Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [regsaudioforum] Toole continued

Expand Messages
  • Fred
    This ongoing critique is very interesting but in the interests of balance is there any way Toole could be invited to respond to your observations in this
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      This ongoing critique is very interesting but in the interests of balance is there any way Toole could be invited to respond to your observations in this forum?

      Fred.





      From: Robert <regtas43@...>
      To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 17:46
      Subject: [regsaudioforum] Toole continued

       
      One of the peculiar features of the book
      is its underlying despairing tone. In
      spite of the superficial optimisim--
      it starts off talking about how good everything
      is now including car sound systems--
      it seems that the goal of actually sounding
      like music has been given up in his mind.
      He talks about the difficulty of that--
      and of course it is difficult. But then
      he more or less walks away from the problem
      and says in effect that no one is really
      interested in that, but just in hearing something
      sort of nonannoying while they watch movies
      and listen to bad recordings.
      It is a really depressing experience to read
      the book if one gets down to the real messages:
      that stereo is no good, that no one makes
      recordings right, that nothing works worth
      anything unless some room sound is added in of
      an unknown and nonstandardized sort... and so it
      goes.
      Of course there is truth to it in good part.
      We have talked about these issues often enough.

      But the orientation is different. I think most
      of us here are trying in a more or less systematic
      way to identify some combinations of playback
      and recordings that actually do seem quite close
      to the live experience. I think it is fair to say
      that Toole has given that up. He has bought into
      the idea that recordings are themselves artifical
      creatins, works of art on their own on a good day,
      and that one ought to try to play them back so
      as to maximize the enjoyment of them. But at the
      same time he points out with vigor that recordings
      are mostly made by people who are not hearing them
      as they are as they makes them--or more precisely
      are not hearing them according to the idea of
      "accuracy" that he ,Toole, has formulated. These
      two views are hardly consistent: if the people
      who make the recordings do not know what they
      "really" sound like, how can the sound of them
      have artistic validity.

      Of course, like that other audio fascist(is this
      something they teach in engineering school?) Tom Holman,
      Toole seems to envision a world in which everyone
      plays things back a la Toole having listened to them
      a la Toole in the making of them. Except that Toole
      is more polite than Holman and does not come across
      as as much of a control freak.

      There is some validity to this--some reasonable
      standardization makes some sort of sense perhaps.
      But still it is hard to argue that ,for example,
      people are under a moral obligation to have an audio
      system that sounds good for a side to side row of
      three listeners! Commercially, this may be what
      sells, but this is not a moral imperative.

      Then there are aspects that are not treated. The details
      even of Tooleism are missing. For example, it is taken
      as a sort of article of faith that power response ought
      to fall smoothly. But are they sure? How aboutflat power
      across the mids and then drooping the treble? Is this
      more or less colored sounding? in what sense?

      What is REALLY curious is how the JBL LSR 6332 ,which
      was supposedly designed a la Tooleism differs from
      this!

      If one looks at say the Harbeth M30(original),
      www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/
      you can begin to see why Toole-ism does not really help all
      that much in understanding what goes on. The far off
      axis is odd and not very good relative to Toole. But as Toole
      himself says, you can soak up the "tweeter flare" part of the far off axis /first side wall reflection. Then what is supposed to be true is that the speaker would sound dark and dull.
      But of course it does not, not at reasonably close range.
      What is sounds like is like the on axis--a little midrangey around 700-1.5kHz, and a little toppy at 8-10 k. If one EQs those
      away(which is easy to do) , it sounds very smooth and neutral.

      Only someone with a very odd idea of what music actually sounds like would want a lot more energy in the presence range and treble.

      Is the speaker "accurate"? Perhaps only at close range in
      a literal sense. But does it sound like music on more
      recordings than if it had a lot more top end and
      presence range energy? Absolutely!
      And in fact even the PSB T2 , which is more Toole-esque
      http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=754:nrc-measurements-psb-imagine-t2-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements
      also droops the presence and treble ranges.

