svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
Toole's conclusion here doesn't necessarily follow. A possible different conclusion is that available loudspeaker performance metrics at the time didn't adequately inform listeners of what they would actually perceive, and that prospective purchasers only found out through listening experience that the product specifications were an insufficient proxy for the actual perceived result. Loudspeakers present, of course, a complex mix of performance parameters (polar response, etc.) that are not all easily captured, nor effectivly communicated by a set of product specs.
To argue that people subjectively accurately gravitate to an truth, with no objective foreknowledge, seems more like an argument for the validity of subjective judgement, rather than a denial of it. I've always believed that the disconnect between the subjective and objective worlds has most to do with the inadequacy of the objective to effectively communicate the subjective experience. By implication, that objective measurements could serve as an accurate proxy for what we perceive once they are fully effective in capturing and also communicating all of the relevant parameters, as well as the dynamic impact of those parameters on each other. Information which, I feel, is lacking.
I am not quite sure I follow you, see your reasoning. What Toole found, was that a smoother, flatter frequency response is preferred by listeners; and what he found «at the time» has only been supported in later decades.
I find great comfort in this finding. It resembles what the primarily subjectivist Stereophile has found as well; higher rated speakers in Stereophile measure flatter and smoother as well.
I think we should have as much faith in science - even in audio - that the aim of audio science is to find truth which is often defined as neutral. Empirical data suggest people prefer neutral to biased. And by «wisdom of crowds» we should then expect any group average to gravitate towards truth, neutral, natural. I find nothing shocking or unexpected in this way of reasoning. All of my professional experience supports what I just wrote.
However, feel free to point out - explicitly and to the point - what you think is flawed in my thinking.