Bad example loaded with emotional and value judgements, let alone expectation bias. If the propeller-heads set up a DBT I will fail and my stuff will sound like a 20W T-amp. Maybe we should just wait till I can join you at the CES, discussions like this lead nowhere.
320K MP3 vs lossless is a tough one for me, usually a wash and I just want to listen to the music.
Last edited:
Dr. Johnston was one of the people involved, if memory serves. And apparently did a good job, the technology has dominated the market- for most people, the small loss in sound quality is outweighed by the convenience. I don't use them since I'm one of the small minority who are fanatic about sound quality, but I can understand why they're popular.
Yes, he was.
And I'm still curious as to just what Charles believes his "mindset" was.
He's never passed it off as any sort of high fidelity format nor has he ever claimed that there's no audible differences between MP3 and non-lossy digital.
So I've no idea just what this seemingly nefarious "mindset" is that Charles is speaking of.
se
Hi Charles,
Count me in as a member of the 10,000 hrs and above club. From many experiences over the years listening to cables and other assorted "improvements", I can say that most of these did not make any improvement unless there was a specific problem that whatever design addressed. You have no idea how many different speaker cables I have had to evaluate, how many interconnects, power transformers and other imaginative things. Way back just after selling my shop, my wife jokingly mentioned the idea of cable lifts as a money maker. We both had a good laugh over that, and to our horror they became a tweak in real life.
You posts recently have saddened me to some extent simply because I thought you designed good equipment. Hearing that your beliefs include such fringe subjects for audible improvements changes my view of your products. Instantly, I fear you are paying lip service to current and past fads for market share. Either that, or you truly believe these things and your customers will suffer for it.
Customers are funny. As long as you can keep them interested and believing you will get rave reviews. Note that these reports are generally overly positive. However, once they actually begin to understand how things work and listen to lower priced (but properly designed) equipment, you will not hear a peep from them. No negative press simply because no one wants to admit when they have been taken in. So all "star designers" will ever hear are gushing prose. In short, all touch with the real world has been lost. Remember that this club is an exclusive one where everyone mutually supports common misconceptions and each other. People who listen honestly with no investment in what the outcome is would not fare well in your club.
It's a perfect setup. If individuals can't hear it, then their systems may not be good enough to "reveal the truth" (first defence). Then it's the environment, the software (LP - CD - whatever), their own ability to hear, or the lack of training. On and on it goes, with the leaders never really having to stand up to scrutiny. "This is what I heard, can't you hear that?!!" Subjective statements are generally fairly safe for the person making it. Entire well paid careers have enjoyed this business plan. Seen enough of that myself. Ego centre.
To your continued success Charles.
Count me in as a member of the 10,000 hrs and above club. From many experiences over the years listening to cables and other assorted "improvements", I can say that most of these did not make any improvement unless there was a specific problem that whatever design addressed. You have no idea how many different speaker cables I have had to evaluate, how many interconnects, power transformers and other imaginative things. Way back just after selling my shop, my wife jokingly mentioned the idea of cable lifts as a money maker. We both had a good laugh over that, and to our horror they became a tweak in real life.
You posts recently have saddened me to some extent simply because I thought you designed good equipment. Hearing that your beliefs include such fringe subjects for audible improvements changes my view of your products. Instantly, I fear you are paying lip service to current and past fads for market share. Either that, or you truly believe these things and your customers will suffer for it.
Customers are funny. As long as you can keep them interested and believing you will get rave reviews. Note that these reports are generally overly positive. However, once they actually begin to understand how things work and listen to lower priced (but properly designed) equipment, you will not hear a peep from them. No negative press simply because no one wants to admit when they have been taken in. So all "star designers" will ever hear are gushing prose. In short, all touch with the real world has been lost. Remember that this club is an exclusive one where everyone mutually supports common misconceptions and each other. People who listen honestly with no investment in what the outcome is would not fare well in your club.
Too many examples out there where this has not been true. This statement can not stand against even the slightest examination. In fact, there are normally very real pressures at work when the average person is reporting on what they hear. It's a fact that anyone who is believed to be a skilled (trained?) listener will strongly influence less informed / practised individuals. In fact, the reaction is to agree with the "expert" no matter what they really hear.
It's a perfect setup. If individuals can't hear it, then their systems may not be good enough to "reveal the truth" (first defence). Then it's the environment, the software (LP - CD - whatever), their own ability to hear, or the lack of training. On and on it goes, with the leaders never really having to stand up to scrutiny. "This is what I heard, can't you hear that?!!" Subjective statements are generally fairly safe for the person making it. Entire well paid careers have enjoyed this business plan. Seen enough of that myself. Ego centre.
