-
Dr.Toole and JBL
From time to time on this forum, reference is made to research by Dr. Floyd E. Toole, who I believe is still Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering for Harman International. Although I can't find the results of any studies he has done on speaker cables on the web, Mtrycraft and Monstrous Mike in recent posts claim Dr. Toole has conducted tests on different cables and found they made no difference on his speakers.
It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers:
"Speaker cables and interconnects are important components in an audio system. With all the factors at an appropriate level of quality the speaker cable and the interconnect cable can make sigificant contributions to the percieved sound quality. Careful selection of cables and interconnects can add or subtract marked shadings in tonal character. Likewise different cables can have a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."
http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Ow...Ti10K%20om.pdf
What do other forum members make of this contradiction?
-
Oh Brother!
You're going to love all the twisting, turning, sophistry and hypocricy you'll see forthcoming on this one.
I have repeatedly asked for proof that Dr. Toole doesn't think cables make a difference and none has ever been forthcoming. Yet, you will frequently see someone here claim that is his belief - and of course the person who is usually disseminating that unsubstantiated claim is usually one of most vocal in their attacks against unsubstantiated cable claims.
As something that I thought you might find interesting, the following is the only public pronouncement of Dr. Toole I have ever seen regarding cables:
“4. [Interview Question] I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?
[Dr. Toole's Answer] Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic) , in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do.”
http://www.sonicdesign.se//tooleinw.htm
Notice he says "(s)uperbly performing cables can be purchased ..." The only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how comercially produced cables perform.
He goes on to say that "'bad cables', are not bad enough to be audible worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do." Again, the only fair inference from that sentence is that there are good and bad cables from a sonic standpoint and that a bad cable can do as much harm sonically as bad room acoustics or bad speakers.
I posted this over a year ago, and when I did I couldn't believe the contortions the regulars here went through to try and claim that one cannot conclude from this statement that Dr. Toole must believe that cables do make a difference (assuming he hasn't changed his mind since he gave that interview). That's when I realized the so called "scientists" here are as mired in their dogma as are the golden ears.
And of course there was also the time I posted the add copy from the Levinson site (subsidiary of Harmon) for their interconnects. It was hilarious watching all of the rabid naysayers coming to the defense of a cable purveyor's add copy, simply because that particular purveyor happened to be owned by Harmon who happened to be Dr. Toole's employer.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
He goes on to say that "'bad cables', are not bad enough to be audible worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do." Again, the only fair inference from that sentence is that there are good and bad cables from a sonic standpoint and that a bad cable can do as much harm sonically as bad room acoustics or bad speakers.
My interpretation of that statement is that "bad" cable's effect on the sound is insignificant to the effects of acoustics and speakers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
What do other forum members make of this contradiction?
It's not likely that Dr. Toole, a VP(?), wrote or even read this. I don't think the views of a company(or, in this case, that of a technical writer) must necessarily mesh with that of all employees.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
From time to time on this forum, reference is made to research by Dr. Floyd E. Toole, who I believe is still Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering for Harman International. Although I can't find the results of any studies he has done on speaker cables on the web, Mtrycraft and Monstrous Mike in recent posts claim Dr. Toole has conducted tests on different cables and found they made no difference on his speakers.
It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers:
"Speaker cables and interconnects are important components in an audio system. With all the factors at an appropriate level of quality the speaker cable and the interconnect cable can make sigificant contributions to the percieved sound quality. Careful selection of cables and interconnects can add or subtract marked shadings in tonal character. Likewise different cables can have a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."
http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Ow...Ti10K%20om.pdf
What do other forum members make of this contradiction?
I think Dr. Toole has been built up more by the yeasayers than anybody (including that fence sitter pctower) to be bigger than life so that attempts to chop him down will have a more lasting effect. Perhaps this is the reverse strawman theory.
To summarize, Dr Toole has published his efforts regarding his method of designing speakers. That is, the way he approached speaker design was to thoroughly control the testing of various designs using DBT testing procedures with trained listeners. He is admired by many of us scientifically-thinking forum members for his assertion that sighted evaluation of audio components has the real risk of introducing significant enough biases into subjective evaluations as to render them meaningless. He has written a peer-reviewed paper on this very subject with Sean Olive.
