Towards Objective Measurements of Sound

[kkantor]

There are many people active in this field who ideas are very worthy of discussion. EG-

http://www.aes.org/publications/conference...measurement.pdf

(I just happend to have this link handy because I sponsored one of the papers, but there are hundreds of others one could cite.)

To frame this discussion as somehow Toole vs. AR is preposterous.

-k

[Zilch]

How many researchers worldwide are active in this field professionally would you estimate, Ken?

[kkantor]

How many researchers worldwide are active in this field professionally would you estimate, Ken?

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of university, government and private research groups devoted to some form of relevant study. Writing as I think of them:

1- Cognitive scientists who study the general issue of perception and its relationship to physical stimulii.

- characterization of the sensory periphery.

- cognitive models.

2- Auditory Biophysics people who study the fundamentals of sound stimulii in particular.

- mechanisms.

- limits and thresholds.

- normatives.

- detection without awareness.

3- Scientific Psychoacousticians, who focus on perception of sound.

- pitch and tonality.

- masking.

- intelligibility.

- difference detection.

- spatial hearing.

- priming and auditory memory.

- developmental psychoacoustics.

- dichotic phenomena, fusion, etc.

- intersensory modalities.

4- Engineering Psychoacousticians.

- data-rate-based error functions and impairment detection thresholds.

- linear and non-linear error functions and detection thresholds.

- transduction error functions and characterization methods.

- architectural acoustics.

- perceptual algorithm design.

- recording and auralization methods.

- test and measurement methods for signal processing.

- test and measurement methods for transduction.

- signal generating product optimization.

- signal processing product optimization.

- transduction product optimization.

- ranking and preference studies.

5- Loudspeaker Psychoacoustics.

- characteristics of design alternatives.

- objective characterization and optimization methods.

- subjective characterization and optimization methods.

- efficient test and measurement procedures.

- psychoacoustically-guided engineering improvements.

- parameter tolerance studies.

- psychoacoustically-guided, or aware, commercial system design.

So pick a few, and I will offer a wild guess! (Or tell me what I left out.)

-k

[Shacky]

I love it!

There has always been a dichotomy between the practitioners of objective measurement and

subjective measurement. The two sides sometimes refer to each other with the slightly derogatory

terms "meter readers" and " golden ears."

My background is Nuclear Medicine. Now the industry is moving to the term Molecular Imaging. My studies were physics, nuclea physics mostly, intensive. So I have a very scientific background. The analogy is a good one. All the science, electronic and physics, of Molecular Imaging equipment radiopharamceuticals are designed for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac, neurological, and oncologic disease.

The studies are data intensive. the biochemistry, specificity, and distribution of radioisotopes. The detection and imaging of those radioisotopes after they are injected in the patient.

All images need to be to be interpreted by a well trained physician. Now there are all kinds of measurements for the imaging quality and quality control of this multi million dollar equipment. But the ultimate deteremination of the value of the images and their diagnostic relavence and quality os the subjective visual interpretation of the reader who can interpret the images in the context of the wholistic patient and their history.

The science and measurement of things like Full Width, Half Max... are all critical to the industry, equipment and science. But it's the ultimate images that are created and the subsequent ease, accuracy, or preference of the final interpretor that is the ultimate final judgement in how good or valuable it all is in diagnosing or treating the patient.

I've been giving Zilch a hard time hear over his "Meter Reader" approach to the business knowing full well that this side of the business is crucial. Yet in isolation it becomes less and less important without the realization that it's the final outcome - music to the listener - that is the most important experience and the goal of all the science to begin with.

So both camps are important. But ultimately it's the "goldne ear" or not-so-golden ears listening to the final output of all the audio science that is the most critical piece of the puzzle. Otherwise it's like the proverbial question - "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?"

[soundminded]

I love it!

There has always been a dichotomy between the practitioners of objective measurement and

subjective measurement. The two sides sometimes refer to each other with the slightly derogatory

terms "meter readers" and " golden ears."

My background is Nuclear Medicine. Now the industry is moving to the term Molecular Imaging. My studies were physics, nuclea physics mostly, intensive. So I have a very scientific background. The analogy is a good one. All the science, electronic and physics, of Molecular Imaging equipment radiopharamceuticals are designed for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac, neurological, and oncologic disease.

The studies are data intensive. the biochemistry, specificity, and distribution of radioisotopes. The detection and imaging of those radioisotopes after they are injected in the patient.

