• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Why no follow up studies to Dr. Toole’s and Dr. Olive’s work?

Matias

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5,031
Likes
10,806
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
I don't think money is the only reason.

Score can be sum up as: go as low as you can with a flat LW. I can back that up, one way to see it: when you create an EQ to optimise the score, you get 95% of the improvement by flattening the LW. You can get more if you want to improve the bass but you loose on SPL. the other parameters don't play much role. Also look at @malky68 EQ and look at the difference between LW optim and Score optim.

I think it is unlikely that you find something magical. Maybe distorsion is also a large variable in the midrange. We could find a better predictor but I am betting it will start with flat LW and low F3 and distorsion < 1% to define the usable SPL.
Agreed. Maybe add directivity (wide x narrow), dynamic compression (totally agree with Erin that this should be more relevant) as variables and that's pretty much it. But the main criteria, flat LW and low bass extension, was already discovered to be highly significant. The bulk is already there, more variables would be fine tuning. Perhaps a case of diminishing returns in research?

Would be great if @Sean Olive himself could give his opinion.
 

storing

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
226
Likes
220
I agree, statistics will be an integral part of this type of research. The beauty of such a community we have here is that we can find interested statisticians, engineers, etc that would love to collaborate.
Thinking of it a bit more and looking at the community here, this would perhaps be possible indeed. I.e. create documentation on how to setup a proper controlled environment and conduct tests for the type of studies like Toole/Olive/Harman did, have volunteers collect data (probably while recording video of the tests so others can verify things were done correctly), have other volunteers have a go at the analysis.
 

Yuhasz01

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Messages
143
Likes
123
That’s a valid question. Unfortunately, it’s not just about the minds. Scientific research can only exist if there is funding. If no research agency, governmental or private, has a strategic interest in a field, they won’t just fund any research on it. This is why awareness about these issues is important, and a website like ASR makes sense. It can only start from places like this.

Edit: @krabapple was quicker than me
Research follows where money is made and new commercially oriented problems are clearly articulated.
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,209
Likes
2,675
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Their work at Harman was funded by Harman. Foundational work was funded by the Canadian government. Who do you propose to pay for more studies of speaker preference?

@amirm :p

Seriously though, I think we all can contribute in some way by blind testing speakers that Amir/Erin have already measured. I don't think it has to be up to the standards that Olive set to be useful. Would be really fun to try and improve the model with more data. Dr. Olive clearly has some ideas as to how it can be improved, and maybe the community could add a few of their own.
 

Music1969

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
4,645
Likes
2,813
Their work at Harman was funded by Harman. Foundational work was funded by the Canadian government. Who do you propose to pay for more studies of speaker preference?

The studies might still be being done and funded but privately... with less being published...

1632579728490.png
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,425
Likes
7,941
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I know there is no government or company funding. However, small donations, lending of loudspeakers for the tests, and volunteers from just this website might be enough.

you know it would take a small fortune to pay someone with the credentials of Dr. Olive for a year or two while the research is being conducted right?
 

audio2design

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,830
Research follows where money is made and new commercially oriented problems are clearly articulated.

And if there is money to be made, but no benefit to publishing then why would you? When I worked in academia I published. When I figured out how to make money from it I stopped. Harmon perceived they could make more money from the advertising of publishing (and keeping Mr. Toole happy). My customers couldn't care about the research just the results. Wrt speakers, the previous literature still needs to be interpreted wrt usage and environment which is often not done.
 

storing

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
226
Likes
220
Research follows where money is made and new commercially oriented problems are clearly articulated.
Just like the poster you reply to mentioning 'strategic interest', this is in my experience not a general rule. Or perhaps too strict of a definition. Main exception being fundamental research (think neurofysiology): this does get publicly funded (so that's tax money and donations from various funds) but for the majority of it there is zero money to be made let alone it can be turned directly into something with commercial value. I mean, this goes like 'ok so we just found out this group of brain cells reacts when it sees a kitty'. In the (very) long run this might lead to something, but for the time baing it just add knowledge and that is about it. Things are changing in this field with brain-machine interfacing etc, but it's not like the funds the field has been getting the past century yielded anything back directly.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,425
Likes
7,941
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Just like the poster you reply to mentioning 'strategic interest', this is in my experience not a general rule. Or perhaps too strict of a definition. Main exception being fundamental research (think neurofysiology): this does get publicly funded (so that's tax money and donations from various funds) but for the majority of it there is zero money to be made let alone it can be turned directly into something with commercial value. I mean, this goes like 'ok so we just found out this group of brain cells reacts when it sees a kitty'. In the (very) long run this might lead to something, but for the time baing it just add knowledge and that is about it. Things are changing in this field with brain-machine interfacing etc, but it's not like the funds the field has been getting the past century yielded anything back directly.

