How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 43 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6373Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1261 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 07:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,985
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7251 Post(s)
Liked: 6281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
There are already numerous independent researchers that have studied these topics. Dr. Toole has presented their findings in scientific reviews and in his book. There are several posters in this thread that choose to ignore Dr. Toole's posts pointing this out. Why that is is anybody's guess.
I think Dr. Toole answered that some time ago: "In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."
rynberg, Q&A, Bill-99 and 7 others like this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1262 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Bill-99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,564
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 853 Post(s)
Liked: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I think Dr. Toole answered that some time ago: "In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."
Really like that quote. It applies so well outside of this thread!
sdurani, Muza and Randy Bessinger like this.

Just one more upgrade and things will be perfect.
Bill-99 is offline  
post #1263 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,225
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3993 Post(s)
Liked: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-99 View Post
Really like that quote. It applies so well outside of this thread!

"In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."

I'm not sure this part of it made sense? Typo maybe?
Scotth3886 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1264 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
"In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."

I'm not sure this part of it made sense? Typo maybe?
I hope you're being facetious.
Bottlemech2 is offline  
post #1265 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,225
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3993 Post(s)
Liked: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottlemech2 View Post
I hope you're being facetious.
Actually no, I didn't get it. Should that have been the word 'theory' ?
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1266 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
After 30 or 40 rounds over the exact same disagreement, it becomes fan-boyism run amok or hero-worship unhinged.

Either way, it's time to agree to disagree.
I don't even take offence.

Floyd Toole:

"For his scientific contributions to the audio industry he has been recognized with:
• Two Audio Engineering Society (AES) Publications awards (1988, 1990).
• The AES Silver Medal award (1996).
• The AES Board of Governors Award for service to the society (2003).
• CEDIA Lifetime Achievement award (2008).
• Beryllium Driver Lifetime Achievement award from ALMA (Association of Loudspeaker Manufacturing & Acoustics International) (2011).
• The AES Gold Medal award (2013).
• Inducted into the Consumer Technology Association Hall of Fame (2015).
• The Peter Barnett Award from the Institute of Acoustics (UK) (2017).
He is a Fellow and Past President of the AES, a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America and a Fellow of CEDIA (Custom Electronic Design and Installation Association)."



Scott disagrees though.
Q&A, avkv, Muza and 4 others like this.
TimVG is online now  
post #1267 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked: 4120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I think Dr. Toole answered that some time ago: "In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."
Let's not pretend that the science community doesn't have their own dogmas and often ignore empirical evidences that challenges those dogmas. Religion is not the only offender.
Scotth3886 likes this.
Molon_Labe is offline  
post #1268 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:44 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Actually no, I didn't get it. Should that have been the word 'theory' ?
No pretty sure it should be evidence. If someone were to present evidence that the great flood in the bible didn't happen you would have a contingent of people from Jewish and Christian back grounds question the validity of the evidence for example rather than questioning the validity of the story.

Last edited by Bottlemech2; 02-04-2019 at 08:48 AM.
Bottlemech2 is offline  
post #1269 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,225
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3993 Post(s)
Liked: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottlemech2 View Post
No pretty sure it should be evidence. If someone were to present evidence that the great flood in the bible didn't happen you would have a contingent of people from Jewish and Christian back grounds question the evidence for example rather than questioning the story.
(or theory?)

Anyway, frankly, I'm not at all religious so I didn't see it from that POV.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-04-2019 at 08:53 AM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1270 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 08:51 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,985
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7251 Post(s)
Liked: 6281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe View Post
Let's not pretend that the science community doesn't have their own dogmas and often ignore empirical evidences that challenges those dogmas.
True, but that's a corruption, not the intention.
Quote:
Religion is not the only offender.
Accepting something on faith isn't offensive, it simply isn't science.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1271 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 09:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked: 4120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
True, but that's a corruption, not the intention. Accepting something on faith isn't offensive, it simply isn't science.
Anyone who accepts a scientific theory does so on faith, no?. A theory by definition has yet to be proven. A topic for one of our next two hour phone calls....no need to derail this thread further.
Molon_Labe is offline  
post #1272 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 09:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
drh3b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 3,760
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2029 Post(s)
Liked: 4012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe View Post
Anyone who accepts a scientific theory does so on faith, no?. A theory by definition has yet to be proven. A topic for one of our next two hour phone calls....no need to derail this thread further.
That's not how scientific theories work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
So no, as you correctly stated.
Q&A, avkv, Muza and 3 others like this.

