Congratulations on another fine job of cutting and pasting that succeeds in listing a number of papers and reference materials that you have never personally read nor understood while again obfuscating the point and failing to in any way address the point at hand.
But hey, why should your behavior change at this point.
The fact is that I not only possess, and have read many of the sources listed, but I have actually studied with some of the sources listed.
And while it is useful to have a book which attempts to collect many of the cited works together in a Cliff's Notes compendium, merely reading that ONE book and performing word searches and cut and pastes is not a substitution for actually having read and understood the behavior about which they are concerned. A fact that has been demonstrated rather conclusively over and over, not the least of which was demonstrated in the utterly hilarious accounting of Blackbird as you utterly failed to understand the significance of so many professional engineers and performers literally opting out of the premier reflection rich environment in order to revert to a haphazard, anything but tuned approximation of an 'LEDE' in order to re-establish some semblance of a precise accurate image rather than your amorphous indistinct BIG image so beloved by those who value the equivalent of the Bose direct reflecting soundfield introduced back in the early 1970s and so soundly rejected then as well.
But as your fetish Toole states, it is a subjective "matter of taste", not of objective certitude as you falsely assert that the trained ears have soundly rejected.
And none of us has attempted to state that a reflection rich environment is not one option available to people amongst others that are long since vetted and established and studied. Only YOU are so unaware of the broader work of acoustics as to assert that Toole's preference is the one and only correct model. And if you want to believe that, noting the origins of he word "believe" as in "to wish it to be so", be my guest. But please cease to misrepresent such a ludicrous opinion as somehow being supported and justified by other prominent acousticians such as Blauert, as you are objectively incorrect in your assertion.
And it must confuse you all to hell that notables such as D'Antonio are open to explore such variant response models without asserting that they have supplanted or rendered others obsolete. Quite the contrary. And if you would bother to actually read his PDF presentation that you cut and pasted and performed nothing more than word searches on, you would discover that he merely presented a chronology of various proposed response models predicated upon the work performed in other positions with the specif conclusion that there was no one approach that took exclusive precedence over the others and marveled that they all still posses aspects considered current and viable!
Sorry to shock someone who has not actually read any of the referenced materials, but Toole does not supplant anyone. And few accept his work as authoritative regarding the 20 years he spent trying to posit the oxymoronic "room correction software" as a major replacement for acoustic analysis and treatment despite his attempts at Harmon to push it as a viable product. Least of all his advocacy for averaged EQ in a critical listening environment! Heck, even the SIM folks recognized the limitations of this and the base requirement for zoned systems and level adjustments, etc., if anything related was to be performed. Regarding his PREFERENCE for a reflection rich environment, he merely posits what he feels is a superior response model for SURROUND sound which ultimately is a "MATTER OF TASTE" - to use HIS words. And this fails if ones preference is for a more precise and defined image.
And many of us who are trained in critical listening do NOT prefer the amorphous 'big' image that is great only for special FX that many of us first encountered with BOSE 901 speakers and who do not prefer it any more now than we did back then. Deal with it. And this opinon will not be swayed on the basis of some zealot running about objecting to anyone who dares deviate from his born again second hand Ephiphany who does little more than blindly dump word searches on us rather than coherently and in a parallel manner respond specifically to the basic acoustical issues in a manner that illustrates that they, and not some copied book, actually have any semblance of a grasp of the material at issue.
The bottom line is that you either fail completely to even respond in a coherent parallel manner to issues raised or you literally do not understand the issue raised, with the result being little more than non sequitur word search dumps. And presenting virtual bibliographies of reference material with absolutely no conception of what any of them address or say is not even considered a legitimate or anything but a failing response in high school where one is expected to present a reasonable response to a topic.
So, with all due respect, I am done with you.
If I want to hear what Toole says, I can (and have) read just about all of his materials. I don't need to read someone who misrepresents what he has written and who himself is incapable of presenting a coherent response to any issues that attempt to address any of the various topics that may or may not be related to what Toole has written. and you might want to consider both spending some time actually learning a bit about basic acoustical mechanics, and THEN reading a few additional texts on psycho-acoustics - of which Blauert would not be a bad start. ...No, not a Reader's Digest condensed synopsis as you have done, but the actual acoustics texts from the sources.
And then you might dare to branch out and read the works of someone like Heyser before a Flatlander such as yourself (look up the work before you think it inappropriate!) dares to presume to declare entire domains inappropriate for acoustical analysis - especially as almost ALL of the psycho-acoustic research that has been performed in the last 40 years have literally been predicated specifically on the very measurements you assert have no value. Ooops!
But ultimately, this has ceased to have either entertainment value and even less acoustics value, as you do not discuss an idea. You are not even personally familiar with the topics at hand (as evidenced by Blackbird and the fact that local had to explain to you what it was!). And simply having a text copied and pasted in what is easily in excess of ANY legitimate fair use regulations when any of us can easily reference the text ourselves has become a joke. Especially when NO additional insight or amplification is provided except to cite selections from the bibliography of the book. And worse, to have aspects of it utterly misrepresented. And having spent far too many years in graduate school, where I went to school they expected that on occasion SOME degree of original thought and analysis was at least supposed to be ATTEMPTED! And I can't remember when I or anyone else considered our understanding increased by merely spending time reading card catalog entries, let alone presenting papers that consisted of little more than word search dumps of matching isolated terms without any necessary nexus between the context of the word, its usage, or even the topic at hand.
But again, if you PREFER what Toole PREFERS, fine. But at least stop misrepresenting Toole as positing the only legitimate acoustic response model and recognize the limits upon it that even he places and recognize that it is but ONE possible response model that may or may NOT satisfy ones TASTE/preference depending upon ones purposes and application. And you don't have to agree with me! Just go back and reread Toole regarding that very issue as he is very clear as presented in his own quotes.
And then do yourself and All of us a favor and get out and actually read some actual acoustics and then some REAL psychoacoustics texts AFTER you establish a baseline understanding of acoustical mechanics.. The REAL accomplishment of Toole is to pass his book off as an actual text regarding psycho-acoustics without a single substantial reference to math which unfortunately relegates his text to the psychoacoustics equivalent of Everest's Master Handbook of Acoustics. Heaven forbid you tackle something like Blauert's Spatial Hearing or anything by Long or Kuttruff.
But for those looking for a book that is not all math and that provides an incredible depth and breadth of material in amazingly approachable manner, due in large measure to his adept use of exceptional use of graphics, imaging and modelling
, you should check out Bob McCarthy's Sound Systems: Design and Optimization - as it will clarify both the fundamental mechanics while providing a strong basis for understanding the various applied variations which depend on that information to appreciate (even if he IS a Meyer Simster!
). And before anyone dismiss it with out examining it, you NEED to examine its breadth and scope. ...Truly a significant manual that perhaps, building upon the concepts introduced in Davis' Sound System Engineering, is perhaps the best 'all in one text' available to clarify complex topics in a clear and concise manner augmented brilliantly with truly amazing graphics for the average to advanced individual for conceptual and applied acoustics. ...Oh, and did I mention the use of graphics!?!? And if anyone has trouble locating it, send a PM...