All images need to be to be interpreted by a well trained physician. Now there are all kinds of measurements for the imaging quality and quality control of this multi million dollar equipment. But the ultimate deteremination of the value of the images and their diagnostic relavence and quality os the subjective visual interpretation of the reader who can interpret the images in the context of the wholistic patient and their history.

The science and measurement of things like Full Width, Half Max... are all critical to the industry, equipment and science. But it's the ultimate images that are created and the subsequent ease, accuracy, or preference of the final interpretor that is the ultimate final judgement in how good or valuable it all is in diagnosing or treating the patient.

I've been giving Zilch a hard time hear over his "Meter Reader" approach to the business knowing full well that this side of the business is crucial. Yet in isolation it becomes less and less important without the realization that it's the final outcome - music to the listener - that is the most important experience and the goal of all the science to begin with.

So both camps are important. But ultimately it's the "goldne ear" or not-so-golden ears listening to the final output of all the audio science that is the most critical piece of the puzzle. Otherwise it's like the proverbial question - "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?"

The functional requirements of the machine is defined by the characteristics and limits of a sensory perception. Since a correct and working accurate model of hearing does not yet exist, claims about models, studies, and theories cited above notwithstanding, and because there is no accurate universal coherent theory which explains acoustic science yet either, knowing what to measure and what the significance and required limits of resolution of each measurement must be cannot be determined. Because results based on the failed models we do have, models that have been and still are used, have failed miserably, the claims of audiophiles also notwithstanding, no degree of refinement of the existing approach will ever yield satisfactory results. The existing paradigms are simply inadequate to the problem. Once entirely different and more powerful models are obtained, the current approach will look ludicrous. The mistakes in obsessively measuring what will be seen as mattering to little or no degree at all and the failure to measure what actually is critical will be seen as the fatal flaws which made success impossible. The deliberate blindness to this unavoidable conclusion will be seen as the stupidity which shackled those who tried to inevitable failure. The cynicism of those who insisted on it will be seen as the triumph of greed through the pretense of research and discovery over the genuine article and will be viewed with contempt. I'm not waiting for that day, I already do.

[Zilch]

I've been giving Zilch a hard time hear over his "Meter Reader" approach to the business knowing full well that this side of the business is crucial. Yet in isolation it becomes less and less important without the realization that it's the final outcome - music to the listener - that is the most important experience and the goal of all the science to begin with.

The problem, Shacky, is that we are the physicians interpreting the scans, and you, not understanding what they mean, and worse, having zero interest in learning anything about that, repeatedly assert that what we do is, by extension of your ignorance, meaningless; all that matters to you is what you like. It's non-sequitur; we don't give a flying whit WHAT you like, rather, our interest instead lies with WHY you or anyone else might like or dislike what you and they do.

Therein is the irrationality of this perceived insult to your subjectivist conceit: It's NOT about you, Shacky; get over it. Lobbing turds over the wall that separates us is not advancing your cause....

The AR-3 and AR-3a were (and ar) anything but perfect, but to dismiss them the way both Toole and Zilch have done is a disservice to audio research.

The irony here is that by virtue of me actually HAVING an interest in doing research for the purpose of learning more about them, I am a pariah, much as Peter is, for his having the temerity to review them.

Who besides myself has actually measured AR3a's in the forty years since AR first did it and posted or published the results for all to review and discuss? Why would anyone do such a thing but to demean them? Surely, an AR enthusiast website is not the place for this. Kick my ass for caring about something more than what they currently sell for on eBay....

[Shacky]

Zilch must be feeling challenged of late. His posts devolve more and more into rude insults.

Knocking AR's is tough work and it's obviously taking it's toll.

The doctor prescribes:

1 hour of listening to music (and not posting on the internet) 4 times daily.

Symptom of needing to bash AR speakers and/or anyone who thinks listening to music is actually more important than trying to measure what's been done a thousand times already will begin to fade.

Making broad brush claims about $6 econowave guides being better than one of the best tweeters ever made will eventually heal.

Desire to quote Toole, etc. will slip away.

You may find yourself reading music periodicals and web sites!

And low and behold someday you'll start to enjoy discussing how this speaker or that actually sounds with others who may like something else better but appreciate you for who you are and your willingness to discuss these issues without lobbing turds back and forth.

Heck you might change you screen name to something less devoid! Maybe start sending friendly PM's that have nothing to do with waveguides!

[Zilch]

Making broad brush claims about $6 econowave guides being better than one of the best tweeters ever made....

