phn said:
Good definition. And in this case it means someone who's belief is that science already knows everything. Someone who's belief system does not allow for any reality outside what is known (by him).
Every major scientific step forward is usually preceded by something empirical that doesn't fit the existing model. Then the scientist sets out to explain, to see if there is actually something to discover.
At one end of the spectrum we have people blaming our hearing system for any anomolies, at the other that the science is incomplete. As always the truth is in the middle.
dave
What consitutues an ill-designed amplifier? By your implication, there are many well respected amplifiers that you would brand ill-designed.
The realities of the marketplace -- not knowing what the amp will be hooked too -- have driven the engineering of many amplifiers heavily towards "works in all cases". Of late we see more & more amps that explore the fringes -- an amplifier should never be divorced from the speakers it drives and the cable that connects them. It is a system. When we diy we have the freedome to design properly, to design a system. (you would never design a car for instance to be useable with any tire -- that would compromise its function far to much).
dave
Johan Potgieter said:
I presented my case already. SY's orange home-depot fire-hose vrs my 24g Cat 5. They will have measureable differences & they have sonic differences. In my system the extra little bit of series R coupled with the already high output impedance of my amplifier, couples nicely with my fairly efficient single FR speakers to lift the bass & the treble to give flatter frequency response. In SY's system (i assume) he needs more of a voltage source so needs low impedance cables.
His cables (and the amp designed to be used with them), would likely make my system sound like a table radio. Lean, lean in the bass & a lack of HF.
dave
That is incorrect.Panicos K said:
An engineer is trained to follow rules of engagement. If the engineer has to determine the load capability of a beam, he uses what he was taught with respect to structural engineering to calculate the capability. If confronted with a problem for which the engineer is not trained, then the choices are to use the existing knowledge (which may be incorrect), or to decide that existing knowledge is inadequate for the task. Engineers are not allowed to think differently...it is not anarchy.. They are required to think only within the box. Would you be comfortable in a plane or a skyscraper that was designed by engineers who did not follow the rules??
One of the primary rules taught in some schools, is that humans have certain hearing capabilities....frequency response and amplitude response. The proper way for an engineer to deal with this understanding, is to use it for design limits.
If, however, the engineer learns that there are additional criteria, localization as an example, for which the engineer has NOT been taught the specifications of, then the engineer is faced with choosing, as per above.
Tacoma Narrows is a perfect example..after that, the criteria were changed to reflect new knowledge that was otherwise unknown.
Panicos K said:
I would tend to agree. But, engineers are not simply a subset of that category.
Cheers, John
keladrin said:
This is somewhat contradictory. If the ear is a capable instrument "to carefully sculpture a sound that is pleasing to the beholder", I don't see why it loses that capability when judging a re-creation of that pleasing sound vs. a creation. A listener who has learned to differentiate the nuances of a great instrument doesn't become ignorant in front of a pair speakers. If a system masks or obscures those nuances who better to make that call?
A couple of points always get lost in the polarization these discussions invite. Engineers in general (BAScEE with 25+ years in an audio industry here) have no, let me repeat with emphasis, NO professional accreditation related to the human auditory process. I checked, my university curriculum had nothing about physiology, masking, thresholds, Fletcher or Munson. Granted some engineers go on to specialize but as a general class, and that means the great majority here, engineering accreditation in an unrelated specialty still makes us dilettantes in the field of auditory perception. Engineers excel at hitting auditory targets, not setting them.
Second, the continual denigration of ‘the ear’ is curious to say the least. It’s the only way we have to experience the results of our work save for those who do it for the engineering challenge. The ear is a tyrant; if it says ‘no’ there is no recourse. It’s a shrewd and not a very bright tyrant though and can’t explain its reasoning. That’s where measurement comes in. However it’s rarely fooled.
Well, one final one related to that last sentence. A century of audio engineering and it seems as if the core engineering field has abandoned even the possibility of recreating the simplest live event. Most of the pure research effort of the last decade or two focused on the glamour fields of practical implementation, lossy compression and such. Audio as a pursuit of illusion is as dead as fried chicken for most of the engineering world, a niche anachronism where every major question on engineering targets was settled in the early Sixties, if not by Bell Labs. Yet very, very few of us go home and tricked by the reproduced sound of even a solo acoustic guitar.
A bit harsh perhaps, but only a bit.
Good post rdf, but I come from the opposite end. I do have a degree in psychology, and I am learning EE on an ad hoc basis. I know how easy it is to fool human perception, and I see little attempt by most posters, on both sides, to appreciate that. A basic understanding that the peceived enviroment is actually made from very little sensory input and lots of making stuff up by the brain would be a start.
On the subject of amplifier design.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1045967#post1045967
This post illustrates a very well designed amplifier, that only works within the system it was designed for, and it can be fairly easily be extrapolated that any change in series R of the speaker cable would affect the system.
dave
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1045967#post1045967
This post illustrates a very well designed amplifier, that only works within the system it was designed for, and it can be fairly easily be extrapolated that any change in series R of the speaker cable would affect the system.
dave
pinkmouse said:
Hi pinkmouse. Liking the new avatar! My 'posting from work shorthand' at work again. Only so much detail you can type from the middle of a battle between municipal transit authorities, engineering consultants and tower companies. The intent was 'fooled into mistaking reproduced for live', hence the 'shrewd but dumb'.
Panicos K said:
That's faulty logic. The engineers don't know that you cannot hear any difference, and to my knowledge have never made such claims. The best they have is that there's no science that supports that cables make a difference. That some people claim they do hear difference is not empirical proof.
Nothing I have written makes me a flat earther.
pinkmouse said:KBK
It's complicated, but basically humans seek patterns in their surroundings. Once these patterns are established, correctly or incorrectly, then emotions are produced by the brain in defense of these assumptions.
Anyway, I'm off to make a fried egg butty and then drink beer.
a very odd childhood pattern if I ever saw one.
Fried eggs and beer. Very Coneistic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.