My views on audio reviewers

[Thomas savage]

You should watch the video I posted, Mr. Mod. The mostly genial Dr. Toole gets a bit tart and dismissive at times, giving the impression that he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Ah, you make the assumption I did not.

I am sure he does not want his great work to end up marginalised because of the fanatically driven fundamentalists that tend to attach themselves to his teachings in a most self defeating way. I can't be certain but I would think he cringes when he sees how his life's work is used just as a weapon to beat people on forums with rather than celebrated through being shared. This kind of behaviour cheapens his work.

One could speculate on 'why' individuals attach themselves to figure heads in this way, might be a tough read though

 

[amirm]

Based on what scientific evidence?

This: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...s/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/

Preference is for smooth, not flat response.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

This: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...s/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/

Preference is for smooth, not flat response.

That is mid/far field, not onset....and you know that...we hope.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Flat onset = downward sloping sound power.
No one advocates flat sound power.

 

[amirm]

That is mid/far field, not onset....and you know that...we hope.

Well, it sure sounded like you didn't know when you object to someone saying flat response is not what we want. You honestly thought he meant anechoic response and just forgot to say that?

Don't look for fights where these is not even a reasonable reason to have one. Are you bored with nothing else to do?

 

[amirm]

Flat onset = downward sloping sound power.
No one advocates flat sound power.

Plenty of people advocate flat response. I have lost track of how many times I have corrected people that we want smooth not flat response. What was said was correct and you had no business arguing with it and certainly not with demand of evidence.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Well, it sure sounded like you didn't know when you object to someone saying flat response is not what we want. You honestly thought he meant anechoic response and just forgot to say that?

the raw response of many speakers with beautifully "flat" anechoic measurements are just too perceptually "hot" in the highs in most rooms.

Are you bored with nothing else to do?

That must be it.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Plenty of people advocate flat response. I have lost track of how many times I have corrected people that we want smooth not flat response. What was said was correct and you had no business arguing with it and certainly not with demand of evidence.

Keep digging you're almost there...

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

OK, except for the "state of utter confusion" part, it seems we tend to agree up to a point. Where we disagree is on what can happen in measurements of specific rooms in spite of the speaker designers' intent. We are past flat vs. downward sloping, where we have agreement.

All I can say is to repeat what I have seen in a number of real world rooms, not anechoic chambers. That has been a tendency to have measured response, not necessarily flat, but above - hotter than - the desired target, and the resulting response was preferred when the "before" response was generally pulled down by EQ. Greater measured smoothness of the resulting response was also a result of this. That also often involved pulling up some troughs or down ticks in response. The cause might have been the speakers. It might have been the rooms. It might have been both. I cannot say which. And, it really did not matter to those of us involved. We got a result that sounded perceptually better, which was what we were after.

I have no idea what you are after other than a fight, Mad Dog AJ. Hey, it is Memorial Day. Remember our fighting men and women!

 

[NorthSky]

In memory to those who gave the ultimate gift of life; sacrificing their own for others...
________

Respectable views, very: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/my-views-on-audio-reviewers.502/
________

* Audio reviewers have access to a higher more diversified audio musical experience, generally.
- They come in all flavors and from various backgrounds.
- Some we accustomed to easier.
- Some have a greater influential impact than others.
- Some are humorously fun, and down-to-earth 'affordable' (suiting).
- Audio reviewers also learn from the audio products they reviewed, with time.
...Good and lesser good (or bad).
________

Celebrate love, celebrate life, celebrate the blues, celebrate the human spirit through times and history, celebrate today and each and every day.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

it seems we tend to agree up to a point.

Yes, your oft repeated, believer claim about "many speakers with beautifully "flat" anechoic measurements are just too perceptually "hot" in the highs in most rooms", is unsupported, unscientific nonsense.

 

[NorthSky]

♦ If Tom Waits was making a living as a professional audio reviewer, he ...
The guy's great artist, I like him a lot.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Yes, your oft repeated, believer claim about "many speakers with beautifully "flat" anechoic measurements are just too perceptually "hot" in the highs in most rooms", is unsupported, unscientific nonsense.

