I didn't see the word "grunt" anywhere...that, and gofer...
"too many loafers and not enough gophers [sic]"
A rare case of “demons” and “solid engineering” harmonious cooperation
Guy finds his house plumbed with beer - full length version - YouTube
George
I think I've mentioned most of them over the last year or so,Now all we have to do is agree what they are
- put it this way, I fiddled to correct problems in these areas over the years, and have got results I can reasonably live with - far more so than the average setup ... Yes. I was joking, not making a political point. For many years I was a union member when I worked for a utility, and I have a good retirement package!RNMarsh said:
Sorry, my mistake. I assumed talk of 'removing' everything that is not music meant precisely that, whereas the most engineering can do is avoid adding too much that is not music.SY said:
In the world I live in, part of the design cycle is avoiding 'cross contamination' between electrical areas, me thinks thou dose fret to much
And as it they seem to use engineering instead of audioeering we can presume they will think about such things.
I like to 'fret' about everything when it comes to producing quality audio.
Now, I must say that Bruno has made a very interesting phono playback board that has great specs. In fact, he is pretty much at the 'engineering limit' of what can be made using common technology. It will be interesting how it does in the marketplace based on its SONIC MERIT. We shall see, and if he is truly successful, then congratulations to him for an engineering masterpiece.
For the moment, Charles Hansen, Nelson Pass and I are sticking with the 'tried and true'. We all got our awards in TAS and Stereophile this month, so we know we make audio designs useful for the audio community. It will be interesting, like it has been with the arrival of digital processing, what the 'next generation' can do, BUT it has to sound really, really good, and establishing this qualification only comes from open listening tests, as done by reviewers and customers, alike.
Now, I must say that Bruno has made a very interesting phono playback board that has great specs. In fact, he is pretty much at the 'engineering limit' of what can be made using common technology. It will be interesting how it does in the marketplace based on its SONIC MERIT. We shall see, and if he is truly successful, then congratulations to him for an engineering masterpiece.
For the moment, Charles Hansen, Nelson Pass and I are sticking with the 'tried and true'. We all got our awards in TAS and Stereophile this month, so we know we make audio designs useful for the audio community. It will be interesting, like it has been with the arrival of digital processing, what the 'next generation' can do, BUT it has to sound really, really good, and establishing this qualification only comes from open listening tests, as done by reviewers and customers, alike.
Yes indeed, in fashion audio, the last thing you want to do is actually trust your ears.
Keep the True Believers believing!
Open listening tests are the way that we manufacturers get feedback about how well we have succeeded in making a really high listening quality product.
Like with automobiles, where the proof of quality manufacture and design is in the DRIVING, for hi end audio it is the independent listening and reviews of products offered, that give us the 'feedback' as to whether we are on the right track. Many have tried to make what they thought as a successful product, based on measurements, only to have it rejected in the marketplace. I prefer to avoid rejection in the audio marketplace, and then to attribute lack of success as politically motivated, only. This does nothing to show 'what works' and what doesn't work, SUBJECTIVELY in audio reproduction.
Like with automobiles, where the proof of quality manufacture and design is in the DRIVING, for hi end audio it is the independent listening and reviews of products offered, that give us the 'feedback' as to whether we are on the right track. Many have tried to make what they thought as a successful product, based on measurements, only to have it rejected in the marketplace. I prefer to avoid rejection in the audio marketplace, and then to attribute lack of success as politically motivated, only. This does nothing to show 'what works' and what doesn't work, SUBJECTIVELY in audio reproduction.
Contrary to popular belief (as indoctrinated by the audiophile industry and media for obvious reasons), properly engineered gear usually sound pretty darn good.
It's just that producing "properly engineered" gear is not as trivial or commonplace as some would have us believe.
It's just that producing "properly engineered" gear is not as trivial or commonplace as some would have us believe.
Buy a Japanese car. Very reliable, often boring.
Don't buy an expensive German car, relatively reliable, often fun to drive, cost of repair is ridiculously high.
French cars? Past experience tells me, poor manufacture in general, usually an attractive package.
Most Americans use CONSUMER REPORTS for feedback on automobile reliability.
Don't buy an expensive German car, relatively reliable, often fun to drive, cost of repair is ridiculously high.
French cars? Past experience tells me, poor manufacture in general, usually an attractive package.
Most Americans use CONSUMER REPORTS for feedback on automobile reliability.
Yeah, I was stupid enough to do that when they highly recommended the '03 Passat. A couple years later, with no shame, they told the world that because of a design error, the engines had a tendency to seize up. As did mine at 65000 miles, with VW refusing warranty coverage.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.