A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[goat76]

Good, so there is no issue. As Dr Toole tried to explain to you and I tried to reiterate, the mastering speakers are the critical ones for overall sound quality and addressing circle of confusion problems. Your attempt to make it all about the mixing speakers is a non-sequitur.

The current discussion I have with Dr. Toole is about the Yamaha NS-10, specifically. A loudspeaker that has never been commonly used in mastering, only for mixing. And here you come in asking me why "I make it all about mixing" when talking about the use of NS-10s in music studios. If anything, the non-sequitur is on you.

If it's true that Dr. Toole doesn't see the use of the NS-10s as a problem when using them for mixing, which is the main common use for them in music studios, why does he even dedicate pages in his book to talking about them, granted that he knows they aren't commonly used for mastering? Where's the logic in that, according to you?

Nice try, but fail. You missed the logic of the argument.

For me, there's simply no logic at all in even bringing up mastering in a discussion about the NS-10s, as that loudspeaker has never been commonly used for that task.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I'm afraid there is no escape, at least at this moment of worldwide AI hype. Producers, big or small, want to appeal to a large audience, so... Maybe there should be two versions of every new issue - one for the masses, car audio and such, and one for the more discerning listeners?

This is a valid idea. In this "digital age" different versions, using metadata, are possible. In the extreme, it is possible for the creators of the art to simply deliver "flawless" masters to the public, and let the now sophisticated delivery devices perform compression, noise reduction, dialog enhancement, spectral shaping, etc. to cater to different audiences and listening situations. Some of this is done in cars, where speed and background sound levels are monitored and some playback parameters are changed. More of this is already in progress as MPEG Next Gen audio - Google it. The capsule summary is:

"MPEG-H Audio is a "next-generation" audio standard designed for immersive and personalized audio experiences in broadcast, streaming, and virtual reality. It allows for features like interactive "sound mixing" where users can adjust audio elements like dialogue or commentary, and 3D sound rendering for headphones or various speaker setups.MPEG-H is also designed for universal delivery, meaning it aims to provide the best possible audio experience regardless of the device. "

If it succeeds, this is a game changer.

In the 4th edition I look at "translation" from both sides, including the manufacturers of audio playback products. They are part of the circle of confusion / "translation" dilemma. Being aware of the variability in recordings they try to evaluate, and perhaps "voice" their products for some intended audience. This is guesswork of course, as we don't really know what the audience really is, what recordings to use (the current hit parade?), how much and what kind of background noise to listen in (voicing a car audio system while parked is invalid), how loud to play it (equal loudness contours affect the perception of spectral balance), what kind of room to use--and so on; the list is long.

This is why I set up a research group at Harman while I was Corporate VP Acoustical Engineering to continue the work I began at the NRCC in Canada, which included double-blind comparisons of loudspeakers from many sources, and using binaural techniques, comparisons of different car audio systems and headphones. It was clear that there were common preferences among listeners with normal hearing (roughly 75% of the population), and those preferences correlated with timbrally neutral playback systems. The research results were published for the world to see, and a group of appreciative users collaborated to create ANSI/CTA 2034B a widely used measurement standard that incorporates the spinorama presentation of data shown to have a very high correlation with subjective sound quality ratings. This has become the guidance for many products. Deliver fundamentally neutral sound reproduction, and let the customers play with tone controls or EQ to compensate for personal preferences, program variations, and listening circumstances.

So recording engineers "voice" their product to "translate" to large numbers of people, not knowing what they are listening through and where. Manufacturers of loudspeakers and other playback devices are confronted with creating systems that sound good with all recordings. I have spent time on uncompressed streaming services listening to music of all genres, and playing movies and music concert videos from my extensive Kaleidescape collection. Most of what I hear is acceptably balanced, often impressive, but occasionally it is necessary to adjust low bass level by as much as 6 db up or down from acoustically flattish to achieve what I consider to be attractive spectral balance. Some treble tweaking is occasionally needed, but my high frequency hearing isn't what it used to be so I'm missing a piece of the spectrum. Is this necessary?

MPEG-H and others of its kind that are being considered add another layer of uncertainty. Maybe the entire concept of "fidelity" is obsolete, and every listener can be a mixer.

Not grumpy this morning, but not happy either.

