Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sure. Keep it simple too. DAC with volume control to a switcher to an amp/monitor combo and to a quality "engineered" par of monitors, no dogs, of similar frequency extension. No EQ on either and actives set on factory default settings. Level matched. My choice of material nothing less than 16/44.1. You think you can identify passive vs active just by crossover distortions Tim? Randomness to be determined with a handy old scientific calculator. Tell you what. You fly here, I put you up and if you get better than 7 out of 10 I pay your air fare. Lets make it a real blind test though. You will not know what monitors and amps will be used at all. I'll even keep prices within a couple of hundred dollars. You lose, you eat your words. You win, I'm out two grand. Game?

I've got no words to eat, Jack. But I'd sure love to take that test. I think I hear something identifiable in good actives vs. passives, and I think it comes from more than crossover distortions. And I expect it's something that, in a proper comparison, would be audible - much more audible for example, than the difference between amps of the same power driving the same load, yadyada. But I've never had the opportunity to A/B them properly, as described above, and I'm just as susceptible to expectation bias as the next guy. I wasn't throwing down the glove and challenging you to a duel, brother. I was sharing the fantasy. I'd love to take that test. I'm always up for knowing what I really hear instead of what I imagine I hear. But I'm not planning any trips to the Philipines. If my grandchildren move there, I'll see you soon enough. Until then, my travel plans are booked up.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

As long as they are my posts, it will be my interpretations you get. For copyright reasons, I am not able to post more than a few lines - I think fair use does have limitations. But any one can read a little bit more than what I transcribe using google books. Anyway, you can buy the book - it will cost you around usd 40.00 - not a fortune.

I can not understand how the many supporters of speakers based on Toole studies and findings spend hours in this forum debating radiation patterns of the speakers and are not curious about his methodologies and research. If it is your allergy to psychoacoustics that keeps you away from it, get the first edition - then is was simply called "Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms" not "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms".

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092

I have a reading list. Toole's book hasn't made it there yet, but there is much Toole to be read on the internet (in context, even), and I have read enough of it to know that he isn't always saying what you think he is. Does that mean you're required to quote enough of him to put his words in an appropriate context? Nope. Just means I'm not personally going to take any of it seriously unless you do.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I have a reading list. Toole's book hasn't made it there yet, but there is much Toole to be read on the internet (in context, even), and I have read enough of it to know that he isn't always saying what you think he is. (...)
Tim

Tim,

Great! What is freely available from Toole on the net is some old stuff, that does not cover the subjects about psychoacosutics we are mainly addressing now. He includes them in the first part of the book: "Understanding the principles".

And yes, I know that you disagree with him. Why? Because I have read enough to know that it is so. I am really learning from you ...

 

[NorthStar]

---Toole, what is he after; money, fame, or knowledge sharing?

* Is he Canadian?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Great! What is freely available from Toole on the net is some old stuff, that does not cover the subjects about psychoacosutics we are mainly addressing now. He includes them in the first part of the book: "Understanding the principles".

And yes, I know that you disagree with him. Why? Because I have read enough to know that it is so. I am really learning from you ...

I didn't say I disagreed with him, micro, though I'm sure on some points I probably do. Here's what I said, again:

he isn't always saying what you think he is.

It wouldn't be surprising if I were right, given that you can't seem to grasp the simple statement above. Perhaps there's a language gap. I've said nothing about my agreemement or disagreement with Toole lately. I've only speculated on your understanding of him.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

---Toole, what is he after; money, fame, or knowledge sharing?

* Is he Canadian?

I don't think there's much money or fame in the kinds of books and papers Toole writes. Yes, he is Canadian.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

---Toole, what is he after; money, fame, or knowledge sharing?

* Is he Canadian?

At this moment I bet he is on knowledge sharing. See his profile from Linkedin:


Floyd Toole's Summary

After a professional career in acoustical and psychoacoustical research, I have retired and am now dedicated to writing about and teaching what I know (e.g. "Sound Reproduction", Focal Press 2008). I am also committed to reading more and listening to more music!

In general I do what I can to promote a scientific approach to the design and use of loudspeakers and rooms. Ideally, if this is done in both the professional and consumer sides of the audio industry, it can lead to improving the probability that consumers will hear the "art" as it was created. As things are, that probability is depressingly low.

In short: using science in the service of art. What matters is what we hear.

Specialties
Writing and teaching the science and technology of loudspeakers and rooms.

 

[microstrip]

It wouldn't be surprising if I were right, given that you can't seem to grasp the simple statement above. Perhaps there's a language gap. I've said nothing about my agreemement or disagreement with Toole lately. I've only speculated on your understanding of him.

Tim

And I have speculated on your disagreement with him just for fun. BTW, the real gap is that I have read his book and you have not, but you still insist on debating my interpretation, even claiming that authors clearly write no when they mean to say yes. All else is semantics.

 

[NorthStar]

At this moment I bet he is on knowledge sharing. See his profile from Linkedin:


Floyd Toole's Summary

After a professional career in acoustical and psychoacoustical research, I have retired and am now dedicated to writing about and teaching what I know (e.g. "Sound Reproduction", Focal Press 2008). I am also committed to reading more and listening to more music!

