They aren't engineered. They are selected as most likeable after much trial and error. His likes happen to coincide with those who shop for this stuff with lots of money in their pockets even if shopping is confined to reading reviews in hobbyist rag magazines. Even oenologists are more analytical about what they do to get the results they want. They measure sugar content, tannins, etc. and only harvest when the grapes meet their criteria for ripeness. JC reminds me of that old Orson Wells ad for Gallo wine. We will sell no wine before its time. About two weeks of aging ought to do it.
In Germany we are 200.000 people acording to information i got from the undisputable High End Society. That is 0.3 % of the population. Turnover is stable at 200.000.000 € so the avarage audiophile in Germany spends 1000 € a year on new purchases.
For completeness, here is the Cheever paper.
Human Hearing - Distortion Audibility Part 3 — Reviews and News from Audioholics
For completeness, here is the Cheever paper.
Human Hearing - Distortion Audibility Part 3 — Reviews and News from Audioholics
The full paper is about 70 or 80 pages long. It was not only badly flawed as an electrical engineering thesis, it wasn't even sound market research. Not only was its criteria what people liked, he did not conduct experiments to isolate the variable he claimed was responsible for what they liked and demonstrate that it alone was what changed the results. Audio amplifiers have a specific function. If people don't like the sound that a particular amplifier causes a sound system to exhibit, it may not be the result of a flaw in the amplifier but somewhere else in the chain. The amplifier that sounds best may be flawed in such a way as to mask the real cause of the distortion. Very bad paper. Didn't even merit a bachelor's degree in EE let alone a master's degree. I would have turned thumbs down on it. Fatally flawed in many ways. Shows conceptual ignorance of the scientific method itself.
Joachim, what is, is. What works, works. I still do not understand the 'magic' of an expensive Lyra cartridge, or a Koetsu, for that matter. Is it really the 'magic' in some 'old guy's' fingertips, or his adjustment of a tension thread?
On the other hand, why am I so often successful? Yet, both Nelson Pass and Charles Hansen have bested me, on occasion, often more often than I would prefer. What do they do, that gets audiophiles to trade in my amps for theirs, sometimes? Maybe, just maybe, they have a path that really works. I respect that, and I don't try to rationalize it away.
When I design ANY product at ANY price point, I fight for what is important in the design, so that it has a passible sonic through-path. Because I am an experienced designer, I know how to make servos that don't completely foul up the sound, what caps to use for EQ, and supply bypassing, and generally how to make reasonably linear circuits, with either global negative feedback, or not, depending on the situation.
It is NOT all random, but refinement from a series of 'mistakes'. Minor ones, to be sure, but mistakes, none the less.
Joachim, this is the advice that I give to you:
Don't just design ANY possible circuit, but concentrate on an ELEGANT circuit, with a minimum number of stages, quality parts where necessary, and objective listening feedback of your efforts from your friends and associates. If they don't like something, yet it measures OK, there is still something wrong. Discard or bypass something in that failed design, and try again. Sooner or later, you will develop a pattern to this design madness, that makes sense, choosing some passive components over others, even though you can't 'prove' that the devices you have rejected have anything wrong with them, and therefore should be used, according to everyone else. Someday, someone will find out 'why' some components sound 'wrong' but it is not necessary for you or me to do so.
I did not develop a reputation for being a good designer by compromising with everyone, including people I have worked with for years, or even decades. It is not about 'getting along' or taking an obvious easy path, it is about 'getting it right' and running scared that you might not, and fail in the marketplace, with both reviewers and customers. I continuously berate many of my designs, because I know the compromises that were necessary, yet I still succeed, mostly. I hope that it helps you.
On the other hand, why am I so often successful? Yet, both Nelson Pass and Charles Hansen have bested me, on occasion, often more often than I would prefer. What do they do, that gets audiophiles to trade in my amps for theirs, sometimes? Maybe, just maybe, they have a path that really works. I respect that, and I don't try to rationalize it away.
When I design ANY product at ANY price point, I fight for what is important in the design, so that it has a passible sonic through-path. Because I am an experienced designer, I know how to make servos that don't completely foul up the sound, what caps to use for EQ, and supply bypassing, and generally how to make reasonably linear circuits, with either global negative feedback, or not, depending on the situation.