Since I am from Ottawa and being in the government working on technical issues, I have run into Dr. Toole's co-workers on occasion at the Communication Research Centre (CRC). Many don't really give it much thought but one did relate an informal test to determine in exotic cabling should be used in his speaker design if there was a performance impact. The guy didn't really even know what they were using for wire at the time and he guessed some sort of Monster 14 gauge copper stranded wire. Anyways, the test with the much more expensive wire, using the same testing criteria as his speakers, did not show any performance improvement and he dropped the matter. There are no studies or reports of this because it was simply a side issue of some curiosity.
While Dr. Toole has moved on to Harmon, some of his ex co-workers work in this lab: http://www.crc.ca/en/html/aas/home/home. If you care to read some of the work at that site, you will see that Dr. Toole's methods have formed the basis for subjective evaluation of audio signals. These techniques were used to develop the mp3 coding algorithms.
In the end, what we have is a proven method of subjective evaluation of audio signals. All that is needed is the effort to apply this method to a set of audio cables for a scientific evaluation. Everything is there except the willingness to exude such an effort. That's the point. It can be done. However, don't expect somebody who has an opinion that there are no differences to jump up and expend the energy to complete such a test. I know I have no desire to.
With opportunity for somebody to grab the chance at shutting people like me up for good, I simply cannot understand why it hasn't been done yet. Can you imagine the first audiophile club who could produce testing results that show conclusive evidence of real cable sonic differences? They'd be international heros in the audio community.
So what's the excuse for not doing this?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
Can you imagine the first audiophile club who could produce testing results that show conclusive evidence of real cable sonic differences? They'd be international heros in the audio community. So what's the excuse for not doing this?
Do you really think that "an audiophile club" could produce a study that would be accepted as rigorous enough by the scientific testing crowd here? Also, introducing the inevitable sonic degradation of a relay controlled switchbox and double the number of cables and connectors is diametrically opposed to those who seek the maximum fidelity. I have yet to see a test where the box itself is tested and not assumed to be "perfect" based upon theoretical assumptions.
Quite frankly, few audiophiles couldn't care less whether or not labcoats agree with them.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwell
It's not likely that Dr. Toole, a VP(?), wrote or even read this. I don't think the views of a company(or, in this case, that of a technical writer) must necessarily mesh with that of all employees.
Absolutely. Someone rogue audiophile slipped in to the JBL organization unbeknownst to everyone else in the company and not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring. Naturally, Toole was completely unaware that this unsuspected plant was in cahoots with some likeminded co-conspirator engineers such that his speakers are going out the door engineered with biwiring capability and the appropriate multiple connectors on the back.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Absolutely. Someone rogue audiophile slipped in to the JBL organization unbeknownst to everyone else in the company and not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring. Naturally, Toole was completely unaware that this unsuspected plant was in cahoots with some likeminded co-conspirator engineers such that his speakers are going out the door engineered with biwiring capability and the appropriate multiple connectors on the back.
rw
This is a product manual, right? Do you really think a VP(especially one over acoustic research) reads it before it goes out the door? Anyway, companies are about making money, and if it give audiophiles a warm fuzzy about their products, then I think they will do it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
You're going to love all the twisting, turning, sophistry and hypocricy you'll see forthcoming on this one.
I have repeatedly asked for proof that Dr. Toole doesn't think cables make a difference and none has ever been forthcoming. Yet, you will frequently see someone here claim that is his belief - and of course the person who is usually disseminating that unsubstantiated claim is usually one of most vocal in their attacks against unsubstantiated cable claims.
As something that I thought you might find interesting, the following is the only public pronouncement of Dr. Toole I have ever seen regarding cables:
“4. [Interview Question] I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?
[Dr. Toole's Answer] Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic) , in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do.”
http://www.sonicdesign.se//tooleinw.htm
Notice he says "(s)uperbly performing cables can be purchased ..." The only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how comercially produced cables perform.
He goes on to say that "'bad cables', are not bad enough to be audible worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do." Again, the only fair inference from that sentence is that there are good and bad cables from a sonic standpoint and that a bad cable can do as much harm sonically as bad room acoustics or bad speakers.
I posted this over a year ago, and when I did I couldn't believe the contortions the regulars here went through to try and claim that one cannot conclude from this statement that Dr. Toole must believe that cables do make a difference (assuming he hasn't changed his mind since he gave that interview). That's when I realized the so called "scientists" here are as mired in their dogma as are the golden ears.
And of course there was also the time I posted the add copy from the Levinson site (subsidiary of Harmon) for their interconnects. It was hilarious watching all of the rabid naysayers coming to the defense of a cable purveyor's add copy, simply because that particular purveyor happened to be owned by Harmon who happened to be Dr. Toole's employer.
