A Floyd Toole nugget that explains things?

[Newman]

If you are under the impression that Dr. Toole has implied that measurements can replace listening, that would be a mistake. People often ignore that Dr. Toole has repeatedly said when it comes to the final selection you have to listen to the speakers. There is no avoiding that.

The way you have packaged that statement leaves it wide open to misinterpretation. After all, Dr Toole has also bluntly stated that he would trust the right measurements more than his own ears in sighted listening. link

So what do you think he is encouraging the average buyer to do, specifically, that measurements can't replace? It can't be sighted listening, see above link. And yet, that is the only realistic option that the average buyer has access to. After all, if they had access to comparative controlled listening tests of multiple prospective loudspeakers (ideally in their own home, because doing it in-store will create misleading room effects different to their own homes), then they don't need the measurements at all!

The impression I get is that the listening one needs to do, in addition to using measurements to select between speakers, is more about fine tuning the speakers, than about choosing between speakers. Where to position them at home, and the listening seats. Bass output level is largely a matter of individual taste, so needs to be dialled in with EQ. Your room might be bright, or dull, and need a bit of dialling in (with care not to compromise the direct sound).

BTW, my mention of EQ above is a reminder of the folly of this notion that we need to bring alternative speakers, each with highly satisfactory measurements, into a comparative listening session for final choice. With EQ we can more than compensate for any tiny audible differences between them, so the only reason to insist on the final comparison is if one is determined to have a system that can't do EQ....and that's tantamount to self harm in today's world. And ironic: we are fussing all this much about tiny audible differences between two excellent speakers, but we won't be fixing the big issues in the in-room bass? And we are doing it sighted? And trusting that?

Why we would want to do comparative listening tests of prospective speakers to purchase, sighted, at home, after shortlisting them based on measurements, is beyond me. Unless you want to be enslaved by sighted listening effects, which I don't think is Toole's intent.

cheers

PS someone is bound to bring up that they might prefer narrow dispersion speakers, or wide, and it is not subject to EQ adjustments, but you should know that and be able to see it in the measurements.

 

[sceptical1]

Thanks for the links, Travis.

 

[Travis]

The way you have packaged that statement leaves it wide open to misinterpretation. After all, Dr Toole has also bluntly stated that he would trust the right measurements more than his own ears in sighted listening. link

Well what he actually said in that forum post was that he would trust measurements over his own his own ears in an UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. Like an audio show, a dealer showroom, or something similar. I think everyone would agree with that who has been fooled as many times as he has to something sounding decent on a hotel room at an audio show. The context of that post was responding to someone who had a misunderstanding of what his research had shown regarding what measurements tell us.

On the other hand, if he, or anyone one else is in a controlled environment, like his living room where he plans to have the speaker he says we have to listen. Dr. Olive has expanded on that with reference to the preference score, they are only so precise so you have to listen

Let me just quote him as the poor guy spends more time explaining about what he has written than he has actually written in some instances.

“The final proof, though, is in the listening because, as much as we have come to trust measurements, we must we must always be alert to new variables.”

He has said as much in many other papers, and many public lectures. He is in lock step with Richard Heyser on that score.

 

[Nih Noh]

"According to Toole:"

 

[Multicore]

Would you freely admit to being incapable of objectivity due to physical limitations or is that something that does not matter

Yes.

because you have the benefit of objective measurements that tell you what you are, or should be, hearing.

Not for that reason, afaik. I think it's just that such limited objectivity doesn't matter to me, period. In the end subjectively good sound matters - that's what satisfies.

 

[Chrispy]

According to Toole:

"hearing loss is a factor in preference, but it shows up not only as a fixed bias in preference but also as rating inconsistencies in repeated auditions of exactly the same sound - love it in the morning, hate it in the afternoon has been observed"
A fascinating thing for me to find out that explains some confusion when I listen. If what he says is true it turns out the problem is me and not the stuff.

How many here are convinced that you have a valid opinion about what you hear when, like me, you are:

Over 60 yrs old
Have tinnitus
Can barely hear up to 10khz
Take ear health for granted, intentional or not
In my case I would have to say no, even when my appreciation of music has not waned over the years or considering those afflictions still thinking that critical listening is possible, me saying anything about what is better than something else is best ignored.

Would you freely admit to being incapable of objectivity due to physical limitations or is that something that does not matter because you have the benefit of objective measurements that tell you what you are, or should be, hearing.

How deep is the confirmation bias rabbit hole when it comes to hearing what you see? Is seeing a preferred measurement of a controlled off axis or frquency response graph any different from seeing and knowing what component is playing when evaluating subjectively?

Whatever comes of this, the 4th edition of his book is a buy for me. It could be that my questions have already be answered!

One thing that intrigues me about Toole's finding is if this also applies to headphone listening. A whole 'nother rabbit hole that further confuses things no matter the answer.

Without looking at intervening posts, my reaction is that mood/time definitely is always is in play even with same gear, let alone similar gear in different rooms.

 

[Newman]

The way you have packaged that statement leaves it wide open to misinterpretation. After all, Dr Toole has also bluntly stated that he would trust the right measurements more than his own ears in sighted listening. link
....

Well what he actually said in that forum post was that he would trust measurements over his own his own ears in an UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

Yes, that's what I said he said.

Like an audio show, a dealer showroom, or something similar.

No, you are making this bit up. See below.

