The only thing that remains is that everyone has to be happy and satisfied with its own hearing and its own assessment of the sound and its own equipment, and cannot tell someone else what is right to listen to or what to put in the booth. However, everyone should also be able to realize that if someone with audio engineering experience comes along and can increase the supposedly correct, right sound with a few simple steps, the happy experience will be significantly increased for the supposedly happy person, which the happy person considered impossible and wrong in theory and practice. He can then return to his correct, right pre-over-happy setting;-)
You seem to have a problem with my recent comment that:
"you can't have audio without the engineering behind it no matter how hard you try. They are clearly inseparable."
But that statement is absolutely true.
Now not every respectable audio designer is a degreed engineer. There are some very capable people who are not degreed engineers but have learned on their own the knowledge and skills necessary to design high performance audio equipment. Nevertheless, the principles they apply are entirely based on the engineering underlying all audio designs.
So, for all intents and purposes, these people really are engineers in their activities that involve designing audio products. Lacking a formal degree is irrelevant. They are doing engineering, ergo, they are engineers.
Last edited:
Judging Sound Quality: Preference or Skill?
Both and more. Your SQ is different from mine. So to say that "judging" sound quality is a preference or skill leaves out much more details as to what you may judge to be good SQ.
Like asking for the definition of gravity, why gravity doesn't affect quantum mechanics the same way, which cables are best, etc., you're just asking for opinions. So far, 203 of them. Opinions. Young, old, degreed, non-degreed. Blah, blah, blah.
Depends on your definition of "good".
"Good" can mean "accurate" ( the reproduced instruments sound like real acoustic instruments I've heard in the past ).
This use sense would not be a matter of naive opinion, but rather reasoned judgement based on one's expertise.
Or good can just mean "I like it" ( lots of thumping bass, images jumping around, etc. ).
This sense of the term requires no expertise or experience.
"Good" can mean "accurate" ( the reproduced instruments sound like real acoustic instruments I've heard in the past ).
This use sense would not be a matter of naive opinion, but rather reasoned judgement based on one's expertise.
Or good can just mean "I like it" ( lots of thumping bass, images jumping around, etc. ).
This sense of the term requires no expertise or experience.
It could potentially even be quite correct in some specific cases.
And this which is now a dispute between me and another member who won't give up in his in my eyes useless controversy could soon become one.
Especially when that member only responds to what keeps him arguing and pretends not to read the rest.
So there comes a time when you have to make a choice: either continue to respond to him or ignore him.
Frankly, I've always found it humiliating (just my point of view) to use the "Ignore" button for a member and in fact I have never done it, and this will not be my first time.
Also there comes a time when you have to communicate/answer "something" in order to lower the tone of the useless controversy, and here you have to say something that could hurt the other even if you do not want to hurt anyone, but you have to say "something", if you know what I mean.
Just as an example if he has ever designed an audio device (and if so what kind of success did he have if he had any) and if his hearing system is in good condition or not.
But I will not do it yet.
Many thanks for your appreciated opinion.
Yes, thanks again.
Just similar, as a general model it could work very well though.
I would like it to be something very basic to start (related to highs, mids and bass) with and above all something that is shared, that is, that arises from the collaboration of all of you/us.
That is, start describing the highs as you remember ever hearing them in your experience as a listener who is playing a system or a device.
At the end of the day it should be remembered that it is about sharing a listening experience that has seen you put yourself to listening to provide an impartial judgment, as impartial as possible, as if it were a sworn appraisal and signed expert resulting to be presented in a court of law.
One should also not forget that professional honesty and dignity would require self-exclusion if you have, for example, a cold at that moment, if you know what I mean.
This comment is in effect a useless specification of something that was already quite obvious.
Where I come from, it is called just polemic, that's it adds nothing constructive to the conversation and tends to discredit for no apparent reason the person who has been answering you patiently and kindly from the beginning.
The point you chose not to make is that when you say that design and listening are inseparable you don't realize that you are saying what I've already said before you, but that you wanted to ignore.
"I have always said that engineers and listeners should go hand in hand"
In fact, not only I've I already said it before you, but I've said it even better (if you know what I want to mean) because I said that they must go hand in hand, that is, not only that they are inseparable, but they must also get along not clash.
It should be a noble kind of collaboration (not a contrast).
Please note that I've no problem at all with your comment above nor any of your comments. 😉
Technically speaking, also please note that there is no way to predict how a designed piece of equipment will sound.
In other words, there is no absolute way to design an audio device that allows us to know in advance how it will sound.
Sensorially speaking, there is a way to do it.
Isn't that a way that gives absolute results?
No, it doesn't give absolute results.
But it's all we have.
There is no other way to know how a piece of audio equipment sounds.
And I would like to give that way all the dignity and the value it deserves.
😉
Is a carpenter qualified to develop and manufacture audio loudspeakers? Is a bricklayer qualified to develop and build listening rooms? Is an electrician qualified to develop audio amps;-?