Ok, that has been my experience in a number of rooms, actually all the ones for which I have seen or made measurements myself. So, if I overgeneralize from my experience, which is entirely possible, it points to the age old issue of "measure your actual speaker/room response" before reaching any ironclad conclusions. Have you measured yours around the listening chair or in that vicinity?

I understand that you as a speaker guy see the speaker as the important element in my statement. But, notice my allusion to speakers in "most rooms".

I honestly do not know of any science that has sampled a large cross section of real world occupied, furnished, domestic rooms, such that my notion can be deemed "nonsense". Have you? The only exception I am aware of is the Holman paper I mentioned previously, which my best recollection tells me supports my view. But, by all means, have a ball and go dig that up and let's see what it says or anything else you might cite that demonstrates I am off base. I will be happy to learn from it and forever temper my ways and my statements in audiophile forums.

Happy Memorial Day, what's left of it.

 

[NorthSky]

Every morning, while having my bowl of shreddies (cereals), I read this:

Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Ok, that has been my experience

Right, just like Frank, John etc.
What's missing is the audio science. Onset data for the speakers in question and everything else related to the far field, source material, room, listening, etc.

But, notice my allusion to speakers in "most rooms".

I noticed that highly improbable claim. But have yet to see even a single specific of a single room. Nor expect to see any.

But, by all means, have a ball and go dig that up and let's see what it says or anything else you might cite that demonstrates I am off base.

Not my burden.
Let's try again, your claim:

many speakers with beautifully "flat" anechoic measurements are just too perceptually "hot" in the highs in most rooms

Single example please.

Happy Memorial Day, what's left of it.

You too.
Enjoying 99% music in 4ch stereo of course.

 

[krabapple]

Ah, you make the assumption I did not.

I am sure he does not want his great work to end up marginalised because of the fanatically driven fundamentalists that tend to attach themselves to his teachings in a most self defeating way. I can't be certain but I would think he cringes when he sees how his life's work is used just as a weapon to beat people on forums with rather than celebrated through being shared. This kind of behaviour cheapens his work.

One could speculate on 'why' individuals attach themselves to figure heads in this way, might be a tough read though

I can't be certain but I would think Toole wouldn't tolerate the sheer nonsense that some moderators allow to be posted to audio science discussion groups.

 

[amirm]

I can't be certain but I would think Toole wouldn't tolerate the sheer nonsense that some moderators allow to be posted to audio science discussion groups.

You would be the first one he would get rid of. It is this kind of sour attitude that drives countless audiophiles away from audio science and objectivity. Who wants to hang around with such miserable people?

This is your last and final notice Steven. Next post that will be of this kind of nonsense will be your last.

 

[Cosmik]

It is this kind of sour attitude that drives countless audiophiles away from audio science and objectivity. Who wants to hang around with such miserable people?

I have seen another forum where there is a tendency for the more senior members (as they see themselves) to seek out audiophile misunderstandings for rectification. The trouble is, they frequently 'project' misunderstandings where none exist - which is a variation on the Straw Man style of arguing. (Have we seen a couple of examples of this today in this forum?).

It suggests to me that they once laboured under those misunderstandings themselves and assume that everyone else still does. They are immensely proud to have overcome them, and are keen to tell the world about it - in an indirect way. In fact they would rather do that than talk about ideas or anything new. I am glad they are now on the right path in their own minds, but do they have to be so unpleasant about it?

 

[NorthSky]

Good fun humor from audio reviewers and film critics is cool.
Playing baseball is cool too. Living is fun, barbecues, children playing, adults laughing, girls chasing boys, vice versa, ...all that cool ♫ jazz.

 

[krabapple]

I have seen another forum where there is a tendency for the more senior members (as they see themselves) to seek out audiophile misunderstandings for rectification. The trouble is, they frequently 'project' misunderstandings where none exist - which is a variation on the Straw Man style of arguing. (Have we seen a couple of examples of this today in this forum?).

It suggests to me that they once laboured under those misunderstandings themselves and assume that everyone else still does. They are immensely proud to have overcome them, and are keen to tell the world about it - in an indirect way. In fact they would rather do that than talk about ideas or anything new. I am glad they are now on the right path in their own minds, but do they have to be so unpleasant about it?

In my case, you would be quite incorrect.