He didn't publish his research. Nothing to publish as it is basic cable science. But, anyone can email him as he answers his mail. I see you have not done this since my last suggestion to you that you should. Why not?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
From time to time on this forum, reference is made to research by Dr. Floyd E. Toole, who I believe is still Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering for Harman International. Although I can't find the results of any studies he has done on speaker cables on the web, Mtrycraft and Monstrous Mike in recent posts claim Dr. Toole has conducted tests on different cables and found they made no difference on his speakers.
It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers:
"Speaker cables and interconnects are important components in an audio system. With all the factors at an appropriate level of quality the speaker cable and the interconnect cable can make sigificant contributions to the percieved sound quality. Careful selection of cables and interconnects can add or subtract marked shadings in tonal character. Likewise different cables can have a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."
http://manuals.harman.com/JBL/HOM/Ow...Ti10K%20om.pdf
What do other forum members make of this contradiction?
He didn't write the manual. Not sure if he reviewed it But-
Did you read the section Connections? He recommends 18ga as a minimum based on distance, right?
So, someone trying 24 ga would not be appropriate, right?
Same for interconnects. You don't want high capacitance, can roll off frequency response. Basic electronics.
No, Toole didn't publish his cable research. Nothing to publish as it is basic cable science.
He did most of his research, 25 years worth, at the Canadian Nationa Research Center, Ottowa. Do a google.
I corresponded with him directly as i posted. You can too by email. So can pctower or the next person. So far I have not heard anyone who has done so, yet they keep on *****ing.
Do some of the legwork as I have done. More rewarding that way. You might get silver or gold poisoning if I keep feeding everyone with a silver or gold spoon.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwell
It's not likely that Dr. Toole, a VP(?), wrote or even read this. I don't think the views of a company(or, in this case, that of a technical writer) must necessarily mesh with that of all employees.
However, if you read the secton called 'Cables' it suggests 18ga as a minimum, based on distance. So, there is nothing mysterious about the speaker cables. Rather simple.
If one uses 24 ga, then it is outside of recommended practice and you are asking for it. As you know, we don't recommend 24 ga:)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Absolutely. Someone rogue audiophile slipped in to the JBL organization unbeknownst to everyone else in the company and not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring. Naturally, Toole was completely unaware that this unsuspected plant was in cahoots with some likeminded co-conspirator engineers such that his speakers are going out the door engineered with biwiring capability and the appropriate multiple connectors on the back.
rw
Check out the section 'Cables' Did you miss that one? Oh, 18ga is the minimum based on distance. Nothing futher is stated except by distance requirements. Rather simple, no magic, no bs, no hype, no mystery cable needed. But, you habve no idea, we know.
-
by the way
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Absolutely. not only wrote that speaker wires are an important component in an audio system, but also promoted the potential advantages of biwiring.
rw
Try to read the whol manual before you spout off nonsense. The reason for the posts is for multiple amplifier use, not the promotion of buy-wiring. Please quote the benefits of your speculations.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Do you really think that "an audiophile club" could produce a study that would be accepted as rigorous enough by the scientific testing crowd here? Also, introducing the inevitable sonic degradation of a relay controlled switchbox and double the number of cables and connectors is diametrically opposed to those who seek the maximum fidelity. I have yet to see a test where the box itself is tested and not assumed to be "perfect" based upon theoretical assumptions.
Quite frankly, few audiophiles couldn't care less whether or not labcoats agree with them.
rw
You are spouting hogwash about sonic degradation. You have no basis of facts to base you vailed specualtions as that is all it is. Prove it. Stop guessing and speculating.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
It could be I am misunderstanding what has been said about Dr. Toole, but if he thinks different speaker cables make no difference in performance, this is in conflict with the following advice quoted from the manual on his firm's JBL TiK Series speakers.
I don't see why we always have to rely on "experts" to tell audio community about cables and its effect on a system. With a little bit of investigation and knowledge, role of a cable and how to minimize its effects can be pretty much understood by anybody. It is not rocket science :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwell
My interpretation of that statement is that "bad" cable's effect on the sound is insignificant to the effects of acoustics and speakers.
Of course you would rewrite beyond recognition the natural meaning of his words to suit your dogma. That's exactly what I predicted.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
He didn't publish his research. Nothing to publish as it is basic cable science. But, anyone can email him as he answers his mail. I see you have not done this since my last suggestion to you that you should. Why not?