      So what is the advantage of having the smoother off axis of the
      PSB if both of them in a real room reasonably far from side
      walls have the region where they differ down in level far enough that one is not hearing a timbre shift from the first sidewall reflection?

      Actually the differences between these speakers are not really
      clarified by Toole-ism, not unless you put them close to a hard
      side wall--which of course you should not do!

      Toole contradicts himself with abandon. He says that the first
      reflection is easily pushed down to the level that it
      does not affect timbre. And then he goes on to say that its
      spectral content is crucial. He says that stereo summation
      deficit is a big problem but then he points out that it is spatially
      unstable--while he says that spatially unstable things do not matter
      very much. He says that recordings are too bright--but that you
      should not reduce the high frequency content by soaking up the high frequency parts of side wall reflections.

      If you look at this stuff long enough, it all begins to
      fade into fog. About the only clear and precise idea thatemerges is that flat response is part of accuracy, most of accuracy indeed.
      This is supposed to be a revelation?

      This is what happens when science is turned over to someone
      who is not really very good at it. Lots of information
      accumulted but crucial experiments omitted.

      REG



    • Robert
      I doubt it. I don t think he is interested in spending time in answering questions or comments from people he would regard as amateurs. And my feeling is that
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I doubt it. I don't think he is interested
        in spending time in answering questions
        or comments from people he would regard
        as amateurs. And my feeling is that the
        Toole/Harmon axis is a closed world.
        I have spoken to these people one or
        another of them a number of times.
        They think they have the answers and
        are quite unreceptive to disagreement
        of any kind, no matter how logical
        the objections might be. Even in the unlikely
        event that we could get Toole on here,
        we would not find out anything I think.
        He has said his say in the book.
        People can read it and form their own
        conclusions on its validity and relevance
        to our concerns. I wish that people would--
        I feel a bit diffident about writing summaries
        of a whole book.
        REG

