|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Test procedures? Holding back progress? Surely you jest.. posted by Monstrous Mike on November 17, 2002 at 13:14:20:
DBTs are a part of real audio engineering.Mike:
As much as I’ve been advocating the scientific method and DBTs here, the two-faced, devil’s advocate in me is going to have to question that statement.
Clearly, I think DBTs are unquestionably a part of real science. Last weekend I had extensive discussions on that subject with my nephew’s wife who is a physicist working on her PhD through Cal Berkley at the Lawrence Livermore lab. DBTs may also be a part of real engineering of the kind that you are accustomed to that involves primarily instrumentation (and, admittedly sonar).
But, if a designer such as John has discovered through experience that he can design audio products that are successful in the marketplace without the need to resort to DBTs, does that mean he is not a “real†audio engineer? Apparently he is confident that the improvements he designs into his products and perceives in sighted auditions will also be perceived by customers who audition his products. If he is wrong, he will fail in the marketplace. If he is right he will succeed.
John has succeeded with a number of different products, and I personally find it extremely difficult, from a rational viewpoint, to come to the conclusion that his success has been due entirely to what little, if any, advertising typically is associated with his products. Moreover, John may be a successful audio designer, but I don’t particularly associate special cosmetic appeal with most of John’s products (although his new JC-1s may be an exception).
My sometimes heated disagreements with John on this board and elsewhere are probably no secret. Yet I respect him, and his partners, as designers enough that within a couple of weeks I’ll be auditioning a pair of John’s monoblocks JC-1s, and that will be the first time in more years than I can remember that anything other than a Jeff Rowland amp has been in my system.
I believe that a number of high end audio designers operate much like John, without resorting to DBTs. Many of them are extremely successful in the marketplace. I’m well aware that many objectivists believe that their success is due entirely to advertising hype, review hype and cosmetics. Yet many of us who have been in this hobby for a number of years have an extremely difficult time believing that the success of certain designers and the failure of other designers is due entirely or even significantly to the success of advertising and the cosmetics backing their products. Most high end companies are not large enough or profitable enough to even engage in advertising, and usually when they do, at least in my opinion, their feeble attempts at effective advertising is pretty pitiful. Just thumb through an issue of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound the next time you see one on a newsstand, and I think you will agree.
So bottom line, to me, seems to be that designers such as John, design in ways that they believe work for them. Does the fact that he doesn’t use DBTs as part of his design process mean that he is not a “real†audio engineer? I suspect the answer one gives to that question depends on which side one finds himself of the great divide between the extremist subjectivists and the extremist objectivists – a divide which in my opinion is fed and sustained more by myths and dogma on both sides rather than true scientific research.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Test procedures? Holding back progress? Surely you jest.. - Phil Tower 18:40:35 11/17/02 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]