Get a clue, Shacky; Carl showed it with an even cheaper one:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=5281

[genek]

Get a clue, Shacky; Carl showed it with an even cheaper one:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=5281

Carl's effort was to come up with a last-ditch resort to keep a failing tweeter usable. Your own contribution to the thread suggested that it was redesigning the speaker, that the sound would not be the same as the original and that decisions would have to be made about what compromises were acceptable. It is also worth noting that at the end of the exercise Carl was not sufficiently enthused about the better sound that he chose to leave the waveguide in place.

Measuring sound objectively seems a worthwhile effort to me, but the effort will inevitably descend into vitriol and name-calling the moment someone injects a subjective view that any measured sound is "better" than any other.

[soundminded]

Carl's effort was to come up with a last-ditch resort to keep a failing tweeter usable. Your own contribution to the thread suggested that it was redesigning the speaker, that the sound would not be the same as the original and that decisions would have to be made about what compromises were acceptable. It is also worth noting that at the end of the exercise Carl was not sufficiently enthused about the better sound that he chose to leave the waveguide in place.

Measuring sound objectively seems a worthwhile effort to me, but the effort will inevitably descend into vitriol and name-calling the moment someone injects a subjective view that any measured sound is "better" than any other.

If the measurements were any good, they would consistently explain what we hear, point the direction to how to design better performing equipment, and then corroborate that the better measuring equipment performed subjectively better (sound more like real music) as well. The fact that the measurements don't proves that the theory behind them which rationalizes them is wrong. Instead of fighting with the subjectivists, the meter readers would do far better if they are actually interested in advancing the science to go back to their laboratories and rethink their ideas from the ground up. It's at the foundation where the crack causes the entire ediface to become skewed, that is the only place it can be repaired. Instead they keep trying to justify their failed theories while the subjectivists argue over whose bad design sounds less worse than the others. The contributions of Villchur and his colleagues could only carry the state of the art so far. After that, additional intellectual advances were needed. That never happened. We're stuck in an early 1970s time warp. Forty years of wasted effort has intervened. A few like Gordon Holt will admit it, the rest just pretend it didn't happen.

[Shacky]

Carl's effort was to come up with a last-ditch resort to keep a failing tweeter usable. Your own contribution to the thread suggested that it was redesigning the speaker, that the sound would not be the same as the original and that decisions would have to be made about what compromises were acceptable. It is also worth noting that at the end of the exercise Carl was not sufficiently enthused about the better sound that he chose to leave the waveguide in place.

Measuring sound objectively seems a worthwhile effort to me, but the effort will inevitably descend into vitriol and name-calling the moment someone injects a subjective view that any measured sound is "better" than any other.

This is exactly the kind of cheap shot antics I've been citing in Zilch's arguements. I don't have to more about Toole than Zilch does to be able to recognize overstated facts when I see them. Zilch has used such indefensible "experts" as me and Onplane when ripping out his one liner arguements against those of much greatly knowledge than I (or Zilch).

It reminds me of how the Arab Street looks at "facts" on the internet like 3,000 Jews staying home from work on 9-11 - and it being posted on the internet somehow gives it truth.

Just cause Zilch has more time to spend on the internet posting than anyone else here who has a life, doesn't make his arguements any better. Just copious.

[Zilch]

Measuring sound objectively seems a worthwhile effort to me, but the effort will inevitably descend into vitriol and name-calling the moment someone injects a subjective view that any measured sound is "better" than any other.

I have no clue why anyone would leap to the conclusion that the work cited draws any conclusions with respect to how it might sound; in fact it was ME who suggested that it might not sound as good as the original.

No, Carl's was an objective study, and his conclusion was:

The overall conclusion I draw from the work presented here is the Dayton WG can help boost the output of a tired, old 3/4 inch dome tweeter and, it's a low cost mod which is reversable to the extent the classic value of vintage AR speakers fitted with the 3/4 inch tweeter is not diminished. Thirdly, it appears to have better off-axis response than a normally flush mounted 1 inch dome tweeter.

My personal opinion, FWIW, is the off-axis response performance of the 3/4 inch dome tweeter, although somewhat unique and a highly novel development considering the era in which it was developed, is held in way too high a regard.

This stands in stark contrast to Shacky's assertion that the AR3a tweeter was "one of the best that was ever made," which opinion is clearly not supported by the facts as Carl and many others have found them. Shacky likes it, and that, according to the subjectivist mantra, should be reason enough; there is no necessity to make stuff up in support of anyone's preferences. Conversely, neither should anyone's enjoyment of what they like be in any respect diminished by these findings.

