It is really worth it for me to buy Dr Toole's Sound Reproduction book?

[Jim Shaw]

Why wouldn’t Toole apply to rock or rap or pop?

Likely because Toole's text is about sound reproduction, not so much about sound enhancement. Toole applies if you apply. The home theatre and pop music enhancement guys are all over the internet. The art of sound enhancement doesn't get much treatment in Toole.
Have you read Toole's 3rd edition? In total?
.....
I have considered respect for the musically inclined who produce pop and rock. I used to do it. The guys at the controls are creating that music just as surely as the singers and musicians. They are good at production and less considerate of reproduction.
So, be proud of enjoying the production value of pop and rock, not ashamed of it. But Toole is about reproduction. There's hardly a word there about adding sizzle, emphasizing the kick drum, or enhancing a snare. Or how to mic a Marshall, or which plug-in will make a singer sound like he/she is in your face. Or which speaker will up your dance rhythm.
.....
Just be aware of Toole's tome; you'll know if and when you want to know what he professes about reproduction. Because you will find yourself wanting to know, more than just wishing you knew.
To ~quote one guy here, "Toole is a science text, not Betty Crocker."

 

[gene_stl]

I recommend reading Dr. Toole's book. I have been reading books on electronics and audio since approximately 1959. I learned a lot by reading his book and don't regret the money I spent buying it. (retail !!!) I likes reading books. Not everbody does. But it's a very good way to learn stuff.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Likely because Toole's text is about sound reproduction, not so much about sound enhancement. Toole applies if you apply. The home theatre and pop music enhancement guys are all over the internet. The art of sound enhancement doesn't get much treatment in Toole.
Have you read Toole's 3rd edition? In total?
.....
I have considered respect for the musically inclined who produce pop and rock. I used to do it. The guys at the controls are creating that music just as surely as the singers and musicians. They are good at production and less considerate of reproduction.
So, be proud of enjoying the production value of pop and rock, not ashamed of it. But Toole is about reproduction. There's hardly a word there about adding sizzle, emphasizing the kick drum, or enhancing a snare. Or how to mic a Marshall, or which plug-in will make a singer sound like he/she is in your face. Or which speaker will up your dance rhythm.
.....
Just be aware of Toole's tome; you'll know if and when you want to know what he professes about reproduction. Because you will find yourself wanting to know, more than just wishing you knew.
To ~quote one guy here, "Toole is a science text, not Betty Crocker."

I’m halfway through Toole. I just don’t understand why it would make a difference if the recording being reproduced is jazz, classical, or pop. His book seems to be about how we perceive sound and how the applies to reproducing the recording. It so far at least is pretty agnostic about genre.

 

[Jim Shaw]

I’m halfway through Toole. I just don’t understand why it would make a difference if the recording being reproduced is jazz, classical, or pop. His book seems to be about how we perceive sound and how the applies to reproducing the recording. It so far at least is pretty agnostic about genre.

Good start. You left out rock, rap, and blues, but OK.
Toole is very agnostic about musical classification. True and for a wise reason.
Toole's target is generic, faithful, tested, heard, reproduction. You are wise to look elsewhere for the enhancement that a majority of rock, pop, R&B, and rappers live and spend for.

Yes, Toole's science prevails. But to your point, reading Toole may not be a fast track for most. Just like the most demanding gourmands almost never start by studying organic chemistry.

Glad you're reading the text, though. You cannot lose by understanding Toole's principles. I keep a copy on a nearby shelf for when I think, lemme look again at what Floyd said about that... Maybe he'll inspire you to membership in the AES and the ASA. A lot of the smartest folks hang out there, and they share their advancements in the audio and acoustical arts and sciences. Their papers on the why and some of the how-to are seriously good. And a lot of them take all varieties of music very seriously.

Good luck on a long, rewarding journey. Though I'm sure he'd deny it, Floyd Toole sort of researched and wrote a kind of Newton's 'Principia' of audio. Nobody yet has made 'Principia' into a Readers' Digest story, that I know of.
[full stop]

 

[jhaider]

Toole's target is generic, faithful, tested, heard, reproduction. You are wise to look elsewhere for the enhancement that a majority of rock, pop, R&B, and rappers live and spend for.

I think the point being made (and I strongly agree with it) is, whether you're talking about reproducing an live chamber orchestra concert or reproducing a rave or reproducing any studio-constructed whatever, you're still talking about reproducing in every case. Why would the pop/rock/R&B/hip hop/electronica/etc. fan not want to hear as precisely and accurately as possible what the collective of artists (which includes everyone in the studio) created for her to hear?

Yes, Toole's science prevails. But to your point, reading Toole may not be a fast track for most. Just like the most demanding gourmands almost never start by studying organic chemistry.

I dunno...molecular gastronomy has been a thing for quite a while now.

Good luck on a long, rewarding journey. Though I'm sure he'd deny it, Floyd Toole sort of researched and wrote a kind of Newton's 'Principia' of audio. Nobody yet has made 'Principia' into a Readers' Digest story, that I know of.
[full stop]

Funny, I don't see it quite that way. I consider Sound Reproduction analogous to what attorneys call a "hornbook" - a reasonably concise but pithy lit review of the relevant source material.