Excellent link
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Evidence-based Speaker Designs
- Thread starter Ilkless
- Start date
Just because work is peer reviewed and presented doesn’t mean it’s proven and unassailable. I have publications in science and engineering (including several as first author) in peer reviewed journals. Ive given talks at science conferences on my research. I’ve also reviewed or referee’d scientific articles for peer reviewed journals as well. I’m also pretty sure that the standards for peer review for AES is lower than many other fields. It doesn’t mean as much as you are letting on.
It’s a theory because it tries to explain observations without a mechanistic understanding of what is gong on. There is no mathematical model and o molecular mechanism explaining why it is the way it is. For example, the test were performed in the US. How do we know the tests would result the same in Europe or Africa? How do we know those populations don’t have a certain genetic make up that would predispose them to favor a different set of speaker design principles.
It’s a theory backed by the best data we have. If you can present similar or better data in similar peer reviewed publications that have different conclusions then by all means we are (pun intended) all ears. Your theory and mine and anyone else’s here would at best qualify as “expert opinion” (if we can even call ourselves that) which as you probably are aware has the lowest grade when writing medical and scientific guidelines.
Of course it's not unassailable. I never said it was. What I asked was if you had any contradictory evidence, tests or information.
Otherwise you are just saying "anything can happen" without reason.
So what are your objections to the conclusions!?
I don’t object to their conclusions so much as I object to people using those conclusions to make ridiculous assertions.
For example, people in this thread have asserted that if you prefer speakers that don’t follow O’Toole design principles that it is due to a placebo effect or imply that people somehow want audio jewerly show off their status. When you listen to speakers in stereo mode, those design principles are less noticeable/important. The playing field is leveled and other sonic characteristics of the speakers may become more important.
As a scientist, the Harman theories are somewhat unsatisfying because their theories lack predictive powers. Their predictions don’t match up with my own personal preferences in my search for speakers (I didn’t care for speakers that would be considered exemplary under O’Toole guidelines) nor do they line up with what I see is happening in the marketplace.
Their work is the best within a weakly researched field. Best minds in the world arent clamoring to get into speaker design or research. There is no DoD and NIH grant money for this kind of work. Simply accepting their work as the gospel without independent verification is my definition of being dogmatic.
No. Those assertions are quite reasonable.
As a scientist I am sure you will agree that assessments made sighted are faulty. Bias will rule the conclusion.
No. In stereo the same rules apply. Toole states that without exception the speakers favoured mono were favoured stereo. You are conflating the ability to more easily hear faults in mono with being less important in stereo. That's not the case.
The theories do not lack predictive powers. They predict with very high confidence what will be preferred from the anechoic measurements.
Ok you don't like speakers that are neutral. That's, fine, but that's about you a sample of one. It's not about what makes a good speaker
As a scientist I am sure you will agree that assessments made sighted are faulty. Bias will rule the conclusion.
No. In stereo the same rules apply. Toole states that without exception the speakers favoured mono were favoured stereo. You are conflating the ability to more easily hear faults in mono with being less important in stereo. That's not the case.
The theories do not lack predictive powers. They predict with very high confidence what will be preferred from the anechoic measurements.
Ok you don't like speakers that are neutral. That's, fine, but that's about you a sample of one. It's not about what makes a good speaker
Dismissing it without reason due to personal views is equally dogmatic.
What are your specific objections to their methods and conclusions? Do you have any reason to contradict it? Perhaps many experts that have reviewed the methods and conclusions see no problem hence there is no contradictory research.
Otherwise It's very much akin to the typical audiophile mantra, of there are things we don't know yet to justify any personal beleif.
Last edited:
The burden of proof lies with the one espousing a new theory. The theory can be supported by independently repeating the same tests in different labs. I can poke holes by offering alternative theories. If my theories are plausible enough it's up those espousing the theory to devise experiments that disprove my theories. If I'm being dogmatic, it's that I'm dogmatic about the scientific method.
Last edited:
O'Toole himself writes in his latest book "[a]s active channels were added to the presentations, the ability to distinguish between sounds of different timbres appeared to deteriorate." He also gives a specific example where EQ coloring the sound was deemed bad in mono by a large margin but was almost unnoticed in stereo mode (was judged to be close to superior). This certainly suggests that certain technical attributes of a speaker are less important in stereo mode because those attributes cannot be as easily discerned in stereo modes. This is the case.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with O'Toole conclusions. I take issue more with how others use O'Toole conclusions to advance their assertions. But based on what you said above, I'm led to believe that O'Toole findings only have predictive merits in anechoic environments and thus have no merit in home stereo settings?
I don't deny I am a sample of one. You conveniently left out where I mention that the market doesn't flood to speakers with exemplary measurements.
Which they have demonstrated with scientific testing.
I'm not sure where you are going here. It comes across as you don't like the conclusions but have no basis on which to contradict them.
What are your specific criticisms of the methods they employed?
No you have it backwards. Being less noticeable in a multichannel environment doesn't make the attributes less important or desirable, it just means it less noticeable.
No. Tooles research correlates with a very high level of confidence anechoic measurements with in room listener preference.
The market has no bearing on this. The variables involved in purchasing decisions are huge.
Not least of which the bias of sighted decision making.
BTW do you also think that amps, dacs, cables, speaker wire and power cords have huge differences in sound quality?
I believe amps make a big difference. That is it.
Why? Some evidence please.
Last edited:
My definition of less important means it's less noticeable to the listener. What's your definition?
I should clarify that I believe amps with different power rating can make a big difference. If amps have equal specs, I don't know if I would be able to tell them apart.
Again I don't know where you are going with this as it makes no sense.
Less noticeable does not equate to unimportant. It doesn't mean it is un noticeable or that it is not a correct design principle. I repeat Tooles comment, without exception speakers preferred in single testing were still preferred in stereo.
So do you believe that speakers should be designed contrary to the basic principles of flat and smooth anechoic response with smooth off axis response?
Is your view that speakers with wonky responses and resonances are the way to go?
If not then you have no argument and you are just going round in circles
Less noticeable does not equate to unimportant. It doesn't mean it is un noticeable or that it is not a correct design principle. I repeat Tooles comment, without exception speakers preferred in single testing were still preferred in stereo.
So do you believe that speakers should be designed contrary to the basic principles of flat and smooth anechoic response with smooth off axis response?
Is your view that speakers with wonky responses and resonances are the way to go?
If not then you have no argument and you are just going round in circles
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,408
So if they have theories, they need to prove them with evidence, while if you have theories, they need to disprove them with evidence? Hmm..
Now I agree with you that Olive and Toole’s research is not gospel (obviously) and is not going to be the final word, but I don’t see your criticisms as consistent here.
