Electrostatic speakers?

[MattHooper]

I think this brand new video from The Absolute Sound seems apropos for this thread.

It’s a review of the large Sound Lab G7-7C wide range electrostatic speakers. I heard the big sound labs long ago, but hearing almost full-range sound from a giant electrostatic speaker, not a hybrid, left quite an impression on me.

I find Tom Martin does a good job of describing the differences between electrostatics and dynamic speakers, and I find he’s quite good at conveying the impression of what it is like to listen to such a pair of speakers.

(Yes of course it being the absolute sound, ASR folks are likely to find fault, but I think some of people interested in this thread may find the video interesting)

 

[Duke]

I find Tom Martin does a good job of describing the differences between electrostatics and dynamic speakers, and I find he’s quite good at conveying the impression of what it is like to listen to such a pair of speakers.

(Yes of course it being the absolute sound, ASR folks are likely to find fault, but I think some of people interested in this thread may find the video interesting)

I agree with most of Tom's assessments. Ime (dealer disclaimer), that which the SoundLabs do well, they do exceptionally well.

Having spent a few years with SoundLabs, I would toss out three comments to Tom Martin (or to anyone else contemplating SoundLabs):

1. Pull them out at least five feet in front of the wall behind them if possible. This will improve both the sound quality and spatial quality, in my experience. The distance from the wall shown in the video is imo inadequate to the point of being borderline acceptable; ime less than 3 feet from the wall is significantly compromised. With aggressive toe-in and/or diffusion of the backwave you CAN get away with 3 feet or less, but I didn't see either in the video.

2. If Tom desires a more Harman-like response curve, greater distance from the wall will facilitate this. Remember that proximity to the wall is reinforcing the out-of-phase backwave. Also, he didn't use all of the bass available from the bass adjustment knob, so there was another 3 dB or so free for the taking there.

3. Into the SoundLab's capacitive load, and in particular into its 32 ohms (ballpark) impedance in the bass region, a tube amp may well deliver more wattage than a voltage-source-approximating solid-state amp.

My experience with such transducers is very limited, but the general approach seems to be similar to what ML is doing, just with a lot more of diaphragm area and segmentation in both dimensions which makes a lot of sense for very big diaphragms.

SoundLab's design (and patent) preceded the panels of the Martin Logan CLS. Friends urged Roger to sue for infringement of his distributed resonance patent but he declined to so.

Am i understanding it correctly that the foil is really fixed by the visible grid horizontally and vertically, so it is basically segmented into little squares of partial diaphragms acting separately from each other but getting the same signal?

Yes. It's actually a very thin sheet of mylar with a coating of graphite or something similar to hold the electrostatic charge. I forget the exact thickness of the diaphragm but when I investigated it a few years ago, SoundLab and one other manufacturer (I forget who, maybe Final?) were using the thinnest diaphragms in the industry.

Note that a continuous-curve geometry results in the diaphragm approximating a section of an expanding cylinder. So as it moves forward, it gets tensioned; and as it moves rearward, that tension is relaxed. This places stress on the diaphragm so a stronger (i.e. thicker and therefore heavier) diaphgram has to be used, particularly if the diaphragm operates full-range and is therefore subject to long bass excursions. Indeed, one of the failure modes I've seen in a continuous-curved-panel electrostat is diaphragm cracking or splitting.

This is very interesting and in theory this concept can work well at a very large listening distance for a narrow listening window without the risk of collapsing imaging once the listener´s head is moved slightly.

The SoundLabs have a very wide sweet spot; no "head in a vice" at all. This is something I enjoyed demonstrating to customer who already owned other electrostats and had become accustomed to a very narrow sweet spot. The relatively wide, uniform pattern and line-source-approximating behavior means that there is very little loudness differential for off-centerline listeners. Of course there is still an arrival time differential. But you an walk throughout the listening area and the soundstage does not collapse to the near speaker nearly as much so as with conventional speakers.

A very large speaker, suitable for only large domestic rooms, Duke?

Yes, they are large and they like a fair amount of space behind them, though unorthodox setup geometries can help to delay the arrival of the backwave when sufficient spacing isn't available.

As seen from behind the panel's curve is concave, and therefore it has a focal point (well, actual a vertical "focal line") a few feet behing the panel. Treatment at this focal point, be it absorption or diffusion or deliberately re-directing reflection, can be quite effective.

