In Defense of Audiophiles, Bose, Pass, Toole and Science


I don’t know why I look at Audio Science Reviews equipment reviews, they usually make me bang my head against my desk. The claims they make of being scientific is pretty half-baked. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate measurements, and the time it takes to conduct them, along with insights into the causes, but judging all electronics based on 40+ year old measurements which have not really become closer to explaining human perception and enjoyment, they claim to be objective scientists. They are not. Let me tell you some of the people who are:

  1. Bose
  2. Harman
  3. Nelson Pass
  4. Floyd Toole


This may look like a weird list, but here is what all these have in common: They strive to link together human perception and enjoyment of a product to measurements. Each have taken a decidedly different, but very successful approach. They’ve each asked the question differently. I don’t always agree with the resulting products, but I can’t deny that their approach is market based and scientific.


Floyd Toole’s writing on room tuning, frequency response and EQ combines exact measurements with human perception, and as big a scientist as he is he remains skeptical of measurements, and with good reasons.


The process Nelson Pass uses is exactly right. His hypothesis is that a certain type of distortion, along with other important qualities, are what make for a great sounding amp, and lets face it, the process, and his effectiveness cannot be denied as not being scientific or financially successful. Far more scientific than designing or buying an amp based on THD% at 1 watt alone.


Bose is also very very scientific, but they come at the problem differently. Their question is: What is the least expensive to manufacture product we can make given what most consumers actually want to hear?" Does it work? They have 8,000 employees and approximately $4B in sales per Forbes:


https://www.forbes.com/companies/bose/#1926b3a81c46


Honestly, I don’t know how your average Bose product would measure, but you don’t get to these numbers without science. Assuming they measure poorly, doesn’t that mean measurements are all wrong?


The work Harman has done in getting listening panels together, and trying out different prototypes while adhering to previous science is also noteworthy. Most notably and recently with their testing of speaker dispersion which has resulted in the tweeter wave guides in the latest Revel speakers. They move science forward with each experiment, and then put that out into their products.


Regardless of the camp you fall into, crusty old measurements, perception measurements or individual iconoclast, we also must account for person to person variability. It’s been shown for instance that most people have poor sensitivity to phase shifts in speakers (like me), but if you are THAT person who has severe sensitivity to it, then all those studies don’t mean a thing.


My point is, let’s not define science as being purely in the domain of an oscilloscope. Science is defined by those who push the boundaries forward, and add to our understanding of human perception as well as electron behavior through a semi-conductor and air pressure in a room. If it’s frozen in 40 year old measurements, it’s not science, it's the worship of a dead icon.


Best,


E

erik_squires
Toole advocates ...

@austinstereo

I really don’t mean to turn this into a pro/con for each person/brand, or hero worship of anyone I mentioned. I don’t agree with everything anyone says. What I wanted to say was that science is more than a number you read off a gauge.

But, to talk about this particular practice, in an R&D setting, the statement Toole made is completely correct, and one used by many renown speaker makers. In particular it is a great way to find out what is audible and what is not. What is bias vs. what works.  Roger Rusell wrote about this in his site re McIntosh speaker development and he makes a strong case for it.

In the context of a showroom looking to buy your living room pair, no, this is not how I’d do it.


Best,

E
Toole advocates direct A/B comparison of speakers. Quickly switching between two or more
While he has done tests like that he also has done extensive tests where the listener controls when to switch speakers they just don’t know which speakers they are switching and neither did the testers it was controlled with a computer by random. Of course they are volume leveled, what good is a test without doing the obvious,
The one point I would offer comment on is Nelson Pass (comments apply greatly to Tools). Pass is in business because he loves this stuff. His thinking pushes the envelope always. The First Watt F1 is an example. Bose started when he realized we don't understand how we hear. The company today is less like the original and more like Dr. Dre Beats products. And on on and on. Ya do it for love first and money second, and you find innovation and greatness. Just one more opinion ..
The point is surely that we need new and different measurements, as the standard existing ones fail so often to correlate.  Measurements that are defined by experts in acoustics and then implemented by electronic engineers, rather than ones that are "accepted" and the latter group is comfortable with.
In summary, again:

"Don’t call buying audio equipment scientific just because you hooked it up to a scope. It isn’t scientific at all, it’s just your personal, and very emotional, buying choices."

In fact, buying from a scope's output is irrational, unless that scope's pleasure brings you joy.

Does this mean every a