Dr Floyd Toole paper on measurement and EQ

[AJ Soundfield]

Journal of the AES » 2015 July/August - Volume 63 Number 7/8
Open access, so non-AES members should be able to view.
Very good read.

cheers,

AJ

 

[mep]

I think this just might be the wrong crowd for this paper. I can think of another site that loves them some charts and graphs and anything or anyone that was ever tied to Harman.

 

[MDP]

I think this just might be the wrong crowd for this paper. I can think of another site that loves them some charts and graphs and anything or anyone that was ever tied to Harman.

Mark, what's wrong with Harman?

 

[Mike]

In defense of Mark, he's saying things tongue in cheek. There is another site that drinks graphs and charts all day, sometimes at the expense of proper subjective listening.

I'm wondering, did Stradivarius use graphs and charts and measurements to tune the best violins in the world still today?

No, he used his ears.

When we can measure tonality, depth of soundstage and so many other aspects of listening, I'll pay more attention to measurements.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

There is another site that drinks graphs and charts all day, sometimes at the expense of proper subjective listening.

Well, I prefer a cold Newcastle myself ....but those two things need not be incongruent, nor always framed as a dichotomy. Some of us are quite capable of both, others only one. The paper is mainly about EQ and relevant measures...not "Harman" per se.

I'm wondering, did Stradivarius use graphs and charts and measurements to tune the best violins in the world still today?
No, he used his ears.

Be careful with those analogies!

When we can measure tonality, depth of soundstage and so many other aspects of listening, I'll pay more attention to measurements.

You're making this easy, we can measure those. Since the days of Blumlein!
As I asked on another site during my brief stay, if this "stuff" is beyond known science/measurements, exactly how did it end up being designed, engineered and manufactured into an electro-acoustic product(s)?
I think we're all to old too believe in magic. Alchemy perhaps?
Anyway, back to the EQ paper...:hey:


cheers,

AJ

 

[mep]

In defense of Mark, he's saying things tongue in cheek. There is another site that drinks graphs and charts all day, sometimes at the expense of proper subjective listening.

I'm wondering, did Stradivarius use graphs and charts and measurements to tune the best violins in the world still today?

No, he used his ears.

When we can measure tonality, depth of soundstage and so many other aspects of listening, I'll pay more attention to measurements.

Mike knows exactly what I'm talking about. There is another forum that has driven away members due to the unrelenting pounding of people with graphs and charts to 'prove' their point and most of them were sourced from Harman. The objectivists have won the battle there and like AJ, they proclaim anything that can be heard in audio can be and is being measured. It's a dirt road trip to nowhere and ends up being a giant exercise in mental masturbation.

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of people on AS are subjectivists who love to discuss how components look, feel, and sound vice drooling over a set of measurements and graphs.

 

[joeinid]

edit ....

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of people on AS are subjectivists who love to discuss how components look, feel, and sound vice drooling over a set of measurements and graphs.

Mark,

Measurements only tell part/some of the story. In my limited experience, gear that measures worse than some has given me more musical satisfaction than gear that measures perfectly.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

There is another forum that has driven away members due to the unrelenting pounding of people with graphs and charts to 'prove' their point and most of them were sourced from Harman.

That's horrible. Forcing people to sit at their computers and read posts and threads they don't like! Like this one.

The subjectivists have won the battle there.

Congrats to them. Battle? Is this music and stereos we're talking about?

like AJ, they proclaim anything that can be heard in audio can be and is being measured.

Nope, made no such claim. You might try reading the paper.....

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of people on AS are subjectivists who love to discuss how components look, feel, and sound vice drooling over a set of measurements and graphs.

Possibly...and this one in one thousand threads prevents that?

 

[mep]

So AJ posts a link to an interesting AES publication and gets told this might be the "wrong crowd".

Am I alone in thinking that was offside?

I do believe the majority of people on AS are subjectivists - but does that make it right to deride objectivist contributions?

I am not deriding the article, I'm merely stating my opinion that the people on AS may not be the most receptive crowd for reading a 29 page engineering paper that objectivists would claim to love. Notice this thread had zero responses until mine. It probably would have died a natural death if I hadn't of posted. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have expressed my opinion and breathed life into this thread. So please kiwi, read the article and share your thoughts with the forum.

 

[Vapor1]

Every time one of these threads come up, I just can't help but shake my head about why some people are so opposed to educating themselves about a hobby which they're supposedly passionate about. Doesn't make sense to me, don't you guys want to better understand these uber-expensive magic boxes?

 

[puroagave]

Every time one of these threads come up, I just can't help but shake my head about why some people are so opposed to educating themselves about a hobby which they're supposedly passionate about. Doesn't make sense to me, don't you guys want to better understand these uber-expensive magic boxes?

