Go on then, give us an example for how ignorance is an advantage over knowledge
Ignorance is bliss. I'm unlikely to agonise over a Steinway not sounding exactly the way it should.
Curious situation really. Those equipped with loaded gears to measure cited various reasons to not go there, a few stated inability to hear or illusion mind trick. Those who are sure can tell a difference do no measurement. Seems the warriors from both sides agree to preserve the perfect stage for the dogfight to continue. I'd keep some popcorn ready to enjoy the coming sequel.
I had no doubt. This explains why someone believes the British are culinary masters.
Perhaps another important question is how can one recognize an actor's voice even when it is reproduced through a loudspeaker, even of dubious quality, that you've never heard before.
There's a lot of "parameters" in a sound such as a person's voice, and also in the many ways a loudspeaker can change these. Some of them will be memorized indefinitely, and immediately recognized when heard again, but others will be forgotten in a very short time.
I recall about testing speakers in "Loudspeaker Design Cookbook" the author built turntables so he could put different pairs of speakers on them to turn them around, putting them in the exact same location to compare them within seconds. The time he gave for sound memory was about 15 seconds.
Rather sometime the manufacturers give the instruments for test, with NDAs stipulating that no measurements can be made. Maybe they could measure, but in any case the NDAs tell them clear: no measurements can be published or discussed!
In my opinion sound memory surely exists, quite long time. Nay Sayers are telling BS. Easy example: voice timbres! Internally: I always trust that I can do a perfect note pitch (if the note is in my range), no matter what time of the day and noise around me. Regarding instruments: I have numerous "masters" in memory, how they should sound right at various SPLs. Once I identified and acquired them, they did not disappear from memory, not a single one. Even more, the sound memory is upgradable, one can memorize at least the "top 3" for a given instrument. This is helpful at least for me to judge a result: a new audition hears more or less close to a given memory of location+system (PA+LS), track and room setup. Sources if masters in memory were usually very good RTR tapes (master copies) or DATs and very good PAs+LSs and acoustic setup. Curiously, now I realize that I have no memory involving any other device as source, particularly not a single vinyl.
I like very much this reply. Sad, that was drowned in noise with no follow up. Thank you for sharing here exactly what is important for you.
Could you please look back at my proposed plots in Post 20101 (page 2011)? They should be 1:1 to you above requirements for two possible drivers (a large TT with 2.7mH/8Ohm, and a mid or tweeter MT or HT with 700uH/8Ohm). All rest info you need is there in the plots. If not, let me know. How would you think it sounds, as plots describe?
Too flat, because too much fidelity?
Would it help if I bring in a tube pre-amp, to increase H2 and H4 alone at 2% to 4% distortion? I have also tubes for preamp which can give more H2 and fairly equal H3 and H4.
BTW, these were my DIY work, not purchased, and should serve a bi-amp configuration.
Thanks
I haven't seen any reason to agree that the average humanoid can't distinguish between different types of piano sound
Now replace something in one piano that you are familiar with. Do you think you can compare its original sound to "new" sound a day or two after?
How can anyone listen to amplifier itself? Do you connect cables from amp's output to somewhere near your ears?
If you can listen to a single component (other than speakers), you would understand the result, no?
Well, if my son to do it, may be the number will be around 1 or zero... Meaning that it is also possible for other person to have the number becomes 50 or bigger... Because we are all different.
Like in most debates. Both sides are often correct (and/or wrong at the same time). Most of them usually understand this but sometimes not all! (hence this post). It is impossible to agree on a number in the middle. It's like forcing to agree on that everyone has 100 point of IQ, which is not right.
Often there's no disagreement in a debate. We just want our thoughts to be heard. Unfortunately for John Doe, discussion like this wont lead to any findings usually. But who said anyone is looking for anything? (Except for Indra1 may be?)
Well then, here is the opening argument from an article from post #1 where the question was asked.
