There is nothing holy about the signal

[Miguelón]

I have the impression that the discussion turns in circles. When joining ASR and after a little research I had the impression that things were clearer than before to me but now I’m again confused…

If I well understood, a DAC is audible transparent if is well constructed and measured, so doesn’t introduce artifacts on the signal. Amplifiers can be quite accurate so, therefore at the speaker level one can figure out we preserve more or less the same information that had the technician at the studio.

Speakers can introduce distortion, color and noise but here the goal is to have some good quality one to minimize the alterations. At this point, one can still hope not altering so much the thing.

Where music reproduction gets complicated is on room-speaker interaction and here is where people disagree: I red here many different opinions which can be resume on the following.

1- Room response analysis and DSP treatment is required to hi-fi level reproduction.
2- Don’t touch my fu***ing signal and buy a better speaker that matches room and radiate adequately.
3- Use smart placement and absorption materials to improve irregularities.
4- I don’t care about hi-fi, what matters is my pleasure.
5- A little bit of the last items in varying proportions.

Am I forgetting something or misunderstood anything?

 

[Sal1950]

Am I forgetting something or misunderstood anything?

You pretty much wrapped that up. LOL

 

[tmuikku]

I have the impression that the discussion turns in circles. When joining ASR and after a little research I had the impression that things were clearer than before to me but now I’m again confused…

Yeah, problem is people just don't know, neither the writer nor the reader which makes most text just noise that confuses. I read a lot of posts like where someone could describe "bestest fastest quickest bass I ever heard was this speaker, and it must have been due to that brand make and model woofer because it has one gram cone!", while in reality it's never just one thing that makes the impression but multiple things, always, the whole system that includes the listener, the room, the speaker, the whole signal chain in the loop. Even the speaker in isolation is not just the woofer, but the whole thing is made certain way to achieve the result, that it achieves. And the listener is huge part of the equation, perhaps he didn't take metro this morning because it was sunday and auditory system did not adapt to loud low frequency noise and any loudspeakers bass would have sounded better than any other day on the same week. Same for how the system was setup, someone just had good sense how to setup a system in the room and it just snaps. I bet if the listening spot one happened to be had serious modal issue the bass wouldn't have made such impression, on the other hand if the person reference at home has huge modal problems any more sensible system might sound better in comparison almost regardless what the speaker is, but just how the system works in the room. I listed many issues here that affect perception of bass, and none of them consider any make or model of woofers.

My point is, there is lot of false assumptions floating around, all kinds of textual expressions trying to describe perception but the perception is not included with the text, the reader just sees the text but doesn't perceive the sound! Most often there is not enough information in these forum discussions to give proper context to get any meaningful information about any text, but this is really hard to spot before enough perceptual experience and thought about how systems sound like and why. This is why simple silver bullet solutions float around, most people just don't know what they are reading, or writing, or perceiving for that matter, which is very confusing and the silver bullet helps. Like buying new cables because that is easy, the sound improved but not because the cables make any difference to the sound but because auditory system makes the difference, brain considers the sound better because it must be due to the currency units spent. I'm not saying I'm any better, but I've got enough experience participating forums and fiddling around with sound to have noticed this side of things. It is very hard to connect text and perception, and vice versa, it is confusing. All we can do is try to learn and understand our own context so that we could communicate better with others and understand their context, in order to reduce the confusion.

 

[Newman]

I have the impression that the discussion turns in circles. When joining ASR and after a little research I had the impression that things were clearer than before to me but now I’m again confused…

If I well understood, a DAC is audible transparent if is well constructed and measured, so doesn’t introduce artifacts on the signal. Amplifiers can be quite accurate so, therefore at the speaker level one can figure out we preserve more or less the same information that had the technician at the studio.

Speakers can introduce distortion, color and noise but here the goal is to have some good quality one to minimize the alterations. At this point, one can still hope not altering so much the thing.

Where music reproduction gets complicated is on room-speaker interaction and here is where people disagree: I red here many different opinions which can be resume on the following.

1- Room response analysis and DSP treatment is required to hi-fi level reproduction.
2- Don’t touch my fu***ing signal and buy a better speaker that matches room and radiate adequately.
3- Use smart placement and absorption materials to improve irregularities.
4- I don’t care about hi-fi, what matters is my pleasure.
5- A little bit of the last items in varying proportions.

