You're right, and there is a reason he doesn't.
Many of the speakers available to the public aren't narrow directivity speakers.
Even assuming what you right is true - and it is, of course, because "many" only means "more than one;" same thing as "some" except it flags the author's opinion in the opposite direct - that's a marketing reason, not a real reason.
They might not be one Dr. Toole's radar screen as obvious competitors to Harman's home speaker lines (though it is worth noting that their reference room uses LSR 6332's, and not big Revels) for reasons that have nothing to do with sound quality, whereas something colored-sounding but in the same market (say, a Martin-Logan or B&W) would be.
Lastly many of the speakers "available to the public" are unmitigated crap, so how is that relevant to anything?
The bolded part is incorrect***You're [sic] own quote implies otherwise and leaves only you to blame for such poor wording. .
It was not poorly worded. It was, as my posts generally are,
exactingly worded. I negotiate fine distinctions in written text, and interpret fine distinctions in written provisions of private and agency documents, for a living. And I do quite well at it. So perhaps I have an excessive appetite for the pedantic, but my words are carefully chosen to accurately convey my my position.
What was poor (and arguably intellectually dishonest) was your mischaracterization of my statement as "flawed speakers."
Also intellectually dishonest is your later assertion that my phrase "pick speakers that are designed to perform well under those conditions" is inconsistent with your formulation that
You're suppose [sic] to pick a speaker that objectively measures good [sic] and subjectively sounds good.
Anyone capable of reasonably interpreting written English will understand that my formulation, "performs well" implies high levels of both objective and subjective performance.
If your point is to deny that the performance of loudspeakers can be intentionally tailored to perform optimally in a given set of conditions by controlling the directivity, bass loading, etc, then…wow.
Just wow.
Do you have a good sharpener at home? If not, I recommend you find someone offering a sharpening service, because you're going to need a lot of honing to get anywhere near the cutting edge.
Your logic only applies to [narrow directivity speakers], and even then isn't full proof. There are too many dependents.
Sigh. There's only so much blatant, blinkered, ignorant misinterpretation of one's words that can be tolerated.
For reference, here is the text I actually put in front of you, with emphasis added.
"A good speaker with a
pattern in the midrange and treble appropriate to the room (narrower for rooms with features such as glass walls, large furniture along the sides, etc, wider for more absorptive room) doesn't need "acoustic panels" and such. The only effect they are likely to have, in fact, is to reduce spaciousness."
Now, given that I obviously to any observant reader mentioned situations where narrow-directivity speakers may perform better, and situations where wider-directivity speakers may perform better, how can you claim with a straight face that what I've written "only applies to those," with the antecedent of "those" being "narrow-directivity speakers"?
As I mentioned, there are too many variables so your logic is flawed.
Your statement is conclusory to the point of irrelevant.
It is inadequate to conclusorily assert that my logic is flawed. You've not pointed out any flaws, except in your ability to read and interpret plain English in a reasonable manner.
Room treatments are objectively proven to help in the majority of rooms,
If we narrow that statement to rooms containing incompetently-designed loudspeakers (i.e. the vast majority of loudspeakers offered by "high end audio" venders), I agree that turning one's room into a padded cell may make things better.
But if we're including competently-designed loudspeakers…I'd recommend you go listen to some. One can reasonably infer from your posts that you have not actually done much of that.
while what you're recommending is based on subjectivity, chance and circumstance.
So, the works of people with multiple JAES papers under their belt such as Dr. Earl Geddes are "subjectivity, chance, and circumstance?"
See, e.g., his presentation on small room acoustics.
An awful lot of stuff I harp on (yes, deliberate word choice there) is stuff that I first read from Geddes, often first recoiled from it as it was so contrary to prevailing wisdom, but over time digested intellectually, eventually tried, and confirmed that he was onto something.
I*** I guess we should all stop listening to Toole and Olive and instead listen to you. Fact is, it's not as simple as you imply. Once again you're pushing your opinions as facts. Pathetic...
My opinions are entirely consistent with the published works of Dr. Olive and Dr. Toole, as well as Dr. Geddes, as well as Linkwitz, as well as many others.