Most of the better, larger audio companies have well equipped labs with real engineers that produce competent products. These folks are paid to produce products that meet a certain market segment and they do the best they can for a budgeted amount. They are well aware of the short comings, but they are not tasked with making the best of whatever. Then they are also held to a standard such as a company sound profile or way of doing things. That's why Harmon Kardon stuff all runs hot for example. So it is important to understand that these companies all know what they are doing. You assume they are making the best products they know how, but they aren't. They are making products that agree with whatever the marketing department has decided will sell.
But you can see clearly that the low end and middle quality products have improved immensely from the equipment sold in the early through mid and late 1970's. There are exceptions of course, the Marantz 500 was way ahead of it's time and I rebuild them to levels that are superior even today. The early 1980's was probably the zenith for consumer audio both in quality and performance. CD players peaked around 1990 with some excellent products produced throughout and even today.
What improved audio wasn't the ears of designers. It was the audio test equipment and increased knowledge that it allowed engineers to amass. I know that the better equipment I got, the more I learned. Some was confirmation of what I heard, other things solved mysteries and showed me the way.
So if I was to answer that question posed in post #1, as long as the person was using current test equipment, and the right type, while learning what does sound good, excellent audio equipment can be designed with test equipment.
However, the other fallacy (an assumption) was that designers who use test equipment don't listen to the products during the design phase. This is completely untrue and really cements a myth that people who design with test equipment don't listen to products. That idea is a lie.
So it really boils down to this. Designers who "design by ear" and those smart enough to use good test equipment and listen as they design. I haven't yet met anyone half decent who designs equipment that do not listen to it.
By measuring the performance of equipment, you can sometime predict what it will sound like and what listeners will report. This allows me, and others, to avoid wasted time in listening tests on the road to making something that sounds great. But, there are still listening tests. Measuring just helps avoid tests where there will be complaints.
I think that in the future, equipment can be designed entirely by measuring only that will sound fantastic. I think the roadblock to that is in interpreting what today's measuring equipment tells us. I'm getting better at it and I am sure others are well ahead of what I can do. I will always listen to things during design. It just feels good to have things turn out well, so there is personal satisfaction in being right during the design phase.
I can say this. From long experience in audio service, products designed "by ear" do not perform as well as others that used test equipment as well. Typically products designed "by ear" also suffer from technical errors that affect reliability and performance. I am afraid that you actually do need those technical experts who may not care about sound quality, but do know how to design reliable, good performing circuits. Other folks in that same company will polish and guide the design so it sounds good.
-Chris
This viewpoint is predictable coming from a salesman who is not technical at all. I think it is a comforting notion for people whose primary occupation and learning does not include electronics for audio or test equipment. Of course, that statement is also untrue but does hold water when you look at exceptions to the general rule. Most really high end products are in fact designed by ear by folks who posses old out of date equipment and rely on their name to sell products. Often these products have a great reputation, but are under-performing. This should be a comfort to almost everyone here. If you spend huge amounts of money on an amplifier (for example), it probably doesn't perform as well as something a lot more reasonably priced.
Most of the better, larger audio companies have well equipped labs with real engineers that produce competent products. These folks are paid to produce products that meet a certain market segment and they do the best they can for a budgeted amount. They are well aware of the short comings, but they are not tasked with making the best of whatever. Then they are also held to a standard such as a company sound profile or way of doing things. That's why Harmon Kardon stuff all runs hot for example. So it is important to understand that these companies all know what they are doing. You assume they are making the best products they know how, but they aren't. They are making products that agree with whatever the marketing department has decided will sell.
But you can see clearly that the low end and middle quality products have improved immensely from the equipment sold in the early through mid and late 1970's. There are exceptions of course, the Marantz 500 was way ahead of it's time and I rebuild them to levels that are superior even today. The early 1980's was probably the zenith for consumer audio both in quality and performance. CD players peaked around 1990 with some excellent products produced throughout and even today.