I feel like it's important to make the distinction between Harman (private companies), and Audio Engineering Society (not a peer review driven journal, borderline predatory sometimes) to hardcore Academia (Universities funded publicly and peer reviewed journals).

Fundamental Research is very much still corporate / economics driven. This is has been the case since the Soviet Union broke down (interpret that as you wish).

For example in my lab (University) I investigate a specific disease that infects hydroponically grown tomatoes that we don't know how to deal with properly right now in Northern Europe. There is obviously no humanitarian shortage of tomatoes that motivated my research.
 

Somafunk

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Messages
1,312
Likes
3,030
Location
Scotland
I investigate a specific disease that infects hydroponically grown tomatoes that we don't know how to deal with properly right now in Northern Europe.

Hydroponically grown plants can often suffer from unusual diseases/growth issues that are bloody infuriating to diagnose so you have my sympathy, I’ve grown cannabis hydroponically for 25yrs and found that additional treatment of feed solution and saturation of root zone with beneficial mycobacterium and mycorrhizal fungus often ameliorated certain issues i encountered, and improved the crop rather significantly with regard to taste, smell and overall vigor of growth. Sadly due to increasing disability of my secondary progressive ms I am no longer able to grow which is so bloody annoying as it was an absolute wonder and joy to bring on clones from a 13yr old strain and push their growth to fantastic levels.
 

eddantes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
707
Likes
1,385
Perhaps @Sean Olive or @Floyd Toole know of researchers that are working on public confirmation studies or building on top of their research. It would be good to know who these people are and possibly support them.
 

Sean Olive

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
3,004
Perhaps @Sean Olive or @Floyd Toole know of researchers that are working on public confirmation studies or building on top of their research. It would be good to know who these people are and possibly support them.

I really enjoy objective loudspeaker measurements, but correlating measurements to what is actually perceived as optimal or perfect, if there is such a thing, is of most importance.

After listening to Erin and Dr Olive’s talk about the research Dr Olive and Dr Toole did regarding the preference ratings, and the blatant statement by Dr Olive that this can be improved, why has there been no follow up?

In science, findings are validated or modified by repeated or updated experiments and studies. One really cannot put all its faith in one study. It may be correct, but needs validation!

Why no other minds are interested in phsychoacustic research? I would appreciate someone teaming up with Dr Olive and repeating the tests trying to avoid the prior shortcomings. This is just one obvious example.
I am not aware of any companies or universities doing similar follow up research related to our loudspeaker research. Why not?

Such research costs a lot of money (million of dollars ) to pay staff, build test facilities, purchase and test loudspeakers and pay listeners. There is probably sufficient knowledge already to design and build a decent loudspeaker based on measurements.

How many companies are doing regular controlled listening tests on loudspeakers? I know a few that have essentially stopped doing them (or doing fewer) because they can design good sound sounding products based on good measurements.

It would certainly be nice to build more accurate predictive models and include perceptually-meaningful metrics on nonlinear distortion, but I don't believe many companies are interested in pursuing this. In fact, I would say it would be challenging to do the loudspeaker and headphone research we did in today's corporate environment because the research is much shorter-term focussed and product-driven vs. longer-term and knowledge driven.
 
Last edited:

Sean Olive

Senior Member
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
329
Likes
3,004
you know it would take a small fortune to pay someone with the credentials of Dr. Olive for a year or two while the research is being conducted right?
I need to hire you as my manager/ negotiator for the next salary review or gig :)
One of the questions I have, does preferred FR change with age as our hearing deteriorates. There is so much more that can be done.
I think the answer might be possibly yes. Here is a study we did where listeners adjusted the bass and treble of their headphones. Unfortunately, this is not direct evidence as we didn't test the hearing of all the listeners. The ideal study would do that and perhaps repeat this test over a period of years where their hearing changed.



1632612447337.png
 

JRS

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,158
Likes
1,003
Location
Albuquerque, NM USA
That’s a valid question. Unfortunately, it’s not just about the minds. Scientific research can only exist if there is funding. If no research agency, governmental or private, has a strategic interest in a field, they won’t just fund any research on it. This is why awareness about these issues is important, and a website like ASR makes sense. It can only start from places like this.