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > This ongoing critique is very interesting but in the interests of balance is there any way Toole could be invited to respond to your observations in this forum?
        >
        > Fred.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > >________________________________
        > > From: Robert <regtas43@...>
        > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        > >Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 17:46
        > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Toole continued
        > >
        > >
        > > 
        > >One of the peculiar features of the book
        > >is its underlying despairing tone. In
        > >spite of the superficial optimisim--
        > >it starts off talking about how good everything
        > >is now including car sound systems--
        > >it seems that the goal of actually sounding
        > >like music has been given up in his mind.
        > >He talks about the difficulty of that--
        > >and of course it is difficult. But then
        > >he more or less walks away from the problem
        > >and says in effect that no one is really
        > >interested in that, but just in hearing something
        > >sort of nonannoying while they watch movies
        > >and listen to bad recordings.
        > >It is a really depressing experience to read
        > >the book if one gets down to the real messages:
        > >that stereo is no good, that no one makes
        > >recordings right, that nothing works worth
        > >anything unless some room sound is added in of
        > >an unknown and nonstandardized sort... and so it
        > >goes.
        > >Of course there is truth to it in good part.
        > >We have talked about these issues often enough.
        > >
        > >But the orientation is different. I think most
        > >of us here are trying in a more or less systematic
        > >way to identify some combinations of playback
        > >and recordings that actually do seem quite close
        > >to the live experience. I think it is fair to say
        > >that Toole has given that up. He has bought into
        > >the idea that recordings are themselves artifical
        > >creatins, works of art on their own on a good day,
        > >and that one ought to try to play them back so
        > >as to maximize the enjoyment of them. But at the
        > >same time he points out with vigor that recordings
        > >are mostly made by people who are not hearing them
        > >as they are as they makes them--or more precisely
        > >are not hearing them according to the idea of
        > >"accuracy" that he ,Toole, has formulated. These
        > >two views are hardly consistent: if the people
        > >who make the recordings do not know what they
        > >"really" sound like, how can the sound of them
        > >have artistic validity.
        > >
        > >Of course, like that other audio fascist(is this
        > >something they teach in engineering school?) Tom Holman,
        > >Toole seems to envision a world in which everyone
        > >plays things back a la Toole having listened to them
        > >a la Toole in the making of them. Except that Toole
        > >is more polite than Holman and does not come across
        > >as as much of a control freak.
        > >
        > >There is some validity to this--some reasonable
        > >standardization makes some sort of sense perhaps.
        > >But still it is hard to argue that ,for example,
        > >people are under a moral obligation to have an audio
        > >system that sounds good for a side to side row of
        > >three listeners! Commercially, this may be what
        > >sells, but this is not a moral imperative.
        > >
        > >Then there are aspects that are not treated. The details
        > >even of Tooleism are missing. For example, it is taken
        > >as a sort of article of faith that power response ought
        > >to fall smoothly. But are they sure? How aboutflat power
        > >across the mids and then drooping the treble? Is this
        > >more or less colored sounding? in what sense?
        > >
        > >What is REALLY curious is how the JBL LSR 6332 ,which
        > >was supposedly designed a la Tooleism differs from
        > >this!
        > >
        > >If one looks at say the Harbeth M30(original),
        > >www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/
        > >you can begin to see why Toole-ism does not really help all
        > >that much in understanding what goes on. The far off
        > >axis is odd and not very good relative to Toole. But as Toole
        > >himself says, you can soak up the "tweeter flare" part of the far off axis /first side wall reflection. Then what is supposed to be true is that the speaker would sound dark and dull.
        > >But of course it does not, not at reasonably close range.
        > >What is sounds like is like the on axis--a little midrangey around 700-1.5kHz, and a little toppy at 8-10 k. If one EQs those
        > >away(which is easy to do) , it sounds very smooth and neutral.
        > >
        > >Only someone with a very odd idea of what music actually sounds like would want a lot more energy in the presence range and treble.
        > >
        > >Is the speaker "accurate"? Perhaps only at close range in
        > >a literal sense. But does it sound like music on more
        > >recordings than if it had a lot more top end and
        > >presence range energy? Absolutely!
        > >And in fact even the PSB T2 , which is more Toole-esque
        > >http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=754:nrc-measurements-psb-imagine-t2-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements
        > >also droops the presence and treble ranges.
        > >
        > >So what is the advantage of having the smoother off axis of the
        > >PSB if both of them in a real room reasonably far from side
        > >walls have the region where they differ down in level far enough that one is not hearing a timbre shift from the first sidewall reflection?
        > >
        > >Actually the differences between these speakers are not really
        > >clarified by Toole-ism, not unless you put them close to a hard
        > >side wall--which of course you should not do!
        > >
        > >Toole contradicts himself with abandon. He says that the first
        > >reflection is easily pushed down to the level that it
        > >does not affect timbre. And then he goes on to say that its
        > >spectral content is crucial. He says that stereo summation
        > >deficit is a big problem but then he points out that it is spatially
        > >unstable--while he says that spatially unstable things do not matter
        > >very much. He says that recordings are too bright--but that you
        > >should not reduce the high frequency content by soaking up the high frequency parts of side wall reflections.
        > >
        > >If you look at this stuff long enough, it all begins to
        > >fade into fog. About the only clear and precise idea thatemerges is that flat response is part of accuracy, most of accuracy indeed.
        > >This is supposed to be a revelation?
        > >
        > >This is what happens when science is turned over to someone
        > >who is not really very good at it. Lots of information
        > >accumulted but crucial experiments omitted.
        > >
        > >REG
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      • Ted Rook
        No point, he is NOT interested in sweet-spot-stereo, end of story.
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          No point, he is NOT interested in sweet-spot-stereo, end of story.