It is NOT all random, but refinement from a series of 'mistakes'. Minor ones, to be sure, but mistakes, none the less.
Joachim, this is the advice that I give to you:
Don't just design ANY possible circuit, but concentrate on an ELEGANT circuit, with a minimum number of stages, quality parts where necessary, and objective listening feedback of your efforts from your friends and associates. If they don't like something, yet it measures OK, there is still something wrong. Discard or bypass something in that failed design, and try again. Sooner or later, you will develop a pattern to this design madness, that makes sense, choosing some passive components over others, even though you can't 'prove' that the devices you have rejected have anything wrong with them, and therefore should be used, according to everyone else. Someday, someone will find out 'why' some components sound 'wrong' but it is not necessary for you or me to do so.
I did not develop a reputation for being a good designer by compromising with everyone, including people I have worked with for years, or even decades. It is not about 'getting along' or taking an obvious easy path, it is about 'getting it right' and running scared that you might not, and fail in the marketplace, with both reviewers and customers. I continuously berate many of my designs, because I know the compromises that were necessary, yet I still succeed, mostly. I hope that it helps you.
Well he hasn't done very well in that department. Neither Vendetta Research nor CTC lasted very long and only sold a handful of product. It's one thing for the press to gush about something. They're always gushing about something or other. They're in the business of selling advertising. It's quite another for people to think it's good enough to actually pay money for it.
se
Sure.
But when someone makes such a sweeping statement as Charles did, they're speaking for a whole lot of ears that aren't theirs.
se
Joachim, advertising is something that I have done little of. I don't like to do it, and I have been criticized by others for not doing it.
Mark Levinson, once an idealist, like you and me, advertised the Levinson brand fairly successfully, and he sold 'himself' even more effectively. Unfortunately, he got into believing his own advertising, and everything went downhill from there, even though the inertia of what he and I developed in the early '70's lasted, so that his brand is still a symbol of excellence, even today.
I have worked successfully with Parasound for about 20 years. It is a much easier job than running a company, like Vendetta, with overheads, employees, and headaches large and small. I personally have always been a fairly lousy businessman. I started 30 years ago, with my own corporation, JC AUDIO LABORATORIES. When my VP snuck off to found SOTA, with some others, I dissolved the company. Then, I was VP of Engineering, with LINEAGE CORPORATION, with Saul Marantz as President. One day, after the stock market crash in 1987, the VP of Finance refused to talk to the VP of Engineering, and I was left holding the bag for $7,000 in parts and owing my present technicians their salaries. That is when we got Vendetta Research into gear, and pretty quick too, as I needed to make a living. It was slow at first, but one good review did it. However, one bad review, a few years later, killed it. Still, several hundred Vendetta Research phono stages were made and sold all over the world, but when the firestorm in 1991 wiped out my existing inventory of fets, pots, boards, etc, it was time to close shop, once again. I have been fairly happy with Parasound, and they have paid me relatively well, especially since I don't have to go to work, except at home and on the computer. I have never gotten rich, but I have made a living, with a minimum of stress. Heck, most of the stress in my life, comes from this website, and I still hang around. One cannot relax, all the time, and be motivated to improve oneself. I seem to thrive on adversity here, and I certainly appreciate the links provided by others. Well, that is my life, in a nutshell, aside from a few projects like with Jack Bybee and CTC, which, so far, have always been limited projects, just to see what we can do in some direction. I, certainly will never need another preamp for the rest of my natural life, for example. Hope to see you at CES.
Mark Levinson, once an idealist, like you and me, advertised the Levinson brand fairly successfully, and he sold 'himself' even more effectively. Unfortunately, he got into believing his own advertising, and everything went downhill from there, even though the inertia of what he and I developed in the early '70's lasted, so that his brand is still a symbol of excellence, even today.
