I think Toole himslef has commented on the challenges of dealing with Harman marketing dept
. Final products wont be based purely on the best technical design. They are also designed to sell and must appeal to the publics desires and conceptions (and misconceptions) of whats good. A prime example is the earlier discussion of wide baffles. Even if they are the right thing to do (no comment from me about that) I think most of us would agree the thin box will probably win on aesthetic grounds.
Im not sure I agree with the comments about idolators on ASR. Its just that there appears to be little, maybe no contradictory scientific views on what Toole has presented. What is presented is entirely un-contentious IMO. Are we surprised that speakers designed to those principles are found to be preferred? If so I dont know why as those principles are entirely logical and concurr with wider research.
Instead of pointing to weaknesses in Toole’s research, let me suggest some general problems, weaknesses of audio research and in audio research consensus. This is from a perspective in another discipline, where I have 20 years of experience in what we may call applied research, including leading a team of researchers for a decade (please note, I write «researchers», not «scientists» in white lab coats).
SAMPLE SIZE: In audio research, sample sizes are often (almost always?) small. I would be frustrated if the same were true in my field. However, many small samples can give you a weight of the evidence «feel», as a sort of a metastudy. Because studies across research teams don’t follow the same methodology and input can be different as well, the researcher is not in total control, however.
MEASUREMENT WITHOUT THEORY: Sometimes, audio researchers measure without an underlying theory of how the world works. An audio scientist is not a neurologist, an expert in the mind and the human information processor that is the brain. An audio researcher may have a strong opinion on how humans react to sound input, even if he doesn’t understand how humans’ process information. Audio science may need to pass borders into other disciplines in order to enter new frontiers. How curious are audio researchers really when it comes to neurology, even psychology?
STILL LACK OF CONSENSUS: Sometimes I am surprised at how easily people wave off research in audio. Some time ago I was in a forum discussion with the author of Audiolense (a discussion on the “correct” slope of the in-room frequency response curve) when he wrote: “I ploughed through Toole’s book years ago but found little of use”. So it seems like even if audio is a quantitative leaning science, development work takes place without countering or basing new R&D on established research. Is this the kind of behaviour you would expect in a mature science?
To come back to the thread title: What constitutes “evidence” if sample sizes are small, if there is (some!) measurement without theory and if consensus is lacking in some important areas of audio science?