Well, of course not! The criteria is, "what I like". There is nothing there dependent on how any equipment actually performs. Review magazine reports? Get real! If you hang on a "Class A" rating from some of these, your life really is in shambles or you're participating in the fraud machine that the general population has tired of. However, the right test equipment testing the right things will show you where a problem is with sound equipment. In fact, proper testing along with listening will always result in a better sounding product. Testing the wrong things with equipment not up to the task will lead you down the wrong road as surely as the designer and yes men will through listening only. History is full of examples, especially in California it seems. Let's all suspend reality and be happy.
To your continued success Charles.
You must have been listening to the wrong cables.
Does the "goodness" of my equipment designs depend on your personal feelings about my personal feelings about accessories?
Do you really think that we gain market share by selling wood blocks?
And yes, I truly believe in them or we wouldn't sell them. Why do you think our "customers will suffer for it"?
Do you think they will be ripped off of the $5 that they sell for? (We only make $0.30 out of that $5.00.)
If that is too much money, I have often made postings saying that one can purchase 50 wood blocks for $15 at the Target store in the form of the game "Jenga". Surely that is not a rip-off. Even if they hear no difference they will still have a useful game to play with.
So everyone who purchases high-performance equipment is a fool, and the emperor is not really wearing any clothes, and nobody has any judgement of their own, they just follow the fads in the magazines?
You must live in a weird neighborhood. Customers in Colorado are much more demanding than that.
A slight variation on the preceding topic. Now you are saying that the magazines set up a big scam from the beginning, knowing that people would follow them like sheep. In the meantime, they get so rich that they fly around in private helicopters, and vacation in Europe whilst flying the Concorde because there is so much money to be made off these poor suckers. Whatever.
Now your arguments break down completely. First you say that if a magazine likes your product that it is a "fraud machine that the general population has grown tired of". Next you say that proper testing will allow one to design problem-free equipment (whatever that is).
Next you start to gyrate. You throw in listening along with the "proper testing", the combination of which "will always result in a better sounding product".
Really???
What if the person listening is deaf? What if he has never heard live music in his life? What if he likes music but has never listened to anything besides a boom-box? Will just any old listener do? Or does it have to be a special listener? And who decides what makes a listener special? And how do we know that we will like the sound of the product that this special listener helps to design?
After a couple of nonsensical sentences, you insult everyone living in California and imply that people there don't use test equipment to design and instead rely on "yes men" to substantiate their subjective listening impressions. Sounds like SY, no? (He lives in California.)
Uh, sure, Chris. Whatever you say. Oh, by the way, would you be interested in purchasing some wood blocks?
Sy,
Yet another stellar piece of accurate research and information.
Or maybe not?
JJ may have been involved with ASPEC (if I remember our ABX/DBT debates over at the Audio Asylum, JJ was actually working with AT&T for what would have likely been ASPEC and later developments, but I would not insist on it).
The MPEG audio compression system is based on Musicam and is a pure european development, the german Institute fuer Rundfunk Technik and the Frauenhofer institute where two of the main players, MP3 especially is almost purely developed by the Frauenhofer institute (and more precisely Karlheinz Brandenburg) as extension to the earlier MPEG audio compression standards which basically standardised Musicam...
Ciao T
Yet another stellar piece of accurate research and information.
Or maybe not?
JJ may have been involved with ASPEC (if I remember our ABX/DBT debates over at the Audio Asylum, JJ was actually working with AT&T for what would have likely been ASPEC and later developments, but I would not insist on it).
The MPEG audio compression system is based on Musicam and is a pure european development, the german Institute fuer Rundfunk Technik and the Frauenhofer institute where two of the main players, MP3 especially is almost purely developed by the Frauenhofer institute (and more precisely Karlheinz Brandenburg) as extension to the earlier MPEG audio compression standards which basically standardised Musicam...
Ciao T
Scott,
First, I do routinely employ blind tests, however not according to ABX setup and I use more interesting metrics in my tests as I am not asking "are they different" but "which is preferable". If a number of people, in blind testing reliably prefer A over B and give similar descriptions of the sonic differences hear I am willing to spend the extra money for A (even if it means re-designing PCB's or paying 10 cent per resistor instead of one).
At AMR we did a long series of comparison tests between passive components using a specially build version of Kondo's M-7 preamp where all components are on tagstrips and can be easily changed and where each and every component group (up to six options) can be switched between.