Am I forgetting something or misunderstood anything?

I would add 6- I own a product that disproves everyone who disagrees with me, merely by its existence!

 

[Miguelón]

Yeah, problem is people just don't know, neither the writer nor the reader which makes most text just noise that confuses. I read a lot of posts like where someone could describe "bestest fastest quickest bass I ever heard was this speaker, and it must have been due to that brand make and model woofer because it has one gram cone!", while in reality it's never just one thing that makes the impression but multiple things, always, the whole system that includes the listener, the room, the speaker, the whole signal chain in the loop. Even the speaker in isolation is not just the woofer, but the whole thing is made certain way to achieve the result, that it achieves. And the listener is huge part of the equation, perhaps he didn't take metro this morning because it was sunday and auditory system did not adapt to loud low frequency noise and any loudspeakers bass would have sounded better than any other day on the same week. Same for how the system was setup, someone just had good sense how to setup a system in the room and it just snaps. I bet if the listening spot one happened to be had serious modal issue the bass wouldn't have made such impression, on the other hand if the person reference at home has huge modal problems any more sensible system might sound better in comparison almost regardless what the speaker is, but just how the system works in the room. I listed many issues here that affect perception of bass, and none of them consider any make or model of woofers.

My point is, there is lot of false assumptions floating around, all kinds of textual expressions trying to describe perception but the perception is not included with the text, the reader just sees the text but doesn't perceive the sound! Most often there is not enough information in these forum discussions to give proper context to get any meaningful information about any text, but this is really hard to spot before enough perceptual experience and thought about how systems sound like and why. This is why simple silver bullet solutions float around, most people just don't know what they are reading, or writing, or perceiving for that matter, which is very confusing and the silver bullet helps. I'm not saying I'm any better, but I've got enough experience participating forums and fiddling around with sound to have noticed this side of things. It is very hard to connect text and perception, and vice versa.

Well, I’m not criticizing any post in concrete. Just trying to learn audio science and having the impression that some points of hi-fi are still controversial.
Which is normal in most of other sciences BTW… more likely in one in which preferences and enjoyment are part of the finality of the technical aspect

 

[tmuikku]

Yeah of course. There is a mind game you can play yourself trying to get handle on controversial topics

First, assume that all the controversial posts you read are true, because why would people come here and spend their time trying to lie about something subjective? Then it is quite easy try and start reasoning: in which context person A claims are true, and in which different context person B claims are true? If you can figure that out, you've now got sense of the situation and it's not confusing anymore. Contradicting texts might both be true, just from different perspective to the same subject and they just didn't know, or couldn't communicate over to understand each other better so you need to do it, in order to understand the conversation.

Actually, I think the confusion stops immediately after you assume everyone speaks truth because now you know to look for the context. Well, there might be number of other reasons for controversy, some people just want to debate, or hold their stance even if proven otherwise, but these get easier to spot as well. Of course things are more mysterious than this, I don't know any of you so all I can do is try to blend in and understand what's it all about, but it's a start, trying to understand different contexts and that we all have very different ones. In the end, we all have to explore these things more or less ourselves, with our own perception, in order to make sense to it and have our own perspective that we can understand and communicate over, which helps to understand others context and differences between, which will hopefully reduce confusion over time

 

[Miguelón]

First, assume that all the controversial posts you read are true, because why would people come here and spend their time trying to lie about something subjective?

Wow, I can’t suppose contradicting posts are all true!

That doesn’t means at all that the redactor is lying: just that believes on what he write.

Controversy usually rise among topics on which there’s no universal agreement that satisfies all people.

In the particular case of audio field, I suppose that the science is non-controversial and one can choose the optimal way to reproduce accurately the studio conditions if enough data about it and resources are disposable.

But most of times we had neither one or the other, so engineering tries to deal with the efficiency problem to approach the solution with limited data/resources: and they exist various equivalent solutions to customer satisfaction.

And also perhaps to many people the goal is not to reproduce studio conditions and have the best experience they can: science can’t tell so much about that. Surely many engineers can agree with the science to build over a river but when you ask “how can you build a NICE, GOOD and BUDGET FRIENDLY bridge” then the discussion begins…

 

[Davide]

Indeed, trying to conceptualize the issue too much becomes misleading and defocused in its own way.