As far as I know, there is no "state-approved" training to become an audio (equipment) engineer. At most, you can become a sound engineer, which qualifies you to know how rooms to fill with sound, how much equipment to use and how to connect it. Or even how and where to set up microphones and play around with the knobs. Or get to know some circuits that are supposedly audio circuits - because they have not been audio tested. Is there any training that qualifies to develop and tune loudspeakers, amplifiers, sources, rooms and more, based on audio measurement methods, ergo audire: listen-ing, hear-ing methods)?
An "electrical engineer" is not trained to develop AUDIO electronics, just as a carpenter is not trained to make loudspeakers or to tune them.
Is a carpenter qualified to develop and manufacture audio loudspeakers? Is a bricklayer qualified to develop and build listening rooms? Is an electrician qualified to develop audio amps;-?
As far as I know, there is no "state-approved" training to become an audio (equipment) engineer. At most, you can become a sound engineer, which qualifies you to know how rooms to fill with sound, how much equipment to use and how to connect it. Or even how and where to set up microphones and play around with the knobs. Or get to know some circuits that are supposedly audio circuits - because they have not been audio tested. Is there any training that qualifies to develop and tune loudspeakers, amplifiers, sources, rooms and more, based on audio measurement methods, ergo audire: listen-ing, hear-ing methods)?
An "electrical engineer" is not trained to develop AUDIO electronics, just as a carpenter is not trained to make loudspeakers or to tune them.
Last edited:
So true. That reality keeps the audio consumer market full of nuts-jobs, quacks, zero-distortion freaks, snake oil enthusiasts, flat Earthers, genuine/traditional scientific designers/builders, con artists, fine artists, and everything in between. People profit from semantics. Conspiracy theories related to audio will never go away.
Most would agree, in general, that music is art. Have you ever listened to curators and art enthusiasts discuss a painting? It makes me nauseous to listen to most of that rubbish. Those people make me sick.
Some audiophools are just the same type. Same with vintage/classic cars, Dungeons & Dragons and bicycles. Weirdos and freaks are everywhere but it does seem they thrive on the internet. Where on earth will you find a successful 35-year careered veteran audio design engineer arguing with a confused pubescent boy?
Good times...
The incredible thing is that in most cases they have no idea at all how the ear, Hearing and related psychology work.
Not to mention the Propagation of Sound, which for some I noticed was just total darkness.
In my modest vision, we all do not need those who pontificate on what they do not know, but at the same time who are convinced that their formidable logic is infallible even when it comes to human senses, such as hearing. and they take it for granted that the same limited logic can replace knowledge.
Of course, I'm not talking about knowledge of datasheets. 🙄
Obviously, I'm not referring to any member in particular.
It's tricky;-)
An example, a cutout: A prerequisite for measurements in "science", or "engineering", is to measure what we claim to measure;-) The vast majority of "audio" "scientists" and "engineers" already fail to know, recognize and adhere to this;-)-;
An example, a cutout: A prerequisite for measurements in "science", or "engineering", is to measure what we claim to measure;-) The vast majority of "audio" "scientists" and "engineers" already fail to know, recognize and adhere to this;-)-;
Yes, it may easily be so.
And it is just so.
However, your reflection gives me the opportunity to add the following.
Logic (but obviously not only logic) is the basis of all intellectual and commercial and even instinctive relationships.
So it is indisputable that the use of logic is automatic and and universally accepted and a priority.
What I'm discussing is the misuse of logic.
Logic is irreplaceable, but it must also be accompanied by an adequate "dose" of knowledge.
Otherwise it can become the most dangerous and arrogant ignorance.
May be, the entire organism does "hear": which is why the feet start to bob;-)
And what is not set in vibration by the mechanical vibrations is set in vibration by e.g. the modulation of the electrical network nervous system through the membrane eardrum;-)
And what is not set in vibration by the mechanical vibrations is set in vibration by e.g. the modulation of the electrical network nervous system through the membrane eardrum;-)
You could not be more wrong about this if you tried.
Electrical engineers are trained to develop all types of electronics, including AUDIO devices. The basic principles employed in electrical circuits are the same regardless of what the device does. And it is the engineers who are specifically educated to be able to successfully and properly design those circuits.
Without those engineers you would not have all the electronic products on the market today to choose from. And that includes, very specifically, audio gear.
The problem is that in the case of audio gear there are a great many amateurs who have gained some understanding of electronics and think they know how to improve on what the engineers have developed. And they then present undocumented and unsubstantiated stories on website sites like this one. And that's fine. No one is arguing that they shouldn't present their opinions. It just important to distinguish between those opinions and real facts.
Hmmm. So, does it follow that PhD engineers are better at designing audio equipment than mere BS engineers? I mean, the PhDs have more education so they must design better and more "proper" circuits than their less educated colleagues, right?
It would also be interesting just that here we are trying to create a value and a co-sharing of the listening experience that is heavily and unjustifiably opposed by some irreducible ones.
The road does not seem short and not easy, but it can be done because the common perception of the senses (of Hearing in our case) exists and must be valued.
Let's not complicate things unnecessarily before even building something that is sufficiently shareable, please.
Thank you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.