It is very instructive to test components on this platform, blind of course, level matched of course.
What I do find is that several of our regulars seem to care about certain minutiae than I do (I can hear it and it becomes clear to me that I hear the difference, I just don't care), while I sometimes pick up other things in one bar of music, whereas our Goldenear's have to listen a lot before they spot the same.
We just had a good example how well the "objectivist" side researches things. If I wanted to be negative I could claim you simply made things up, as there never was any Carver/Fremer story...
Moreover, I could regularly retell this one story here to claim that objectivists make up most of what they write on the spot, using this example.
But I feel generous today, so I shall not. Instead I shall let you just have the facts.
There was a case in 1985 where Bob Carver mimicked the sound of an expensive Tube Amp with one of Solid State Amp's, by altering his amplifiers behaviour (I suspect this involved a wide range of changes, not just "one resistor").
That BTW was long before Mr. Fremer started to work at Stereophile, involved where Gordon J.Holt and Larry Archibald in addition to Bob Carver. Reading the whole story is quite instructive, especially when the first attempt to make the two amplifiers failed to yield the result desired by Bob Carver (read, differences could be heard).
No, you are completely wrong to claim that I am wrong. You can claim that you do not hear it, but that does not make me wrong in saying I hear it. It merely makes our experiences different.
Moreover, unless you sat right in my precise seat when you "did not hear it" you are not even in a position to say that you did not hear it, except in the sense that you where not present to hear or not hear it and hence lack any data upon which to base any comment.
I force nothing. That's the beauty.
Ciao T
First, I do routinely employ blind tests, however not according to ABX setup and I use more interesting metrics in my tests as I am not asking "are they different" but "which is preferable". If a number of people, in blind testing reliably prefer A over B and give similar descriptions of the sonic differences hear I am willing to spend the extra money for A (even if it means re-designing PCB's or paying 10 cent per resistor instead of one).
At AMR we did a long series of comparison tests between passive components using a specially build version of Kondo's M-7 preamp where all components are on tagstrips and can be easily changed and where each and every component group (up to six options) can be switched between.
It is very instructive to test components on this platform, blind of course, level matched of course.
What I do find is that several of our regulars seem to care about certain minutiae than I do (I can hear it and it becomes clear to me that I hear the difference, I just don't care), while I sometimes pick up other things in one bar of music, whereas our Goldenear's have to listen a lot before they spot the same.
We just had a good example how well the "objectivist" side researches things. If I wanted to be negative I could claim you simply made things up, as there never was any Carver/Fremer story...
Moreover, I could regularly retell this one story here to claim that objectivists make up most of what they write on the spot, using this example.
But I feel generous today, so I shall not. Instead I shall let you just have the facts.
There was a case in 1985 where Bob Carver mimicked the sound of an expensive Tube Amp with one of Solid State Amp's, by altering his amplifiers behaviour (I suspect this involved a wide range of changes, not just "one resistor").
That BTW was long before Mr. Fremer started to work at Stereophile, involved where Gordon J.Holt and Larry Archibald in addition to Bob Carver. Reading the whole story is quite instructive, especially when the first attempt to make the two amplifiers failed to yield the result desired by Bob Carver (read, differences could be heard).
No, you are completely wrong to claim that I am wrong. You can claim that you do not hear it, but that does not make me wrong in saying I hear it. It merely makes our experiences different.
Moreover, unless you sat right in my precise seat when you "did not hear it" you are not even in a position to say that you did not hear it, except in the sense that you where not present to hear or not hear it and hence lack any data upon which to base any comment.
I force nothing. That's the beauty.
Ciao T
Hey Charlie: I just wondered if you have any theory why the last 10 feet of a power delivery system from the pole transformer has such a big effect on the dynamics--i.e. the power cord. I certainly believe that the inductance of the power cord will inhibit the current flow. Thus if the power cord is lower guage it will have less inductacne and there will be less resistance to current flow. But since it is only the last 10 feet why should it matter? Is is possible that there is some energy storage in the power cord? Or does the power accelerate though the low guage power cord giving you more speed of delivery?
