The knowledge a craftsman has is not so much based on intuition, but rather on learning from masters and experience. Otherwise, it is a good example.
Yes, of course it comes from experience, self or taught. With enough of that, it "becomes" intuition.
Many things are like this, music, sports, painting, carpentry, etc.
Last edited:
I'd have to say that loudspeaker design and development is based on science as much as anything else in the audio chain. Without that basic scientific knowledge you are just taking a guess what is happening and why. Yes after awhile you know intuitively what will work and what will cause problems but that is as much science as art. Just as you have to balance the differential pair and voltage and current gain in an amplifier if you don't understand all the different parts of a speaker it would be hard to make anything beyond making a device that makes noise. Making noise is the easy part, getting that noise to sound as good as possible is the art of balancing all the different aspects of not only the raw drivers but now you have to add in the enclosures and the room acoustics. If that isn't science nothing is.
Agreed its not tautological but your original statement still didn't make sense.
https://xkcd.com/435/ does spring to mind.
I will relate one of my experiences with music being Cedared:
Maybe 10-15 years ago some audiophile friends of mine, who are also Deadheads, bought what seemed to them an amazing compilation of GD recordings in a single CD collection for a lowish price. As soon as they got the collection they were upset with its sound quality. They found the CD's lifeless, even though they were very quiet, without obvious added distortion. How could this be? I took the CD's to a recording engineer friend of mine who, like me, had a STAX Lambda headphone system (very good for serious resolution) and who has darn good ears. He alleged that the recordings had been 'Cedared' and this took a good deal of the subtle (audiophile interesting) information out, along with lower hiss, or anything else obviously not wanted. This was my first familiarity with Cedar, and what it does. Many here would probably be happy enough with the CD's, but my audiophile friends were severely disappointed.
Maybe 10-15 years ago some audiophile friends of mine, who are also Deadheads, bought what seemed to them an amazing compilation of GD recordings in a single CD collection for a lowish price. As soon as they got the collection they were upset with its sound quality. They found the CD's lifeless, even though they were very quiet, without obvious added distortion. How could this be? I took the CD's to a recording engineer friend of mine who, like me, had a STAX Lambda headphone system (very good for serious resolution) and who has darn good ears. He alleged that the recordings had been 'Cedared' and this took a good deal of the subtle (audiophile interesting) information out, along with lower hiss, or anything else obviously not wanted. This was my first familiarity with Cedar, and what it does. Many here would probably be happy enough with the CD's, but my audiophile friends were severely disappointed.
Apt analogy Bob Orban is a brilliant guy not responsible for what folks do (overdo) with the tools he designs.
Our local public radio station had to log "experimental" time when they turned off all limiting or compression. I don't know what FCC rules they violated by this, but it sure sounded nice.
Last edited:
Same goes for any denoising tools, be it Cedar or something else. It's all in the hands of operator.
I spent considerable time processing the files of the audio library of my local community FM station with MP3Gain.
After this I was able to set the final processor to quite low levels of compression/limiting with the main function being slow agc/peak limiting.
The result is indeed spectacularly good, especially when compared to the 'commercials'.....I cannot endure those audio abominations.
During Sunday special interest/genre time slots in the hands of good operators/announcers playing direct from CD, the SQ is very nicely hifi.
Dan.
After this I was able to set the final processor to quite low levels of compression/limiting with the main function being slow agc/peak limiting.
The result is indeed spectacularly good, especially when compared to the 'commercials'.....I cannot endure those audio abominations.
During Sunday special interest/genre time slots in the hands of good operators/announcers playing direct from CD, the SQ is very nicely hifi.
Dan.
There are at least 2 paths to higher audio quality:
One is to simply put more 'cubic inches into it' (this translates to wider tracks, higher speed, quieter electronics, higher frequency bias, etc, in analog tape recording.
The other approach is to modify the audio signal: Dolby, compressors, Orban, etc. do this. Both will give better specs. One sounds better though.
One is to simply put more 'cubic inches into it' (this translates to wider tracks, higher speed, quieter electronics, higher frequency bias, etc, in analog tape recording.
The other approach is to modify the audio signal: Dolby, compressors, Orban, etc. do this. Both will give better specs. One sounds better though.
The reason folk keep hearing their speakers when they are trying to listen to music, or start turning down the level controls at 85 - 90 dB "because it's too loud," is that not enough science went into the development and construction of their speakers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.