Amen. I'm currently making class A amplifiers, and they sound good to me. Doubtless I probably couldn't tell them from some others in a DBT, but I don't care really. In this case, I'm not doing critical research, I'm having fun.
It's often emphasized how humans can't supress expectation bias, that it happens even if you know about it whether you acknowledge that it will happen or not. It's also emphasized (usually by others?) that the whole point of hifi is pleasure and, basically, fooling your brain into hearing something resembling live music even when you really know it's not REALLY there. So, given the bias for home-made builds or designs to sound better, why isn't it ok to use that bias to increase pleasure or enforce the illusion?
To take it further, if someone thinks sticking expensive little felt dots on their walls increases their pleasure, is anyone doing them any favors by taking that pleasure away? I wouldn't recommend complete self-delusion as a great way to pursue good sound by itself (nor to pursue actual research in things that matter objectively, like medicine or radio communications), but when its already in play for someone for whom its working, just what is the point of trying to kill that for them? Not everyone wants to be a scientist or engineer, and even those who do may not want to do it all the time every moment of their lives. Like I waste electrical power on a class A amp when I have quite good class D amps sitting nearby. If you are going to insist people aren't entirely rational Vulcans, and can't wish or understand that fact away, I think you have to accept people can use that fact for benefit to make themselves more happy.
Hence the paradigm. To a degree its in one's internal wiring. Now I'm a lot older I'm more receptive. Speakers tho are evil things, they flex and resonate and beamshapes keep changing. They are not wideband so you need crossovers, and then you get all sorts of phase problems and lobes. Then there is the fabrication. I tried fibreglass on my car once to patch a hole (fibreglass body). Not a pretty result. Last thing I made from wood that worked was aged 12. The learning curve is steep if you dont have access to people with the knowledge who you can barter with. And these are skills I still want to learn if I ever get a workshop again.
The JBL M2 looks so simple yet so many man hours went into designing it! Apparently its rather good.
Bill,
My first real development was with horn lenses and that led to a patent now being referenced by about 20 other companies. I thought that was rather simple to do, just had to sit in the UCLA engineering library and read everything I could get my hands on. At the same time I never thought I could build the speakers, that looked so much more complex. Out of a materials challenge I made a new cone material for a friend, that led me to think why don't I try and build the entire speaker. One thing leads to another and now I understand the mechanical, magnetic and other aspects of building speakers. I just wish I understood the electronics anywhere nearly like I understand the mechanics of this all.
My first real development was with horn lenses and that led to a patent now being referenced by about 20 other companies. I thought that was rather simple to do, just had to sit in the UCLA engineering library and read everything I could get my hands on. At the same time I never thought I could build the speakers, that looked so much more complex. Out of a materials challenge I made a new cone material for a friend, that led me to think why don't I try and build the entire speaker. One thing leads to another and now I understand the mechanical, magnetic and other aspects of building speakers. I just wish I understood the electronics anywhere nearly like I understand the mechanics of this all.
If you approach speakers as the same 2D world as electronics you really don't get far. Real speaker acoustics requires an almost innate understanding of materials, an ability to visualize the acoustic radiation in 3D, understanding how the vibration moves in a cone or on a panel and understand that a crossover must include the acoustic performance of a driver if its really going to work.
Since there are impossible conflicts in some aspects a good understanding of the tradeoffs so you actually get a good sounding speaker is important. Finally, for a successful commercial product you need to bury your standards and beliefs on what constitutes good audio and work from the perspective of your customer. Flat, low distortion audio doesn't sell in most markets. Neither do optimally calibrated TV's.
The DSP in the latest crop of amp chips its really very good and used with care a good speaker design can be executed in days, compared to months in the "tweak the passive crossover" days. The real heresy is that the chips (around $1 in quantity) really sound good as well. I would liken big amps and passive crossovers to using a carburetor on a modern race car.
A laser is only useful if you are actually designing the cone. And there are good tools that can design the cone to the point that the laser is only verifying the design. However the tool is only as good as the skills of the craftsman using the tool.
Since there are impossible conflicts in some aspects a good understanding of the tradeoffs so you actually get a good sounding speaker is important. Finally, for a successful commercial product you need to bury your standards and beliefs on what constitutes good audio and work from the perspective of your customer. Flat, low distortion audio doesn't sell in most markets. Neither do optimally calibrated TV's.
The DSP in the latest crop of amp chips its really very good and used with care a good speaker design can be executed in days, compared to months in the "tweak the passive crossover" days. The real heresy is that the chips (around $1 in quantity) really sound good as well. I would liken big amps and passive crossovers to using a carburetor on a modern race car.
A laser is only useful if you are actually designing the cone. And there are good tools that can design the cone to the point that the laser is only verifying the design. However the tool is only as good as the skills of the craftsman using the tool.