The various points of view converge on the fact that the final reproduction cannot be traced back to an absolute reference, therefore it would have to be adapted partly to pseudo ("empirical") references, partly to one's own perception, all according to proportions, means and completely arbitrary and/or convenient methods.

Discussing what is appropriate to do in this sense becomes a discussion as an end in itself, therefore, very subject to verbal interpretations, ways of expression, and anything else that characterizes human thought and communication.

From a scientific and ethical point of view, therefore, it would be sensible and necessary to start from these assumptions to try to identify, if possible, a universally valid form of liking, a reference that can be considered such, a guideline, but also new methods of creation, transport and audio playback. Without falling back into preconceptions. Without considering current standards too established. And above all, considering the fundamental aspects of collective usability, simplification, cost and sustainability.

This is what the research has been based on so far, it is what the Audio Engineering Society represents and what it makes sense to continue working and thinking about. Without getting too stuck on the technical, ethical and philosophical issues relating to the current state.

Let us remember that the essence of our audio experience is linked to "practical" liking, not to standardization to something undefinable, including in liking itself.

 

[Basic Channel]

No doubt.

Finally got round to hanging 3 acoustic panels behind my L/C/R speakers as it's my least well behaved surface. Opted for 4" deep as I had space...
View attachment 377307

How do the light sabers affect imaging?

Jokes aside, they look cool but can't really work what they are or where they in terms of depth of image!

 

[gnarly]

Do you really feel that confident to infer how a studio system sounded just based on the balance in a mix? I get your general reasoning, but I’m suspicious that the inference could be that strong or reliable to really get around the circle of confusion.

Hi Matt, yes I do.

Maybe about 6-8 years ago, to make measuring and setting up the individual driver sections of DIY active multi-ways, I would keep gain controls for each driver section readily available. Twas mainly to mute all but one section and help set relative levels, polarity, and delays.
On finishing up a 4-way DIY, I got lazy and left all the gain controls in the customizable remote I was using just for development. I had been removing them previously.
I found I enjoyed playing with them as a form of EQ. And after a few years a pattern really started forming.
It became pretty clear I was simply countering, surfing, the embedded tonality made in the circle of confusion....countering a particular monitoring speaker/room.

Like you, I'd really prefer to not have to fiddle or touch a tone control.
But when there a track that either is very tonally wrong, or a new one I'm binge craving listening to, it's awesome to be able to dial it in.

(I should add, my preference is amplified studio music. I almost never touch live-recordings (which I often find are not as good as studio versions of the same track).

 

[gnarly]

That's not a "tonal imbalance" its the sound of the artists production.
Sorry you don't like it.
And it's perfectly fine for you to adjust it to your taste but don't call it better, it's now something else, not their product.
Oh brother, you think you know better than the producers what their product should sound like.

Hi Sal, I disagree.

If every recording studio had the same speakers and room setup, tuned the same way....
then I think it would arrogant to think I could adjust a track better than the artists and producers.

But I'd be naive, downright foolish, to think such homogenous studio conditions are even remotely realistic.

 

[tmuikku]

Everyone could make fun thought experiment to get perspective on things:
when ever record is put on a platter, imagine you could call the team who made it happen on site to comment on the sound. Would they say, "yeah that sounds great, better than I remembered. We had lousy gear back then and all we cared was the emotion from the music. Crank it up please, thanks! nice". Or would they be like "hey, please notch that 6kHz bump on it and your bass is off, let me demolish your room and rebuild it better to fix the bass". Or what ever, this is a thought experiment so it's on you to imagine how the people are. Now, put on another record and call them up, what now? Would they revert the setting the previous group had you to make? How many records until they all comment mostly "that it's fine, no need to fix anything, except I'd like to revisit my own mix because it hasn't never sounded good on any other gear than that which was on the studio, the colored one."

 

[Sal1950]

when ever record is put on a platter, imagine you could call the team who made it happen on site to comment on the sound.

There's a big part of the issue here.
Your starting with a 1960 audio source.

If every recording studio had the same speakers and room setup, tuned the same way....
then I think it would arrogant to think I could adjust a track better than the artists and producers.

Still, your tuning it to YOUR preferences, not the mixing team or anyone else's.
It's a bit inflated to think yours is "better" than what came off the file.
It's just different.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

There's a big part of the issue here.
Your starting with a 1960 audio source.