I've had customers shoe-horn a full-sized pair of SoundLabs into dedicated 120 to 140 square foot rooms. One such customer liked 'em enough that he went on to become a dealer.

* * * *

Another imo exceptional electrostat of yesteryear is the Beveridge, which placed the panel in a tall enclosure. The backwave is absorbed, and the frontwave goes through a lens system which results in unusually uniform dispersion across 180 degrees(!!!). The recommended setup geometry had the two speakers spaced wide apart and FACING one another. I can describe the advantage of this configuration if anyone is interested.

 

[MattHooper]

I agree with most of Tom's assessments. Ime (dealer disclaimer), that which the SoundLabs do well, they do exceptionally well.

Having spent a few years with SoundLabs, I would make toss out three comments to Tom Martin (or to anyone else contemplating SoundLabs):

1. Pull them out at least five feet in front of the wall behind them if possible. This will improve both the sound quality and spatial quality, in my experience. The distance from the wall shown in the video is imo inadequate to the point of being borderline acceptable; ime less than 3 feet from the wall is significantly compromised. With aggressive toe-in and/or diffusion of the backwave you CAN get away with 3 feet or less, but I didn't see either in the video.

2. If Tom desires a more Harman-like response curve, greater distance from the wall will facilitate this. Remember that proximity to the wall is reinforcing the out-of-phase backwave. Also, he didn't use all of the bass available from the bass adjustment knob, so there was another 3 dB or so free for the taking there.

3. Into the SoundLab's capacitive load, and in particular into its 32 ohms (ballpark) impedance in the bass region, a tube amp may well deliver more wattage than a voltage-source-approximating solid-state amp.




SoundLab's design (and patent) preceded the panels of the Martin Logan CLS. Friends urged Roger to sue for infringement of his distributed resonance patent but he declined to so.




Yes. It's actually a very thin sheet of mylar with a coating of graphite or something similar to hold the electrostatic charge. I forget the exact thickness of the diaphragm but when I investigated it a few years ago, SoundLab and one other manufacturer (I forget who, maybe Final?) were using the thinnest diaphragms in the industry.

Note that a continuous-curve geometry results in the diaphragm approximating a section of an expanding cylinder. So as it moves forward, it gets tensioned; and as it moves rearward, that tension is relaxed. This places stress on the diaphragm so a stronger (i.e. thicker and therefore heavier) diaphgram has to be used, particularly if the diaphragm operates full-range and is therefore subject to long bass excursions. Indeed, one of the failure modes I've seen in a continuous-curved-panel electrostat is diaphragm cracking or splitting.



The SoundLabs have a very wide sweet spot; no "head in a vice" at all. This is something I enjoyed demonstrating to customer who already owned other electrostats and had become accustomed to a very narrow sweet spot. The relatively wide, uniform pattern and line-source-approximating behavior means that there is very little loudness differential for off-centerline listeners. Of course there is still an arrival time differential. But you an walk throughout the listening area and the soundstage does not collapse to the near speaker nearly as much so as with conventional speakers.




Yes, they are large and they like a fair amount of space behind them, though unorthodox setup geometries can help to delay the arrival of the backwave when sufficient spacing isn't available.

As seen from behind the panel's curve is concave, and therefore it has a focal point (well, actual a vertical "focal line") a few feet behing the panel. Treatment at this focal point, be it absorption or diffusion or deliberately re-directing reflection, can be quite effective.

I've had customers shoe-horn a full-sized pair of SoundLabs into dedicated 120 to 140 square foot rooms. One such customer liked 'em enough that he went on to become a dealer.

* * * *

Another imo exceptional electrostat of yesteryear is the Beveridge, which placed the panel in a tall enclosure. The backwave is absorbed, and the frontwave goes through a lens system which results in unusually uniform dispersion across 180 degrees(!!!). The recommended setup geometry had the two speakers spaced wide apart and FACING one another. I can describe the advantage of this configuration if anyone is interested.

Great post! Very informative.

I was most interested in your comments about the curved design of the sound labs and the effect on the sweet spot. That’s something that Tom left out of the review.

Personally, I don’t find that the Martin Logan attempt at curving the panel does much at all to solve the small sweet spot problem. So I’m quite intrigued that sound lab managed a better job of it.