 

[rdenney]

I'm again reminded of the distinction for photographers between "correction" and "targeting". Correction includes those adjustments that address issues with capture devices and that achieve the artistic intent when viewed on a fully calibrated system of sufficient viewing palette. Targeting includes those adjustments that optimize the corrected image for, say, web display, or an 8x10" print on an Epson printer. Targeting processes include color and tonal adjustments for the output device, resolution adjustments, and sharpening, all of which will be different for different output devices. Standardized output devices are making this easier than it used to be, but that distinction still keeps photographers from ending up with unnecessarily different looks on different output devices.

For me, the objective of mixing is the artistic result, corrected for the input devices (microphones, etc.) and adjusted to achieve the artistic objective. I would think scrupulously calibrated neutrality would be the setup of choice, just as it is for photographers. Yes, that might require technicians of long experience with colored devices to recalibrate their hearing, of course.

The objective of mastering is to target the recording for the playback device, and again standardization should make that easier except for the significant difference in listening environments, particularly with respect to background noise.

I don't know where the decision to compress the hell out of music is taken--mixing or mastering or both?--but that seems to be an outgrowth of the old FM radio objective of "sounding louder without being louder" by raising the average with respect to the peaks. That's one decision that would very much benefit from user adjustability, or from two versions--one for high ambient noise contexts and another for quieter listening conditions. That compression seems to me to undermine realism far more than spectral tilt or bass roll-off or whatever.

Rick "often has to gain-ride classical music in the car, but even more often can't tolerate excessive compression at home" Denney

 

[Mike123]

That's one decision that would very much benefit from user adjustability, or from two versions--one for high ambient noise contexts and another for quieter listening conditions.

All of this already exists. Multichannel recordings cannot be listened to with earplugs outside. That is why their mastering is optimized for indoor listening on large acoustics. The vast majority of stereo listeners do it outside with a smartphone. That is why you should not expect normal "room" mastering from stereo. Unless MPEG-H comes, which Dr. Toole writes about. But I don't think it will be fast.

 

[respice finem]

IDK if a layman would be really capable of competently mixing/mastering. Not without a steep "learning curve" IMHO.

I would be happy with "no foul compromises" versions for the more "ambitious" listeners. Or, since "everybody and his Dachshund" seems to have to use AI, have the "ambitious" version as the "SOTA" benchmark and let AI "massacre" versions for the masses?

 

[ADU]

Alot to read and think about since my last post here.

Thank you, Dr. Toole, and also goat76, Palmer, and others for your thoughtful input and opinions on the NS10M, and its related business. Although this was not the principal thrust of my original question (which was about pros/cons of closed vs. ported or radiator designs), the subject of midrange and "grot box" monitors, and their persistent use in mixing studios is an interesting one.

Overall, I'm not sure where I land on that. I did a little mixing of electronic music in the very distant past, in an academic setting. And a little noodling with some desktop tools, like Cakewalk. But that's about it... So I don't have much basis to judge something like this.

In general, I agree with the principles of neutrality that Dr. Toole and others at Harman have laid out for my own home music listening use. There have been other theories about this in the past, but it makes good horsesense to me to extend the flat response of source components into a home listening space via the speaker's direct response. And that is my goal as well.

I think people should use the tools that work well for them though in their chosen profession. And have heard similar opinions about the value of using closed midrange monitors for various tasks in a mixing environment from other young creators in the field. And I can imagine situations where it might be more convenient and potentially beneficial to have a separate box (or boxes) for this purpose vs. using EQ.

My original question remains though about measurements and what those might or might not be able to tell us about the pros/cons of different types of enclosures and driver configurations.

 

[krabapple]

I have also heard of that mastering engineer saying that, but I have never heard anyone else before or after that saying the same. The fact is, the NS-10s were so commonly used and pretty much a studio standard for such a long time, so we should have heard many more stories of how those loudspeakers "contaminated" many audio mixes for decades. But instead, there are so many tracks and albums mixed on NS-10s that are considered some of the best done, and some of them are even regarded as top references when it comes to mixing music.

It's not like anyone was forced to use the NS-10s, and most of the mixing engineers who liked using that monitor probably came to the conclusion that it led to reliable and fast results compared to other monitors they used before, otherwise they would have quickly changed to something else, as their job is highly dependent on delivering a satisfying result to their paying clients.