What improved audio wasn't the ears of designers. It was the audio test equipment and increased knowledge that it allowed engineers to amass. I know that the better equipment I got, the more I learned. Some was confirmation of what I heard, other things solved mysteries and showed me the way.
So if I was to answer that question posed in post #1, as long as the person was using current test equipment, and the right type, while learning what does sound good, excellent audio equipment can be designed with test equipment.
However, the other fallacy (an assumption) was that designers who use test equipment don't listen to the products during the design phase. This is completely untrue and really cements a myth that people who design with test equipment don't listen to products. That idea is a lie.
So it really boils down to this. Designers who "design by ear" and those smart enough to use good test equipment and listen as they design. I haven't yet met anyone half decent who designs equipment that do not listen to it.
By measuring the performance of equipment, you can sometime predict what it will sound like and what listeners will report. This allows me, and others, to avoid wasted time in listening tests on the road to making something that sounds great. But, there are still listening tests. Measuring just helps avoid tests where there will be complaints.
I think that in the future, equipment can be designed entirely by measuring only that will sound fantastic. I think the roadblock to that is in interpreting what today's measuring equipment tells us. I'm getting better at it and I am sure others are well ahead of what I can do. I will always listen to things during design. It just feels good to have things turn out well, so there is personal satisfaction in being right during the design phase.
I can say this. From long experience in audio service, products designed "by ear" do not perform as well as others that used test equipment as well. Typically products designed "by ear" also suffer from technical errors that affect reliability and performance. I am afraid that you actually do need those technical experts who may not care about sound quality, but do know how to design reliable, good performing circuits. Other folks in that same company will polish and guide the design so it sounds good.
-Chris
Do you guys actually know any full time professional audio designers with many years of experience who have great ears and who measure too? If so, do you find they all work exactly the same way, or have exactly the same ears and test equipment? How many of the comments about such people are derived from too little information?
One guy who has made his living for 40 years designing audio gear for various high end companies, uses two systems is two different rooms each of which he knows very well. Each system is designed to represent different types of system. Each system has multiple turntables, arms, head shells, cartridges, etc., to test the sound in every necessary configuration. He designs everything, product lines, packaging, aesthetics of cases, electronics, and his stuff sounds great in a variety of systems.
There is another guy who only designs schematics for various clients. That's all he does.
One guy who has made his living for 40 years designing audio gear for various high end companies, uses two systems is two different rooms each of which he knows very well. Each system is designed to represent different types of system. Each system has multiple turntables, arms, head shells, cartridges, etc., to test the sound in every necessary configuration. He designs everything, product lines, packaging, aesthetics of cases, electronics, and his stuff sounds great in a variety of systems.
There is another guy who only designs schematics for various clients. That's all he does.
Last edited:
Hi Mark,
I have met several audio designers. They all have their ways of doing things, but work in similar ways.
You can give the same schematic to 10 designers and end up with 10 different sounding circuits. They will share a characteristic sound of that design type if you're looking at amplifier or preamplifier circuits - as long as those 10 designers are competent.
Anyway, nifty job.
-Chris
I have met several audio designers. They all have their ways of doing things, but work in similar ways.
That's a cool, but dry job. Does he ever prototype his work?
You can give the same schematic to 10 designers and end up with 10 different sounding circuits. They will share a characteristic sound of that design type if you're looking at amplifier or preamplifier circuits - as long as those 10 designers are competent.
Anyway, nifty job.
-Chris
"Does he ever prototype his work?"
He did at one time. Now he knows an almost encyclopedic amount about what should end up sounding good. However, he does not have an overconfident type of personality. He's always questioning things and always keeps learning; that's how he got to where he is now.
He did at one time. Now he knows an almost encyclopedic amount about what should end up sounding good. However, he does not have an overconfident type of personality. He's always questioning things and always keeps learning; that's how he got to where he is now.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.