You're twisting and turning even more than I thought you would on this one.
As for e-mailing, apparently you have. Since you have been one of Toole's most active promoters on this site, why don't you report specifically what his position is on cables, and the details of his research to arrive at those conclusions. While you're at it, why not report on his explanation of the interview I quoted.
What's the big mystery here?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
... you vailed
Yes, I've skied Vail before. Great powder.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
Of course you would rewrite beyond recognition the natural meaning of his words to suit your dogma. That's exactly what I predicted.
Your interpretation doesn't make sense. I don't think you could find an undamaged cable that degrades the signal nearly as much as room acoustics or even loud speakers.
Given the context of the statements that came before it and the mangled nature of the sentence itself, I don't think it's a stretch to reach my conclusion.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Do you really think that "an audiophile club" could produce a study that would be accepted as rigorous enough by the scientific testing crowd here?
First of all, it wouldn't be "us" who would be accepting that study. And secondly, it doesn't matter who does this testing, if it is documented and accurate, anybody else should be able to reproduce it. Science doesn't contain these biases towards who did the testing that you are trying to imply. It is the test, the test method and the results that should stand on their own. The originators of such testing are really irrelevent other than the respect that they would garner for their efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Also, introducing the inevitable sonic degradation of a relay controlled switchbox and double the number of cables and connectors is diametrically opposed to those who seek the maximum fidelity. I have yet to see a test where the box itself is tested and not assumed to be "perfect" based upon theoretical assumptions.
Inevitable sonic degradation? You admitted that you are not a person of science so why now are you making statements that even well-versed audio engineers would need to test and validate? I know that you would like to say that DBTs are impossible to conduct but that doesn't make it a fact.
As I have mentioned before, there is standard that exists with regard to subjective audio testing. It is called ITU Recommendation BS.1116-1 and if you really want you can get a copy yourself here: http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendatio...116-1-199710-I.
You only have one valid point with regard to cable sonics and that is your own in-home testing experience. If you stick with that, you'll be fine. If you try to throw out will scientific ideas, strawman arguements and just plain wrong facts, your case weakens considerably.
You are trying to validate what you perceived in your audio system. I have trying to point out how to do that and you are simply not accepting it. That's your perogative but I stand by my points and am open to criticism.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Try to read the whol manual before you spout off nonsense.
I did. I find your lack of reading comprehension tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
The reason for the posts is for multiple amplifier use, not the promotion of buy-wiring.
Let's read together, shall we?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
"JBL Ti loudspeakers may also be connected to the power amplifier using several lengths of wire. The multi-wire connection method offers a number of options and advantages...
This way each individual speaker drive unit (and it's associated network) can be connected independently to the power amplifier...
By removing the bars, connections can be made to the individual network sections using two or more pairs of wires (four or more conductors) as shown in figure 1. The wires may be of the same type for both low, middle, and high frequency sections. The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced, and intermodulation of low and high frequencies in the cable is avoided. Specialized wires for low, middle, and high frequencies may yield excellent results in some systems. In either case, the cable for the low frequencies should be as short as possible and the left and right cable for each section must be the same length. If the cable to one speaker system is longer than the one to the other speaker due to the distance from the power amplifier, make sure not to wind the excess cable up in the form of a coil...
Another option is to power each separate drive unit (and its associated network section) from its own power amplifier.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
You seem to read what you want to read instead of that which is actually there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Please quote the benefits of your speculations.
See above notation for JBL's "speculations".
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Let's read together, shall we?
You seem to read what you want to read instead of that which is actually there.
See above notation for JBL's "speculations".
What exactly are trying to do here? Are you quoting something from JBL in an effort to discredit Dr. Floyd Toole? Does that mean his work previously is invalidated?
Or perhaps you are trying to imply that perhaps Dr. Toole has revealed how he really feels about speaker wires by being the VP in a company with ad copy like that.
Instead of speculating yourself to death, email Dr. Toole and ask him for the test results his company has done on biwiring. Now that would be useful. Or is ad copy good enough evidence for your beliefs?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
Inevitable sonic degradation? You admitted that you are not a person of science...
I am a person of science. That would be computer science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
...why now are you making statements that even well-versed audio engineers would need to test and validate?