          On 1 Mar 2013 at 23:57, Fred wrote:

          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > This ongoing critique is very interesting but in the interests of
          > balance is there
          > any way Toole could be invited to respond to your observations in
          > this forum?
          >
          > Fred.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > From: Robert <regtas43@...>
          > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 17:46
          > Subject: [regsaudioforum] Toole continued
          >
          > One of the peculiar features of the book
          > is its underlying despairing tone. In
          > spite of the superficial optimisim--
          > it starts off talking about how good everything
          > is now including car sound systems--
          > it seems that the goal of actually sounding
          > like music has been given up in his mind.
          > He talks about the difficulty of that--
          > and of course it is difficult. But then
          > he more or less walks away from the problem
          > and says in effect that no one is really
          > interested in that, but just in hearing something
          > sort of nonannoying while they watch movies
          > and listen to bad recordings.
          > It is a really depressing experience to read
          > the book if one gets down to the real messages:
          > that stereo is no good, that no one makes
          > recordings right, that nothing works worth
          > anything unless some room sound is added in of
          > an unknown and nonstandardized sort... and so it
          > goes.
          > Of course there is truth to it in good part.
          > We have talked about these issues often enough.
          >
          > But the orientation is different. I think most
          > of us here are trying in a more or less systematic
          > way to identify some combinations of playback
          > and recordings that actually do seem quite close
          > to the live experience. I think it is fair to say
          > that Toole has given that up. He has bought into
          > the idea that recordings are themselves artifical
          > creatins, works of art on their own on a good day,
          > and that one ought to try to play them back so
          > as to maximize the enjoyment of them. But at the
          > same time he points out with vigor that recordings
          > are mostly made by people who are not hearing them
          > as they are as they makes them--or more precisely
          > are not hearing them according to the idea of
          > "accuracy" that he ,Toole, has formulated. These
          > two views are hardly consistent: if the people
          > who make the recordings do not know what they
          > "really" sound like, how can the sound of them
          > have artistic validity.
          >
          > Of course, like that other audio fascist(is this
          > something they teach in engineering school?) Tom Holman,
          > Toole seems to envision a world in which everyone
          > plays things back a la Toole having listened to them
          > a la Toole in the making of them. Except that Toole
          > is more polite than Holman and does not come across
          > as as much of a control freak.
          >
          > There is some validity to this--some reasonable
          > standardization makes some sort of sense perhaps.
          > But still it is hard to argue that ,for example,
          > people are under a moral obligation to have an audio
          > system that sounds good for a side to side row of
          > three listeners! Commercially, this may be what
          > sells, but this is not a moral imperative.
          >
          > Then there are aspects that are not treated. The details
          > even of Tooleism are missing. For example, it is taken
          > as a sort of article of faith that power response ought
          > to fall smoothly. But are they sure? How aboutflat power
          > across the mids and then drooping the treble? Is this
          > more or less colored sounding? in what sense?
          >
          > What is REALLY curious is how the JBL LSR 6332 ,which
          > was supposedly designed a la Tooleism differs from
          > this!
          >
          > If one looks at say the Harbeth M30(original),
          >
          > www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domest
          > ic/
          > you can begin to see why Toole-ism does not really help all
          > that much in understanding what goes on. The far off
          > axis is odd and not very good relative to Toole. But as Toole
          > himself says, you can soak up the "tweeter flare" part of the
          > far off axis /first
          > side wall reflection. Then what is supposed to be true is that
          > the speaker
          > would sound dark and dull.
          > But of course it does not, not at reasonably close range.
          > What is sounds like is like the on axis--a little midrangey
          > around
          > 700-1.5kHz, and a little toppy at 8-10 k. If one EQs those
          > away(which is easy to do) , it sounds very smooth and neutral.
          >
          > Only someone with a very odd idea of what music actually sounds
          > like
          > would want a lot more energy in the presence range and treble.
          >
          > Is the speaker "accurate"? Perhaps only at close range in
          > a literal sense. But does it sound like music on more
          > recordings than if it had a lot more top end and
          > presence range energy? Absolutely!
          > And in fact even the PSB T2 , which is more Toole-esque
          >
          > http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=
          >
          > article&id=754:nrc-measurements-psb-imagine-t2-loudspeakers&catid=77
          > :l
          > oudspeaker-measurements
          > also droops the presence and treble ranges.
          >
          > So what is the advantage of having the smoother off axis of
          > the
          > PSB if both of them in a real room reasonably far from side
          > walls have the region where they differ down in level far enough
          > that one is
          > not hearing a timbre shift from the first sidewall reflection?
          >
          > Actually the differences between these speakers are not really
          > clarified by Toole-ism, not unless you put them close to a
          > hard
          > side wall--which of course you should not do!
          >
          > Toole contradicts himself with abandon. He says that the first
          > reflection is easily pushed down to the level that it
          > does not affect timbre. And then he goes on to say that its
          > spectral content is crucial. He says that stereo summation
          > deficit is a big problem but then he points out that it is
          > spatially
          > unstable--while he says that spatially unstable things do not
          > matter
          > very much. He says that recordings are too bright--but that
          > you
          > should not reduce the high frequency content by soaking up the
          > high
          > frequency parts of side wall reflections.
          >
          > If you look at this stuff long enough, it all begins to
          > fade into fog. About the only clear and precise idea thatemerges
          > is that flat
          > response is part of accuracy, most of accuracy indeed.
          > This is supposed to be a revelation?
          >
          > This is what happens when science is turned over to someone
          > who is not really very good at it. Lots of information
          > accumulted but crucial experiments omitted.
          >
          > REG
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • kevindoyle.forum
          Well, all of this talk about him inspired me to finally order Toole s book, after having it on my Amazon wish list for ages. I ll read it after I finish
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, all of this talk about him inspired me to finally order Toole's book, after having it on my Amazon wish list for ages. I'll read it after I finish Harlot's Ghost. Apropos of audio, I read this line tonight:

