Dr. Toole's 4th Edition Book is Coming! (Discount)

[krabapple]

I have focused on sound quality, the attenuation of room resonances, and the reduction in seat-to-seat variations for which there is an audience--anyone with a home theater, however rudimentary, in which entertainment is to be shared among multiple listeners.

People need to keep this perfectly reasonable goal in mind (along with Dr. Toole's proviso about first reflections working beneficially to enhance envelopment when speakers have good off-axis performance.)

Many of us here, I daresay, do most of our listening solo, and don't often need to 'share'. Optimizing sound quality for 'us' in one seat is the priority, seat-to-seat variation is not a concern.

And as far and envelopment goes, as Dr. Toole has reported from the literature, there is a preference difference between two populations: production-like listeners, who listen for etched detail over envelopment, vs typical listeners, who favor envelopment. I daresay we solo listeners here split along those lines too, or seek a happy medium.

 

[Suono]

Are you saying that, for example, in a relatively small club and stage, say 30' x 40', sitting more or less in the middle, towards the front, you don't get a spatial presence of where the different instruments are or the volume of the room? In a large auditorium sitting away from the stage that makes sense to me, but not in the smaller venues systems like ATMOS are trying to emulate, often quite successfully IMHO. It does vary a lot with the individual recording mix too.

They are two different ways of listening with different needs, as we know. Which brings you closer to reality? It's subjective; for me, stereo is the preferred choice. Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to a stereo recording: two microphones, drums, electric bass, guitar, bass flute, and saxophone. I listened to it again in the same room with the system. Nothing was missing. obviously the recording was not "touched" what entered the studer's tape was played.

 

[Floyd Toole]

People need to keep this perfectly reasonable goal in mind (along with Dr. Toole's proviso about first reflections working beneficially to enhance envelopment when speakers have good off-axis performance.)

Many of us here, I daresay, do most of our listening solo, and don't often need to 'share'. Optimizing sound quality for 'us' in one seat is the priority, seat-to-seat variation is not a concern.

And as far and envelopment goes, as Dr. Toole has reported from the literature, there is a preference difference between two populations: production-like listeners, who listen for etched detail over envelopment, vs typical listeners, who favor envelopment. I daresay we solo listeners here split along those lines too, or seek a happy medium.

There is a paper from a while back that I have quoted somewhere that reports results of a survey indicating that many recording engineers prefer a strong direct sound when working, but more reflections when relaxing. The current trend to near-field monitoring is not friendly to home environments, so I would suspect that the pattern may still exist.

 

[Floyd Toole]

They are two different ways of listening with different needs, as we know. Which brings you closer to reality? It's subjective; for me, stereo is the preferred choice. Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to a stereo recording: two microphones, drums, electric bass, guitar, bass flute, and saxophone. I listened to it again in the same room with the system. Nothing was missing. obviously the recording was not "touched" what entered the studer's tape was played.

It sounds as if you listened in the same room in which the recording was made. If so, you are half way to "reality" with little effort. In binaural recordings the results are much more persuasive when the listener sits where the dummy head was located. What the eyes see and the ears hear before "play" is pressed makes a difference.

The room resonances in the recording match those in the playback environment. A big deal.

 

[andyc56]

Did anyone get the hardback version of the book? If so, does it have the same problem of text too close to the spine that the paperback does?

 

[Floyd Toole]

Did anyone get the hardback version of the book? If so, does it have the same problem of text too close to the spine that the paperback does?

Unfortunately, under the covers they are the same books. I am as unhappy as you are - not a good page layout this time. Authors don't see the book until it is done, and then it is too late.

 

[andyc56]

Unfortunately, under the covers they are the same books. I am as unhappy as you are - not a good page layout this time. Authors don't see the book until it is done, and then it is too late.

Thanks. I'll have a look at getting the e-book.

 

[Suono]

It sounds as if you listened in the same room in which the recording was made. If so, you are half way to "reality" with little effort. In binaural recordings the results are much more persuasive when the listener sits where the dummy head was located. What the eyes see and the ears hear before "play" is pressed makes a difference.

This is a stereo recording played through stereo speakers

The room resonances in the recording match those in the playback environment. A big deal.

Why? In general, and hypothetically, it should be the worst case scenario: you record a resonance and then excite the same resonance at the same frequency. This is not the case, because it is built and treated to resonate as little as possible, but I repeat, it could be the worst case scenario.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I know it was a stereo recording, but I realize that what I said was confusing. Our binaural hearing systems like to hear what the eyes see. It is true in both loudspeaker stereo and in binaural recordings. In the latter "externalization" of images is a problem without head movement tracking, but if the recording and playback acoustics are the same, externalization can happen more easily.

