What they might have considered is to use the microphone in the control device (smart phone, tablet, Alexa, etc). I recall that, at one time, Harman had devices that utilised a microphone in the provided remote control.
Not at all. His approach indicates that removal of all technical electronic and acoustical compromises to result in a low distortion flat response (i.e., transparent) reproduction wil be preferred by the vast majority of listeners in blind listening tests. Thus, it validates, exactly, your purist approach to "taking as much room as possible out of the equation."
Really? None of that was in the book I read. He seems to presuppose the desirability of in-room reflections, and suggests that a smooth off-axis response that matches the on-axis will make those reflections provide what he calls "envelopment". That all seems to me to be putting the room into the equation, quite deliberately. I would guess that @dasdoing (and others) prefer a cleaner, "purist" presentation without all the blurring and smearing. I sure do. And he doesn't really test for distortion - he just handwaves it away, as not very important.
Did you skip the passages on nonlinearities, early reflections and the references to third research? Your criticisms are childish.Yes I did - four times.
Next level in science about high fidelity is maybe exploring more about why we experience music in certain ways.
Not just roomcorrection, but stereo-system compensations, compressions, limiters, dynamic eq:s and such …? This has already begun a long time ago, but the quality doing this gonna be better - my five cents.I think Toole is wrong about the theories about subwoofer placement in corners ( looks good in theory but sounds bad with real music ) but he is right on many other things such as those you mention.
From his book Ed 1: “A custom listening room is therefore the ideal opportunity to optimize the loudspeaker/room system, and the topic of where to selectively place absorbing, reflecting, and scattering surfaces and devices will reappear in the following sections. It is probably safe to assume that the floor will have carpet (best if it is a clipped-pile, jute-backed, acoustically porous type), installed over a thick felt cushion so that the combination behaves like a broadband absorber (see Figure 21.3). It should be in a location that provides some attenuation of the floor bounce from the front L, C, and R loudspeakers.” (Pg 311) (my emphasis)
I missed one thing. Strange that no one pointed this out:I do not know. This is not strange, applies to all areas. I could just as easily have said: Something new has happened on the front of beekeeping since X wrote the reference work and carried out his research 40-50 years ago? In other words, I'm just generally curious and, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I do not question Toles's research findings.
audiosciencereview.com
What I say is what I say. I said 40-50 years ago when there was a revised edition of the book 2017. Then I was wrong. I discovered that myself now. I corrected myself.What, are you suggesting we should have pointed out Toole's book, in answering your question, "New findings, research that complements or rejects, disprove Dr. Floyd Toole theories, or some of them."?
I don't think Toole's own book is the place to find that!
I stand corrected and apologize. I have read the first edition of his book many times . I must have missed this. Its good that its recommended a carpet or rug in front of the speakers . Toole is right.From his book Ed 1: “A custom listening room is therefore the ideal opportunity to optimize the loudspeaker/room system, and the topic of where to selectively place absorbing, reflecting, and scattering surfaces and devices will reappear in the following sections. It is probably safe to assume that the floor will have carpet (best if it is a clipped-pile, jute-backed, acoustically porous type), installed over a thick felt cushion so that the combination behaves like a broadband absorber (see Figure 21.3). It should be in a location that provides some attenuation of the floor bounce from the front L, C, and R loudspeakers.” (Pg 311) (my emphasis)
So Toole says the opposite of what you say he says. And you say you read it four times.
Seems so, as the factor "carpet" is also mentioned frequently in the 1st/2nd edition (most have the 2nd which is the same like the 1st, the current quite changed one is the 3rd), for example in page 477:
It hasn’t changed. It was elaborated.
In other words, it has changed. As in, it's not the same as before.
I can't communicate if we do not use the same vocabulary.
you might wanna google how Einstein and Newton describe gravity, the Newtonian description is completely discarded.