            "It's sad. For millennia, every attempt at civilization foundered because nations lacked the most essential information. Now we lurch forward, overburdened by hordes of misinformation. Sometimes I think out future existence will depend on whether we can keep false information from proliferating too rapidly. If our power to verify the facts does not keep pace, then distortions of information will eventually choke us."



            --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
            >
            > I doubt it. I don't think he is interested
            > in spending time in answering questions
            > or comments from people he would regard
            > as amateurs. And my feeling is that the
            > Toole/Harmon axis is a closed world.
            > I have spoken to these people one or
            > another of them a number of times.
            > They think they have the answers and
            > are quite unreceptive to disagreement
            > of any kind, no matter how logical
            > the objections might be. Even in the unlikely
            > event that we could get Toole on here,
            > we would not find out anything I think.
            > He has said his say in the book.
            > People can read it and form their own
            > conclusions on its validity and relevance
            > to our concerns. I wish that people would--
            > I feel a bit diffident about writing summaries
            > of a whole book.
            > REG
            >
            > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > This ongoing critique is very interesting but in the interests of balance is there any way Toole could be invited to respond to your observations in this forum?
            > >
            > > Fred.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > >________________________________
            > > > From: Robert <regtas43@>
            > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
            > > >Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 17:46
            > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Toole continued
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 
            > > >One of the peculiar features of the book
            > > >is its underlying despairing tone. In
            > > >spite of the superficial optimisim--
            > > >it starts off talking about how good everything
            > > >is now including car sound systems--
            > > >it seems that the goal of actually sounding
            > > >like music has been given up in his mind.
            > > >He talks about the difficulty of that--
            > > >and of course it is difficult. But then
            > > >he more or less walks away from the problem
            > > >and says in effect that no one is really
            > > >interested in that, but just in hearing something
            > > >sort of nonannoying while they watch movies
            > > >and listen to bad recordings.
            > > >It is a really depressing experience to read
            > > >the book if one gets down to the real messages:
            > > >that stereo is no good, that no one makes
            > > >recordings right, that nothing works worth
            > > >anything unless some room sound is added in of
            > > >an unknown and nonstandardized sort... and so it
            > > >goes.
            > > >Of course there is truth to it in good part.
            > > >We have talked about these issues often enough.
            > > >
            > > >But the orientation is different. I think most
            > > >of us here are trying in a more or less systematic
            > > >way to identify some combinations of playback
            > > >and recordings that actually do seem quite close
            > > >to the live experience. I think it is fair to say
            > > >that Toole has given that up. He has bought into
            > > >the idea that recordings are themselves artifical
            > > >creatins, works of art on their own on a good day,
            > > >and that one ought to try to play them back so
            > > >as to maximize the enjoyment of them. But at the
            > > >same time he points out with vigor that recordings
            > > >are mostly made by people who are not hearing them
            > > >as they are as they makes them--or more precisely
            > > >are not hearing them according to the idea of
            > > >"accuracy" that he ,Toole, has formulated. These
            > > >two views are hardly consistent: if the people
            > > >who make the recordings do not know what they
            > > >"really" sound like, how can the sound of them
            > > >have artistic validity.
            > > >
            > > >Of course, like that other audio fascist(is this
            > > >something they teach in engineering school?) Tom Holman,
            > > >Toole seems to envision a world in which everyone