Last edited by drh3b; 02-04-2019 at 09:14 AM.
drh3b is offline  
post #1273 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 09:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked: 4120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drh3b View Post
That's not how scientific theories work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

From the article "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

Not to derail, but there are many theories that have never been duplicated or observed repeatedly that are held to be true. I am not against science, I actually enjoy studying it. My last post on the topic, but I love these discussions - just not in speaker thread.
Molon_Labe is offline  
post #1274 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 09:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Elihawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Posts: 6,067
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1938 Post(s)
Liked: 2083
Scientific hypothesis are based on some facts and some scientific/intellectual reasoning...so while not proven (nothing in science is ever really proven, however you can get data that supports your hypothesis), a scientific theory or hypothesis is proposed based on some facts and a testable scientific question.
Scotth3886 likes this.

Set up #1: EMP e5Ti, e5Ci, and EMP e5Bi surrounds, Outlaw LFM1 Plus sub, SVS NSD SB12 sub, Marantz Slimeline 1504 AV receiver
Set up #2: Def Tech SM450, CLR2002, SLS Qline surrounds and EMPtek10i10i sub, Denon 1910 AV receiver
Set up #3: Philharmonics- BMR in a 2.0 system, music only, Yamaha RXV-363 AV receiver
Elihawk is offline  
post #1275 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 09:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,585
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1230 Post(s)
Liked: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
True, but that's a corruption, not the intention. Accepting something on faith isn't offensive, it simply isn't science.
Right. The framework is in place to self-correct bad data and bad theories, whether those result from honest human error or something more nefarious such as dishonesty, self-aggrandizement, etc.

Nobody reasonable will claim that science is pure at all times, but ultimately by virtue of its self-correcting framework, the junk science will be weeded out.
sdurani and Randy Bessinger like this.
CruelInventions is offline  
post #1276 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 09:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked: 4120
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
self-aggrandizement
Word of the day award.
Scotth3886 and duckymomo like this.
Molon_Labe is offline  
post #1277 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 10:09 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,170
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2800 Post(s)
Liked: 2716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe View Post

Not to derail, but there are many theories that have never been duplicated or observed repeatedly that are held to be true.

Could you name one?

It seems you are mixing up the informal term "theory" - essentially conjecture - with the scientific concept of "theory" which is a testable hypothesis or set of hypotheses that have survived empirical scrutiny and testing, to be generally accepted.

Or perhaps you are mixing it with a "hypothesis?" (Which does not necessarily entail that which has already been tested).
Muza, CruelInventions and drh3b like this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1278 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,871
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1621
Lots of people mix up theory and hypothesis. The media and pop culture is partly to blame for this misuse. It has led the popular nails-on-chalkboard, cringe-inducing phrase "it's just a theory".

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is offline  
post #1279 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 10:41 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,985
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7251 Post(s)
Liked: 6281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe View Post
Anyone who accepts a scientific theory does so on faith, no?
No, scientific theory is accepted on evidence, not faith.
Quote:
A theory by definition has yet to be proven.
Yes, it is based on evidence, not proof. Science has to be labeled theory because it has to allow for falsification IF new evidence shows up (as opposed to "settled science" that claims it can never be disproven).
Quote:
A topic for one of our next two hour phone calls....no need to derail this thread further.
I hadn't noticed that our phone conversations had gotten so short. Besides, these posts are a healthy part of the discussion, considering recent posts skeptical of evidence from NRCC and Harman.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1280 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 10:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked: 4120
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Could you name one?
Einstein's relativity theory remains a theory because it has not been fully verified by experiments and/or observations.
Molon_Labe is offline  
post #1281 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonygeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: America's (real) hometown
Posts: 6,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Was this thread about loudspeakers at one point?