Edit: @krabapple was quicker than me
NRC had a great run. Several companies benefited enormously as did audiophiles from the marked improvement in speakers that resulted.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
A lot of the time less is more in my opinion. This may sound wilfully contrarian and provocative but I work in a field which is now quite fashionable (emissions to air from ships) and most of the research being funded by government and philanthropic organisations is just repackaging the same primary research (because measurement campaigns and laboratory work are both more expensive and need more than the ability to run mathematical models) and are more about providing noise for policy makers than researching a problem. If you read a lot of papers in the field it is striking how so many rely on the same measurement and research. Behind the glut of papers giving the impression of a huge research effort there really isn't much there and the quality of papers is not impressive from a technical perspective. I sort of envy fields in which there is a small number of high quality papers which are worth reading.
 
OP
G

gags11

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
356
Likes
528


Lots of academic research exist on directitivy factor. Some of these have been funded by companies like Genelec her in Finland. But yes, I couldn't find listening comparisons of ready-made loudspakers. But this is just a small and rather well known issue in loudspeaker design, and mostly inlfuential in PA systems with fixed installations. Consumer's interest is now focused in headphones and earplugs, and that is affecting music mixing and mastering "style" as well, I believe, as well as science.

What I would like to see, is blind test of stereo pairs in typical home environment. Small rooms with little acoustic conditioning. Street wisdon says high and smooth DI is preferred by those who want sharp and precise imaging, typically with non-classical pop/rock. Classical/acoustic jazz afficionados mostl likely prefer wide and smooth directivity (like me).

I can't see any point to make real hifi (or diy) speakers that would support statistical mainstream listening preference. It is good to have alternatives, but the consumer (hifist) must know what she prefers and choose her speakers and room acoustics accordingly. I am fortunate to have three different sets in different rooms, and each have characteristic sound. But I do 90% of listening in stereo with diy-dipoles in a large but" soft" lowish RT room. I hate headphones and
A lot of the time less is more in my opinion. This may sound wilfully contrarian and provocative but I work in a field which is now quite fashionable (emissions to air from ships) and most of the research being funded by government and philanthropic organisations is just repackaging the same primary research (because measurement campaigns and laboratory work are both more expensive and need more than the ability to run mathematical models) and are more about providing noise for policy makers than researching a problem. If you read a lot of papers in the field it is striking how so many rely on the same measurement and research. Behind the glut of papers giving the impression of a huge research effort there really isn't much there and the quality of papers is not impressive from a technical perspective. I sort of envy fields in which there is a small number of high quality papers which are worth reading.

What you are describing is exactly what my issue and initial post is about. There are numerous interpretations and analyses of the same original data.

We need new data… hopefully in room preference scores based on Klipell measurements.
 

eddantes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
707
Likes
1,385
I am not aware of any companies or universities doing similar follow up research related to our loudspeaker research. Why not?

Such research costs a lot of money (million of dollars ) to pay staff, build test facilities, purchase and test loudspeakers and pay listeners. There is probably sufficient knowledge already to design and build a decent loudspeaker based on measurements.

How many companies are doing regular controlled listening tests on loudspeakers? I know a few that have essentially stopped doing them (or doing fewer) because they can design good sound sounding products based on good measurements.

It would certainly be nice to build more accurate predictive models and include perceptually-meaningful metrics on nonlinear distortion, but I don't believe many companies are interested in pursuing this. In fact, I would say it would be challenging to do the loudspeaker and headphone research we did in today's corporate environment because the research is much shorter-term focussed and product-driven vs. longer-term and knowledge driven.
Thanks kindly for you reply @Sean Olive .
 
Last edited:

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
Thinking of it a bit more and looking at the community here, this would perhaps be possible indeed. I.e. create documentation on how to setup a proper controlled environment and conduct tests for the type of studies like Toole/Olive/Harman did, have volunteers collect data (probably while recording video of the tests so others can verify things were done correctly), have other volunteers have a go at the analysis.
I advocated something like that a while back. We could have multiple people provide evaluations of each speaker using a standard protocol. It would require some training too, to help people conduct the listening evaluations as consistently as possible. Such an approach isn't without issues and limitations, of course. And it would still be lot of work for somebody to organize and refine.

Just to add one thing -- such a "crowd-sourced" approach would work best of people could review more than one speaker. That way it is easier to account for individual effects.
 

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,717
Likes
2,897
Location
Finland
Thank you Sean for your comments, times are a'changing...


I see that nowdays most "serious" loudspeaker companies take smooth response, and DI as well as nonlinear distortion seriously, and have the knowhow. But among hifi there will be room for esoteric and special sounding devices, of which we will never see independent measurements.
 
Top Bottom