 

[Duke]

I was most interested in your comments about the curved design of the sound labs and the effect on the sweet spot. That’s something that Tom left out of the review.

I recall a visit from a couple who owned very nice flat-panel electrostats. I had two chairs side-by-side for them, and then there was a couch behind the chairs, such that different listening distances were readily available.

They re-arranged the two chairs in tandem, one behind the other, and sat down to listen. He sat in the front chair for a couple of minutes while she sat in the back chair, then they traded places. I kept my mouth shut for the time being, as presumably this was how they were accustomed to listening to electrostats. After several more minutes, I suggested they try sitting side-by-side. They looked at each other, like they were both wondering, "Can we really do that??" I re-started the music and they both agreed that, seated side-by-side, neither was giving up enjoyment of the experience. That was an easy sale.

(Imo there was probably some loss of image precision relative to their flat-panel 'stats, as this was something the flat-panel 'stats excelled at, but evidently the SoundLabs's presentation was a net improvement to them.)

The measured in-room fall-off with distance really is much lower with the line-source-approximating Sound Labs, and they do not "beam" like conventional speakers do (the full spectrum is equally represented, or very close to it, across the width of the radiation pattern). So really the only thing degrading the soundstage for an off-centerline listener is the near speaker's output arriving sooner, and that alone does not collapse the image to the near speaker nearly as badly as with conventional speakers.

 

[MattHooper]

I recall a visit from a couple who owned very nice flat-panel electrostats. I had two chairs side-by-side for them, and then there was a couch behind the chairs, such that different listening distances were readily available.

They re-arranged the two chairs in tandem, one behind the other, and sat down to listen. He sat in the front chair for a couple of minutes while she sat in the back chair, then they traded places. I kept my mouth shut for the time being, as presumably this was how they were accustomed to listening to electrostats. After several more minutes, I suggested they try sitting side-by-side. They looked at each other, like they were both wondering, "Can we really do that??" I re-started the music and they both agreed that, seated side-by-side, neither was giving up enjoyment of the experience. That was an easy sale.

(Imo there was probably some loss of image precision relative to their flat-panel 'stats, as this was something the flat-panel 'stats excelled at, but evidently the SoundLabs's presentation was a net improvement to them.)

The measured in-room fall-off with distance really is much lower with the line-source-approximating Sound Labs, and they do not "beam" like conventional speakers do (the full spectrum is equally represented, or very close to it, across the width of the radiation pattern). So really the only thing degrading the soundstage for an off-centerline listener is the near speaker's output arriving sooner, and that alone does not collapse the image to the near speaker nearly as badly as with conventional speakers.

Nice. Reminds me of the experience of listening to my MBLs with guests, were even if two people were taking the sweet spot and I was more off to the side I was still experiencing three dimensional imaging (although from a slightly different angle). That was just so neat and fun.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I agree with most of Tom's assessments. Ime (dealer disclaimer), that which the SoundLabs do well, they do exceptionally well.

Having spent a few years with SoundLabs, I would make toss out three comments to Tom Martin (or to anyone else contemplating SoundLabs):

1. Pull them out at least five feet in front of the wall behind them if possible. This will improve both the sound quality and spatial quality, in my experience. The distance from the wall shown in the video is imo inadequate to the point of being borderline acceptable; ime less than 3 feet from the wall is significantly compromised. With aggressive toe-in and/or diffusion of the backwave you CAN get away with 3 feet or less, but I didn't see either in the video.

2. If Tom desires a more Harman-like response curve, greater distance from the wall will facilitate this. Remember that proximity to the wall is reinforcing the out-of-phase backwave. Also, he didn't use all of the bass available from the bass adjustment knob, so there was another 3 dB or so free for the taking there.

3. Into the SoundLab's capacitive load, and in particular into its 32 ohms (ballpark) impedance in the bass region, a tube amp may well deliver more wattage than a voltage-source-approximating solid-state amp.




SoundLab's design (and patent) preceded the panels of the Martin Logan CLS. Friends urged Roger to sue for infringement of his distributed resonance patent but he declined to so.