Was it that (trial and error..and 'sighted', at that)? Or was it simply accepting the conventional wisdom?

 

[krabapple]

Like Dr Toole already replied to you, mixing on them is not a problem, as long as mastering was done on more neutral speakers.

Sure it could be problem -- you can't correct the EQ of an individual track at the mastering stage

 

[goat76]

Was it that (trial and error..and 'sighted', at that)? Or was it simply accepting the conventional wisdom?

It's not like it is the same thing as when some audiophiles decide they like a particular loudspeaker over another, as a choice like that hardly affects the outcome of anything. But when a mixing engineer finds a loudspeaker that he likes working with, it's no longer just about satisfying his own subjectivity, as he must also be able to deliver a fully satisfying result to his paying customers.

I'm sure there are some mixing engineers who follow the choice of their favorite fellow mixing engineers when it comes to the choice of loudspeakers, but I'm also pretty sure many of them came to the same conclusion as others, that the NS-10s gave them fast and reliable results that also satisfied their clients, otherwise they will be out of jobs in no time.

If I were about the dig a ditch and got to choose a spade, I would choose the one that was easiest to use and gave the fastest result. If I were about to dig my own grave, I would have chosen the spade that I struggled the most to use, and took me the longest time to finish the task.

 

[ADU]

It's gotten too late again. But I'll try to post a few videos tomorrow that will hopefully help to better illustrate why I'm asking about performance differences between closed and ported or radiator speakers. And how the differences of greatest interest to me might be visualized in the measurements. This is on top of the info in the NS10M study I posted earlier, which I understand from Dr. Toole has some problems.

If you want to jump ahead of me though, several of the videos that are critical of smaller ported and radiator monitors can be found here...

AP Mastering

I'm a professional mastering engineer. I'm on YouTube to make entertaining videos while creating brand awareness for my no-nonsense, great value, online courses on audio related topics and VST plugins. I studied audio engineering in 2005 (BA hons 1st). Since then I've been a recording and...

www.youtube.com

Alain includes ads for his courses in his content btw. So these are somewhat promotional in nature. I have no affiliation with him though. And it's really the content and comparisons he's doing that interest me. So I'll try to work around the ads as best I can for the content I'd like opinions on. I also anticipate that there will be some heavy criticism of these, as with the Yamaha monitor study.

As I said in my original post, I'm looking for some new speakers for my own use. And trying to better understand what I might potentially gain or lose in coherence in the lower frequencies with different types of driver and enclosure configurations. And hoping there might be some graphical or other data that could maybe help with this process. I realize there are always tradeoffs though with any design.

This is another recent video, largely devoid of science but maybe heavy on experience(?), with some interesting thoughts and history on speaker size that got my wheels turnin a little when it comes to purchasing smaller monitors. This seems to echo a few of Alain's thoughts on size as well.

 

[Floyd Toole]

My original question remains though about measurements and what those might or might not be able to tell us about the pros/cons of different types of enclosures and driver configurations.

Measurements like the spinorama are reliable indicators of how a loudspeaker system may sound. Accurate timbral reproduction is an essential starting point for any sound reproducing system. I hear of people who put greater value on ultimate loudness capability, dynamic range. That too is important, so ultimately we want both, but it seems to me that monotonous loudspeaker resonances and directional problems that color everything that is reproduced in the same way is something to be avoided. People who don't aspire to cinema or rock concert sound levels have many more options to choose from, and many are at moderate cost.

How it is designed to get a sound is a choice of the loudspeaker designer, and there are multiple alternative configurations of drivers and enclosures that can yield excellent, timbrally neutral sound. So, visual inspection of a loudspeaker by an expert can reveal some clues, but generally this information is not a reliable predictor of sound quality.

As for bass reflex vs. closed box, there are good and bad examples of both, so nothing reliable there. Bass reflex systems have a slight efficiency advantage near the low-frequency cutoff frequency. If the low-frequency cutoff frequency is below about 100 Hz, it may be that small room resonances will be a larger audible problem than even a poor woofer/enclosure design. Dealing with the problem will require equalization, and both prominent room resonances and woofer performance are minimum-phase systems which are responsive to EQ.

The "educational" YouTube videos out there are often biased by allegiance to a brand or extroverted individuals selling their opinions--caveat emptor--although there may be some "truths" buried in them, there are also myths and opinion.