That is precisely my point, Mike, Rather than assuming that such switch boxes and doubling the number of cables and connections is inaudible, "well-versed audio engineers do need to test and validate" that assumption first. I asked Mtry for such substantiation and I extend the invitation to you as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
I know that you would like to say that DBTs are impossible to conduct but that doesn't make it a fact.
What gave you that idea? What I question is testing that involves the introduction of a new set of variables that are completely absent in the normal use of audio systems and assumed to have no effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
Cool. I'll take a look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
If you try to throw out will scientific ideas...
This reminds me of my college statistics text entitled "How to Lie With Statistics". What I throw out are unproven assumptions and sweeping generalizations of audio behavior not based on direct experimentation, but extrapolation of results with other gear.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
What exactly are trying to do here? Are you quoting something from JBL in an effort to discredit Dr. Floyd Toole?
What a curious response. Here's the basic play-by-play
1. I reported the manual described the multi-wiring capability and commentary that there are potential benefits.
2. Mtry said the multiple posts were there for multiple amplifiers, not multi-wiring.
3. I cited the passages that state otherwise. That's it. No black helicopters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
Does that mean his work previously is invalidated?
You tell me. I'm simply reporting the content found in their manual. It would be amusing if it were the case that JBL technical writers did refute some of their own company research with their commentary.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
However, if you read the secton called 'Cables' it suggests 18ga as a minimum, based on distance. So, there is nothing mysterious about the speaker cables. Rather simple.
If one uses 24 ga, then it is outside of recommended practice and you are asking for it. As you know, we don't recommend 24 ga:)
It is the paragraph under that one that I find troubling. However, I suspect that it comes from the marketing department rather than Dr. Toole, given his apparent position on cable sonics.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
What I throw out are unproven assumptions and sweeping generalizations of audio behavior not based on direct experimentation, but extrapolation of results with other gear.
rw
Well, you what E-Stat? Cable sonic differences is an unproven assumption but you seem to be holding on to it pretty good.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwell
Your interpretation doesn't make sense. I don't think you could find an undamaged cable that degrades the signal nearly as much as room acoustics or even loud speakers.
Given the context of the statements that came before it and the mangled nature of the sentence itself, I don't think it's a stretch to reach my conclusion.
I'm not interpreting anything. I'm reading what he said. You are having to read all kinds of things into his statement to conclude that by "bad" he means "damaged".
He states that "Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices." Even the cheapest commercial cables are almost never "damaged" when sold. So he obviously isn't comparing "damaged" vs "undamaged" commercially sold cables. By characterizing some commercial cables as "superb" performers, he obviously believes that there are performance differences between and among commercially available cables. His next sentence makes it clear that by "performance" he is talking about sonic performance.
Had he meant what you seem to be suggesting he would have simply said that any commercially available cable will do and that none are any better sonically than any other regardless of price. He has a graduate degree. He certainly knows how to communicate what he really means.
I refer expressly to his words and sentence structure. You simply state conclusions and interpretations that square with your own biases.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwell
This is a product manual, right? Do you really think a VP(especially one over acoustic research) reads it before it goes out the door? Anyway, companies are about making money, and if it give audiophiles a warm fuzzy about their products, then I think they will do it.
If he doesn't read product manuals that are designed to enable customers to maximize the benefit of their purchase, then WHAT THE HELL DOES HE READ?
Do you honestly believe he spends all the time he does in acoustic research and then doesn't ensure that his findings relating to factors that can affect sonic performance are incorporated into speaker product manuals.? How far out on the limb of intellectual dishonesty are you willing to go to defend your dogma at all costs?
Your last sentence is pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated specualtion.
-
PCT, I expect better from you than this! Perhaps I shouldn’t. You frequently tell us you are a lawyer, but you are committing the worst kind of distortion by omission here. Perhaps that is what lawyers do for a living, but you probably are also aware that these are clearly not the only reasonable inferences, much less conclusions, that can be drawn from his statements.
Interview Question:
"I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?"
Dr. Toole's Answer:
"Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic), in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do."
In your earlier comments, you omitted the phrase ...for very moderate prices... from the statement that superbly performing cables can be purchased. You say that "the only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how commercially produced cables perform". What you infer might be correct if you dropped the words onlyand reasonable. A more reasonable conclusion from his full statement is that it is not expensive or difficult to purchase cables that perform superbly.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Without knowing his definition of superbly performing cables, it is not possible to reasonably conclude or infer anything else.
This is a big stretch considering his entire answer to the question, begins with "Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them."<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Your inferences, while not logically false, make no sense when compared to the obvious conclusions from what Toole says in his full answer to the question.