Tony

In search of the Holy Grail.
tonygeno is online now  
post #1282 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,764
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3763 Post(s)
Liked: 3372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-99 View Post
I got the sense from the post that this wasn't about qualified independent researchers or questioning of Dr. Toole's work, but perhaps more about a US equivalent of the NRC, some government body, or some independent body funded by the industry?
Like ANSI?
TimVG and Scotth3886 like this.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #1283 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,225
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3993 Post(s)
Liked: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
Like ANSI?

ANSI would probably be the best choice, IMO
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1284 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,225
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3993 Post(s)
Liked: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonygeno View Post
Was this thread about loudspeakers at one point?

No, we're busy searching for the holy grail.
avkv and unretarded like this.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1285 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,225
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3993 Post(s)
Liked: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
No, scientific theory is accepted on evidence, not faith. Yes, it is based on evidence, not proof. Science has to be labeled theory because it has to allow for falsification IF new evidence shows up (as opposed to "settled science" that claims it can never be disproven). I hadn't noticed that our phone conversations had gotten so short. Besides, these posts are a healthy part of the discussion, considering recent posts skeptical of evidence from NRCC and Harman.
Agree !!!
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1286 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked: 4120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
No, we're busy searching for the holy grail.
I have the M2 already
Gooddoc, sdrucker and MaxTemp like this.
Molon_Labe is offline  
post #1287 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:24 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked: 3075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
ANSI would probably be the best choice, IMO
ANSI has already contributed an opinion. The basis of this standard is the spinorama. A figure from my book is included.

https://standards.cta.tech/kwspub/pu...-A-Preview.pdf
rynberg, Q&A, avkv and 4 others like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1288 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonygeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: America's (real) hometown
Posts: 6,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
No, we're busy searching for the holy grail.
That never ends!

Tony

In search of the Holy Grail.
tonygeno is online now  
post #1289 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,764
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3763 Post(s)
Liked: 3372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
ANSI would probably be the best choice, IMO
You might want to pick a different independent organization. They don't have the same high standards as some on this thread.


Quote:
ANSI/CEA-2034 Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers

This standard describes an improved method for measuring and reporting the
performance of a loudspeaker in a manner that should help consumers better
understand the performance of the loudspeaker and convey a reasonably good
representation of how it may sound in a room based on its off-axis response and how
this response affects the consumer’s experience.
Unlike previously published standards, this standard describes how to measure and
report the directivity of a loudspeaker, whether it stands by itself or is mounted in or on a
wall or ceiling. It also describes how to use this directivity data to estimate the in-room
frequency response that more recent research has shown correlates well to subjective
listening preferences of consumers.
It describes how to measure and report the maximum on-axis usable sound pressure
level of a loudspeaker, and how to measure and report the impedance of a loudspeaker.
It also describes how to calculate and report the size of the power amplifier needed for
the consumer to get the desired SPL from the loudspeaker.
Finally, it includes a number of informational annexes to help readers gain a more
thorough understanding of techniques for acquiring loudspeaker data in both anechoic
and non-anechoic environments, as well as methods for using this acquired data to
predict loudspeaker performance.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #1290 of 5313 Old 02-04-2019, 11:41 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,985
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7251 Post(s)
Liked: 6281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe View Post
Einstein's relativity theory remains a theory because it has not been fully verified by experiments and/or observations.
Science is not bound by limitations, so you can never claim something is absolutely proven because you always have to leave open the possibility of new evidence showing up that changes the theory (however slightly). More and more of Einstein's predictions are being observed in reality. Theories that once seemed like science fiction (e.g., time dilation) are now merely practical problems to be addressed. For example, the clocks on GPS satellites have to be adjusted because they are farther away from the gravity of the earth, so time moves faster (38 microseconds per day). Despite that verification/observation, it still has to be labeled a theory (still has to be open to being disproved).

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
cea 2034 , double-blind , listening tests , loudspeaker measurements , spinorama

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off