I like this thread. It sort of summarizes what vibrates through this forum and can be read in Toole&friends books and publications. I have a hard time believing that all this is undisputed truth and that there are no other well founded (I.e. not crazy or stupid) concepts out there. So it might be worthwhile to honor other opinions too, so that the reader can develop a good sense for these idea while still leaning towards “your” concepts.
Well, one thing I have learned about the sciences is that there tend to be disagreements at every level, from those with BS degrees to those with PhDs. While I fully confess that I have a lot more reading to do, I haven't seen too much disagreement with the research of Dr. Toole and if by (& Friends), you mean Sean Olive. I have now read most of Dr. Toole's book, and the reasoning, research, documentation, and even the writing style, I find to be top-notch. There have been some questions raised, though. I think someone on ASR questioned Dr. Toole's choice of using passive monitors rather than powered studio monitors, when the many advantages of the active monitors are well known. I admit, that one has me a bit baffled also, as there are many documented advantages of using powered monitors with active (rather than passive) crossovers. If I had to guess, I would think it is possible that certain passive monitors may excel in aspects related to psychoacoustics in a way that no powered monitor has yet achieved. But then again, I think that might be a bad guess (and I have made some whoppers) because this is 2020 and the SOTA of powered monitors is quite high. I just don't know. What I do know, is this post is likely to generate some responses = LOL.