I have worked successfully with Parasound for about 20 years. It is a much easier job than running a company, like Vendetta, with overheads, employees, and headaches large and small. I personally have always been a fairly lousy businessman. I started 30 years ago, with my own corporation, JC AUDIO LABORATORIES. When my VP snuck off to found SOTA, with some others, I dissolved the company. Then, I was VP of Engineering, with LINEAGE CORPORATION, with Saul Marantz as President. One day, after the stock market crash in 1987, the VP of Finance refused to talk to the VP of Engineering, and I was left holding the bag for $7,000 in parts and owing my present technicians their salaries. That is when we got Vendetta Research into gear, and pretty quick too, as I needed to make a living. It was slow at first, but one good review did it. However, one bad review, a few years later, killed it. Still, several hundred Vendetta Research phono stages were made and sold all over the world, but when the firestorm in 1991 wiped out my existing inventory of fets, pots, boards, etc, it was time to close shop, once again. I have been fairly happy with Parasound, and they have paid me relatively well, especially since I don't have to go to work, except at home and on the computer. I have never gotten rich, but I have made a living, with a minimum of stress. Heck, most of the stress in my life, comes from this website, and I still hang around. One cannot relax, all the time, and be motivated to improve oneself. I seem to thrive on adversity here, and I certainly appreciate the links provided by others. Well, that is my life, in a nutshell, aside from a few projects like with Jack Bybee and CTC, which, so far, have always been limited projects, just to see what we can do in some direction. I, certainly will never need another preamp for the rest of my natural life, for example. Hope to see you at CES.
Entertainment. That's what they sell. Move more magazines, sell more advertising to companies with a budget. At one point (might still be the case), Stereophile was the largest grossing business in high end audio, more sales than ANY of the companies whose products they reviewed.
Reinhold Messner lost all his toes in the process, good comparison.
(me ex climb fool)
Attachments
Would you design a camera to take 4" x 6" photos with 1000 times the resolution of the best human eye? Would you design film to always have a green tinge because a lot of people who buy cameras like green? Some people would. Fuji sold a lot of Velvia film but they never advertised it as their most accurate product. Professional photographers who wanted to document and archive photos of artwork accurately never used it because it isn't accurate. For 35 mm film, for work that will not be blown up to the size of a billboard Nikon lenses work just as well as Zeiss at one tenth the price.
Engineers are aware of price and of a specific set of technical goals for their design. They not only know what to do but the scientific principles behind why they work. Others can come up with excellent designs, even better ones than engineers do but it's not through engineering, it's through trial and error and craftwork. The great violin makers of Cremona Italy had a secret about how to make the best violins in the world that died with them. They knew what worked but not the scientific reasons why. Even today our science has not discovered their secret. If it had, violin makers could learn how to duplicate their efforts and violins like the 1741 Guanari del Jesu ex Kochanski would not have sold at auction for $10,000,000.
How odd, overhere, in Germany, and some others parts, the word for engineer is ingenieur.
This, in turn, is linked to the term ingenuity (overhere again).
Ingenuity according to Mr J(osey) Wales of 3W :
-Refers to the process of applying ideas to solve problems or meet challenges.
-Context is important because solving a problem requires that we imagine a range of possible solutions, assess what is available to us in our context, and then proceed with some course of action.
-Ingenuity isn't a linear process but involves various dimensions of human cognition, intention, learning and the creation of novelty.
-These processes interact with each other as we try out ideas, fail, learn, modify, and try again.
The science of bridge building started as trial and error, with lots of them collapsing. Pictures of a swinging Tacoma Narrows bridge are undoubtedly still shown at mechanics of materials and resonance 101 classes.
WW2 Liberty cargo vessels are another example of trial and error technology startup, to get sick and tired of from hearing during so forth classes on stress fatigue, welding, or hull design.
This, in turn, is linked to the term ingenuity (overhere again).
Ingenuity according to Mr J(osey) Wales of 3W :
-Refers to the process of applying ideas to solve problems or meet challenges.
-Context is important because solving a problem requires that we imagine a range of possible solutions, assess what is available to us in our context, and then proceed with some course of action.
-Ingenuity isn't a linear process but involves various dimensions of human cognition, intention, learning and the creation of novelty.
-These processes interact with each other as we try out ideas, fail, learn, modify, and try again.
The science of bridge building started as trial and error, with lots of them collapsing. Pictures of a swinging Tacoma Narrows bridge are undoubtedly still shown at mechanics of materials and resonance 101 classes.
WW2 Liberty cargo vessels are another example of trial and error technology startup, to get sick and tired of from hearing during so forth classes on stress fatigue, welding, or hull design.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.