The most reliable information regarding potential timbral quality of a loudspeaker is out there for many, sadly not all, brands and models: the spinorama or other comprehensive anechoic data. Spinorama.org is a useful catalog of these data, some of it coming from Amir, host of this forum. We need more of it, not more unsubstantiated, sighted, opinions from people whose hearing may or may not allow them to have opinions that matter to others. Musicians and pro audio people are unfortunately susceptible to hearing loss, just by doing their jobs or pursuing their hobbies.

So, to answer your question simply: "the pros/cons of different types of enclosures and driver configurations" are not the most relevant factors for sound quality, although they do have a relationship to efficiency and for maximum undistorted output/dynamic range. In those respects the integrity of transducer design becomes the dominant factor, and it is not obvious from external inspection. If extended bass is important, large or multiple woofers are a useful indicator, but not 100% reliable. Medium-sized towers or capable bookshelf speakers with subwoofers are very attractive alternatives because multiple small subs can substantially eliminate room resonance problems, increasing system efficiency at low frequencies, and allowing multiple listeners to share the excellence. Bass traps are optional. Dynamic range can be high enough to endanger hearing. They also encourage the use of multiple channels that ultimately deliver more rewarding listening experiences than stereo - but that, I admit, is my bias.

So, there are choices, and facts that can assist in those choices. If you have neutral loudspeakers with room resonances under control and don't like what you hear - blame the creators. They too had the same choice.

 

[pma]

The "educational" YouTube videos out there are often biased by allegiance to a brand or extroverted individuals selling their opinions--caveat emptor--although there may be some "truths" buried in them, there are also myths and opinion.

Exactly. And those videos are thus nothing but time consuming plague. All that "educational" video boom - there is usually 95% of ballast and no more than 5% of useful information.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The "educational" YouTube videos out there are often biased by allegiance to a brand or extroverted individuals selling their opinions--caveat emptor--although there may be some "truths" buried in them, there are also myths and opinion

The problem with YouTube videos about anything is that facts or accurately captured and repeatably data are unexciting. YouTube, Instagram etc. are attention-capital tools.

There are some excellent academic lectures which have been made available. But they tend not to make one's pulse race or pupils dilate.

 

[ADU]

Measurements like the spinorama are reliable indicators of how a loudspeaker system may sound. Accurate timbral reproduction is an essential starting point for any sound reproducing system. I hear of people who put greater value on ultimate loudness capability, dynamic range. That too is important, so ultimately we want both, but it seems to me that monotonous loudspeaker resonances and directional problems that color everything that is reproduced in the same way is something to be avoided. People who don't aspire to cinema or rock concert sound levels have many more options to choose from, and many are at moderate cost.

How it is designed to get a sound is a choice of the loudspeaker designer, and there are multiple alternative configurations of drivers and enclosures that can yield excellent, timbrally neutral sound. So, visual inspection of a loudspeaker by an expert can reveal some clues, but generally this information is not a reliable predictor of sound quality.

As for bass reflex vs. closed box, there are good and bad examples of both, so nothing reliable there. Bass reflex systems have a slight efficiency advantage near the low-frequency cutoff frequency. If the low-frequency cutoff frequency is below about 100 Hz, it may be that small room resonances will be a larger audible problem than even a poor woofer/enclosure design. Dealing with the problem will require equalization, and both prominent room resonances and woofer performance are minimum-phase systems which are responsive to EQ.

The "educational" YouTube videos out there are often biased by allegiance to a brand or extroverted individuals selling their opinions--caveat emptor--although there may be some "truths" buried in them, there are also myths and opinion.

The most reliable information regarding potential timbral quality of a loudspeaker is out there for many, sadly not all, brands and models: the spinorama or other comprehensive anechoic data. Spinorama.org is a useful catalog of these data, some of it coming from Amir, host of this forum. We need more of it, not more unsubstantiated, sighted, opinions from people whose hearing may or may not allow them to have opinions that matter to others. Musicians and pro audio people are unfortunately susceptible to hearing loss, just by doing their jobs or pursuing their hobbies.