Just cause Zilch has more time to spend on the internet posting than anyone else here who has a life, doesn't make his arguements any better. Just copious.

I apologize for eclipsing your post count, Shacky. Not to worry, the anxiety will subside in due course.

Ken. I'd certainly honor your request in your thread. I've been guilty lately of thread robing in my ongoing jab of words with the Zilch'miester.

Briefly....

[genek]

I have no clue why anyone would leap to the conclusion that the work cited draws any conclusions with respect to how it might sound; in fact it was ME who suggested that it might not sound as good as the original.

It didn't, and Carl didn't suggest it did, either. It's your reference to it that does:

"Making broad brush claims about $6 econowave guides being better than one of the best tweeters ever made...."

"Get a clue, Shacky; Carl showed it with an even cheaper one:"

Your statement, following immediately after the quote from Shacky, reads that you are saying that Carl showed that the cheaper waveguide was better than the original tweeter (I will refrain from taking a position of the accuracy of Shacky's belief that it was "one of the best tweeters ever made" because I don't think I've come anywhere near to hearing enough tweeters to make such a judgement). It was why I pointed out that your post in the original thread suggested the opposite.

[Shacky]

This stands in stark contrast to Shacky's assertion that the AR3a tweeter was "one of the best that was ever made," which opinion is clearly not supported by the facts as Carl and many others have found them. Shacky likes it, and that, according to the subjectivist mantra, should be reason enough; there is no necessity to make stuff up in support of anyone's preferences. Conversely, neither should anyone's enjoyment of what they like be in any respect diminished by these findings.

If I were in the minority here in my reagrd for the AR sound your quips might make more sense.

Why in the world do you pick a site called Claasic Speakers, dedicated to vintage New England speakers, with the vast majority of posters in love with AR's, to pimp your ego driven quest in life to be the audio scientist that proves to all mankind that he is doing God's work to set the record straight and convert these no nothings who think AR speakers are the cat's meow and show them the way to econo-wave nirvana? All the while hiding behind the "I"m a scientist who won't share his listening preferences with anyone" mask.

It takes a unique individual to do what you do. I didn't see anybody asking you to measure a pair of AR 3a speakers and post your findings here. Or did I miss that?

That I like AR's is a small point in the skeme of things. That there is a very knowledgeable following of these original AR's is a huge deal in the audio world. And it's why Stereophile is smart enough to do a piece on AR3a, Advent and Dynaco A25's. It will sell magazines.

I tell you what - you hold your breadth and wait for Stereophile to do a piece on your wave guide projects. Now there's a worthshile use of your time

[Zilch]

Your statement, following immediately after the quote from Shacky, reads that you are saying that Carl showed that the cheaper waveguide was better than the original tweeter....

We just did a thread on that, and the gratuitous thread crap notwithstanding, it was not casual chatter on the part of either principal, rather, a serious exploration of the data and issues it raises:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=5333

[genek]

We just did a thread on that, and it was not casual chatter on the part of either pricipal, rather, a serious exploration of the data and issues it raises:

I'm not getting involved in that debate (I don't have the technical background for it). I was merely answering your speculation as to why anybody would interpret your reference to the thread as they did.

[Zilch]

It takes a unique individual to do what you do. I didn't see anybody asking you to measure a pair of AR 3a speakers and post your findings here. Or did I miss that?

Seems you've missed quite a bit, Shacky:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=5205

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...ost&p=75259

I am a friend of this forum; you are determined in all ignorance not to see it, and to convince yourself and everyone else otherwise, is all....

[Shacky]

Seems you've missed quite a bit, Shacky:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=5205

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...ost&p=75259

I am a friend of this forum; you are determined in all ignorance not to see it, and to convince yourself and everyone else otherwise, is all....

Don't see what you think is so ingratiating in either. All are welcome in this forum. Even you and me. As to how much of a "friend" you are, I'll leave that for the posts to speak for themselves.

But don't give up your day job (if you have one) just yet

[Shacky]

Zilch,

Just to remind you where you are. Look at the initial page for this site. 15 of the 26 badges displayed are AR. And you think your attempts to discredit the brand make you a "friend" of this forum? Now that's what I call Chutzpah.