Yes. It's actually a very thin sheet of mylar with a coating of graphite or something similar to hold the electrostatic charge. I forget the exact thickness of the diaphragm but when I investigated it a few years ago, SoundLab and one other manufacturer (I forget who, maybe Final?) were using the thinnest diaphragms in the industry.

Note that a continuous-curve geometry results in the diaphragm approximating a section of an expanding cylinder. So as it moves forward, it gets tensioned; and as it moves rearward, that tension is relaxed. This places stress on the diaphragm so a stronger (i.e. thicker and therefore heavier) diaphgram has to be used, particularly if the diaphragm operates full-range and is therefore subject to long bass excursions. Indeed, one of the failure modes I've seen in a continuous-curved-panel electrostat is diaphragm cracking or splitting.




The SoundLabs have a very wide sweet spot; no "head in a vice" at all. This is something I enjoyed demonstrating to customer who already owned other electrostats and had become accustomed to a very narrow sweet spot. The relatively wide, uniform pattern and line-source-approximating behavior means that there is very little loudness differential for off-centerline listeners. Of course there is still an arrival time differential. But you an walk throughout the listening area and the soundstage does not collapse to the near speaker nearly as much so as with conventional speakers.




Yes, they are large and they like a fair amount of space behind them, though unorthodox setup geometries can help to delay the arrival of the backwave when sufficient spacing isn't available.

As seen from behind the panel's curve is concave, and therefore it has a focal point (well, actual a vertical "focal line") a few feet behing the panel. Treatment at this focal point, be it absorption or diffusion or deliberately re-directing reflection, can be quite effective.

I've had customers shoe-horn a full-sized pair of SoundLabs into dedicated 120 to 140 square foot rooms. One such customer liked 'em enough that he went on to become a dealer.

* * * *

Another imo exceptional electrostat of yesteryear is the Beveridge, which placed the panel in a tall enclosure. The backwave is absorbed, and the frontwave goes through a lens system which results in unusually uniform dispersion across 180 degrees(!!!). The recommended setup geometry had the two speakers spaced wide apart and FACING one another. I can describe the advantage of this configuration if anyone is interested.

Thank you for your response Duke. Have just had a look at the Sound Labs website. They look fabulous, for sure. Couldn't seem to find dimensions, presumably, my bad. The smallest appear to be as tall as a man? Should I ever get Electrostatics, it would be Quad's for reasons of sentiment. Although, in fairness, they would be smaller, I think, and possibly much cheaper.

 

[Heinrich]

They re-arranged the two chairs in tandem, one behind the other, and sat down to listen.

Perfect stereo needs a perfect pair! LOL

Did anyone ever wonder if the story of a homogeniously moving panel is true? Do all the membrane's elements move in phase, may I dare to ask, moving with the same excursion even? I doubt that, no doubt on your side?

 

[Duke]

Did anyone ever wonder if the story of a homogeniously moving panel is true?

The non-rigid diaphragm is uniformly driven over its entire surface. This is unlike a cone or dome which is driven from where the voice coil is attached, and is therefore subject to significant bending and breakup modes at higher frequencies.

My understanding is that the diaphragms of flat-panel electrostats do have some low-level chaotic behavior (rather than the large break-up modes conventional drivers may exhibit), but that it is perceptually benign.

My understanding is that the mass of the SoundLab's diaphragm is comparable to about 2mm of air over the same surface area, so the air itself acts as an effective damping medium for low-level chaotic behavior. The unusually thin (and therefore unusually lightweight) diaphragm of the SoundLabs facilitates the air itself acting as an effective damping medium.

Do all the membrane's elements move in phase, may I dare to ask, moving with the same excursion even?

All of the cells move in-phase, and with the same excursion (same SPL/unit area = same excursion), down to the drum-head resonance frequencies of the different-sized cells. At sufficiently high SPLs the excursion will be mechanically limited and in that case I think the larger cells will have more excursion than the smaller ones.

 

[Heinrich]

The non-rigid diaphragm is uniformly driven over its entire surface.

Yep, I've heard of that. But was it proven by measurement at least for one specimen? That's unheard of, I assume.

My suspicion: while the diaphragm is of high internal resistance, still there could be an effect known as 'mirror charge'. That's an accumulation of opposite charges where the electrical field is stronger, an effect with self amplification. Break-up modes and waves from the surround (!), where they are generated, necessarily, travelling back and forth is another.

