and double-blind listening tests. The products that were designed and reviewed became part of the database for the research, and everyone benefitted from the knowledge as it emerged. A small staff was hired, and I traveled widely, telling the science story to Audio Engineering Society (AES) audiences and to interested manufacturers. The relatively unknown Canadian loudspeaker manufacturers used the credibility of the NRCC and the research to help gain recognition (some are now well known and respected international suppliers). All was as it should be. One day in early 1991, the phone rang. It was a headhunter offering the possibility of an interesting job with a major audio corporation, Harman International Industries. After 26 years of research, I was intrigued by this opportunity to get directly involved with applying the science to product development—moving closer to the “real” world. Soon I was hired as the corporate vice president of Acoustical Engineering, but very quickly it became more, because I was able to convince the company leaders that we could afford, and indeed needed, a corporate research group that was not attached to the brands and that did not develop audio products. Knowledge was the product, and obviously some of it would migrate into products if it proved to be of value. Harman generously permitted us to publish freely, following the scientific tradition of free exchange of knowledge at AES conventions, conferences and in the journal (some corporations do not allow this). Harman spent large sums on improved engineering facilities and innovative listening rooms for product evaluation. The benefits were soon seen in improved consistency and quality of sound from the products. Nevertheless, there were arguments from some sales and marketing people who may not have had the same faith in science as we did. Good sound does not guarantee good sales. There are many factors involved in that aspect: appearance, price, size, marketing and retail distribution. These all fall outside the domain of engineering. Still, there was a resolute effort to ensure that products at all price points were competitive in sound quality. A program of measurements and double-blind evaluations of competing products was set up and continues. However, it has been difficult to maintain for all products because of tight schedules, the numbers of new products being developed, and the decentralization of design and manufacturing as Harman grew into an enormous worldwide, diversified corporation. When I joined Harman in 1991, sales were about $500M, we had a few thousand employees, and we were primarily an audio company headquartered in California. Things changed. Now sales are about $7B, there are about 26,000 employees worldwide, and audio is just part of what Harman does. It is a different company. I retired in 2007, but I have remained in a consulting role since then.
Toole, Floyd E.. Sound Reproduction (Audio Engineering Society Presents) (pp. xix-xx). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
As is evident, Toole's research has from the start been strongly motivated by marketing loudspeakers to the public. While the NRCC was government funded, this was not ivory tower stuff at all. It was aimed at helping companies develop products which would be more competitive in the marketplace.