I would like to point out a web page that summarizes Toole’s career and some of his major contributions to acoustics. http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm
On this page is a list of some of his publications. Numerous titles appear to be on the subject of how to identify and control the variables in listening tests. This seems to be one of his main contributions. I have a pdf copy of #19 on this list, titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things. If anyone would like to read it, contact me and I’ll be glad to send it to you. I think it is a good example of how to scientifically approach the problem of conducting unbiased listening tests.
Note that nowhere in this list is a title about the effects of speaker cables. To be fair, it is possible that such a study was done but does not appear on this list, or is buried within one of the other publications on the list without being reflected in the title. I certainly have not read each publication on this list. But it is safe to say that Toole has never published directly on what properly controlled listening tests reveal about sound reproduction acoustics attributable to cables. This is probably because there is little to report on the subject, and there were much bigger questions for him to study. Good scientists tend to investigate fields where there is a demonstrably significant phenomena to study. I’m not saying that there is absolutely no effect from cables, but it may be so small (even to the point of vanishing) that scientists have ignored this as a problem worthy of their time and resources. Certainly Floyd Toole has ignored it.
Also worth mentioning is a list of White Papers containing 6 more articles by Dr. Toole, available from a Harmon International website. They are easy to download and I urge people to have a look.
http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->There is a wealth of information about speakers and room acoustics, but I find no mention in them about the effect of different speaker cables. Considering Toole’s demonstrated expertise on designing and conducting unbiased listening tests, this absence says much about the overall contribution of cables to the acoustics of reproduced sound.
I quote from page 4 of an article titled Part Two: Making a Good Loudspeaker – Imaging, space, and great sound in rooms. I find this reveals much about Toole's thoughts on the subject of objective listening tests in general and why I object so much to PCT's misinterpretation of his words.
"If listeners like or dislike something, it is important to try to identify what, technically, was responsible. By taking the listening reports back to the lab, it is possible to learn the relationships between what we measure, and what we hear. This is the science of psychoacoustics, and the better we understand it, the better we will be at delivering good sound to our customers’ ears. Technical measurements must be accurate, or else they lie to us. Getting accurate acoustical measurements without good facilities is very difficult to impossible. Much of the data floating around the loudspeaker industry is not accurate.
Most listening tests are valid only at a specific time and place, for the specific recordings that were listened to, and for the people offering their opinions. This can be acceptable if it is you choosing your own system in your own home. It is not acceptable for a loudspeaker manufacturer, who is trying to design products that can sound good to many listeners, in many rooms, with many recordings. Consequently, we get scientific about it, and start to remove some of the variables that have nothing to do with the sound from the loudspeaker, letting the listeners focus as much of their attention as possible on the sound, and the sound alone. Purveyors of 'magic' in the audio industry find these double-blind tests very threatening."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
If he doesn't read product manuals that are designed to enable customers to maximize the benefit of their purchase, then WHAT THE HELL DOES HE READ?
Do you honestly believe he spends all the time he does in acoustic research and then doesn't ensure that his findings relating to factors that can affect sonic performance are incorporated into speaker product manuals.? How far out on the limb of intellectual dishonesty are you willing to go to defend your dogma at all costs?
Depends on how big the company is and how many layers of management. My point is that just because this statement appears in a product manual of the company he works for, doesn't mean he endorses it. You don't know if he read it or wrote it or endorsed it.
Quote:
Your last sentence is pure, unadulterated, unsubstantiated specualtion.
So true, but educated speculation. :)
-
Quoting Dr. Toole on wires is like quoting PC Tower on garter belts --
Toole frequently writes about room acoustics, and sometimes about speakers (mainly acoustics after joining Harman)
He's almost never mentioned wires publicly and can't be held responsible for every word in every Harman product owner's manual (which are probably written by a technical writer working with engineering and marketing).
I note that excerpts from the owner's manuals presented here do not include all the paragraphs on wires -- specific paragraphs are carefully selected to present a biased view.
Toole's provided no data and no articles on wires (that I know of.)
Just a brief answer to an interview question ... which you guys are twisting and
turning inside out to defend pre-existing opinions.
Doing this is about as useful as quoting PC Tower on garterbelts because he once made some comments on the subject (" NIce garterbelt babycakes ! ") after drinking eight martini's at some topless club.