I think the myrtle blocks provide a cunduction path and a sink for the stray mecahnical vibration in the circuit. If you try snubbing the vibrations with bluce tack it just killls the sound of the device--it will deaden the sound. I have friends that use a sandwich of ebony, birth playwood and then pine. Ebony conducts steel vibrations well, birth plywood will pick up the ebony vibrations and so on. YOu want to create a conduction path and a sink
I think the myrtle blocks provide a cunduction path and a sink for the stray mecahnical vibration in the circuit. If you try snubbing the vibrations with bluce tack it just killls the sound of the device--it will deaden the sound. I have friends that use a sandwich of ebony, birth playwood and then pine. Ebony conducts steel vibrations well, birth plywood will pick up the ebony vibrations and so on. YOu want to create a conduction path and a sink
Hi,
I am not Charles, however the key issues are two fold. One related to circulating fault currents and the action of the wiring as aerials for RFI (also with the additions of interconnects)
The other is plain and simple, if you have a a source and amplifier where the ground is linked hard to earth the ground path through mains cables etc. usually has a lower impedance than the signal cable. So you mains cable is your audio ground...
I would suggest that the above accounts for 70-90% of what is observed.
Ciao T
I am not Charles, however the key issues are two fold. One related to circulating fault currents and the action of the wiring as aerials for RFI (also with the additions of interconnects)
The other is plain and simple, if you have a a source and amplifier where the ground is linked hard to earth the ground path through mains cables etc. usually has a lower impedance than the signal cable. So you mains cable is your audio ground...
I would suggest that the above accounts for 70-90% of what is observed.
Ciao T
T, I'm with you on using A-B blind tests. In developing the JC-80, many decades ago, we did a fair amount of that. I had a wider audience then, and could take myself out of the results, even though I could also hear the differences.
Today, I usually try to design the best circuit possible, use proven parts that have been shown to be successful in previous designs, when possible, and try to cover every sort of intrusion from the outside with serious shielding and an elaborate power supply. Then, I hope that others will like what I have done. Personally, I have run out of measurements, and someday I hope to measure PIM most effectively, probably using a measurement system similar to the one Ron Quan, a former employee of mine, and a very good engineer, has developed. I trust Ron and his ears, as well as his test method.
Today, I usually try to design the best circuit possible, use proven parts that have been shown to be successful in previous designs, when possible, and try to cover every sort of intrusion from the outside with serious shielding and an elaborate power supply. Then, I hope that others will like what I have done. Personally, I have run out of measurements, and someday I hope to measure PIM most effectively, probably using a measurement system similar to the one Ron Quan, a former employee of mine, and a very good engineer, has developed. I trust Ron and his ears, as well as his test method.
If you believe the power cord companies (and we do sell one), that is actually the first ten feet...
I have no idea. I can make up several plausible theories -- RF filtering, energy storage, low impedance, higher quality connectors, etc. But they are all just untested theories. That's why we never make any claims about how they work. I really have no idea.
I have had experiences such as you describe. This tends to strongly point to vibration as the principle mechanism involved. Again, I have no evidence whatsoever, just vaguely plausible "hand-waving" theories that fit the facts.
When changes in sound are so fine grained that only skilled listeners with >10k hours of listening experience can hear the differences, I suggest that any differences are in the listeners head. Add a block of wood, you want to hear a difference and you do. Add a new power cord, you want to hear a difference, and you do, and so on. Of course, some things do make a difference in audio, but we know why.
If it takes 3 weeks of listening to tune your ear to a system, you can bet some guy coming off the street and into your demo room sure as hell is not going here a difference because of that cable - he will be referencing your sound to his experience and that's the difference he will pick up.
The human mind is a funny old thing. Thankfully, physics, measurements and hard data can help us see through the mist a little bit, and pull us back to reality and certainty, from where can reassess our findings, before taking another step, hopefully next time in the right direction.
(great way to sell wooden blocks and cables BTW - I admire the marketing!) ;-)
If it takes 3 weeks of listening to tune your ear to a system, you can bet some guy coming off the street and into your demo room sure as hell is not going here a difference because of that cable - he will be referencing your sound to his experience and that's the difference he will pick up.
The human mind is a funny old thing. Thankfully, physics, measurements and hard data can help us see through the mist a little bit, and pull us back to reality and certainty, from where can reassess our findings, before taking another step, hopefully next time in the right direction.
(great way to sell wooden blocks and cables BTW - I admire the marketing!) ;-)
Last edited:
There's logic in there somewhere. I'm not sure just exactly where, but I can almost smell it.
If the listener is more experienced....Then the greater the likelihood that he will have imaginary experiences.
So by extension, a violinist that has played four hours a day for 2500 days (almost seven years), he won't actually play better. He will will instead just imagine that he plays better. Or something like that...