Yes you are superimposing the same room resonances - once in the recording and once in the playback room. But the pattern of resonances is the same, so the musical content of program is more easily accepted as being "real". The brain likes familiarity, and when it sees and hears compatible sounds the perceptions are more realistic. The extreme problem is superimposing a concert hall recording on a small room acoustical signature. The eyes don't see a hall, and the ears hear small room resonances and reflections.

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

Envelopment. It would seem very difficult to accomplish properly live or at home!

live concert halls that I have a life time experience with are, or have been, terrible.

2 examples:
Massey Hall- Acoustics with extreme reverberation and low frequency resonance is one of the worst, contrary to what the average person might say. Do they really like it, or is it just something positive to say and going against true feelings?
Stephane Grappelli buried in a thick soup of reflections - YUK!
Okay, so the problem has been realized and the building gets a major overhaul and there's much less reverb now.

Roy Thompson hall back in 80's - Orchestra sound was terrible and I knew it but again people said it was great. Unsurprisingly, there was a major renovation to improve the acoustics.


Hummingbird Centre - Zappa Plays Zappa at 20 rows from the stage. I heard mostly stage sound with no distracting reverberation or low resonance. Wonderful!

Jazz Clubs in Toronto. Fantastic near the stage. All instrument harmonics present while avoiding distracting room acoustics. Similar to home stereo without the precise localization. Near the back of the room, no so good with dry brass sound and some room resonance.

My old 16x20 stereo room had extensive full coverage broadband absorption. It was great

My new room that is partially completed will have 100 percent surface coverage of broadband absorption.
Some diffusion can be added later. Will I want it? I say no but it is possible

 

[audiofooled]

Yes you are superimposing the same room resonances - once in the recording and once in the playback room. But the pattern of resonances is the same, so the musical content of program is more easily accepted as being "real". The brain likes familiarity, and when it sees and hears compatible sounds the perceptions are more realistic.

How about systems which reduce vertical reflections (CBT designs), and/or ones that don't drop SPL by doubling the distance in the same manner as a point source? Horizontal directivity control fit for time-intensity trading setup?

Proximity effects or even close to head localization can be an uncanny perception, but IME sometimes brain can accept a fully synthetic acoustic event as materializing out of thin air together with it's early spatial perception. Have you had such an experience where some important reflections are not absent (as in anechoic chamber), but low enough in level?

 

[krabapple]

My old 16x20 stereo room had extensive full coverage broadband absorption. It was great

My new room that is partially completed will have 100 percent surface coverage of broadband absorption.

wow

 

[Floyd Toole]

How about systems which reduce vertical reflections (CBT designs), and/or ones that don't drop SPL by doubling the distance in the same manner as a point source? Horizontal directivity control fit for time-intensity trading setup?

Proximity effects or even close to head localization can be an uncanny perception, but IME sometimes brain can accept a fully synthetic acoustic event as materializing out of thin air together with it's early spatial perception. Have you had such an experience where some important reflections are not absent (as in anechoic chamber), but low enough in level?

In terms of how they couple to low-frequency room resonances CBTs are like any other pressure sources. Full-range dipoles would be different of course, as they are "velocity" sources. Todd Welti elaborates on modal coupling in the 4th edition.
Perceptions of "proximity" have been of interest for many years ; Toole, F. E. (1970). “In-head localization of acoustic images”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 48, pp. 943-949. In it I demonstrate that there is a continuum from external to internal (in-head) localization. Odd effects occur when the brain gets conflicting or incomplete information.

 

[Fidji]

An important and noble cause. "Pragmatism over quality” was from a monitoring perspective, i.e. conditions unrealistic at home. I just responded to comments about very acute listeners, mixing and mastering engineers, being pictured as half-deaf. The objective of listening is simply different, and soffit mount or nearfield monitors are for good reason, including evaluation of the full AE dimension.

Reproduction of the (full) AE dimension is a challenge but no training at all is needed to perceive enjoyable LF interaural change. Naive listeners between ages 6 and 96 recognise AE reliably.

Monitoring is not only a question of more AE, but to represent the source faithfully, from intimate to grandiose. While stereo needs a listening room to create space, listening room dominance easily becomes a limitation in surround and 3D formats. Thereby, surround and 3D lose their primary music advantage over stereo: Ability to modulate the listener-space.

