jahjahlove
New member
- Thread Author
- #1
Hi,
I am sur you are all familiar with this Toole video, and know his book by heart…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM
I came across it in the recent past but came only to watch it few days ago.
The field of psycho acoustic properly run is no bullshit. By using the spinorama to have a set of measurements describing the behavior of the speaker on axis and off axis, and combining it with double blind “human ear testing” he can find quite a correlation leading him to be able to make prediction from measurement, which is good methodological approach.
Indeed the tests have shown that we are able to discriminate within the sound that hit us what belongs to the speaker, what belongs to the room, and what belongs to the recording. This is telling us something on human capacity applied to our dearest field!
The study on listener consistency shows two things interesting: there is something as objectivity (hi Jerome!) because one can see the trained people (trained professionals in the audio domain) are very consistent both with themselves and with the measurements: they can tell (behind a curtain) if this is the same speaker being oriented differently or if this is a different speaker, if it is a “good speaker” or a badly built speaker …
Strangely (or not ?) the reveiwer group is just average or worst…. He says some have even refused to participate not to risk to damage their reputation… these proud people have been wise as this group is doing poorly, really… what ? are they a bunch losers their parents still pay their rent at 35 and their capricious audio purchases, while daddy have found them a job in some magazine because his in business with the editor ? Looks like it….Indeed they totally disagree with the results of the measurements and the professionals, and more broadly with everyone else…
It also give some clue as to what is a good speaker, and shows that it is not correlated to price: it is not the more expensive the better, testing ranging from 700 $ to 24 000 $....This is not maths telling you, that you should (or even must) adore this speaker because it is in the numbers, it is the maths AND the doubleblind testing that shout together: this is what a good speaker is.
One last thing I liked in this lecture is the boss of Harman calling Toole in his office and putting him in front of customers complains, (while this guy (Toole) is paid to make sure products sound good).
In France, the boss of Harman would have concluded that Toole was not doing a good job and would have him fired, while going on recruiting in the shops young guys having not interest for audio and just looking for some money to pay the bills. Doing two stupid things at once….Instead he listened to Toole’s arguments, not only kept him, but engaged more investment to train retail salers following Toole advice.
I am sur you are all familiar with this Toole video, and know his book by heart…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM
I came across it in the recent past but came only to watch it few days ago.
The field of psycho acoustic properly run is no bullshit. By using the spinorama to have a set of measurements describing the behavior of the speaker on axis and off axis, and combining it with double blind “human ear testing” he can find quite a correlation leading him to be able to make prediction from measurement, which is good methodological approach.
Indeed the tests have shown that we are able to discriminate within the sound that hit us what belongs to the speaker, what belongs to the room, and what belongs to the recording. This is telling us something on human capacity applied to our dearest field!
The study on listener consistency shows two things interesting: there is something as objectivity (hi Jerome!) because one can see the trained people (trained professionals in the audio domain) are very consistent both with themselves and with the measurements: they can tell (behind a curtain) if this is the same speaker being oriented differently or if this is a different speaker, if it is a “good speaker” or a badly built speaker …
Strangely (or not ?) the reveiwer group is just average or worst…. He says some have even refused to participate not to risk to damage their reputation… these proud people have been wise as this group is doing poorly, really… what ? are they a bunch losers their parents still pay their rent at 35 and their capricious audio purchases, while daddy have found them a job in some magazine because his in business with the editor ? Looks like it….Indeed they totally disagree with the results of the measurements and the professionals, and more broadly with everyone else…
It also give some clue as to what is a good speaker, and shows that it is not correlated to price: it is not the more expensive the better, testing ranging from 700 $ to 24 000 $....This is not maths telling you, that you should (or even must) adore this speaker because it is in the numbers, it is the maths AND the doubleblind testing that shout together: this is what a good speaker is.
One last thing I liked in this lecture is the boss of Harman calling Toole in his office and putting him in front of customers complains, (while this guy (Toole) is paid to make sure products sound good).
In France, the boss of Harman would have concluded that Toole was not doing a good job and would have him fired, while going on recruiting in the shops young guys having not interest for audio and just looking for some money to pay the bills. Doing two stupid things at once….Instead he listened to Toole’s arguments, not only kept him, but engaged more investment to train retail salers following Toole advice.