            > > >plays things back a la Toole having listened to them
            > > >a la Toole in the making of them. Except that Toole
            > > >is more polite than Holman and does not come across
            > > >as as much of a control freak.
            > > >
            > > >There is some validity to this--some reasonable
            > > >standardization makes some sort of sense perhaps.
            > > >But still it is hard to argue that ,for example,
            > > >people are under a moral obligation to have an audio
            > > >system that sounds good for a side to side row of
            > > >three listeners! Commercially, this may be what
            > > >sells, but this is not a moral imperative.
            > > >
            > > >Then there are aspects that are not treated. The details
            > > >even of Tooleism are missing. For example, it is taken
            > > >as a sort of article of faith that power response ought
            > > >to fall smoothly. But are they sure? How aboutflat power
            > > >across the mids and then drooping the treble? Is this
            > > >more or less colored sounding? in what sense?
            > > >
            > > >What is REALLY curious is how the JBL LSR 6332 ,which
            > > >was supposedly designed a la Tooleism differs from
            > > >this!
            > > >
            > > >If one looks at say the Harbeth M30(original),
            > > >www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/
            > > >you can begin to see why Toole-ism does not really help all
            > > >that much in understanding what goes on. The far off
            > > >axis is odd and not very good relative to Toole. But as Toole
            > > >himself says, you can soak up the "tweeter flare" part of the far off axis /first side wall reflection. Then what is supposed to be true is that the speaker would sound dark and dull.
            > > >But of course it does not, not at reasonably close range.
            > > >What is sounds like is like the on axis--a little midrangey around 700-1.5kHz, and a little toppy at 8-10 k. If one EQs those
            > > >away(which is easy to do) , it sounds very smooth and neutral.
            > > >
            > > >Only someone with a very odd idea of what music actually sounds like would want a lot more energy in the presence range and treble.
            > > >
            > > >Is the speaker "accurate"? Perhaps only at close range in
            > > >a literal sense. But does it sound like music on more
            > > >recordings than if it had a lot more top end and
            > > >presence range energy? Absolutely!
            > > >And in fact even the PSB T2 , which is more Toole-esque
            > > >http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=754:nrc-measurements-psb-imagine-t2-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements
            > > >also droops the presence and treble ranges.
            > > >
            > > >So what is the advantage of having the smoother off axis of the
            > > >PSB if both of them in a real room reasonably far from side
            > > >walls have the region where they differ down in level far enough that one is not hearing a timbre shift from the first sidewall reflection?
            > > >
            > > >Actually the differences between these speakers are not really
            > > >clarified by Toole-ism, not unless you put them close to a hard
            > > >side wall--which of course you should not do!
            > > >
            > > >Toole contradicts himself with abandon. He says that the first
            > > >reflection is easily pushed down to the level that it
            > > >does not affect timbre. And then he goes on to say that its
            > > >spectral content is crucial. He says that stereo summation
            > > >deficit is a big problem but then he points out that it is spatially
            > > >unstable--while he says that spatially unstable things do not matter
            > > >very much. He says that recordings are too bright--but that you
            > > >should not reduce the high frequency content by soaking up the high frequency parts of side wall reflections.
            > > >
            > > >If you look at this stuff long enough, it all begins to
            > > >fade into fog. About the only clear and precise idea thatemerges is that flat response is part of accuracy, most of accuracy indeed.
            > > >This is supposed to be a revelation?
            > > >
            > > >This is what happens when science is turned over to someone
            > > >who is not really very good at it. Lots of information
            > > >accumulted but crucial experiments omitted.
            > > >
            > > >REG
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Robert
            Could be a description of audio! REG
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Could be a description of audio!