I think everyone would agree with that who has been fooled as many times as he has to something sounding decent on a hotel room at an audio show. The context of that post was responding to someone who had a misunderstanding of what his research had shown regarding what measurements tell us.

On the other hand, if he, or anyone one else is in a controlled environment, like his living room where he plans to have the speaker he says we have to listen.

That is not controlled. See below.

Dr. Olive has expanded on that with reference to the preference score, they are only so precise so you have to listen

In controlled conditions. Actually controlled, not your version of 'controlled'.

Let me just quote him as the poor guy spends more time explaining about what he has written than he has actually written in some instances.

Ironic that you think you are the one doing the explaining.

View attachment 450203

“The final proof, though, is in the listening because, as much as we have come to trust measurements, we must we must always be alert to new variables.”

I agree....with Toole. See below, where I explain where you went wrong.

He has said as much in many other papers, and many public lectures. He is in lock step with Richard Heyser on that score.

You have completely misunderstood the use of the terms 'controlled' and 'uncontrolled'. They are scientific experimental terms.

Controlled: only one experimental variable is changed. Any changes in the result can therefore be attributed to that variable.

Uncontrolled: more than one experimental variable is changed, so it is impossible to know which variable is responsible for any changes in the outcome of the experiment.

Here's the tricky bit: for human perception experiments, like changing audio gear and trying to form opinions on changes in the sound waves, the essential minimum control is to conduct double blind trials (DBT). Here's why: because knowing what has changed is a variable in itself. So to change your gear at home, and listen to it while knowing what has changed, is two variables, and is uncontrolled.

This is what Dr Toole means by those terms. Now, go back and re-read him with that knowledge.

cheers

 

[Travis]

Yes, that's what I said he said.

You left out the “uncontrolled listening situation” part. [His words were “listening situation” mine were environment, I like his better.]. A person’s living room (listening room where the speakers will go) isn’t an uncontrolled situation. It’s a perfectly controlled “listening situation” within his meaning. [The size of the room, walls, windows, furniture, reverberation time, etc. all the variables he discusses in his book relative to testing].

No, you are making this bit up. See below.

No, I’m not. I’m it’s in your head not mine. Read the post he is responding to, (posterer says he buys audio equipment on specs alone). I think it might click.

You have completely misunderstood the use of the terms 'controlled' and 'uncontrolled'. They are scientific experimental terms.

No, you are reading into his forum post what he meant by the term “uncontrolled situation.” He doesn’t even use the term “controlled”. He isn’t even remotely discussing experiments or variables. Again, he was responding to someone and you have to see what he is responding to. I think if you, or anyone else, reads what he is responding to the context is clear.

is what Dr Toole means by those terms. Now, go back and re-read him with that knowledge.

No thanks, he was abundantly clear is an open source paper about the need to listen, and why. (Which you didn’t address at all). Why on earth would I re-read a forum post that has nothing to do with his clear words on the need to still listen to speakers and why.

I would rather have you explain what he really meant to say in his paper, when he says people still need to listen and why. You didnt address this so I’m curious. (The paper was prepared for public consumption, easy to read and understand, not filled with math or too technical (just like every edition of his book), and cites his major papers on testing and others on the correlation of measurements to preference).

“[T]hat is another reason to listen.”

 

[Newman]

he was abundantly clear is (sic) an open source paper about the need to listen, and why. (Which you didn’t address at all).

The more I address it, the more you say I didn't. What aren't you getting?

Why on earth would I re-read a forum post that has nothing to do with his clear words on the need to still listen to speakers and why.

Because to Dr Toole, 'listen' means listen to the sound waves alone. Which can only be done with controls, including DBT. There is no difference between 'listen' and 'listen in strictly controlled conditions', in his lexicon.

Read the first edition of his book, Ch 17 "Loudspeakers I: Subjective Evaluations" section 17.3 "Controlling the Experimental Variables". He could not be more clear about the need to control the variables when one evaluates loudspeakers. A short quote from section 17.3.3 "Controlling the Experimental Variables":- "The method most preferred by product reviewers is the “take-it-home-and-listen-to-it,” or single-stimulus, method. In addition to being “sighted,” and therefore subject to all manner of nonauditory influences, it allows for adaptation. ...All that is required is that the listeners remain ignorant of the identity of the products."

I think you are making our exchange far harder than it needs to be. Your original post #18 is well written and I endorse it. There was just one sentence that I felt needed some further expansion to prevent misinterpretation. But you pushed back so hard that now you are contradicting your own post #18, in which you encourage blind listening, to the point that you are now insisting that the difference between controlled vs uncontrolled listening is home vs audio show. Why don't you just agree that Dr Toole does not endorse sighted listening evaluations, and that when he says "you have to listen to the speakers" in a final evaluation he means with blind controls, and we are no longer in disagreement.

cheers

 

[Travis]

think you are making our exchange far harder than it needs to be. Your original post #18 is well written and I endorse it. There was just one sentence that I felt needed some further expansion to prevent misinterpretation.

I guess I missed that (“There was just one sentence that I felt needed some further expansion to prevent misinterpretation.”). Not sure which sentence it was at this point, but sorry about the confusion.

 

[Travis]

think you are making our exchange far harder than it needs to be. Your original post #18 is well written and I endorse it. There was just one sentence that I felt needed some further expansion to prevent misinterpretation.

I guess I missed that (“There was just one sentence that I felt needed some further expansion to prevent misinterpretation.”). Not sure which sentence it was at this point, but sorry about the confusion.