Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts (Read 17137 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM

.. a nice lecture that summarizes the answers to many questions that were asked here in the past .. and some more generally useful information.


- What is sound (re)production?
- The lies of marketing.
- Subjective vs. technical measurements and psychoacoustics
- Why do we need controlled listening tests?
- How to ideally do them with speakers?
- Why can people be blind to large differences in sighted listening 'tests'?

- Room acoustics
- Loudspeaker measurements (on-axis, early reflections, sound power ...)
- Correlation between these measurements and subjective evaluation.

- What kind of listeners are most consistent?
- What is the circle of confusion?
...
"I hear it when I see it."

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #1 –
So, a few hundred views but no comments?

I especially love the comparison of speakers after about 1 hour. It's fun to see a $900 loudspeaker beating the sh%$ out of $5500 one, and even a $12000 one.

What I'm missing though are nonlinear distortion specifications/measurements. I'd also love to see phase for the on-axis response.
"I hear it when I see it."

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #2 –
I just got around to watching this. Much has indeed been discussed here, but it was nicely presented. Thanks.

One thing that struck me, that may or may not have been discussed here, was his discussion of why it was important to do speaker listening tests in mono because "monophonic comparisons are much more revealing".

It makes me consider the implications of this when I am doing the overwhelming amount of my listening with 2 or more channels.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #3 –
I don't think there are any implications. Toole said that a monophonic test is just more sensitive, but the results are the same as in stereo.
"I hear it when I see it."

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #5 –
And I have doubts about what AJ says.
"I hear it when I see it."

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #6 –
Quote from: xnor on
I don't think there are any implications. Toole said that a monophonic test is just more sensitive, but the results are the same as in stereo.


I believe he says that the more the channels that are active, the less critical people are of the speaker itself.

Quote
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=710749


Thanks.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #7 –
Quote from: xnor on
I don't think there are any implications. Toole said that a monophonic test is just more sensitive, but the results are the same as in stereo.
]

It's an important point because I've seen 'audiophiles' -- and even some here -- use it again and again as a reason to doubt the validity of the Harman work.

EDIT:  I see AJ's doubts and Sean Olive's response have been linked to.  Good.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #8 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: xnor on
I don't think there are any implications. Toole said that a monophonic test is just more sensitive, but the results are the same as in stereo.
]

It's an important point because I've seen 'audiophiles' -- and even some here -- use it again and again as a reason to doubt the validity of the Harman work.

EDIT:  I see AJ's doubts and Sean Olive's response have been linked to.  Good.


I think we're on different pages here. These two quotes from Sean Olive in the linked thread pretty much reflect the implications I was thinking about:

Quote
My last point, should be viewed as good news for manufacturers who make crappy loudspeakers with poor off-axis performance: the solution for the customer is to simply buy more of them. If you fill the room with enough of them, you may not be might not be able to tell how truly bad they are -- at least until the solo instrument or dialog appears in the center channel


Quote
Our listening tests are not designed to measure what can we get away with under typical field usage conditions but rather satisfying the most discerning customer under the most sensitive listening conditions.


The use of mono appears to be like using a carefully chosen worst case test signal to measure something. Under more typical cases, the results will always be better.

So the results are not quite the same - it appears that though the order of preference is maintained, the differences between the preferences are lessened as more speakers are added. That's a very good thing for those of us who don't listen in mono very often.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #9 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: xnor on
I don't think there are any implications. Toole said that a monophonic test is just more sensitive, but the results are the same as in stereo.
]

It's an important point because I've seen 'audiophiles' -- and even some here -- use it again and again as a reason to doubt the validity of the Harman work.

EDIT:  I see AJ's doubts and Sean Olive's response have been linked to.  Good.



Classic example of audiophiles repeating the same mistake over and over  again - they judge data based on their flawed perceptions of what they think that data  should say.

For example: ABX tests show that audio signals that measure substantially the same, are impossible to distinguish reliably by means of listening.  Audiophiles *know* as a qualifying act of faith that everything sounds different, which of course it does because of the inherently naive and flawed means they use to determine such things - casual audiophile sighted evaluatoins.

Therefore, audiophiles conclude that ABX tests are incorrect because of their flawed perceptions of what they think ABX test data  should say.  They are locked eternally in a logic-tight box.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #10 –
as it happens often for me, my limited understanding makes me interpret things differently. it's kind of fun in fact to see how the entire thought process can change by adding one or 2 key data. if anything it makes for a great "pro skepticism argument" as I never know if I know enough to draw the proper conclusion.

when I first read about the mono conclusions of the harman crew, I just thought that it was logical without even thinking about all the stuff you guys(and many others) then brought up . to me if the signal was mono and I knew it, I would expect my brain to simply disregard all about space cues, because why work on something when you already have the answer? that's not the kind of stuff our brain does.
as when you get to stereo or more, space cues become one of the important things we focus on. and at the same time, as sound is coming from more places, bouncing differently everywhere, I would expect 1/the result to become messier, 2/ my brain to have to work more to make sense of it all, and become less effective at it (multitasking not being something we're good at).


couldn't that be one of the reason why they got more discriminating results in mono?

