|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Do You guys read the HR AA? posted by john curl on November 16, 2002 at 07:44:42:
You know poeple eat pidgeons :-). although i think it is hilarous. Thank you John Curly :-)Sorry i have not lauged this hard for days
On amore somber note it is inportant to bring some real world experience into the mix. We ars still dealing with poor aproximations of real world sounds, i think it is acceptable to ask the question, why is that? What is it preventing us to get 80% performace from our SOTA gear?
dee
;-D
Follow Ups:
Sorry Penguin, I make mistakes like that sometimes. I used to call Corey , Cory, and it drove him crazy!
I did find Ole's input refreshing, BECAUSE he actually works with sound systems, and hears differences. It is difficult to get better sound, but it will not be done by the folks taking about test procedures. They only tend to hold back progress.
""The smaller size of 4135 make it more accurate in frequency response, but S/N is worse.
I have some curves on 4135,4134,4133 compared."" (quote from Ole...)
""It is difficult to get better sound, but it will not be done by the folks taking about test procedures. They only tend to hold back progress"" (John Curl)One wonders how Ole got the curves for the mike elements. Perhaps it was on the shoulders of people before him, developing test procedures using and developing SOTA equipment. Perhaps he owns one pair of the shoulders, and is directly responsible for the tests responsible. I speak of.
You are not asking his opinion of the mikes..rather, the two of you are discussing actual repeatable, verifiable tests and curves. Not whether they sound more "full bodied, airy, sweeter, etc. But measured curves. They may sound "full bodied,...etc"., and many people would be comfortable talking about them in that fashion. But, electrical testing and nomenclature was used here, by Ole and John C.
Folks talking about test procedures? If you assume magic is responsible, test procedures are not useful. But that sounds suspiciously like "OZ", "pay no attention to the man in that booth".
If you assume tests will eventually be established to measure what is heard, then adopting the stance "they only tend to hold back progress" will in itself hold back progress. Didn't you just buy 20 grand of test equipment? Do you folow test procedures for using it?
For speaker cables, an additional constraint is the ability of testing high di/dt. A VERY difficult thing to do without error. That is my primary focus. But I don't think my focus is holding back progress.
Cables? Oh, somebody will find out...Maybe not JohnC, maybe not John E, but someone. And everybody else will learn and use, as they did with frequency responce, noise floor, S/N, IM, THD, TIM.
And, reporting failures to the world is as important as succeses. Why repeat?
I'm sure my stance is applicable to all testing, not just electrical.
TTFN, John
Hi John Es. I am now learning how to run my HP-3563 network analyser. Each day, I learn a few more techniques as to how to make better measurements. So far, I can easily duplicate my earlier work on low level wire distortion, and now I am measuring different brands of wires. Heck, I might even be able to measure differences in break-in and cryo treatment of wires. Time will tell.
For the record, B&K have done a great deal of work with their microphones. Thirty years ago, I built my own mike preamp for the 1" version of the B&K mike, and I learned how to make it quieter than the standard mike preamp. In 1973, I showed B&K how to lower the noise of their 2619 preamp by 10 dB, and I have the comparative measurements from B&K to prove it. All newer preamps have my 'upgrade' or its equivalent.
By the book, the 4133, is one of the flattest microphones on the planet. It's cousin, the 4134 is a somewhat less damped version, that is flat when used at 90 degrees rather than directly.
Measuring absolute frequency response in free air is problematic, because it is difficult to get an accurate source. Usually absolute frequency response is predicted, rather than directly measured.
Early on, like 30 years ago, spark gaps or firecrackers were used to create an impulsive source to measure rise time, for example. However, Herr Manger published a paper in the Montreaux session of the AES in 1986, that accurately measured the risetime of the 4133 and many other commercial mikes. The 4133 was about the best.
So when the 4133 is questioned, and found wanting, then enquiring minds want to know why. I WANT to see those test results, this is the kind of stuff that Ole and I do for a living.
No DBT here, just real engineering.
No DBT here, just real engineering.DBTs are a part of real audio engineering. Are you implying otherwise?
I certainly do not mean to imply that DBTs are necessary to design and develop audio products. However, to claim that DBTs are not "real" audio engineering is wrong in my view. I hope that clarifies my position.
Now if we can only get you to agree that cables can sound different......
nt
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.
> > DBTs are a part of real audio engineering.Me thinks you're kidding yourself, Mike. Perhaps you feel that it should be; however, I doubt that you could point to more than a small handful of audio compaines that use them. Most rely on measurements and cost versus return calculations.
Rod:You're making me look bad. You said in three sentences what it took me numerous paragraphs to say.
Software guys pride themselves in tight, simple code.
Problem is, I still haven't figured out how to bill my clients for all the words I post up on this board. But being the good lawyer that I am, I'm sure working on it.
Not my part of audio engineering. Been there, done that, don't do it anymore.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: