Why no follow up studies to Dr. Toole’s and Dr. Olive’s work?

[gags11]

I really enjoy objective loudspeaker measurements, but correlating measurements to what is actually perceived as optimal or perfect, if there is such a thing, is of most importance.

After listening to Erin and Dr Olive’s talk about the research Dr Olive and Dr Toole did regarding the preference ratings, and the blatant statement by Dr Olive that this can be improved, why has there been no follow up?

In science, findings are validated or modified by repeated or updated experiments and studies. One really cannot put all its faith in one study. It may be correct, but needs validation!

Why no other minds are interested in phsychoacustic research? I would appreciate someone teaming up with Dr Olive and repeating the tests trying to avoid the prior shortcomings. This is just one obvious example.

 

[krabapple]

Their work at Harman was funded by Harman. Foundational work was funded by the Canadian government. Who do you propose to pay for more studies of speaker preference?

 

[paolomo]

Why no other minds are interested in phsychoacustic research?

That’s a valid question. Unfortunately, it’s not just about the minds. Scientific research can only exist if there is funding. If no research agency, governmental or private, has a strategic interest in a field, they won’t just fund any research on it. This is why awareness about these issues is important, and a website like ASR makes sense. It can only start from places like this.

Edit: @krabapple was quicker than me

 

[gags11]

I know there is no government or company funding. However, small donations, lending of loudspeakers for the tests, and volunteers from just this website might be enough.

 

[gags11]

One of the questions I have, does preferred FR change with age as our hearing deteriorates. There is so much more that can be done.

 

[storing]

I know there is no government or company funding. However, small donations, lending of loudspeakers for the tests, and volunteers from just this website might be enough.

You might be underestimating the cost of such research: you have to pay at least one person fulltime for something like a year (and that's not even a lot). And that's without equipment, fees for participants, ...

 

[amirm]

Their work is not pure research and is driven by company interest. This caused them to shift gears to headphones, and now surround sounds/virtualization.

 

[bluefuzz]

why has there been no follow up?

The obvious reason is that this kind of testing is expensive. Also, I understand it's a problem in many areas of science – not least in medicine – that the peer review journals are not interested in publishing 'confirmation' studies since it's not 'news' and doesn't sell journals. Couple that with the commercial pressure in many parts of Academia to 'publish or perish' or lose your funding. 'New' science is again always more interesting than confirming already 'established' findings.

 

[pierre]

I don't think money is the only reason.

Score can be sum up as: go as low as you can with a flat LW. I can back that up, one way to see it: when you create an EQ to optimise the score, you get 95% of the improvement by flattening the LW. You can get more if you want to improve the bass but you loose on SPL. the other parameters don't play much role. Also look at @malky68 EQ and look at the difference between LW optim and Score optim.

I think it is unlikely that you find something magical. Maybe distorsion is also a large variable in the midrange. We could find a better predictor but I am betting it will start with flat LW and low F3 and distorsion < 1% to define the usable SPL.

 

[gags11]

Their work is not pure research and is driven by company interest. This caused them to shift gears to headphones, and now surround sounds/virtualization.

I am fully with you, Amir! Hence, validation would be appropriate.

I come from a science culture that accepts research coming out of companies can and in many cases is biased (bio research). We need places like ASR to have objective data.

One could have argued that making a website like this, buying the measurement equipment costs a lot. You still did it. And I know how expensive research can be.

 

[storing]

If you come from science you also know there's a difference between what gets mostly done here, i.e. measuerements and showing raw data, and the rest of what establishes 'complete' studies/research i.e. combining it, statistics, trying to form conclusions and getting peer reviews.

 

[gags11]

The obvious reason is that this kind of testing is expensive. Also, I understand it's a problem in many areas of science – not least in medicine – that the peer review journals are not interested in publishing 'confirmation' studies since it's not 'news' and doesn't sell journals. Couple that with the commercial pressure in many parts of Academia to 'publish or perish' or lose your funding. 'New' science is again always more interesting than confirming already 'established' findings.

I don’t disagree with you, but you always further the prior findings by validating and asking additional questions. That’s how science goes forward. Einstein became a celebrity overnight when his prediction of bending of light based on general relativity was actually observed and validated.

Ps: I assure you there are countless journals that would accept a study that validates prior experiments and asks more questions. And why are you so sure you will get the same results? This was based on just a single study.