Toole = very interested in room acoustics
Toole = no apparent interest in wires
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
Well, you what E-Stat? Cable sonic differences is an unproven assumption but you seem to be holding on to it pretty good.
I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.
FWIW, I do place cables last in the order of audible hierarchy in an audio system.
1. Speakers
2. Source(s)
3. Amplification
4. Rooms and treatments
5. Cables
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I assert no hard proof other than observations over thirty years of experience with some nice gear. And that of many trusted ears I have known over the years. Take it or leave it.
FWIW, I do place cables last in the order of audible hierarchy in an audio system.
1. Speakers
2. Source(s)
3. Amplification
4. Rooms and treatments
5. Cables
rw
It is unfortunate that you place rooms and treatment number 4. Your loss, really. shows how much more you have to learn after 30 years.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
You're twisting and turning even more than I thought you would on this one.
As for e-mailing, apparently you have. Since you have been one of Toole's most active promoters on this site, why don't you report specifically what his position is on cables, and the details of his research to arrive at those conclusions. While you're at it, why not report on his explanation of the interview I quoted.
What's the big mystery here?
You contact him. It is about time yuou do some research.
-
Thanks for your great analysis and review.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I did. I find your lack of reading comprehension tiresome.
Let's read together, shall we?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
"JBL Ti loudspeakers may also be connected to the power amplifier using several lengths of wire. The multi-wire connection method offers a number of options and advantages...
This way each individual speaker drive unit (and it's associated network) can be connected independently to the power amplifier...
By removing the bars, connections can be made to the individual network sections using two or more pairs of wires (four or more conductors) as shown in figure 1. The wires may be of the same type for both low, middle, and high frequency sections. The advantages are that wire effects (resistance, inductance, etc.) are reduced, and intermodulation of low and high frequencies in the cable is avoided. Specialized wires for low, middle, and high frequencies may yield excellent results in some systems. In either case, the cable for the low frequencies should be as short as possible and the left and right cable for each section must be the same length. If the cable to one speaker system is longer than the one to the other speaker due to the distance from the power amplifier, make sure not to wind the excess cable up in the form of a coil...
Another option is to power each separate drive unit (and its associated network section) from its own power amplifier.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
You seem to read what you want to read instead of that which is actually there.
See above notation for JBL's "speculations".
rw
It is you who has comprehension problems. Nowhere it makes a case for audiophile cables. It is all about multi amping speakers. Period, end of story.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Yes, I've skied Vail before. Great powder.
rw
I am glad I missed you there.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony_Montana
It is not rocket science :)
But it is a mystery to many/most audiophiles :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swerd
PCT, I expect better from you than this! Perhaps I shouldn’t. You frequently tell us you are a lawyer, but you are committing the worst kind of distortion by omission here. Perhaps that is what lawyers do for a living, but you probably are also aware that these are clearly not the only reasonable inferences, much less conclusions, that can be drawn from his statements.
Interview Question:
"I believe that many audiophiles would get more from their equipment if they would transfer some of their interest and money for audio cables into acoustics and room adaption (sic), but since audio cables seem to be of such big interest, maybe you could share what you think are the relevant qualities when it comes to loudspeaker cables?"
Dr. Toole's Answer:
"Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them. At a time when advanced technology has reduced the number of tweaks that audio enthusiasts can play with, it is natural that these products should become topics of conversation. I call the most extreme of them "audio jewellery" (sic), in that they do nothing for the audio system except make the owner feel better or more proud. Superbly performing audio cables can be purchased for very moderate prices. Even "bad" cables, are not bad enough to be audibly worse than the truly nasty things that some rooms or poorly designed loudspeakers can do."
In your earlier comments, you omitted the phrase ...for very moderate prices... from the statement that superbly performing cables can be purchased. You say that "the only reasonable inference to be drawn from that statement is that there is a difference in how commercially produced cables perform". What you infer might be correct if you dropped the words onlyand reasonable. A more reasonable conclusion from his full statement is that it is not expensive or difficult to purchase cables that perform superbly.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Without knowing his definition of superbly performing cables, it is not possible to reasonably conclude or infer anything else.
This is a big stretch considering his entire answer to the question, begins with "Cables are very profitable products, and that is the main driving force behind them."<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Your inferences, while not logically false, make no sense when compared to the obvious conclusions from what Toole says in his full answer to the question.