So, to answer your question simply: "the pros/cons of different types of enclosures and driver configurations" are not the most relevant factors for sound quality, although they do have a relationship to efficiency and for maximum undistorted output/dynamic range. In those respects the integrity of transducer design becomes the dominant factor, and it is not obvious from external inspection. If extended bass is important, large or multiple woofers are a useful indicator, but not 100% reliable. Medium-sized towers or capable bookshelf speakers with subwoofers are very attractive alternatives because multiple small subs can substantially eliminate room resonance problems, increasing system efficiency at low frequencies, and allowing multiple listeners to share the excellence. Bass traps are optional. Dynamic range can be high enough to endanger hearing. They also encourage the use of multiple channels that ultimately deliver more rewarding listening experiences than stereo - but that, I admit, is my bias.

So, there are choices, and facts that can assist in those choices. If you have neutral loudspeakers with room resonances under control and don't like what you hear - blame the creators. They too had the same choice.

I appreciate the reply on this, Dr. Toole. I still have a few questions on this subject. But reading your takes on all of the above has been quite helpful. So thank you very much for that.

 

[ADU]

This is a somewhat hard place to start with my other questions, because it seems to cut against some of the basic tenets about the importance of looking mostly at frequency response for assessing sound quality. We have to begin somewhere though. And I'll often hear similar kinds of things in some headphone circles about the importance of other characteristics than just FR, like the lower distortion of drivers, for example. Or about a headphone's superior modal performance. Some of this is obviously legitimate and measurable. But it's also sometimes debatable how much it will effect sound quality in everyday use.

I accept that a flat on-axis response and linear-ish off-axis should be pretty high on the list of priorities for good sound in a loudspeaker. However, since I'm still a bit new to the subject of speaker design, after watching some of Alain's videos (like the one below), I also wonder about many of the features/characteristics he also seems to be indexing for, like the better time domain performance of sealed cabinets, for example.

To put this video into a little context, Alain (aka AP Mastering) says he's a mastering engineer with a BA in audio engineering. I have no reason to doubt this. The music he works on is mostly techno/electronica though. So that may figure into his preferences for using larger speakers for mastering. (Because presumably the music will be played on similar sized live audio gear in a club).

I should also point out that this video is essentially a sales pitch for his DIY full range monitor design. And that may also be coloring some of his opinions. The first 2/3 of the video is mostly his theories about why he thinks smaller ported/radiator monitors make a poor tool for his job though.

I have no intention of building my own speakers, or buying ridiculously large towers for the smaller, less than ideal listening spaces in my home btw. But it seems that many of the ideas he's discussing here could also have applications for home listening.

These are pretty short, digestible videos btw. So hopefuily some will listen to at least the first 2/3's, before he begins discussing his course on building his monitors. And maybe offer up a few opinions. Some of the main topics I'm looking for opinions on are his views on the quarter-wavelength heuristic, ports and radiators causing time domain distortion, high excursion drivers having greater potential for harmonic distortion, and the SPL-dependent effect of ports and raditors on the linearity (or non-linearity) of frequency response.

 

[Mart68]

This is a somewhat hard place to start with my other questions, because it seems to cut against some of the basic tenets about the importance of looking mostly at frequency response for assessing sound quality. We have to begin somewhere though.

Been said more than once on here and I think also by Dr Toole, that the frequency response is by far the biggest determinator of perceived sound quality, so if that's not good then move on right away to another product. That doesn't mean all the other aspects don't also matter.

 

[SigbergAudio]

This is a somewhat hard place to start with my other questions, because it seems to cut against some of the basic tenets about the importance of looking mostly at frequency response for assessing sound quality. We have to begin somewhere though. And I'll often hear similar kinds of things in some headphone circles about the importance of other characteristics than just FR, like the lower distortion of drivers, for example. Or about a headphone's superior modal performance. Some of this is obviously legitimate and measurable. But it's also sometimes debatable how much it will effect sound quality in everyday use.

I accept that a flat on-axis response and linear-ish off-axis should be pretty high on the list of priorities for good sound in a loudspeaker. However, since I'm still a bit new to the subject of speaker design, after watching some of Alain's videos (like the one below), I also wonder about many of the features/characteristics he also seems to be indexing for, like the better time domain performance of sealed cabinets, for example.

To put this video into a little context, Alain (aka AP Mastering) says he's a mastering engineer with a BA in audio engineering. I have no reason to doubt this. The music he works on is mostly techno/electronica though. So that may figure into his preferences for using larger speakers for mastering. (Because presumably the music will be played on similar sized live audio gear in a club).