Definition of Chutzpah - the boy who axe murders his parents then pleads for the mercy of the court as he's an orphan

[kkantor]

I agree. It is more like Floyd Toole vs Roy Allison, although in some ways it is also Toole vs Consumer Research, or at least that magazine's approach to speaker sound up until not all that long ago. (Toole has told me that CR is on the way to changing its testing procedures to more closely parallel his.) In a private message to him where I wondered why he did not do a bit more analysing of some innovative speakers that were considerably different in design from typical forward-facing jobs (the LST, the Allison models, the Ohm Walsh models, the dbx Soundfield models, etc.), he replied that they might be of interest to "old fart audiophiles," but that doing the research would add nothing to the science story. However, how would he know unless he did the research?

Note that I am not Roy's official mouthpiece in this debate. (I am pretty sure he knows nothing of what is going on, and I am not about to drag him in.) Rather, I have read material by both men, and have corresponsed with both over the years (much more, with Roy, of course), and feel obligated to defend Roy's positions in light of what Toole has written (and what Zilch has posted that goes even beyond what Toole has written).

The AR-3 and AR-3a were (and ar) anything but perfect, but to dismiss them the way both Toole and Zilch have done is a disservice to audio research.

Howard Ferstler

1- Fortunately, it's not anyone vs. anyone, when it doesn't involve selling books, magazines or speakers. In my experience, serious researchers keep up with other serious researchers, and respect them all. The audience at a paper by one loudspeaker designer/theorist is likely to be made up mostly of other loudspeaker designer/theorists.

2- I will have to look at Floyd's book, of course, to understand his goals for it.

Note- I did a long article for AUDIO's "50th Anniversary Issue" covering the "History of Loudspeakers." (Oddly enough, Floyd, Corey and I all shared the cover of the issue, along with a few others...) I'm trying to find a copy of it to see how much ink I gave to JBL. It's really very difficult to cover everything.

3- Zilch has not "dismissed" the 3a. Rather, it seems the other way around. He has build his soapbox, (at least here), relative to it.

-k

http://www.bksv.com/doc/ba0406.pdf

[kkantor]

I agree. It is more like Floyd Toole vs Roy Allison, although in some ways it is also Toole vs Consumer Research, or at least that magazine's approach to speaker sound up until not all that long ago. (Toole has told me that CR is on the way to changing its testing procedures to more closely parallel his.) In a private message to him where I wondered why he did not do a bit more analysing of some innovative speakers that were considerably different in design from typical forward-facing jobs (the LST, the Allison models, the Ohm Walsh models, the dbx Soundfield models, etc.), he replied that they might be of interest to "old fart audiophiles," but that doing the research would add nothing to the science story. However, how would he know unless he did the research?

Note that I am not Roy's official mouthpiece in this debate. (I am pretty sure he knows nothing of what is going on, and I am not about to drag him in.) Rather, I have read material by both men, and have corresponsed with both over the years (much more, with Roy, of course), and feel obligated to defend Roy's positions in light of what Toole has written (and what Zilch has posted that goes even beyond what Toole has written).

The AR-3 and AR-3a were (and ar) anything but perfect, but to dismiss them the way both Toole and Zilch have done is a disservice to audio research.

Howard Ferstler

Then there is the easy way out:

http://www.slfhemmabio.nu/htm/hardware/nhtsidor/vt12.htm

-k

[soundminded]

1- Fortunately, it's not anyone vs. anyone, when it doesn't involve selling books, magazines or speakers. In my experience, serious researchers keep up with other serious researchers, and respect them all. The audience at a paper by one loudspeaker designer/theorist is likely to be made up mostly of other loudspeaker designer/theorists.

2- I will have to look at Floyd's book, of course, to understand his goals for it.

Note- I did a long article for AUDIO's "50th Anniversary Issue" covering the "History of Loudspeakers." (Oddly enough, Floyd, Corey and I all shared the cover of the issue, along with a few others...) I'm trying to find a copy of it to see how much ink I gave to JBL. It's really very difficult to cover everything.

3- Zilch has not "dismissed" the 3a. Rather, it seems the other way around. He has build his soapbox, (at least here), relative to it.

-k

http://www.bksv.com/doc/ba0406.pdf

"The audience at a paper by one loudspeaker designer/theorist is likely to be made up mostly of other loudspeaker designer/theorists."

They can write about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for all the good it will do them. Eighty years later and the best they can do still sounds like sound coming out of a box to anyone with normal hearing. Drowning old men hanging on to each other for dear life because none of them can swim. If I had a breaktrhough design, the last people in the world I'd want to know about it was my competitors.