Still, your tuning it to YOUR preferences, not the mixing team or anyone else's.
It's a bit inflated to think yours is "better" than what came off the file.
It's just different.

Better is inherently subjective and personal. Better does not exist naturally. It is an abstract concept and requires a stated goal to be objectively measurable. That goal is always predicated on a human desire for something. While some base desires are clearly driven by biology, eating, sleeping, sex etc by the time we get to things like audio “better” resides almost fully in the realm of personal preferences.

Or to state it in a far more ironic and convoluted way. The production teams’ idea of better isn’t objectively better than the consumers’ idea of better

 

[Newman]

...that's what he said: "It's just different".

If you don't want to hear the sonics that were created for you to hear, then fine. But people who are interested in the art itself, and what it sounded like itself, don't go around tainting it, because they are interested in it per se. Similarly, most people don't walk around art museums wearing rose coloured glasses, and failing to even see the nuanced colours that the artists worked so hard to create.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

...that's what he said: "It's just different".

Yeah…. He also said “Oh brother, you think you know better than the producers what their product should sound like. ”

Sal has a pretty clear history of opinions on this topic

If you don't want to hear the sonics that were created for you to hear, then fine. But people who are interested in the art itself, and what it sounded like itself, don't go around tainting it, because they are interested in it per se.

BS. The recording was created for the public to listen to on a multitude of playback systems. My choice of playback system is no less valid than yours or anyone else’s nor is indicative of a lesser interest in art. This is the same bogus fanboy status minded gatekeeping that plagues Sal’s position.

Similarly, most people don't walk around art museums wearing rose coloured glasses, and failing to even see the nuanced colours that the artists worked so hard to create.

Clearly you are not an artist. As an artist I can assure you that we work under the most analytical light we can in order to produce the best work we can. It absolutely is not the light we want the work to be seen in.

 

[kemmler3D]

I have the impression that the discussion turns in circles. When joining ASR and after a little research I had the impression that things were clearer than before to me but now I’m again confused…

If I well understood, a DAC is audible transparent if is well constructed and measured, so doesn’t introduce artifacts on the signal. Amplifiers can be quite accurate so, therefore at the speaker level one can figure out we preserve more or less the same information that had the technician at the studio.

Speakers can introduce distortion, color and noise but here the goal is to have some good quality one to minimize the alterations. At this point, one can still hope not altering so much the thing.

Where music reproduction gets complicated is on room-speaker interaction and here is where people disagree: I red here many different opinions which can be resume on the following.

1- Room response analysis and DSP treatment is required to hi-fi level reproduction.
2- Don’t touch my fu***ing signal and buy a better speaker that matches room and radiate adequately.
3- Use smart placement and absorption materials to improve irregularities.
4- I don’t care about hi-fi, what matters is my pleasure.
5- A little bit of the last items in varying proportions.

Am I forgetting something or misunderstood anything?

Yes, you've basically got it.

The problem is that once the sound leaves the speaker cone and starts bouncing around the room, there is no single quantitative standard we can compare to.

Everywhere up to that point, the input should match the output, simple enough.

But it's impossible to define exactly, and hard to define even generally what "fidelity" means once the sound is in your actual, physical room.

Should your room just sound good to you?

Should it sound like a recording studio?

Should it sound like the musicians are in the room with you, or should it sound like you are in the room with the musicians?

There's no single, final standard to compare to, so we end up with these big argumentative threads about it.

 

[Keith_W]

If you don't want to hear the sonics that were created for you to hear, then fine. But people who are interested in the art itself, and what it sounded like itself, don't go around tainting it, because they are interested in it per se. Similarly, most people don't walk around art museums wearing rose coloured glasses, and failing to even see the nuanced colours that the artists worked so hard to create.

You know, this thread is a good debate between what the artist intended, and what the artist did.

Michelangelo's David has a big head, big torso, big arms, and small feet. The proportions are all wrong. Why did he do that? Because the statue was meant to be mounted high on a building and viewed from down below. Perspective distortion would restore the correct proportions. If you are making a small scale replica, would it be wrong to restore the proportions so that you don't end up with a comically distorted looking figurine? Most people who view David in the museum would look at a faithfully recreated replica and think to themselves, "that does not look like David, his head is too big!" without knowing why. If you own a David replica, look at it and ask if the head looks too big to you. There is a chance that it has been altered, which restores the artist's intentions, but not reproducing the statue correctly.

