That would suggest that there is a definitive yardstick to compare the reproduction to.
Can you show me just one item of commercial audio equipment that you own, that was designed subjectively?
Sonus Faber? Those that sound. The old series.
Vitus Audio? I had asked Hans Ole Vitus.
BBC LS3/5A? Look it up.
All Ayre products? Look up Charles Hansen
Hm. Can I mention Pass?
Thorsten listens to his designs. Ifi audio familiar?
List infinite.
In fact, your's was a very very funny question
Vitus Audio? I had asked Hans Ole Vitus.
BBC LS3/5A? Look it up.
All Ayre products? Look up Charles Hansen
Hm. Can I mention Pass?
Thorsten listens to his designs. Ifi audio familiar?
List infinite.
In fact, your's was a very very funny question
Thats such a strange question, EVERYONE of my designs have been design subjectively - after all its sound quality that matters not measurements... measurements are only important to reviewers don't pan you in there technical measurements section - but its the audio quality that drives me and this has LITTLE to do with standard measurements...
Can we just not leave it? as your not adding ANYTHING constructive to this thread IMO...
Agreed.
John, By the way while you are here is there anything you would say in terms of advice for the opamp roller and or cap substitution guys? I don't want to dissuade people from listening and experimenting, but seems to me there are traps to be aware of going down that road.
That isn't his point and I'm sure you knew it.
The whole point is that audio reproduction is about converting what's on the recorded medium into something we can listen to with the least amount of noise and distortion etc. In other words altering what's on the disc by the least amount possible.
Audio reproduction is all about the measurements and nothing about listening. It's about preserving what's on the disc and about designing a system that can reach that end.
I think we could all save ourselves a lot of time by just saying what it is we are designing our systems for. Successful reproduction or listening enjoyment.
Measurements are the perfect way to design a system that succeeds at audio reproduction but they aren't necessarily the best way to design a system that's solely concerned with listening enjoyment. At least if your metrics are to design for the flattest frequency response, lowest distortion, lowest noise, lowest jitter etc.
The trouble comes when someone says they do X because it sounds better to them but have no measurements to prove why. Or have no controlled listening test to confirm that they can really hear the differences they claim they can hear.
That would be true if how we typically measure correlated better with how we listen/hear.
Can you provide us with a definition of sound/audio quality, so we can understand what you are talking about?
What would be a good title for my proposed renamed thread in the lounge?
"Let's pretend to design a DAC while wasting all of our time bickering about the validity of measurement vs listening, even though this conflict is decades old and rarely is anyone persuaded by the discussion. Because pointless disputes are easier and more cathartic than engineering"
No, that title is too long.
SMH
P.S. I am not singling out Markw4 and 5th element, this is just an example.
I hope the moderators seriously consider moving and renaming the thread.
Why aren't those traps relevant to any "road" that relies on "listening and experimenting"?
Pleasing distortion would show up in the measurements. What is needed is some mythical property that can be heard but not measured.
I'm not sure of your agenda here, but over the years I've personally spoken with some of those who worked on the design and auditing was VERY much part of the process - your linked paper is very brief with scant details how the end results where achieved... I can assure you designing a High performance speaker takes more then a brief 6 page document!!!
I recall mentioned by one of those involved how the design of the recessed baffle helped with physically strengthening of the cabinet - the resultant baffle "Step" resulted in a notch that was much concern and part of the auditioning process, the benefits of the increased stiffening of the cabinet design was clearly heard - its a very well "engineered" design where much effort was taken in listening test.
Don't expect the "sterile" old school BBC back then to dare publicly publish much about subjective testing... but there was far more going on then a 6 page report!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
To reproduce something I think precision is number uno and it's only by measurement one will succeed. Now, our case is a chain of functions that together reproduces sound.