Quote "I think the myrtle blocks provide a cunduction path and a sink for the stray mecahnical vibration in the circuit. If you try snubbing the vibrations with bluce tack it just killls the sound of the device--it will deaden the sound. I have friends that use a sandwich of ebony, birth playwood and then pine."
If wood does it, what about marble? What about glass? What about ceramic?
What exacty do these cable lifters do? more treble? more bass? bigger sound stage? Less harsh? Please put some flesh on the statement that it 'sounded different'.
If wood does it, what about marble? What about glass? What about ceramic?
What exacty do these cable lifters do? more treble? more bass? bigger sound stage? Less harsh? Please put some flesh on the statement that it 'sounded different'.
Hi Charles,
No one said that high performance equipment is the mark of a fool. What I said meant that high cost equipment designed by a celebrity designer who believes in fringe tweaks will not deliver good value and possibly even performance. Solid engineering and understanding of how parts work will result in a good design. Knowing how to get parts working to their strengths (properly applied to the circuit position) is the polish that creates really fine performance.
I don't care how much your wood blocks sell for, but I wonder how many people want those silly things placed around their floor holding up wire. I'd love to see any reasonable explanation as to why this would improve the sound. It would seem to me that the wire would tend to move around more since the friction to the supporting surface would be lower and the exposure to vibration and airborne sound energy is much higher than wire sitting on the floor. For people who want a nice looking room, speaker wires are run below the floor, as mine are. Can't use the blocks unless I glue them to the wire. That would be a sight!
Your comment where you assert that one Maple block among the Myrtle ones under equipment could be heard is absurd. More likely the position of those blocks would have more of an effect. Attributing the material rather than the position of these blocks for the sound differences calls your deductive reasoning into question. Of course, a possible control test where both preamps sat on a solid surface could have eliminated that conclusion, or at least given you a fact you could work from.
No, what I see are conclusions drawn from inadequate testing without useful controls over any variables. And you wonder where some of the silly audio myths come from?
I didn't say I liked or disliked your equipment Charles. I have never heard one. However, I did comment that your distractions might probably affect the design process, not in a positive way. If the sound quality was not diminished, the final price certainly did take a hit in that it could be too high. Don't know your pricing structure or construction details, but taking all this other stuff into consideration can't be good.
Were you a proponent of the "green marker around the edge of a CD improves the bass" deal? How about the green led in the CD bay thing?
Simply put Charles, when a well known designer becomes involved and supports fringe improvements without there being any evidence as to why these should work, I worry about what design decisions have been made inside his products. It's that simple.
Sheeple buy things without doing any research. They just follow recommendations from personalities (like a popular designer) or articles in a magazine. Audio publications have long since been a tool to assist with equipment sales. Heavy advertising moves boxes. That's a fact that all the research bears out. So, advertising plus a good review (and maybe an "A list" rating) makes the sale. If this were not true, none of these activities would be continuing.
I was an audio salesman for a number of years in addition to doing service work. I also enjoyed observing people and their reactions. I actually learned a lot and had fun doing it. Remember the term, "sheeple". It can very accurately predict what actions some people will follow. It is also one reason why only a few percent will open their own business.
Learning what is accurate is a journey everyone makes. They may get off that train at any point though. The only thing anyone can judge is what sounds better than the best thing they have experience with. Like taste buds, some forays into inaccurate sound happens as people grow up, and some never do grow up. What anyone may judge as the best sounding is based on what they have heard and are familiar with. Young children are generally the most honest about whether something sounds "right" or not. Friends of a designer are presupposed to show approval for their friend's efforts. The designer is often either too critical of their work, or everything they make is fantastic. In either case, they can not be objective. A similar thing happens if someone is asked to judge between two pieces of equipment. One from a known designer and the other from an unknown. The brand name functions in the same way, which is why trademarks are so important.
You may not like what I posted, but it is people like me who have to clean up after the fringe groups have been into various pieces of equipment. Suggestions as you've posted really don't help the situation and may actually encourage those non-technical (or weak on understanding) to make changes in other equipment. Their defence? Well I can hear it's better, if you can't then you must have been listening to the wrong cables.
I don't know Charles, but I think your designs should be able to stand on their own without the side show. From what I hear, they should with no problem at all.
-Chris
Just one of the examples where you put words into other peoples mouths.
No one said that high performance equipment is the mark of a fool. What I said meant that high cost equipment designed by a celebrity designer who believes in fringe tweaks will not deliver good value and possibly even performance. Solid engineering and understanding of how parts work will result in a good design. Knowing how to get parts working to their strengths (properly applied to the circuit position) is the polish that creates really fine performance.
