)
The reasoning has to do with evolution and cognition. Take the simplest case of sending the identical sound on direct axis and the reflected one. The only difference them is in arrival time. The off-axis takes longer to get to the ear due to longer travel time. Our brain has figured out that this delayed sound is redundant. It brings no more information. In this situation, the brain after a bit of adaptation, starts to filter out the reflected sound. Again, we are talking about an ideal situation where the on and off-axis are identical.
I'd love to see Toole and Olive test some Linkwitz speakers, by the way...
Let me just add one important nuance here. Dr. Toole's teachings and research is what I call the "high order bit." In other words, the principals of good sound. There are secondary issues of fidelity that he doesn't normally get into because so many people miss the high order bit. As an example, one can achieve similar frequency responses with two drivers but have it have more distortions.So once again, the elephant is in the room -- a body of work spanning decades of testing, concluding that...
1) Smooth, linear response, on and off axis, leads to more accurate reproduction (higher fidelity, and this shouldn't be the slightest bit controversial).
2) When non-audio influencers are removed, listeners, from the trained and experienced to students, prefer more accurate reproduction.
3) That achieving that kind of reproduction is not very expensive; it has been done in speakers that the high end would barely classify as "midfi." (vinly-covered Infinitys? Please. They'd get no respect in this community without a report like this).
4) That audiophile journalists are among the worst listeners, or at least among the least capable of recognizing high fidelity when they hear it.
...the same scientist who tells us all the above also tells us that high-end cables make no difference, that achieving linear performance in electronic components is easy, and that active speakers are simply a better design that he hopes is the future of audio...
To me, it's very supportive of a number of my beliefs, particularly the one that says "high end" is defined by cost and prestige, driven by personal preference, not better performance, and that it often actually delivers lower performance than midi.
But this has got to be very challenging to the high-end hobby. Anybody putting their big rig on the market this week and launching a search for some used Infinitys?
Tim
So once again, the elephant is in the room -- a body of work spanning decades of testing, concluding that...
1) Smooth, linear response, on and off axis, leads to more accurate reproduction (higher fidelity, and this shouldn't be the slightest bit controversial).
2) When non-audio influencers are removed, listeners, from the trained and experienced to students, prefer more accurate reproduction.
3) That achieving that kind of reproduction is not very expensive; it has been done in speakers that the high end would barely classify as "midfi." (vinly-covered Infinitys? Please. They'd get no respect in this community without a report like this).
4) That audiophile journalists are among the worst listeners, or at least among the least capable of recognizing high fidelity when they hear it.
...the same scientist who tells us all the above also tells us that high-end cables make no difference, that achieving linear performance in electronic components is easy, and that active speakers are simply a better design that he hopes is the future of audio...
To me, it's very supportive of a number of my beliefs, particularly the one that says "high end" is defined by cost and prestige, driven by personal preference, not better performance, and that it often actually delivers lower performance than midi.
But this has got to be very challenging to the high-end hobby. Anybody putting their big rig on the market this week and launching a search for some used Infinitys?
Tim