I agree with @Justdafactsmaam when he says that the sacred waveform dies at the microphone. Anybody who listens to orchestral music knows that there is no such thing as "faithful" reproduction. Your seat in the concert hall massively influences what you hear. I went to a piano concerto and sat in the front row, but too far to the right. I could barely hear the piano, most of what I heard all evening were cellos that were too loud. Gerald Moore (a noted accompanist for lieder) drily remarked that "recording engineers turn down the piano and turn up the singer. They LOVE doing that". He had a lot to say about balance in recordings.

Then there are all those weird sounding recordings, e.g. this Bostridge/Drake recording of Schubert lieder. It is obvious that Bostridge is moving around the microphone, because his voice wanders from a stable centre image, to the left speaker, and then to the right. Sometimes it snaps quite suddenly. I imagine that someone placed a stereo mic too close to him creating phase issues when he moved closer/further to the mic. It's not an issue with my speakers either, I hear the same thing with headphones. To get rid of this distracting effect it is best to listen in mono, which is exactly what I do.

 

[Newman]

Yeah, but anybody who thinks I wanted to say that artists want us to view their work under the lighting used to paint or create the art, completely got the wrong end of the stick. That would be like me saying a conductor wants us to listen to recordings by putting our speakers in the cathedral or large reverberant venue where the orchestra played. Ridiculous!

Why do people twist things so? They must know they are doing it. Too desperate to score points, maybe?

Ya gotta laugh when you see people so desperate to be right that they flippantly call the best understanding of the process, ‘bogus’.

The understanding of the sound reproduction process that I am putting into this discussion, is the same perspective that the whole concept of sound reproduction is based on. It’s the same understanding that audio engineers have used for all their advancement of sound reproduction, since the year dot, and still today. The same understanding that Toole lays out in detail as being ‘what this game is all about’. But keyboard warrior Joe Blow knows better, he knows “that’s just bogus”. Gotta laugh.

And you know why he is doing this? Because he is totally committed, as in 100% fan committed, big bucks committed, to a playback technology that creates a Science Fiction Soundstage that nobody has heard or even approximately heard, or conceived, at any point in the process of making the recordings! Wow. Just wow. And it’s everyone else that’s bogus, right? Honestly. The old advice about glass houses and throwing stones is pertinent here. But sadly, won’t be heard.

We have seen before what can happen when someone is totally overcommitted to a playback technology that doesn’t respect the sound reproduction process. Namely, everything that doesn’t suit their desired endpoint gets twisted backwards, all the way up the chain, with no limit and no respect. After all, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. Just check his opinions about Toole, for example. Company hack, anyone? Outdated oldtimer, anyone? You get the idea: no respect, no limit.

Same person as will insist that bass transients are instantaneous, then without blinking follow that up with insistence that 20 Hz bass has a rise time of 5 milliseconds, then when questioned about his real knowledge of Fourier analysis, tell everyone he’s had enough and we can all enjoy our smeared bass. Just prancing around like he’s the Grand Lecturer, while actually revealing a pretty flawed understanding of what the real game is here, on an audio science forum.

I came here to learn (and have learned a lot), and to share what I think I have learned from the best, and to the best of my ability. Not to get my ankles bitten by people with attitude problems.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Yeah, but anybody who thinks I wanted to say that artists want us to view their work under the lighting used to paint or create the art, completely got the wrong end of the stick.

Your words,
“In terms of high fidelity, what we want to have integrity to, is the sonic and musical 'art package' that the musicians and sound engineers created for us to enjoy in our homes, and that they heard in their studios. If all sound studios were identical and unchanging (an idea with its own problems), then we could replicate it in our homes and 'job done', integrity is preserved.”

“If you don't want to hear the sonics that were created for you to hear, then fine. But people who are interested in the art itself, and what it sounded like itself, don't go around tainting it, because they are interested in it per se.”

“Similarly, most people don't walk around art museums wearing rose coloured glasses, and failing to even seethe nuanced colours that the artists worked so hard to create.”

We got the end of the stick you kept sticking in our faces.

That would be like me saying a conductor wants us to listen to recordings by putting our speakers in the cathedral or large reverberant venue where the orchestra played. Ridiculous!

