😎😎
I am sure, I can call people who design an amplifier is an engineer, not a magician. 😉
But what do you call people who change things randomly till it "sounds better". The quotes mean no DBT or even other peoples opinion.
I am both! At least I am accused of being both. '-) I don't find anything wrong with keeping a 'sense of wonder' about what works and what does not.
Monkey typewriter theory - RationalWiki
although the SPCA and others might try to keep us from equipping them with hot soldering irons
although the SPCA and others might try to keep us from equipping them with hot soldering irons
Last edited:
Short of DBT, it would be nice to have two samples of a design, change something on one, and A/B, either short-term or longer-term.
But usually we are impatient, and have only one of something anyway. Unless the change results in a remarkable and negative difference, expectation bias effects say we will prefer the change.
When someone mentions hearing things in a recording that they hadn't heard before, I generally suppose that something has changed the frequency response. It does not per se mean that the change has resulted in "higher resolution" somehow.
But usually we are impatient, and have only one of something anyway. Unless the change results in a remarkable and negative difference, expectation bias effects say we will prefer the change.
When someone mentions hearing things in a recording that they hadn't heard before, I generally suppose that something has changed the frequency response. It does not per se mean that the change has resulted in "higher resolution" somehow.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Having lots of work horse boxes that look same is a good idea. You can make changes or not and see if people can hear or are really just peeking.
I'm sure I could name which ones you are thinking of 🙂. If it were easy everyone would be doing it successfully, there are some compromises, in class a there is the heat, but once all factors are dealt with its pretty damn good my friend . I've been test driving this output stage for over 2 years now, I think the bench test is complete. All parties that have experienced it have not been offended 🙂.
Colin
Here we go again around the loop...sorry here's another 2c.
Electronics is as much an art as a science. There are so many variables and so many ways of doing things - the art part has to come into play. Amplifier design must be even more so, since the machine is then used to enjoy another art form. If all it took to produce a great amplifier was designing it to give the best standard set of measurements, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I have many times made adjustments to amplifiers that have not made any difference to the usual measurements yet made them sound quite different (yes that is only my opinion not proven in controlled DB tests). That was profoundly frustrating and puzzling to my engineering brain. But instead of dismissing this as my own expectations bias, I chose to consider that there is more to it than this. I like this, if forces me to be more aware of the many mysterious aspects in life and remember that things are never as straightforward as we might like them to be. It just seems crazy to me to keep insisting that listening to an amplifier is in some way pointless. How many other consumer products are designed and sold without being tested in the real world for their intended purpose? How many cars do you think are put in production without lots test driving to assess their capabilities subjectively? Or should car designers only go by mpg, power and and other specs on paper? (actually I think there are some brands that do this...nuff said!)
Have any of you hard line "objectivists" ever looked at a great impressionist painting (say by Monet) and thought that even though the scene is blurred, there's something about the way the artist captured the light that makes you feel you're there more than a photo would? (It's ok, only a rhetorical question - I already know the answer). 🙂
Electronics is as much an art as a science. There are so many variables and so many ways of doing things - the art part has to come into play. Amplifier design must be even more so, since the machine is then used to enjoy another art form. If all it took to produce a great amplifier was designing it to give the best standard set of measurements, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I have many times made adjustments to amplifiers that have not made any difference to the usual measurements yet made them sound quite different (yes that is only my opinion not proven in controlled DB tests). That was profoundly frustrating and puzzling to my engineering brain. But instead of dismissing this as my own expectations bias, I chose to consider that there is more to it than this. I like this, if forces me to be more aware of the many mysterious aspects in life and remember that things are never as straightforward as we might like them to be. It just seems crazy to me to keep insisting that listening to an amplifier is in some way pointless. How many other consumer products are designed and sold without being tested in the real world for their intended purpose? How many cars do you think are put in production without lots test driving to assess their capabilities subjectively? Or should car designers only go by mpg, power and and other specs on paper? (actually I think there are some brands that do this...nuff said!)
Have any of you hard line "objectivists" ever looked at a great impressionist painting (say by Monet) and thought that even though the scene is blurred, there's something about the way the artist captured the light that makes you feel you're there more than a photo would? (It's ok, only a rhetorical question - I already know the answer). 🙂
And then the conflicts arise when one side or the other (ob or sub) try, or are perceived as trying, to make both occupy the same place.
The subjectivist jargon using terms like "imaging" and "soundstage" are derived from the likes of Harry Pearson and his overpriced mag Absolute Sounds. His holy grail were the Mercury Living Presence orchestral recordings made with a single crossed pair of mics in front of the orchestra. In his imagination Harry was somehow able to discern the spatial
placement of the instruments in the orchestra, hence sound stage. So many modern recordings are multitracked, multiple mic'd and recorded on different days. No "soundstage" possible there, I am afraid. Yet reviewers and audio journalists persist in using these terms as some kind of approbation where no "sound stage" exists at all.
placement of the instruments in the orchestra, hence sound stage. So many modern recordings are multitracked, multiple mic'd and recorded on different days. No "soundstage" possible there, I am afraid. Yet reviewers and audio journalists persist in using these terms as some kind of approbation where no "sound stage" exists at all.
I do not agree with this, but since you cannot objectively measure it, we cannot prove it either way.
A soundstage does exist on a good recording on a good system. Some audiophiles consider soundstage the favourite quality, too.
Hugh
My strong feeling, Hugh, is also that a good and very linear phase response must contribute to this ephemeral quality of "imaging" that we both value. It is a time domain phenomenon. But I assert firmly that the imaging is mainly a product of the way the recording is done. Some recordings have good imaging and others dont.
The classic Mercury stereo recordings were made with a "Decca tree" of three spaced shielded omnis, and a simple signal path. Doesn't hurt that they, and the RCA shaded dogs were made at a time when people who actually knew Mahler and even Brahms were still alive to make them. That world is gone now.
All good fortune,
Chris
All good fortune,
Chris
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You've missed the point.
It's ok to have 'subjectivist feelings' about things.
What's is not ok is when people try to explain subjectivist feelings about amplifiers with non-technical arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny, or they claim the changes that make an amplifier sound better cannot be measured. And what is especially irksome is when audio products often are patently flawed (search through Stereophile reviews) but people claim they sound superior.
What's wrong with designing a product, measuring it, tweaking it for best performance (measured) then confirming its good through listening and releasing it? Instead of which there is a whole sub-culture that denigrates those who apply an engineering approach that is firmly measurement and/or simulation based.
You give the example of test driving a car. Cars are complex electro- mechanical systems (orders of magnitude more than amplifiers) that today rely heavily on CAD and simulation. Test driving is part of closing the gap between the expected performance and reality. I seriously doubt in that business (and I worked in it for 8 years on the electronics and semiconductor side) people knowingly abandon engineering and physics on a subjective feeling about how to do something. Even things like body styling are subject to intense scrutiny, focus group testing and so forth.
And electronics is not Art - it sits firmly and irrevocably in the realm of science and engineering.