I would like to point out a web page that summarizes Toole’s career and some of his major contributions to acoustics. http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/PEI_Toole.htm
On this page is a list of some of his publications. Numerous titles appear to be on the subject of how to identify and control the variables in listening tests. This seems to be one of his main contributions. I have a pdf copy of #19 on this list, titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things. If anyone would like to read it, contact me and I’ll be glad to send it to you. I think it is a good example of how to scientifically approach the problem of conducting unbiased listening tests.
Note that nowhere in this list is a title about the effects of speaker cables. To be fair, it is possible that such a study was done but does not appear on this list, or is buried within one of the other publications on the list without being reflected in the title. I certainly have not read each publication on this list. But it is safe to say that Toole has never published directly on what properly controlled listening tests reveal about sound reproduction acoustics attributable to cables. This is probably because there is little to report on the subject, and there were much bigger questions for him to study. Good scientists tend to investigate fields where there is a demonstrably significant phenomena to study. I’m not saying that there is absolutely no effect from cables, but it may be so small (even to the point of vanishing) that scientists have ignored this as a problem worthy of their time and resources. Certainly Floyd Toole has ignored it.
Also worth mentioning is a list of White Papers containing 6 more articles by Dr. Toole, available from a Harmon International website. They are easy to download and I urge people to have a look.
http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->There is a wealth of information about speakers and room acoustics, but I find no mention in them about the effect of different speaker cables. Considering Toole’s demonstrated expertise on designing and conducting unbiased listening tests, this absence says much about the overall contribution of cables to the acoustics of reproduced sound.
I quote from page 4 of an article titled Part Two: Making a Good Loudspeaker – Imaging, space, and great sound in rooms. I find this reveals much about Toole's thoughts on the subject of objective listening tests in general and why I object so much to PCT's misinterpretation of his words.
"If listeners like or dislike something, it is important to try to identify what, technically, was responsible. By taking the listening reports back to the lab, it is possible to learn the relationships between what we measure, and what we hear. This is the science of psychoacoustics, and the better we understand it, the better we will be at delivering good sound to our customers’ ears. Technical measurements must be accurate, or else they lie to us. Getting accurate acoustical measurements without good facilities is very difficult to impossible. Much of the data floating around the loudspeaker industry is not accurate.
Most listening tests are valid only at a specific time and place, for the specific recordings that were listened to, and for the people offering their opinions. This can be acceptable if it is you choosing your own system in your own home. It is not acceptable for a loudspeaker manufacturer, who is trying to design products that can sound good to many listeners, in many rooms, with many recordings. Consequently, we get scientific about it, and start to remove some of the variables that have nothing to do with the sound from the loudspeaker, letting the listeners focus as much of their attention as possible on the sound, and the sound alone. Purveyors of 'magic' in the audio industry find these double-blind tests very threatening."
First of all, LEARN TO READ. I included the entire quote in my first post.
Secondly, the reasonable price point is only dealing with relative costs. He still distinguishes bad cables from good and uses a relative term of "superbly", so he is suggesting differences in performance.
Thirdly, I am very familiar with Dr. Tooles work and have read all of his papers that can be downloaded. I really don't know what Dr. Toole thinks about cables, because, as you point out, he has never really addressed the subject in a formal way.
I'm simply commenting on the public information that's available - the interview I quoted and the JBL manual produced by his company, and I'm only commenting on the reasonable interpretation of those two items and the reasonable inferences than can be drawn from those two items. AND the only reason either even interests me is because I love to see the intellectual dishonesty that eminates from those regulars who worship Dr. Toole and try to explain away the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from what we have available publicly from Dr. Toole.
I also bring it up because people like MM have claimed in the past that Dr. Toole has in fact tested cables and found no difference, yet he provides no support or details for these claims. As you know from your research there is no public support for MM's claims.
Personally, I don't think any conclusion can be drawn about Dr. Toole's opinions on cables from what is available publicly. But not for the distorted reasons that the rabid naysayers advance. Rather, these are just snippets that, absent anything else, on their face suggest Toole does believe cables make a difference - that's the only fair inference that can be drawn from the JBL manual and the short interview and any attempt to argue otherwise is simply sophistry.
On the other hand, anyone who would draw a firm or even a tentative conclusion from these tidbits of information on what Toole really thinks about cables is a fool. I'm not a fool and I draw no conclusions.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
You contact him. It is about time yuou do some research.
I'll pass for the time being.
I'm much more interested in the mystery of why you won't publicly reveal your communication with Dr. Toole.
Perhaps could it be that you and he are one and the same?
|