I agree. It's only when this is used to part people with large amounts of money I twitch. Personally since seeing the Ethan Winer video on youtube I have decided that I might as well game my own brain where I can and it doesn't really affect outlay. Still not decided on how endorphin levels affect things, but suspect has more influence than most of the changes I could make to my system. Or at the other extreme, does meditation help the experience?
But I will not claim my system is better than xyz. As I lack time to actually test that claim. I am not even sure I should claim high fidelity as I've not measured in room response and it could be all over the place. But I do enjoy listening to music
You've not worked at RF then, where things are very much 3D! (Joke, I know what you meant).
Or barter skills with someone good with electrons and rubbish with speakers. Win Win!
Demian,
I agree there are some really good programs now to simulate the speaker build and get good results. But that presupposes that you are using known materials and not something not in the database for something like a cone material. I know my material is not in one of those databases so you'd have to quantify and qualify the material and put that into the database to do that. The laser does show whether the cone actually is functioning as the simulation predicts. I wish I had all that software, it sure would make things easier than building and testing. As you say it is all a set of compromises as you can never match the theoretical values, something has to give. It is the balance of all those realities that makes the end product.
I agree there are some really good programs now to simulate the speaker build and get good results. But that presupposes that you are using known materials and not something not in the database for something like a cone material. I know my material is not in one of those databases so you'd have to quantify and qualify the material and put that into the database to do that. The laser does show whether the cone actually is functioning as the simulation predicts. I wish I had all that software, it sure would make things easier than building and testing. As you say it is all a set of compromises as you can never match the theoretical values, something has to give. It is the balance of all those realities that makes the end product.
Last edited:
Speaker design is a fine art, perhaps more difficult than electronic design, but does it belong on this thread? I too, tried to make a 'world class' bi-amped loudspeaker system that was 'time aligned' with the latest speaker components. It measured OK, but it did not sound as good as I had hoped. I then decided to stick with electronics, after that effort, 40 years ago. It takes a different set of talents than I personally have, but I have worked with several successful speaker designers over the decades, and though progress seems nominal, I know they are trying their best. I'll leave it to them.
Amazing, the digressions that one can stimulate by saying that they favor improved sound quality.
Of course, but interestingly enough, I didn't say anything about that. However, here it is coming out of the mouths of babes, as it were. ;-)
That's all true, but the difference may be in where one takes that knowledge.
OTOH, the two kinds of illusion may not be that much the same.
OK, we have the fact that audio as we know it now is about creating a highly imperfect illusion of a sonic image.
OK we also have the fact that the egocentrism of a tiny but noisy minority home builders makes the ancient and largely abandoned sonic crappiness of inaccurate, poorly designed tubed gear and analog media sound more pleasing to them than more modern, more accurate gear.
Are the two related? Are they the same thing? Does one necessitate the other? Should all persons who see that these self-appointed emperors of egocentric audio are actually buck-naked be assailed with personal attacks and run out of town on a rail?
That's what really is going on here.
Well, we have the lessons of history, perchance we wish to learn from them. At the turn of the 20th century the then modern art of therapeutic medication was dominated by placebo potions, which were the like the felt dots of health care.
Laws were enacted that fostered our current modern art of therapeutic medication with chemicals and treatments that are dominated by non-placebos. Is this an improvement over the ca. 1900's world of placebos?
Really? You can seriously post this apparent apologetic for self-delusion and say that?
Ah, the rose colored glasses work their magic. Placebos Uber Allles!
The problem with placebos is that they don't work nearly as reliably and strongly as actual operative treatments. That's been known for over a century. Why some feel this needs to be re-invented for audio escapes me.
Nobody is forcing that on people. In fact, its been proven over and over again that all one need do is mention science, and those who favor charms and amulets grab their axes, run into the streets and vigorously attack the pro-science malefactors. BTW the charms and amulets are ineffective and harmless, but the axes are sharp and real.
Are there really quite good class D amps? Something about endemic substandard high source impedance near the end of the audible range? Well, they share that with a lot of tubed amps...
Never did anything but, and look where it gets me. All I said is:
"Improved sound quality"
and here come the barking dogs and PC police...
Strong placebo response thwarts painkiller trials : Nature News & Comment In America at least Placebo is working way too reliably.
I see no barking dogs, just a discussion?
...for certain commercial interests.
The general rule is that the drug is supposed to work appreciably better than a placebo, and when it doesn't, certain investments may not pay off as hoped.
Nothing new that it happens, nothing new that people complain about their bad investments and try to blame them on someone else. Nothing new about people wanting to be affirmed, no matter what they do.
Some people seem to have this pent-up anger problem, and sometimes it manifests itself in gratuitous insults.
It is funny is watching them dance around their mistakes.
You read the article? Or is nature no longer a serious journal and just in the pay of big Pharma?
Where is this insult?
Yes, but IMO its a waste of my time. Old news.
That seems like a very odd thing to say. What's the logic?
You might want to learn to capitalize proper names...
I checked several British style guides, so you can't hide behind that...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.