My understanding is that the mass of the SoundLab's diaphragm is comparable to about 2mm of air over the same surface area, so the air itself acts as an effective damping ...

Not quite, because air isn't a particularly lossy medium to move in. If there is damping because of acceleration of air, well that equals to sound radiation. Most probably that's not the cleanest way to dampen unwanted noises ;-)

Anyway, my question was about homogeneous movement, is it proven by measurement for at least one model, someone to drop a link here?

 

[Duke]

Yep, I've heard of that. But was it proven by measurement at least for one specimen? That's unheard of, I assume.

... Anyway, my question was about homogeneous movement, is it proven by measurement for at least one model, someone to drop a link here?

There will be a reduction in the excursion of an electrostat's non-rigid diaphragm as we approach its clamped edge, where the excursion goes to zero (there is no separate "surround" that I am aware of). Thus the diaphragm's movement is not perfectly uniform across its entire surface.

So imo this aspect of the diaphragm's motion is substantially, but not completely, homogeneous. I expect there are numerous other ways in which its motion is not completely homogeneous.

There may be a paper out there describing the movement of an electrostat's diaphragm, but I don't have a link for you.

 

[Newman]

Toole does not claim that any and all reflections from room boundaries are always beneficial irrespective of their level, delay, and direction.

Well, I am so glad that I never said that he did.

In fact, I just posted recently in the omni speakers thread that their reflections are dysfunctional in several different aspects. I couldn't possibly have said that if I thought what you claim I think, above.

I suggest you look at his statements and the cited experiments more carefully.

I suggest you look at my statements more carefully, instead of the old straw man attack.

 

[Newman]

Believe what you will.
For me, folks pulling the sited test copout over and over, gets really old.

So, science gets old when it's inconvenient? Got it. Why didn't you reply with the above words to Floyd Toole when he posted on ASR that sighted listening tests are not to be relied upon? And to Sean Olive when he posted much the same? Why the total silence, but when I say it, it's "getting really old"? What's with the hypocrisy?

What gets really old, I assure you, is people pretending to be interested in the science of audio, but only when it suits them, then throwing it in the bin when it means that they need to revise their old-style, 'hard-won in the forge of experience', beliefs about audio.

Add me to the camp that doesn't buy in to your opinion here re comb filtering from room surfaces, or Toole's if he puts it that strongly too.

Toole's isn't an opinion, it's a finding. You can't cherry pick. You can't 'comb filter' science. Take it on the chin or just walk away. Statements like the above are as good as saying "count me out if science doesn't support what I already believe".

I suggest you just try listening outdoors, and wake up both your ears and mind ! Find out just what all that comb filtering is doing.

Oh, so I need to 'wake up my ears' by doing sighted listening? In order to discredit clear scientifically-sourced data? Are you reading what you are writing?

[Edit: furthermore, you are asking me to listen to comb filtering outdoors? Are you aware that I am specifically talking about comb filtering indoors, off room surfaces? As clearly stated in my posts.]

No you have not argued a square wave is a great investigative tool.....

Oh yes I have. Both here and in other forums, recently and in the distant past.

you have argued earlier in this thread that " there is no need for a speaker to reproduce a square wave well. It's a false goal. Basically, showing off the square wave for a speaker is a showroom stunt. A myth."

You need to read me more carefully. I made a distinction that you don't seem to have noticed, a distinction between using a square wave test to investigate certain design flaws (or construction flaws), and making a superior square wave the goal of speaker (or amp) design. I explained the difference very clearly. Have another look. If you think I never said that it's a useful investigative tool, you missed something. I clearly did.

I was the one saying it's a great investigative tool, saying it totally reflects what a transfer function shows, with a little finer detail really.

Your summary list of reasons why square waves don't work, is imo a bunch of techno babble about their capacity within the audio bandwidth.....and seems primarily for the sake of debate. Are they a great investigative tool or not????

You want me to say it three times in a row?? Okay, I'll do it. It is. That doesn't mean it's an appropriate goal. As already clearly explained.

Hey, Hope the baby has a life jacket on !