I think we need to honestly look att this chains end point(s) and specifically the speaker. Is it anyone here who believes that a completely faithful reproduction of a live event can be made with this system architecture: 2 mic, 2 channels, 2 speakers - raise their hand! I have heard of lot of systems and while some have been really good, none has fooled me for a piano and even less a symphony orchestra.
But maybe one of the functions by itself can be assessed as accurate - a DAC for example. Or an amplifier. But if we agree on that the end-2-end system lacks so fundamentally, how can we use the complete system to evaluate one of the functions in the middle (DAC, amp) of the chain?
I think by "listening" to a DAC (yes "" exclamation marks!!! because no one has ever listened to a DAC and never will) and tweaking said DAC to your liking via speakers, it's much more about compensation in that particular system and not about accuracy. I think we all need to understand this while we discuss DAC aspects here.
This is my view of the situation...
//
I think we need to honestly look att this chains end point(s) and specifically the speaker. Is it anyone here who believes that a completely faithful reproduction of a live event can be made with this system architecture: 2 mic, 2 channels, 2 speakers - raise their hand! I have heard of lot of systems and while some have been really good, none has fooled me for a piano and even less a symphony orchestra.
But maybe one of the functions by itself can be assessed as accurate - a DAC for example. Or an amplifier. But if we agree on that the end-2-end system lacks so fundamentally, how can we use the complete system to evaluate one of the functions in the middle (DAC, amp) of the chain?
I think by "listening" to a DAC (yes "" exclamation marks!!! because no one has ever listened to a DAC and never will) and tweaking said DAC to your liking via speakers, it's much more about compensation in that particular system and not about accuracy. I think we all need to understand this while we discuss DAC aspects here.
This is my view of the situation...
//
Names? Remember this speaker has been discussed to death over the years so any stories you have can be x-referenced on the internet. Personally I believe it's an insult to the Kingswood Warren team to lump them in with current subjective designers as was implied and why I replied.
Please point to this notch on the FR graph in the published paper. Also wrt 'the benefits of the increased stiffening of the cabinet design was clearly heard' you can read on the paper about that in section 2b. But you seem to want to put mystic flooby on it rather than accept it was engineering.
Gosh no idea - this was back in early 90's while I worked at Pink Triangle (I've always been terrible with names) - but I met a few of those who worked in the LS3A over the years. While I worked with PT, we had a DSP / DAC project with Alan??? at Harbeth - and his build of the LS3/5A.. with very interesting "confidential" behind the scenes information WRT the deign of the LS3/5A 🙂
Indeed, I guess this is why they spent alot of time to insure the baffle step would not result in a "notch" that is typical with such a baffle edge diffraction - I might recall later how it was said they solved it...
I'm no speaker designer, but have spent much time around those who are - (Misson, Herbeth, Quad, JBL Pro, Bose, Gale, Wharfedale - and I'm sure many MANY more I've forgotten about). In EVERYONE of these company's, the designs where very much auditioning lead after the "basic" system was designed "technically".
I recall JBL with there Waveguides design (intergrated into the speaker baffle) an unbelievable about of auditioning took place - I'd be leaving the building after 10pm at night, and I could still hear music followed by sweep tones coming from the lab whose floor would be covered with capacitors, inductors and trodden-in Plasticine (to tweak the baffle profile) used while they sonically tweaked the crossovers etc. 🙂 it was much the same in EVERY speaker design department I've ever worked with / visited.
My last company I worked with in Asia, we manufactured over 800 million speaker drivers a year - so PLEASE don't push your agenda with me, I PERSONALLY know the work process involved in speaker system design 🙂
Last edited:
Please answer here 🙂
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/351476-reproduction-new-post.html
//
Depends on what you mean. If it is all about the literal reproduction of the contents of the disc then we have the disc duplicator and the glass master can be considered the reference and we have copy verification tools.
If, OTOH, it is about musical playback then there no more be an audio reference than there can be a reference boiled egg. I can no more hear exactly what you hear than I can taste exactly what you taste.