In general I do what I can to promote a scientific approach to the design and use of loudspeakers and rooms. Ideally, if this is done in both the professional and consumer sides of the audio industry, it can lead to improving the probability that consumers will hear the "art" as it was created. As things are, that probability is depressingly low.

In short: using science in the service of art. What matters is what we hear.

Specialties
Writing and teaching the science and technology of loudspeakers and rooms.

-----That is pretty good comin' from this nice Canadian fella. :b

 

[JackD201]

I've got no words to eat, Jack. But I'd sure love to take that test. I think I hear something identifiable in good actives vs. passives, and I think it comes from more than crossover distortions. And I expect it's something that, in a proper comparison, would be audible - much more audible for example, than the difference between amps of the same power driving the same load, yadyada. But I've never had the opportunity to A/B them properly, as described above, and I'm just as susceptible to expectation bias as the next guy. I wasn't throwing down the glove and challenging you to a duel, brother. I was sharing the fantasy. I'd love to take that test. I'm always up for knowing what I really hear instead of what I imagine I hear. But I'm not planning any trips to the Philipines. If my grandchildren move there, I'll see you soon enough. Until then, my travel plans are booked up.

Tim

Test or no test. Deep down I just wanna hang out with you

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Test or no test. Deep down I just wanna hang out with you

right back atcha. Brown likker. Good music. Loud. It'd be good.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Test or no test. Deep down I just wanna hang out with you

-----Wow, quite a revelation! ...And an objective one at that!

 

[NorthStar]

right back atcha. Brown likker. Good music. Loud. It'd be good.

Tim

-----Perfect! ...Just perfect reply!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And I have speculated on your disagreement with him just for fun. BTW, the real gap is that I have read his book and you have not, but you still insist on debating my interpretation, even claiming that authors clearly write no when they mean to say yes. All else is semantics.

I wasn't aware of ever discussing the book with you, micro, only individual concepts, some from the book, others from you, with passages quoted from the book to support your point. I don't need to read the whole book to understand that what you quoted didn't always support your point. Now...maybe I needed to read some other part of the book to find Toole supporting your point. I don't know. You didn't quote that part. And that has nothing to do with semantics.

Tim

 

[amirm]

It would be nice to know how many of this people develop room treatments based on real measurements of their rooms and how many do it based in listening, advice or faith.

I think most do it because they think they have to . I have seen very little science based installation of acoustic material. Most is based on what is thought to be common knowledge which in reality could very well be wrong. I wrote an article on this in the latest copy of Widescreen Review magazine. I will post it here in a few weeks.

 

[NorthStar]

---That would be awesome Amir! :b

 

[Robh3606]

But how do you come to select which objective measurements? And how do objective measurements become standardized so that they get to be in widespread use? The answer to both of these is in my estimation by a subjective process.

Hello Opus 111

Isn't it obvious?? The ones that give you the most useful information. There already are a group of standardized measurements THX as an example. Toole developed a methodology for measuring speakers as well.

You have a DIY link in your signature. Surely you don't advocate that measurements are useless. Ever try building a speaker without a proper measurement set-up or a crossover simulator?? It's a complete waste of time, you may as well be looking for a feather during a hurricane.

Some are close to useless - for example power amplifier slew rate. Damping factor. THD at full power into a resistive load. But some are more useful - frequency response for example. But you'll use your subjective impressions to select the measurements which mean the most to you, will you not?

Maybe in your world not in mine. I again use what gives me the most information. That's the whole point. It's information. If you have the skill and understand what they are telling you you can use it to your advantage. It's information that is not available in any other way.

I have been DIY speaker building for many years now. I couldn't have accomplished what I have without measurements. There is simply no other way to get the information you need, for a successful design without measurements.

Rob

 

[NorthStar]

---'Slew Rate'; yeah I can live without, or unless ... in amplifiers.
But it is rare that you see this spec nowadays.

'Damping Factor'; that one I truly appreciate.

________________

Go ahead, any expert here; please explain those two terms, and how beneficial they could apply in real life.

 

[NorthStar]

---But then, look at a live Rock&Roll band on stage; the speakers (guitar amplifiers +) at right and the lead guitarist in front, the ones at left (bass amplifiers +) and the bass player in front, the drummer in the middle (background), the lead singer (center foreground). ...Monitors in front on the floor, and other speakers (or same) reproducing the drums and the vocals.

If we use five speakers up front, can we reproduce that band in our living room.
...And with two or more speakers at the side and rear for the live audience and the reverbs of that live venue.

Stereo is passe, according to moi (still very good though and I use it a lot), but multichannel d'apres moi is a better reproduction of the real thing; auditively, and accurately. ...Subjective and Objective in combination.

 

[opus111]

Isn't it obvious?? The ones that give you the most useful information. There already are a group of standardized measurements THX as an example. Toole developed a methodology for measuring speakers as well.

Well as we are clearly operating in different worlds what I put down in symbols in my world will be turned into different meanings in yours. So I'll decline to continue to engage this. Suffice to say your focus on information doesn't cut it for me, rather its meaning that I make from the information that's given. You said it yourself - 'if you have the skill and understand' - that's the skill of making meaning from information. Information is by no means sufficient - we need understanding.