Like I said, happy to be corrected. With evidence drawn from the science. So far, the baby is safe and well and still in the tub, while I chuck out the dirty bathwater being pushed into the forum.

cheers

 

[CJH]

'1. Pull them out at least five feet in front of the wall behind them if possible. This will improve both the sound quality and spatial quality, in my experience. The distance from the wall shown in the video is imo inadequate to the point of being borderline acceptabl e; ime less than 3 feet from the wall is significantly compromised. With aggressive toe-in and/or diffusion of the backwave you CAN get away with 3 feet or less, but I didn't see either in the video."
Totally agree and would add for best sound, IME the area (5 feet) behind and to the sides of the each speaker (True for any OB) needs to be just as clear of any audio equipment or pieces of furniture that could cause any sound reflections. The differences are easily heard when the reflective surfaces are removed.
CJH

 

[bmc0]

In fact, I just posted recently in the omni speakers thread that their reflections are dysfunctional in several different aspects.

Forgive me for not searching other threads for scattered comments in order to piece together your position. I'm not trying to straw-man; what you meant to convey about room reflections in the last few pages is evidently unclear to me. I agree with your comment in the omni speakers thread.

 

[Fidji]

Toole's isn't an opinion, it's a finding. You can't cherry pick. You can't 'comb filter' science. Take it on the chin or just walk away. Statements like the above are as good as saying "count me out if science doesn't support what I already believe".

I think you are a little bit in black&white. While nobody disputes most of the foundational work of Toole, on lateral reflections there are also different views, by people that are competent and have done their research. Psychoacoustics si developing science, let;s see what expanded version of Toole’s book brings up as new research and knowledge.

You know, even more famous scientists are making mistakes and correcting their older findings. Einstein’s core theories (Special and General Relativity) are still valid. However, his views on cosmology, quantum mechanics, and unification have either been proven wrong or are now seen as incomplete.

 

[Gwreck]

I think you are a little bit in black&white. While nobody disputes most of the foundational work of Toole, on lateral reflections there are also different views, by people that are competent and have done their research. Psychoacoustics si developing science, let;s see what expanded version of Toole’s book brings up as new research and knowledge.

You know, even more famous scientists are making mistakes and correcting their older findings. Einstein’s core theories (Special and General Relativity) are still valid. However, his views on cosmology, quantum mechanics, and unification have either been proven wrong or are now seen as incomplete.

I certainly am certain that many here on ASR have much more knowledge about audios than I do and although I have a strong scientific background in my education I’m not an audio engineer. What I do know is that oftentimes that findings from scientific research can be over generalized. People will form opinion based on research that does not actually apply to their circumstances and only applies to the specifics of the study. Two sets of research that is widely available that almost seems contradictory is the often quoted Floyd Toole research and that of Dr. Choueiri. Using their research the end user could get to very satisfactory audio systems through almost entirely different ideas.

 

[Newman]

I think you are a little bit in black&white.

Maybe so, but whether I am or not depends on the strength of the evidence that Toole's finding is weak. OTOH what you do next, instead of tabling such evidence, is to engage in philosophical truisms that are the hallmark of people who hope a finding is weak, so they trot out truisms about the nature of the scientific method that they think justifies them picking and choosing from the hard work of real scientists, using little more than intuition and hope that common sense is all they need.

While nobody disputes most of the foundational work of Toole, on lateral reflections there are also different views, by people that are competent and have done their research.

By ' people who have done their research', you could mean audio researchers, or you could mean lay people who have looked up the internet. Big difference.

If they are genuine audio researchers of high credibility, odds are that Toole is well familiar with their work, and has assimilated their work into his general conclusions. If his working conclusion is different to theirs, it will be because he has balanced their work within a wider context and concluded that it has issues or is outweighed.

It is a mistake to view Toole as just another researcher A who has different opinions to researcher B, so we get to 'pick one' based on our layman's grasp, or lack thereof. Toole is an absolute doyen of audio research, and the level of his perspective and overview is probably matched by only a very few of his peers.

So, if you or others here want to challenge his conclusions, you had better have something a lot more material than trite truisms about science.

Psychoacoustics si developing science, let;s see what expanded version of Toole’s book brings up as new research and knowledge.

Certainly looking forward to The Fourth Edition. But don't get your hopes up that it will finally confirm that he was wrong in earlier editions in all the areas that you (and other ASR readers) found difficult to believe (usually because it contradicts your sighted listening experiences or favourite pieces of gear).