No it’s more like saying in terms of high fidelity, what we want to have is integrity to is the sonic and musical ‘art package’ that the artists and engineers heard in their studios.

Not a perfect quote. I cut the fat. But essentially what you have said in fewer words

Why do people twist things so? They must know they are doing it. Too desperate to score points, maybe?

It’s not twisted. You have said the same thing over and over again. It’s what the artists heard despite the fact that what they heard was through an analytical tool. Just like the visual artist uses an analytical light.

Ya gotta laugh when you see people so desperate to be right that they flippantly call the best understanding of the process, ‘bogus’.

“Best understanding”? You do have confidence in yourself. But self declaration of expertise doesn’t cut it. If you want to make the logically flawed argument from authority ya gotta at least demonstrate expertise. Then you have a genuine logical fallacy

So?

The understanding of the sound reproduction process that I am putting into this discussion, is the same perspective that the whole concept of sound reproduction is based on.

You just took argument from authority to a whole nuther level. Now you speak for every recording artist and engineer? I think not

It’s the same understanding that audio engineers have used for all their advancement of sound reproduction, since the year dot, and still today.

Dang you took it to yet another level.

Sorry, but you don’t speak for all the recording artists and engineers throughout the history of recorded music.

You are citing a make believe reference. Much like trying to use what you imagine all those artists and recording engineers heard when they made all those recordings.

JJ has taught us in no uncertain terms, real references have to be singular in nature and accessible. Your allusions to some universal understanding of how everything is audio works are neither.

The same understanding that Toole lays out in detail as being ‘what this game is all about’. But keyboard warrior Joe Blow knows better, he knows “that’s just bogus”. Gotta laugh.

Ah, it all comes back to the alter of Dr. Toole

And you know why he is doing this?

Let the mind reading begin…

Because he is totally committed, as in 100% fan committed, big bucks committed, to a playback technology that creates a Science Fiction Soundstage that nobody has heard or even approximately heard, or conceived, at any point in the process of making the recordings!

Sometimes new technology is such a break through that it is difficult for those invested in their ways and beliefs to accept, understand or appreciate. It’s particularly difficult for fanboy gatekeepers who have turned a few dated studies into dogma at the expense of real advancement.

It is funny though that you think it was a big bucks commitment. It represents about 4% of the retail cost of my system.

Sorry but your mind reading failed and you got it backwards. I committed the “big bucks” after I processed the magnitude of the break through.

As for the soundstage being sci-fi. Well I guess anything that pushes technology past previous assumptions about the limits of audio playback will seem like science fiction for those who think audio is essentially a closed subject. Ironically the accuracy of a well executed BACCH based system is easy to demonstrate with live vs playback direct comparisons. Nothing sci-fi about that.

We have seen before what can happen when someone is totally overcommitted to a playback technology that doesn’t respect the sound reproduction process.

Much like what happened here with Dr. Toole’s research and book from what? Three decades ago? An over commitment that had followers believing that our understanding of audio playback and technological breakthroughs were complete right then and there

Just check his opinions about Toole, for example. Company hack, anyone?

On the contrary, despite your ironic misrepresentation of my position I give Dr. Toole full credit for his work. I just don’t treat his research as dogma nor believe advancement of the state of the art stopped with him

Outdated oldtimer, anyone? You get the idea: no respect, no limit.

Some of his research is outdated. It happens when technology and research continue to advance.
Newton was a genius. But a lot of his work has been superseded. It happens

I came here to learn (and have learned a lot), and to share what I think I have learned from the best, and to the best of my ability. Not to get my ankles bitten by people with attitude problems.

And yet it appears you stopped learning and started gatekeeping once you took Dr. Toole’s research and book as dogma and as the final chapter in audio.

But Dr. Toole definitely brought some great principles to audio that I think are pretty timeless. The idea that blind listening tests are the final arbitrator of sound quality.

I would love to put an old school stereo system that adheres to the principles of sound quality as put forth by Dr. Toole’s book and research to a blind preference test against a system using the BACCH SP with playback gear and a listening room optimized for it.

Who knows, maybe I would be surprised. But I’d bet the house that with listeners that don’t have a deep emotional investment in Dr. Toole’s book and research the results would be nearly 100% in favor of the later system.

I would love to put it to the test some day.