Mono "bass management” is like giving up on the full AE dimension before you even try. Physiologically, it spans four octaves, so robust recordings are still able to shine some envelopment despite, but not with the fidelity needed in monitoring, e.g. for placing microphones.

While headphone renderers don’t convey AE well either, it is only a question of time before they do. Then, asocial listening sadly will have another recognisable and tangible benefit over enjoying a piece of music together.

Sorry if this is covered extensively somewhere else - what would be speaker layout and settings to demonstrate AE in real world? Do you maybe have also some recordings known for being “bass AE” friendly?

FWIW - I have 9.8.7 layout, with ability to steer/EQ each sub. I have experimented with setting X-over for L-R to 60Hz and it was beneficial. Going even lower did not improve, and also settign overall x-over to 60Hz was rather detrimental [loosing DBA/Waveforming bass clarity]

BTW - if i listen to good MCH live recording illusion of “being there” is very real, but I attribute it more to Direct/Indirect SOund ratio in the room. Same for 2Ch sources from large venues - I use heavily adjusted Auromatic upmixer [e.g. height layer highpassed at 120Hz, Front Wides added as part of Surrounds Array [and attenuated] etc].

Thanks in advance.

 

[Finn]

Finally I have time to read the book . In the foreword it is mentioned that the fourth edition includes:

Measureable performance guidelines for loudspeaker designers

Going through the Contents I struggle to find a chapter specific to this. I have read the 3rd edition, where I would say that Predicting Listener Preference could be seen as a guideline. But I wonder if that is it?

 

[dziemian]

Is there a chance for reprinting this book in the nearest future? As much as I loved my 3rd edition I dont like the unfortunate layout of the 4th? I dont want to buy ebook nor damage the printed one after a few readings. It is obviously the publisher's fault and a failed attempt to cut costs.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Is there a chance for reprinting this book in the nearest future? As much as I loved my 3rd edition I dont like the unfortunate layout of the 4th? I dont want to buy ebook nor damage the printed one after a few readings. It is obviously the publisher's fault and a failed attempt to cut costs.

I have complained to the publisher - I am not happy with it either.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Finally I have time to read the book . In the foreword it is mentioned that the fourth edition includes:

Measureable performance guidelines for loudspeaker designers

Going through the Contents I struggle to find a chapter specific to this. I have read the 3rd edition, where I would say that Predicting Listener Preference could be seen as a guideline. But I wonder if that is it?

As I have commented on ASR more than once, single number ratings of sound quality are not as reliable as understanding how to interpret spinorama formatted anechoic data. They were useful in Olive's subjective/objective correlations but even there it was noted that bass performance accounted for about 30% of overall subjective impressions of sound quality. Bass is dominated by low-frequency extension and small room resonances. This factor can only be addressed in individual listening rooms.
So, the "measurable performance guidelines" are in the interpretation of comprehensive anechoic data, especially if presented in spinorama format. Competent loudspeaker designers have no difficulty following it, as is shown in slide show 6 on the companion website for the 4th edition of my book.

The foreword was written by the publisher - sorry if you were misled.

 

[Finn]

As I have commented on ASR more than once, single number ratings of sound quality are not as reliable as understanding how to interpret spinorama formatted anechoic data. They were useful in Olive's subjective/objective correlations but even there it was noted that bass performance accounted for about 30% of overall subjective impressions of sound quality. Bass is dominated by low-frequency extension and small room resonances. This factor can only be addressed in individual listening rooms.
So, the "measurable performance guidelines" are in the interpretation of comprehensive anechoic data, especially if presented in spinorama format. Competent loudspeaker designers have no difficulty following it, as is shown in slide show 6 on the companion website for the 4th edition of my book.

The foreword was written by the publisher - sorry if you were misled.

No worries, since it was especially mentioned i expected it to be in there. I know that the preference score has some uncertainty to it when it comes to absolute ranking, but I would not expect a loudspeaker that does terrible on the score to be a good one?

I was only able to find the companion website for the third edition, I was curios to see what you meant. Maybe someone can post a link to it?

 

[GL1zdA]

Just bought the e-book, or better, I bought "a license to use the e-book". This DRM is absolutely atrocious. No PDF download (but they allow my to print it in 2-pages increments with a giant watermark across each page!), no ePub download, access only through their app (no Linux version obviously). Hopefully, I will scrap it before the 5-year period of "online" access ends.