              REG

              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "kevindoyle.forum" <doyle.kevin@...> wrote:
              >
              > Well, all of this talk about him inspired me to finally order Toole's book, after having it on my Amazon wish list for ages. I'll read it after I finish Harlot's Ghost. Apropos of audio, I read this line tonight:
              >
              > "It's sad. For millennia, every attempt at civilization foundered because nations lacked the most essential information. Now we lurch forward, overburdened by hordes of misinformation. Sometimes I think out future existence will depend on whether we can keep false information from proliferating too rapidly. If our power to verify the facts does not keep pace, then distortions of information will eventually choke us."
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I doubt it. I don't think he is interested
              > > in spending time in answering questions
              > > or comments from people he would regard
              > > as amateurs. And my feeling is that the
              > > Toole/Harmon axis is a closed world.
              > > I have spoken to these people one or
              > > another of them a number of times.
              > > They think they have the answers and
              > > are quite unreceptive to disagreement
              > > of any kind, no matter how logical
              > > the objections might be. Even in the unlikely
              > > event that we could get Toole on here,
              > > we would not find out anything I think.
              > > He has said his say in the book.
              > > People can read it and form their own
              > > conclusions on its validity and relevance
              > > to our concerns. I wish that people would--
              > > I feel a bit diffident about writing summaries
              > > of a whole book.
              > > REG
              > >
              > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > This ongoing critique is very interesting but in the interests of balance is there any way Toole could be invited to respond to your observations in this forum?
              > > >
              > > > Fred.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > >________________________________
              > > > > From: Robert <regtas43@>
              > > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
              > > > >Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 17:46
              > > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Toole continued
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > 
              > > > >One of the peculiar features of the book
              > > > >is its underlying despairing tone. In
              > > > >spite of the superficial optimisim--
              > > > >it starts off talking about how good everything
              > > > >is now including car sound systems--
              > > > >it seems that the goal of actually sounding
              > > > >like music has been given up in his mind.
              > > > >He talks about the difficulty of that--
              > > > >and of course it is difficult. But then
              > > > >he more or less walks away from the problem
              > > > >and says in effect that no one is really
              > > > >interested in that, but just in hearing something
              > > > >sort of nonannoying while they watch movies
              > > > >and listen to bad recordings.
              > > > >It is a really depressing experience to read
              > > > >the book if one gets down to the real messages:
              > > > >that stereo is no good, that no one makes
              > > > >recordings right, that nothing works worth
              > > > >anything unless some room sound is added in of
              > > > >an unknown and nonstandardized sort... and so it
              > > > >goes.
              > > > >Of course there is truth to it in good part.
              > > > >We have talked about these issues often enough.
              > > > >
              > > > >But the orientation is different. I think most
              > > > >of us here are trying in a more or less systematic
              > > > >way to identify some combinations of playback
              > > > >and recordings that actually do seem quite close
              > > > >to the live experience. I think it is fair to say
              > > > >that Toole has given that up. He has bought into
              > > > >the idea that recordings are themselves artifical
              > > > >creatins, works of art on their own on a good day,
              > > > >and that one ought to try to play them back so
              > > > >as to maximize the enjoyment of them. But at the
              > > > >same time he points out with vigor that recordings
              > > > >are mostly made by people who are not hearing them
              > > > >as they are as they makes them--or more precisely
              > > > >are not hearing them according to the idea of
              > > > >"accuracy" that he ,Toole, has formulated. These
              > > > >two views are hardly consistent: if the people
              > > > >who make the recordings do not know what they
              > > > >"really" sound like, how can the sound of them
              > > > >have artistic validity.