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #11 –
Quote from: castleofargh on
as it happens often for me, my limited understanding makes me interpret things differently. it's kind of fun in fact to see how the entire thought process can change by adding one or 2 key data. if anything it makes for a great "pro skepticism argument" as I never know if I know enough to draw the proper conclusion.

when I first read about the mono conclusions of the harman crew, I just thought that it was logical without even thinking about all the stuff you guys(and many others) then brought up . to me if the signal was mono and I knew it, I would expect my brain to simply disregard all about space cues, because why work on something when you already have the answer? that's not the kind of stuff our brain does.
as when you get to stereo or more, space cues become one of the important things we focus on. and at the same time, as sound is coming from more places, bouncing differently everywhere, I would expect 1/the result to become messier, 2/ my brain to have to work more to make sense of it all, and become less effective at it (multitasking not being something we're good at).


couldn't that be one of the reason why they got more discriminating results in mono?


I  look at things in a similar way.

I already know that the simpler you make  listening test, that is the fewer relevant variables, the more sensitive it is.

Mono makes a simpler test than stereo or multichannel.

QED.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #12 –
castleofargh, yeah, I'd argue similarly.
Only with a center/mono speaker you can get the same signal into both of your ears, without masking problems in one channel with another channel and without a time-delayed, filtered signal from the right speaker reaching your left ear or the other way around ...
"I hear it when I see it."

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #14 –
Quote from: xnor on
castleofargh, yeah, I'd argue similarly.
Only with a center/mono speaker you can get the same signal into both of your ears, without masking problems in one channel with another channel and without a time-delayed, filtered signal from the right speaker reaching your left ear or the other way around ...

And I have doubts about what AJ says.


Brilliant.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #15 –
Quote from: xnor on
So, a few hundred views but no comments?

Sure, I'll oblige. Would you mind showing me where the "resonances" pointed out in the (ML) panel speakers, show up in the impedance curve? TIA
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #16 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: xnor on
So, a few hundred views but no comments?

Sure, I'll oblige. Would you mind showing me where the "resonances" pointed out in the (ML) panel speakers, show up in the impedance curve? TIA


Which panel speaker specifically? Where do you see an impedance curve? Why do you expect to see "resonances" in that?
"I hear it when I see it."

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #17 –
Quote from: xnor on
Which panel speaker specifically?

The one in the video. ML something iirc.

Quote from: xnor on
Where do you see an impedance curve?

Exactly!
But they are not hard to do or find on others.

Quote from: xnor on
Why do you expect to see "resonances" in that?

Perfect, thanks. 
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #18 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: xnor on
Which panel speaker specifically?

The one in the video. ML something iirc.

How very precise.
The one with the ESL on top a woofer, right? That one, yeah..

Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: xnor on
Where do you see an impedance curve?

Exactly!
But they are not hard to do or find on others.

Quote from: xnor on
Why do you expect to see "resonances" in that?

Perfect, thanks.

So I guess you've cleared up your own confusion, at least a bit?
"I hear it when I see it."

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #20 –
Quote from: xnor on
Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM


Thanks, I missed this thread the first time around, will check out that video.

Am kind of curious about the why's of testing fewer speakers, because in my mind it would seem to answer something that's been bugging me for awhile: That packaged cinema speaker systems could get rave-reviews for their subjective performance when playing multichannel movie soundtracks but not for 2-channel music listening. Seemed to me that good speakers ought to work well in either situation.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #21 –
Quote from: 4season on
That packaged cinema speaker systems could get rave-reviews for their subjective performance when playing multichannel movie soundtracks but not for 2-channel music listening.

GIGO

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #22 –
Quote from: 4season on
Quote from: xnor on
Watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM


Thanks, I missed this thread the first time around, will check out that video.

Am kind of curious about the why's of testing fewer speakers, because in my mind it would seem to answer something that's been bugging me for awhile: That packaged cinema speaker systems could get rave-reviews for their subjective performance when playing multichannel movie soundtracks but not for 2-channel music listening. Seemed to me that good speakers ought to work well in either situation.


When you are reading a review, look for evidence of listener bias controls. If there are none then it is highly likely that listener responses are heavily influenced by their personal biases, not any actual sonic differences.

If you haven't noticed, in  some circles it is highly stylish to disrespect anything associated with HT.

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

It's been a while since I watched the video but that looks like, or similar to the graphic he points to as "resonances".
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts

Reply #24 –
Quote from: xnor on
So I guess you've cleared up your own confusion, at least a bit?

Why don't you tell us what we have there with what is shown.
Loudspeaker manufacturer