 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: You just don't get it. posted by Steve Eddy on July 28, 2003 at 23:08:57:
He said:"...not to mention the successful high end audio designers, who take great pains to voice their products to a point that satisfies THEIR sonic requirements, sometimes going contrary to the THD meter BECAUSE THATS WHAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO THEM."So what he is saying is that high end audio designers rather sacrifice performance (low THD and distortion) over sonic quality if it sound better to them. I would call such a designer an artist rather than audio engineer.
If we choose sonic quality over performance and specifications, then one will never hear the "true" sound of music that was meant to be heard. Rather, you will hear music as an interpretation of somebody else's (designer) senses, and for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other
Follow Ups:
So what he is saying is that high end audio designers rather sacrifice performance (low THD and distortion) over sonic quality if it sound better to them. I would call such a designer an artist rather than audio engineer.Why's that? How does being an artist somehow preclude one from being an engineer? What is an engineer but one who uses their knowledge and skill to design something to suit a particular purpose? Why should an engineer be any less an engineer just because the particular purpose in question is ultimately one's own subjective satisfaction? Where is it carved in stone that engineering is to serve purely utilitarian, objective goals?
Take a look at something like the Brooklyn Bridge. While it serves as a bridge, it also has an aesthetic. Would you say that James Roebling was an artist and not an engineer?
If we choose sonic quality over performance and specifications, then one will never hear the "true" sound of music that was meant to be heard. Rather, you will hear music as an interpretation of somebody else's (designer) senses, and for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other
But it's pretty much ALL subjective when you get right down to it. From the instrument maker, to the musician, to the conductor, to the producer, the recording engineer, to the mastering engineer, etc.
You have the subjective fingerprints of everyone involved in the process all the way down the line. Why should the audio designer or the end user be left out? Why should there be subjectivity all down the line but the designer and the end user are expected to be slaves to some objective goal which will not necessarily result in the best subjective pleasure in the end?
Why should designing toward subjective pleasure be any less laudable than designing toward objective perfection? What else possibly matters at the end of the day but our own subjective pleasure? Does our audio equipment serve us, or do we serve it?
se
The Brooklyn Bridge was an excellent example. I am sure you will agree that the designer of bridge did not sacrify any of the bridge's "required" specification to achieve artistic nirvana. For example, he could have not said that the anchor and its column in the middle of bridge (that support it) does not look good , so it should be removed. so unless he can come up with another scheme to hold up the [middle] weight of the bride, they stay where they are even they look too ugly.The same concept can be applied to audio component design also. You got to achieve minimum requirement for performance (S/N ratio, Distortion and THD, power, bandwidth, etc..) before subjective evaluation even can be mentioned.
For example, if you look at some tube amplifiers, they have excess of 3% THD which mean some of amplifier frequency responses have been hyped up (or down) intentionally. Although the amplifier might sound outstanding on some recordings due to its frequency alteration, but what would happen if by chance we play a recording that have the same exact equalization as the amp do? You will hear double of everything and the recording will probably sound like crap.
So it is always best (and will get most consistent result) if human factor are left out of audio design chain. At least this way, if a recording sound like crap, you can blame it on the artist rather than your system :)
The same concept can be applied to audio component design also. You got to achieve minimum requirement for performance (S/N ratio, Distortion and THD, power, bandwidth, etc..) before subjective evaluation even can be mentioned.And how exactly will you know when you've achieved that minimum requirement of performence unless you listen for yourself?
For example, if you look at some tube amplifiers, they have excess of 3% THD which mean some of amplifier frequency responses have been hyped up (or down) intentionally. Although the amplifier might sound outstanding on some recordings due to its frequency alteration, but what would happen if by chance we play a recording that have the same exact equalization as the amp do? You will hear double of everything and the recording will probably sound like crap.
But if it had the same equalization as the tube amp, then why would it necessarily sound better on a more objectively perfect amp?
So it is always best (and will get most consistent result) if human factor are left out of audio design chain.
What absolute bullshit!
The enjoyment of music is PURELY A HUMAN EXPERIENCE! Why would you take the human factor out of the design chain?
Christ, you're no different than Jon in your intolerance of individuality and diversity. You both want to create some single-minded Borg collective.
Screw that. That's not a world I want to live in.
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]