 

[bluefuzz]

but you always further the prior findings by validating and asking additional questions. That’s how science goes forward.

Yes, but tell that to the journal publishers or academic funding bodies ...

 

[gags11]

If you come from science you also know there's a difference between what gets mostly done here, i.e. measuerements and showing raw data, and the rest of what establishes 'complete' studies/research i.e. combining it, statistics, trying to form conclusions and getting peer reviews.

I agree, statistics will be an integral part of this type of research. The beauty of such a community we have here is that we can find interested statisticians, engineers, etc that would love to collaborate.

Data published here likely undergoes and will undergo through more rigorous peer review than in many peer review journals. I have been a reviewer myself, and know that crap gets published a lot when the few so called “elite” in the field review each others papers.

Edit: large proportion of Nature or Science papers come from big well-established labs. Many amazing findings do get published in lower tier journals. At the end of the day, how ones work impacts future research is the important thing. Article citation can be a measure in how the research was used as a base knowledge to advance science.

 

[gags11]

Yes, but tell that to the journal publishers or academic funding bodies ...

Lol, tell me about it! The reason I abandoned research for clinical work.

Not that I was not published or had no funding, but the idea that I had to beg for money to further knowledge did not make sense for me.

 

[gags11]

I truly think ASR has members from all sorts of disciplines that would love to help and participate.

I for one am ready to do as much as I can.

We come up with a relatively simple testing protocol that can be reproduced and set up. Have members from all across the world get together and test within their region or site. We collect the data from everyone, and few of our statisticians can do their magic.

Tell me this cannot be done. I’m sure many of you will be excited to do a thing like this and meet fellow members as well.

 

[Juhazi]

Google Scholar

scholar.google.fi

http://www.davidgriesinger.com/

The 3D3A Lab at Princeton University

www.princeton.edu

Acoustics and Audio Technology - Computer, Communication and Information Sciences, Master of Science (Technology) | Aalto-yliopisto

The major in Acoustics and Audio Technology equips students with a fundamental understanding of human hearing, audio perception, and physics of sound. The skills they acquire enable, for example, reducing noise pollution, planning harmonic environments and designing coherent sound experiences.

www.aalto.fi

Tapio Lokki

Lots of academic research exist on directitivy factor. Some of these have been funded by companies like Genelec here in Finland. But yes, I couldn't find listening comparisons of ready-made loudspakers. But this is just a small and rather well known issue in loudspeaker design, and mostly inlfuential in PA systems with fixed installations. Consumer's interest is now focused in headphones and earplugs, and that is affecting music mixing and mastering "style" as well, I believe, as well as science.

What I would like to see, is blind test of stereo pairs in typical home environment. Small rooms with little acoustic conditioning. Street wisdom says high and smooth DI is preferred by those who want sharp and precise imaging, typically with non-classical pop/rock. Classical/acoustic jazz afficionados mostl likely prefer wide and smooth directivity (like me).

It is good to have alternatives, but the consumer (hifist) must know what she prefers and choose her speakers and room acoustics accordingly. I am fortunate to have three different sets in different rooms, and each have characteristic sound. But I do 90% of listening in stereo with diy-dipoles in a large but" soft" lowish RT room. I hate headphones and plugs, as well as large horn speakers.

 

[posvibes]

Inside Apple’s secret Audio Labs where the HomePod was created

There’s something very different about Apple’s latest product the HomePod - it’s new territory for the tech giant and while they might be proud of what

eftm.com

 

[Frgirard]

a niche market, saturated with players with little financial means.

 

[Frgirard]

I really enjoy objective loudspeaker measurements, but correlating measurements to what is actually perceived as optimal or perfect, if there is such a thing, is of most importance.

After listening to Erin and Dr Olive’s talk about the research Dr Olive and Dr Toole did regarding the preference ratings, and the blatant statement by Dr Olive that this can be improved, why has there been no follow up?

In science, findings are validated or modified by repeated or updated experiments and studies. One really cannot put all its faith in one study. It may be correct, but needs validation!

Why no other minds are interested in phsychoacustic research? I would appreciate someone teaming up with Dr Olive and repeating the tests trying to avoid the prior shortcomings. This is just one obvious example.

the works of Toole/Olive are a version of the state of the art, by searching we find

http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/directivity.pdf