              > > > >
              > > > >Of course, like that other audio fascist(is this
              > > > >something they teach in engineering school?) Tom Holman,
              > > > >Toole seems to envision a world in which everyone
              > > > >plays things back a la Toole having listened to them
              > > > >a la Toole in the making of them. Except that Toole
              > > > >is more polite than Holman and does not come across
              > > > >as as much of a control freak.
              > > > >
              > > > >There is some validity to this--some reasonable
              > > > >standardization makes some sort of sense perhaps.
              > > > >But still it is hard to argue that ,for example,
              > > > >people are under a moral obligation to have an audio
              > > > >system that sounds good for a side to side row of
              > > > >three listeners! Commercially, this may be what
              > > > >sells, but this is not a moral imperative.
              > > > >
              > > > >Then there are aspects that are not treated. The details
              > > > >even of Tooleism are missing. For example, it is taken
              > > > >as a sort of article of faith that power response ought
              > > > >to fall smoothly. But are they sure? How aboutflat power
              > > > >across the mids and then drooping the treble? Is this
              > > > >more or less colored sounding? in what sense?
              > > > >
              > > > >What is REALLY curious is how the JBL LSR 6332 ,which
              > > > >was supposedly designed a la Tooleism differs from
              > > > >this!
              > > > >
              > > > >If one looks at say the Harbeth M30(original),
              > > > >www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/
              > > > >you can begin to see why Toole-ism does not really help all
              > > > >that much in understanding what goes on. The far off
              > > > >axis is odd and not very good relative to Toole. But as Toole
              > > > >himself says, you can soak up the "tweeter flare" part of the far off axis /first side wall reflection. Then what is supposed to be true is that the speaker would sound dark and dull.
              > > > >But of course it does not, not at reasonably close range.
              > > > >What is sounds like is like the on axis--a little midrangey around 700-1.5kHz, and a little toppy at 8-10 k. If one EQs those
              > > > >away(which is easy to do) , it sounds very smooth and neutral.
              > > > >
              > > > >Only someone with a very odd idea of what music actually sounds like would want a lot more energy in the presence range and treble.
              > > > >
              > > > >Is the speaker "accurate"? Perhaps only at close range in
              > > > >a literal sense. But does it sound like music on more
              > > > >recordings than if it had a lot more top end and
              > > > >presence range energy? Absolutely!
              > > > >And in fact even the PSB T2 , which is more Toole-esque
              > > > >http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=754:nrc-measurements-psb-imagine-t2-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements
              > > > >also droops the presence and treble ranges.
              > > > >
              > > > >So what is the advantage of having the smoother off axis of the
              > > > >PSB if both of them in a real room reasonably far from side
              > > > >walls have the region where they differ down in level far enough that one is not hearing a timbre shift from the first sidewall reflection?
              > > > >
              > > > >Actually the differences between these speakers are not really
              > > > >clarified by Toole-ism, not unless you put them close to a hard
              > > > >side wall--which of course you should not do!
              > > > >
              > > > >Toole contradicts himself with abandon. He says that the first
              > > > >reflection is easily pushed down to the level that it
              > > > >does not affect timbre. And then he goes on to say that its
              > > > >spectral content is crucial. He says that stereo summation
              > > > >deficit is a big problem but then he points out that it is spatially
              > > > >unstable--while he says that spatially unstable things do not matter
              > > > >very much. He says that recordings are too bright--but that you
              > > > >should not reduce the high frequency content by soaking up the high frequency parts of side wall reflections.
              > > > >
              > > > >If you look at this stuff long enough, it all begins to
              > > > >fade into fog. About the only clear and precise idea thatemerges is that flat response is part of accuracy, most of accuracy indeed.
              > > > >This is supposed to be a revelation?
              > > > >
              > > > >This is what happens when science is turned over to someone
              > > > >who is not really very good at it. Lots of information
              > > > >accumulted but crucial experiments omitted.
              > > > >
              > > > >REG
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.