BTW, since this is not about Alison v Toole, why is it posted on the AR thread? Just curious.

[Zilch]

They can write about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for all the good it will do them. Eighty years later and the best they can do still sounds like sound coming out of a box to anyone with normal hearing.

It'd be good if you had something more substantive to contribute than how stupid everyone else is.

Drowning old men hanging on to each other for dear life because none of them can swim.

They recognize the problem.

If I had a breaktrhough design, the last people in the world I'd want to know about it was my competitors.

"If" being operative here. It's the "Tree in the forest" thing; does the wild bear fart in the woods?

BTW, since this is not about Alison v Toole, why is it posted on the AR thread? Just curious.

It's about AR design theory. As head of development, Allison was spokesperson for its exposition to the scientific design community. He later implemented it more rigorously in his own products. Forgive us for desiring to learn stuff here....

[kkantor]

Ken, that is a great speaker. I may have not mentioned this before, but in my smaller AV room I have those home-made speakers of mine at the left and right locations (Allison tweeters and Chinese midrange drivers in a vertical MTTM arrangement, with a small Allison woofer, and with my own custom-designed crossover network), but with a VS1.2 handling the center feed for the installation. I believe that the VS driver group is basically the same MTM array that you used vertically in the VT version.

Actually, I have the VS enclosure in my design is mounted vertically in a special outer enclosure, with a small (6.5-inch) Allison woofer facing downward on the bottom in a sealed sub enclosure. The assembly is only 3 feet tall, so to keep things coherent the front panel is angled backwards about 4 degrees. A modified (by me) Allison passive subwoofer crossover network feeds signals below 180 Hz to the center system's woofer and those above 180 to the vertically oriented VS1.2 unit. Bass below 90 Hz for all of the system in the installation go to a big Hsu VTF3 (MK3) subwoofer.

Pictures of the front wall arrangement, plus a close up of the center unit, are attached.

A question: how does that "audio/video" switch on the VT1.2 manage to alter the soundfield presentation?

Howard Ferstler

Hey, thanks for the kind words! I didn't fully understand what you had done before, but I get it now.

So, the switch alters the polars slightly. I one case, the primary lobe is toed out towards the side walls. In the other case, it is toed inward towards the listener. Also, in "video" mode, there is more overlap at the crossover point, which makes the impulse response slightly more complex.

-k

"The World Wide Web... Spreading Authoritative Disinformation for More Than 50 Years!"

[soundminded]

It'd be good if you had something more substantive to contribute than how stupid everyone else is.

They recognize the problem.

"If" being operative here. It's the "Tree in the forest" thing; does the wild bear fart in the woods?

It's about AR design theory. As head of development, Allison was spokesperson for its exposition to the scientific design community. He later implemented it more rigorously in his own products. Forgive us for desiring to learn stuff here....

"It'd be good if you had something more substantive to contribute than how stupid everyone else is."

I already did by pointing out that after 80 years which have seen countless thousands of technical papers, countless tens of thousands of experimental and marketed models, and countless tens of millions of dollars spent in research, the failure to solve the problem is clearly evidenced by the fact that while other electronics related technologies have made staggering advances in that time, the best the consumer and professional audio industry can come up with as an excuse for a replicator of music is sound coming out of a box, and even then it's sound that rarely if ever sounds like music to critical ears. That's why they always revert the discussion away from music and towards consumer preferences or technical apsects they view as merits of their failed technology. What is stupid is to hit your head against the same brick wall forever when it never budges. One day they may stop to rethink the whole thing from the ground up but that won't happen until their heads hurt so much from uselessly bashing it against the wall that they realize that if they don't abandon the same old pigheaded approaches, they will never solve it. The failure isn't the execution of the design, its the paradigm of the problem the deisgn is based on. To cynically pretend it isn't only portends another eighty years of failure.

"They recognize the problem."

Assuming they do, then the problem they recognize is that they don't understand the problem, therefore they can't solve it. And those few who are honest about it at least have stopped pretending they do.

"Forgive us for desiring to learn stuff here...."

Is that what you are doing? I never would have guessed from your own postings. I thought you were trying to "instruct." In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Allison may have had some knowledge but there was a lot missing from what he needed to know that he didn't have. I know he is not your god of audio wisdom, he certainly isn't mine. I do value what he contributed...but I don't overvalue it. It has sharp limits.