[Gary Eickmeier]

Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't think that's it exactly. He's saying look, you have all these
opinions, and these guys over here have opinions too, but they also
have data and reserach studies. It's not about who is qualified to
have an opinion; everyone is.

What data and research studies? I have pointed out that no one has answered
Linkwitz's questions in all of audio history yet. He asked about what I call
"The Big Three" of radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room
acoustics. The simple question was, which radiation pattern is most correct,
which room positioning of speakers, what sort of room treatment is most
correct for the establishment of the most realistic AS, or Auditory Scene
(as compared to live sound). I have also pointed out that there is little or
no agreement among the "experts" about any of these things. There is no
basic stereo theory, or paradigm or model of how it should be done in
systems with the highest goals - namely, the realistic reproduction of
auditory perspective.

I searched all through Floyd Toole's new book and found nothing on this
subject, nothing that answered Linkwitz's questions.



Well, yes.

The questions I have to ask a what kind of evidence would it take
to convince you that you were wrong? How would you design an
experiment that has the best chance to refute your own theories as
convincingly as possible?

That one is simple Andrew. Just construct a test that shows that the Big
Three are not audible. You might have a variety of speakers from dipoles to
omnis to direct firing, you might place them up against the wall, out into
the room, or in the corners. You might have a room that is highly reflective
at the speaker end, or highly absorptive. If you can show that none of these
factors is audible, then I would have to go back into my cave and admit
defeat.

Gary Eickmeier