I like these threads and its not over my head but all too often it devolves into an objectivist vs subjectivist food fight wherein one side that lives and dies by the numbers go out of their way to trash the opinions of those that rely on personal observation; i.e music lovers that actually listen and judge with their ears. the charge is usually led by trolls that don't have two nickels to rub together and love to tell you how much money you've thrown away on gear by following the advice in TAS and sterophile. why they even engage in high-end forums is beyond me.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I like these threads and its not over my head but all too often it devolves into an objectivist vs subjectivist food fight wherein one side that lives and dies by the numbers go out of their way to trash the opinions of those that rely on personal observation; i.e music lovers that actually listen and judge with their ears. the charge is usually led by trolls that don't have two nickels to rub together and love to tell you how much money you've thrown away on gear by following the advice in TAS and sterophile. why they even engage in high-end forums is beyond me.

Hopefully the mods see this as a deliberate attempt to derail the thread, have it devolve into the desired bickering (and containing several insults - the first in the thread). Nothing to do with EQ at all.
Why people feel absolutely mandated/forced to engage in topics they abhor, is beyond me.

 

[puroagave]

Hopefully the mods see this as a deliberate attempt to derail the thread, have it devolve into the desired bickering (and containing several insults - the first in the thread). Nothing to do with EQ at all.
Why people feel absolutely mandated/forced to engage in topics they abhor, is beyond me.

AJ I'm not talking about you or your post specifically, and I also see where MEP is coming from. IMHO a separate "technical" section on the forum would better serve your post and others like it rather than putting it in the general audio discussion forum. its not my site, its just a suggestion.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ I'm not talking about you or your post specifically, and I also see where MEP is coming from. IMHO a separate "technical" section on the forum would better serve your post and others like it rather than putting it in the general audio discussion forum. its not my site, its just a suggestion.

Rob, that's certainly an option, but Toole runs the gamut in the paper, talking about instruments, concert halls, production, etc, and yes, the general topic is centered around EQing and "correction" products. Of course there's technical aspects, but I've seen his quite technical speaker video posted by none other than Mike in another part of the forum. I don't see why any of this wouldn't be "General"...but I especially don't see why MEP et al would be so perturbed as not be able to just ignore a topic they have no interest in.
Seriously, how about, "Hey, I really have no interest in EQ/measurements....so I'll simply ignore the topic and instead participate in threads I do have an interest in."
Not sure what's so difficult about that.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Smile]

In defense of Mark, he's saying things tongue in cheek. There is another site that drinks graphs and charts all day, sometimes at the expense of proper subjective listening.

I'm wondering, did Stradivarius use graphs and charts and measurements to tune the best violins in the world still today?

No, he used his ears.

When we can measure tonality, depth of soundstage and so many other aspects of listening, I'll pay more attention to measurements.

If I had Stradivarius' hearing I too would have no use for measurements. But alas, no.
So, I find products that measure relatively well then use my ears to ID the voicing that suits me and the 'magic'.
I don't trust my ears to find and fix the nulls and peaks in my listening room. Frankly, it seems shortsighted to ignore tools that can be helpful to us all w/o Stradivarius Ears.

* It is unfortunate enthusiast sites like this one of all hobbies bring out the "If we don't agree, you are not only wrong, you personally are ____________ ." We say we come here to learn, only to reject the points and people who disagree with us. Pretty silly of us, huh?

 

[Mike]

No one is rejecting measurements, we just don't want to be beaten over the head for preferring a product that sounds better, but measures worse than one that measures well, but is not appealing to our ears. Measurements only tell part of the story. They're interesting and no one has done more in the area than Floyd Toole.

 

[the professor]

I found the article very informative and educational. Thanks for posting it.

 

[mep]

No one is rejecting measurements, we just don't want to be beaten over the head for preferring a product that sounds better, but measures worse than one that measures well, but is not appealing to our ears. Measurements only tell part of the story. They're interesting and no one has done more in the area than Floyd Toole.

In the latest edition of SP, JA wrote a review of the AQ Jitterbug. JA found that the Jitterbug improved the sound of 3 of the DACs he tried it with. When JA measured the Jitterbug, he could find no measurements to indicate why this is so and he wasn't happy with that. However, he strongly recommends it to the readers.

 

[MDP]

AJ, thanks for posting a great article. Floyd Toole has done a lot to advance loudspeaker development in the world.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ, thanks for posting a great article. Floyd Toole has done a lot to advance loudspeaker development in the world.

You're welcome. I'm glad some folks actually read the article, my intent, to share.
He covers a lot of ground there and I'm especially pleased that he explains in detail the limitations of so called "room correction" products, since they have become very popular, but are not quite the panacea many think them to be.
It's also great that we have folks like Toole et al, who are intellectually and scientifically curious enough to vigorously search for the correlations between audio measurements and sounds, rather than just passively believe in magic and alchemy. Dating back to the old days of Blumlein.

cheers,

AJ