I don't care how much your wood blocks sell for, but I wonder how many people want those silly things placed around their floor holding up wire. I'd love to see any reasonable explanation as to why this would improve the sound. It would seem to me that the wire would tend to move around more since the friction to the supporting surface would be lower and the exposure to vibration and airborne sound energy is much higher than wire sitting on the floor. For people who want a nice looking room, speaker wires are run below the floor, as mine are. Can't use the blocks unless I glue them to the wire. That would be a sight!
Your comment where you assert that one Maple block among the Myrtle ones under equipment could be heard is absurd. More likely the position of those blocks would have more of an effect. Attributing the material rather than the position of these blocks for the sound differences calls your deductive reasoning into question. Of course, a possible control test where both preamps sat on a solid surface could have eliminated that conclusion, or at least given you a fact you could work from.
No, what I see are conclusions drawn from inadequate testing without useful controls over any variables. And you wonder where some of the silly audio myths come from?
I didn't say I liked or disliked your equipment Charles. I have never heard one. However, I did comment that your distractions might probably affect the design process, not in a positive way. If the sound quality was not diminished, the final price certainly did take a hit in that it could be too high. Don't know your pricing structure or construction details, but taking all this other stuff into consideration can't be good.
Were you a proponent of the "green marker around the edge of a CD improves the bass" deal? How about the green led in the CD bay thing?
Simply put Charles, when a well known designer becomes involved and supports fringe improvements without there being any evidence as to why these should work, I worry about what design decisions have been made inside his products. It's that simple.
I didn't comment on how much money is involved as I don't know. There was no reference to anyone getting rich at all. That's all your embellishment.
Sheeple buy things without doing any research. They just follow recommendations from personalities (like a popular designer) or articles in a magazine. Audio publications have long since been a tool to assist with equipment sales. Heavy advertising moves boxes. That's a fact that all the research bears out. So, advertising plus a good review (and maybe an "A list" rating) makes the sale. If this were not true, none of these activities would be continuing.
I was an audio salesman for a number of years in addition to doing service work. I also enjoyed observing people and their reactions. I actually learned a lot and had fun doing it. Remember the term, "sheeple". It can very accurately predict what actions some people will follow. It is also one reason why only a few percent will open their own business.
I'm not gyrating at all here. This has been my constant stance on the subject of successful design work. You have a problem with someone who applies whatever means at their disposal to guide design decisions? My comment was in opposition to the idea that listening alone will create the best designs. The very idea that speaker wire on blocks improves the sound without finding out why is a foreign idea. Why is one of the most important questions in engineering. To accept an improvement without any attempt to determine what effect is at work is almost irresponsible to my way of thinking. Was the amplifier misbehaving? What changed when the wire was raised off the floor? This is an important question that points to an unexpected change in how your equipment was operating. No investigation?? Could it have simply been a time thing where some component finally settled into it's "happy spot"? You didn't check.
A deaf listener? Whatever makes them happy I guess.
Learning what is accurate is a journey everyone makes. They may get off that train at any point though. The only thing anyone can judge is what sounds better than the best thing they have experience with. Like taste buds, some forays into inaccurate sound happens as people grow up, and some never do grow up. What anyone may judge as the best sounding is based on what they have heard and are familiar with. Young children are generally the most honest about whether something sounds "right" or not. Friends of a designer are presupposed to show approval for their friend's efforts. The designer is often either too critical of their work, or everything they make is fantastic. In either case, they can not be objective. A similar thing happens if someone is asked to judge between two pieces of equipment. One from a known designer and the other from an unknown. The brand name functions in the same way, which is why trademarks are so important.
Okay, if that's what you want to believe. That is not what I said though. I know of two designers (and their companies) for sure that "design by ear" only. That is a shocking state of affairs as far as I'm concerned. There is a loud subjective contingent here that believes this is the way to go. Every really good designer I have met uses test equipment and listening tests to guide them along the right path. I also follow this procedure when doing audio work. This is to counter the beliefs some of our subjective contingent make that everyone else simply reads the instruments without listening to what is going on.
You may not like what I posted, but it is people like me who have to clean up after the fringe groups have been into various pieces of equipment. Suggestions as you've posted really don't help the situation and may actually encourage those non-technical (or weak on understanding) to make changes in other equipment. Their defence? Well I can hear it's better, if you can't then you must have been listening to the wrong cables.
I don't know Charles, but I think your designs should be able to stand on their own without the side show. From what I hear, they should with no problem at all.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.