If Toole was about to release a book that states that comb filtering off room surfaces has negative perceptual consequences and needs to be minimised for that reason, then he wouldn't have been reiterating the opposite in all the years since the 3rd edition. But he has been.

You know, even more famous scientists are making mistakes and correcting their older findings. Einstein’s core theories (Special and General Relativity) are still valid. However, his views on cosmology, quantum mechanics, and unification have either been proven wrong or are now seen as incomplete.

Again with the wishful thinking. Two points here. Firstly, that is theoretical science, whereas we are talking about experimental science. Data from experiments remains data over time, and it is hard to justify treating it as temporary in the same way as an early theory. Secondly, there are absolute frontiers of science where data is incredibly hard to gather (quantum, cosmos, etc) and theories are being formed while we are still learning ways to get to the data, and these theories are much more fluid than relatively well known domains where data is quite easy to gather and very unlikely to be disproven.

I certainly am certain that many here on ASR have much more knowledge about audios than I do and although I have a strong scientific background in my education I’m not an audio engineer. What I do know is that often times that findings from scientific research can be over generalized.

They can also be over trivialised: you only have to look in threads about products that seem to be overrated by their fans, and how they act when audio science fails to praise their product as much as they do. As far as I can tell, we are in one such thread right now.

People will form opinion based on research that does not actually apply to their circumstances and only applies to the specifics of the study.

That is why I prefer to simply state what a particularly-high-level expert has concluded from his overview of all the available research. That is what I call a safe bet. It is not cast in concrete forever, but the chances of it changing materially in the future are low for a well-understood field like sound waves and DBT listening tests, and the chances of there being a better working conclusion as of today are very low.

Two sets of research that is widely available that almost seems contradictory is the often quoted Floyd Toole research and that of Dr. Choueiri. Using their research the end user could get to very satisfactory audio systems through almost entirely different ideas.

There is no contradiction in the research: I am not aware of Toole denying the reality and effectiveness of binaural audio playback. If we had significant catalogues of popular and significant music being commercially recorded in binaural and released in binaural, then it becomes a 'very satisfactory audio system' and a legitimate sound reproduction technological option. But we simply don't. Until that happens, then a single-ended (playback only) binaural system is limited to the role of a sound effect generator. Like it as much as you want and call it very satisfactory, but it is not sound reproduction. And one look at the title of Toole's books makes it clear that he cannot base his solutions on it in today's audio production industry.

cheers

 

[Heinrich]

... findings from scientific research can be over generalized. ...

... and the following. All too true. Waving papers like flags, not really grasping the meaning.

... a mistake to view Toole as ...

Are you sure to do Dr. Floyd a favour with that? Lateral reflections it was, right? Doesn't it sound strange to you that once a technology was invented, is rolled out to the public, is standardised, has gained relevant profit, and only after scientists have to investigate its merits, or lack thereof for puplic money in context of consumer protection?

And knowledge is still spotty, to say the least. Admittedly, it was and is fun to listen to recordings. But what I see here for logical reasons, though, is a lack of confidence. That decidedly spoils the fun, doesn't it?

Once in a while some topic gets my interest. Then I investigate myself in a double sense. Take me as a laboratory mouse, following a methodology I designed from scratch. It works, and makes me dicriminate strict and easy between fun seeking listening and audio enthusiasm. Big science, I hope not, importance, nil - for the better.

 

[Newman]

@Heinrich I don't understand you. Are you just throwing mud, hoping something will stick? That's not allowed on ASR when directed against researchers who Amir regards as the top luminaries in the field. Dr Toole is absolutely on that list, probably on or near the top. We don't have to agree with him on ASR, but at least disagree with respectful regard to the man's standing, and with good arguments and evidence. People on ASR have called Dr Toole "a loudspeaker salesman" and "a corporate shill" in their desperation to deny inconvenient truths, and that's just not on. I'm sure Amir would agree.

Have you even read what Toole has written about lateral reflections? If so, what is your specific argument against it? If you have one, is it just philosophical musings about the nature of knowledge like Fidji and Gwreck, or is there strong evidence?

 

[thewas]

What also some people seem to ignore is that Dr. Toole not only did his own extensive and acknowledged in the scientific community research but in his books provide a huge insight in the work of other researches in the audio field.