Engineers too listen to music

[tcpip]

Thought some of you may find this interesting: it's a set of observations about a recent National Semi appnote:

http://www.dhandanought.org/tcpip/site/?q=node/20

 

[poobah]

What I read there is that: objectivists can be subjective, while subjectivists cannot be objective. Supports my theory as to which "group" is half-witted.

 

[EC8010]

I'm particularly fond of people who can't apply Ohm's Law telling me that audio design is all wrong. The NS data sheet quotes are interesting - good for them.

 

[poobah]

Yeah,

it's funny that people would presume that engineers DON'T listen to their stuff. I mean, what's the high point of the day? All the measurements are done etc... O.K. turn it up!

 

[audio-kraut]

I find these small remarks in one corner of one application note a serious watershed in audio system design debates.

WHAT IS HIS POINT?

First he states that subjectivists do not accept bt, and then he wonders when objectivists conduct a blind test and find that a cap - any cap appenrently - causes sound degradation? Wheres the contradiction? Where the reason to celebrate?

I gladly accept the claim that whatever causes whatever sound degradation if it there was one test that can show this conclusively.

BTW - again jumping to conclusions - since the non implementation of a dc blocking caps makes a difference - that the quality of caps makes one too.

I am just tired to follow this kind of thinking, it is simply too strenuous.

 

[EC8010]

I think his point is that a mainstream traditional engineering company now finds it useful to make and publicise their subjective tests. Certainly, I consider it intriguing.

 

[BWRX]

Hey, engineers are entitled to their opinion too! Just because they work for National Semi doesn't mean their musical preferences should be held to a higher degree of credibility than someone else's.

For the record I agree that no coupling caps in the signal path is the way to go not only because it sounds better but because that's one less component we need to buy!

 

[tcpip]

WHAT IS HIS POINT?

First he states that subjectivists do not accept bt, and then he wonders when objectivists conduct a blind test and find that a cap - any cap appenrently - causes sound degradation? Wheres the contradiction? Where the reason to celebrate?

I see it differently. First the article states that engineers have pre-conceived notions about what affects sound. Note the references to unsubtle laughter, primarily from rationalists to subjectivists. Then the article states that these engineers are listening to the "sound of a capacitor" and suggesting that a protection measure (DC blocking cap) be dismissed in the interests of sound quality.

The point is not about subjectivists accepting or not accepting blind tests. The point, IMHO, is about engineers discussing the sound of a capacitor.

 

[tcpip]

Hey, engineers are entitled to their opinion too! Just because they work for National Semi doesn't mean their musical preferences should be held to a higher degree of credibility than someone else's.

IMHO, they should, because this sort of opinion means they're actually going against accepted beliefs of their community, and possibly risking subtle ostracisation. Anyone who is willing to risk all this and still go on record probably finds it less painful risking this than holding on to earlier beliefs. I'd tend to treat such opinions as carrying high credibility.

 

[ingrast]

What's in a word?

I wonder what is meant by "degradation".

As far as I understand at least, it should equate to some - measurable or subjectively perceivable - negative change *WITH RESPECT TO SOMETHING*.

I am not meaning the obvious of course, I understand we are seriously talking about very good non distorting well sounding gear to begin with.

Now who says and on what premises this is "good" and this is "degraded". Will be perfectly happy with a good explanation.

Rodolfo

 

[rdf]

Re: What's in a word?

Now who says and on what premises this is "good" and this is "degraded". Will be perfectly happy with a good explanation.

How about this one?

Difference = Degradation

If they heard a difference, and understood enough about the circuit they designed to understand direct coupling didn't upset the operating condition, it seems obvious.

"The subjectivists say that if you can hear a difference in the sound due to a change in some part of the system or environment, then that perception is valid, even if there is no scientific explanation possible."

Bolding mine. Today I'm from Missouri. Show me. The correct concept is 'unknown', not 'unknowable'. The latter is though a pretty good representation of how objectivists cast them.

 

[poobah]

I had to read that three times before I got it... tell me you had to write it three times...

I owe you a beer...

 

[Tim__x]

Can we hope, with trembling lip and heart a-quiver, that some of our objectivist brethren will actually begin to wonder about the pros and cons of GNFB, given that GNFB is never free of capacitive coupling? Are we now over-reaching?

What?

Any semblance of credibility this article had is shattered by that one statement.

 

[poobah]

That was a boo boo. There is no law (or truth) that states that GNFB requires a cap... it doesn't.

 

[rdf]

I had the beers before writing it. BC brew, yummy.

 

[poobah]

I have to get up to BC one of these days... been too long.

 

[corbato]

Am I the only guy here who thinks NatSemi/TI/OnSemi engineers lurk in these forums?

 

[tcpip]

Any semblance of credibility this article had is shattered by that one statement.

It's been fixed.

 

[poobah]

corbato,

Are you the only guy who thinks he isn't talking to "one" of these engineers?

Most smart guys don't post that much... the BS is too thick,

 

[ingrast]

Re: Re: What's in a word?

How about this one?

Difference = Degradation

If they heard a difference, and understood enough about the circuit they designed to understand direct coupling didn't upset the operating condition, it seems obvious.

Makes sense, I buy.
Now, will this conclude a DC blocking capacitor disturbes the signal path or more appropiately, the overall system behavior in an unmeasurable way?

This I (hope many more) don't buy. There is no precedent and no scientific context in which acceptance "as is" of this fact can fit.

It is National's engineers responsibility - if management allows - to delve further, first discovering measurable signal diferences, then linking to circuit behavior, thus enriching our knowledge.

Rodolfo