I should also point out that this video is essentially a sales pitch for his DIY full range monitor design. And that may also be coloring some of his opinions. The first 2/3 of the video is mostly his theories about why he thinks smaller ported/radiator monitors make a poor tool for his job though.

I have no intention of building my own speakers, or buying ridiculously large towers for the smaller, less than ideal listening spaces in my home btw. But it seems that many of the ideas he's discussing here could also have applications for home listening.

These are pretty short, digestible videos btw. So hopefuily some will listen to at least the first 2/3's, before he begins discussing his course on building his monitors. And maybe offer up a few opinions. Some of the main topics I'm looking for opinions on are his views on the quarter-wavelength heuristic, ports and radiators causing time domain distortion, high excursion drivers having greater potential for harmonic distortion, and the SPL-dependent effect of ports and raditors on the linearity (or non-linearity) of frequency response.

While I agree in general that small speakers isn't a great way to produce deep bass, his comparison of the size of the cabinet to the 50hz wave isn't very ..sciency, and implies that the small speaker can't reproduce the large wave, which is not true.

There's no direct relationship between the size of the cabinet and how low frequencies the loudspeaker can produce. It will however affect the efficiency, so a smaller speaker will typically not be able to play the lowest frequencies as loud as a larger cabinet, everything else being equal. The Genelec in his example can reproduce 50hz perfectly well, not just very loud.

He then goes on to talk negatively about ports. Ported speakers can be engineered well, and engineered poorly. In the context of the video, he is probably right that many small monitors with ports aren't necessarily a great design. But that doesn't mean ports as a concept is inherently bad. A ported speaker will operate in the same way as a sealed speaker above the tuning frequency. So large ported speakers and modern, competent ported subs will typically have a very low port tuning - where the time domain disruption he talks about happens so low in frequency that it is not of practical consequence.

Next is high excursion drivers. Again in the context of the video, a high excursion woofer in a cheap 2-way monitor probably isn't a great idea. But high excursion, linear drivers do exist, for instance Purifi. But it won't be cheap. Generally speaking he is of course correct that you'd rather have larger speakers with larger diameter drivers being run comfortably well within their linear domain than a small speaker working at capacity. This will reduce distortion and increase dynamic range.

He shows some frequency responses and says this is marketing trying to fool you into thinking the speaker is very accurate. This is true to an extent, as the on-axis response does not necessarily show the real summed response (we need the more complicated spinorama for that). And as he points out it also doesn't show you at what sound level you can expect that graph to be true. For small monitors, the answer is obviously that it will only be true at quite moderate levels.

I also agree that hammering the on-axis response flat with EQ from the manufacturer side is not a great approach.

 

[Karmacoma]

I'm afraid there is no escape, at least at this moment of worldwide AI hype. Producers, big or small, want to appeal to a large audience, so... Maybe there should be two versions of every new issue - one for the masses, car audio and such, and one for the more discerning listeners?

If I'm not mistaken, Daft Punk made just that for their last album, Random Access Memory, but they're both real studio nerds, Thomas Bangalter litteraly grew up in a studio. The whole craftwork of this album is a testimony to music production, can't get more nerdy than this.

 

[TimVG]

To put this video into a little context, Alain (aka AP Mastering) says he's a mastering engineer with a BA in audio engineering. I have no reason to doubt this.

Dude has decided for himself that driver size is proportionate to the usable frequency response a given driver can have. While, as with most pseudo-science, there is a slither of truth in what he says, I suspect he's after clicks and views. You need to somehow differentiate yourself, I suppose this is one way..

 

[Somafunk]

This is another recent video, largely devoid of science but maybe heavy on experience(?), with some interesting thoughts and history on speaker size that got my wheeks turnin a little when it comes to purchasing smaller monitors. This seems to echo a few of Alain's thoughts on size as well

However, since I'm still a bit new to the subject of speaker design, after watching some of Alain's videos (like the one below), I also wonder about many of the features/characteristics he also seems to be indexing for, like the better time domain performance of sealed cabinets, for example.

Like many “YouTube prophets” he extrapolates a smidgen of truth, however irrelevant in the grand scheme, into a narrative that makes for a compelling argument against the current orthodoxy.

Best to watch his videos as entertainment, imho