| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Voices of Pro Audio Engineers
If you have followed the Linkwitz-Orion thread and the debate between Chung
and I thereon, you know that the argument boils down to "is it useful for an engineer nowadays to 'listen in' his design", or not. The engineering argument is that quality parts are now cheap, and good engineering is well known, so designing by the book pretty much gets you there, and measurements are the key indicators. Also, if you are a regular in the group, you know that pro equipment is often cited as a good sounding, reliable, economical alternative to high-end audio. The pro engineers are seen as sensible, straightforward types producing quality functional gear; the boutique high-end designers are often portrayed as amateurish, not very knowledgeable types. Thus the "listening in" they do to component parts is because they are not very good engineers or they would know better. So I thought it might be of interest to the group to hear the thoughts of some of the pro audio engineers who design and build current pro equipment, which is nowadays usually a mixture of analog and digital technology. The engineers quoted are Alan T. Meyer, Director of Engineering, Alesis; John Hanson, VP Engineering and Product Development, M! Group, Harman Music Group; Michal Jurewicz, President of Mytek; Nathan O'Neill, CTO of Symetrix; and Marc Lindahl, a prominent engineering consultant to the industry. The quotes are taken from a feature article entitled "Sounding Off on Semiconductors", a special report in the current (Feb 2005 ) issue of ProSoundNews. The basic thrust of the report is to see how the most recent batches of advanced modular analog and digital chips have affected their design approaches and thinking. In the course of the report, I ran across the following observations about the design process: Jurewicz - "(We) believe that our (semi-discrete) approach is far more advanced than function chips offered when it comes to the main characteristic of our products: transparent and detailed high-end sound." Hanson (agreeing) - "Most of the time, we are able to achieve as good or better results with our discrete designs". Meyer - "It's the difference between art (analog) and logic (digital). From my experience, a good analog design is completed by an engineer with an artistic mind, while a good digital design is completed by a system level designer with superb high-level vision". Lindahl - "It's much harder to simulate an analog design, so you end up with more trial and error to get it right. The approach is more simulation- and modeling- oriented when you're working in the digital domain, just because you can, and it's a lot easier. Either way, if you don't use your ears, and if you're not willing to work on something until it sounds right, then, well, as they say, 'GIGO' ". Jurewicz (commenting on the simplification/improvement in ADC design from 15 years ago) - "In mid-quality equipment, decent performance can be achieved 'by the book' (i.e. easily) and at moderate cost. This is reflected in the price of equipment which has plummeted threefold since the mid-'90's. However, top-notch high-end design still requires special selection of parts and a lot of design experience, and by no means can be described as easy." O'Neill (agreeing) - (T)he market expectation has increased in such a way that our designs still cost about the same to make, but now offer greatly improved performance". Meyer (adding) - "(E)xcellent measured performance doesn't always mean excellent-sounding performance. All the best converters measure well, so the true test that sets one converter apart from another is purely subjective." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. -- Harry Lavo "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing -- Duke Ellington" |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
If you have followed the Linkwitz-Orion thread and the debate between Chung and I thereon, you know that the argument boils down to "is it useful for an engineer nowadays to 'listen in' his design", or not. The engineering argument is that quality parts are now cheap, and good engineering is well known, so designing by the book pretty much gets you there, and measurements are the key indicators. Also, if you are a regular in the group, you know that pro equipment is often cited as a good sounding, reliable, economical alternative to high-end audio. The pro engineers are seen as sensible, straightforward types producing quality functional gear; the boutique high-end designers are often portrayed as amateurish, not very knowledgeable types. Thus the "listening in" they do to component parts is because they are not very good engineers or they would know better. So I thought it might be of interest to the group to hear the thoughts of some of the pro audio engineers who design and build current pro equipment, which is nowadays usually a mixture of analog and digital technology. The engineers quoted are Alan T. Meyer, Director of Engineering, Alesis; John Hanson, VP Engineering and Product Development, M! Group, Harman Music Group; Michal Jurewicz, President of Mytek; Nathan O'Neill, CTO of Symetrix; and Marc Lindahl, a prominent engineering consultant to the industry. The quotes are taken from a feature article entitled "Sounding Off on Semiconductors", a special report in the current (Feb 2005 ) issue of ProSoundNews. The basic thrust of the report is to see how the most recent batches of advanced modular analog and digital chips have affected their design approaches and thinking. In the course of the report, I ran across the following observations about the design process: Jurewicz - "(We) believe that our (semi-discrete) approach is far more advanced than function chips offered when it comes to the main characteristic of our products: transparent and detailed high-end sound." Hanson (agreeing) - "Most of the time, we are able to achieve as good or better results with our discrete designs". Meyer - "It's the difference between art (analog) and logic (digital). From my experience, a good analog design is completed by an engineer with an artistic mind, while a good digital design is completed by a system level designer with superb high-level vision". Lindahl - "It's much harder to simulate an analog design, so you end up with more trial and error to get it right. The approach is more simulation- and modeling- oriented when you're working in the digital domain, just because you can, and it's a lot easier. Either way, if you don't use your ears, and if you're not willing to work on something until it sounds right, then, well, as they say, 'GIGO' ". Jurewicz (commenting on the simplification/improvement in ADC design from 15 years ago) - "In mid-quality equipment, decent performance can be achieved 'by the book' (i.e. easily) and at moderate cost. This is reflected in the price of equipment which has plummeted threefold since the mid-'90's. However, top-notch high-end design still requires special selection of parts and a lot of design experience, and by no means can be described as easy." O'Neill (agreeing) - (T)he market expectation has increased in such a way that our designs still cost about the same to make, but now offer greatly improved performance". Meyer (adding) - "(E)xcellent measured performance doesn't always mean excellent-sounding performance. All the best converters measure well, so the true test that sets one converter apart from another is purely subjective." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. So how does this support your statement that passives are responsible for the majority of the advances in performance of audio in the last 25 years? Or that resistors cause gray scrim, and capacitors opaqueness? Or that expensive parts like audiophile grade resistors and capacitors add to the transparency? Reading what you quoted, I got the impression that these people believe that a lot of care is required to produce good equipment. No one ever argues against that. I certainly do not get the impression that high-end boutique designers have any special skills above and beyond good EE's. The Wavac is actually a good example of the lack of skills shown by certain high-end designers. And no one disagrees that it takes some competence to choose the right parts. But none of these people seem to think that the "right" parts can only be chosen afer "countless hours of listening". And no one disagrees that it is possible to do a better job using discrete components than integrated circuits in *certain* applications. The power amplifier is a good example of that. So the bottom line is, how does this support your position? How is this different than my position? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
If you have followed the Linkwitz-Orion thread and the debate between Chung and I thereon, you know that the argument boils down to "is it useful for an engineer nowadays to 'listen in' his design", or not. The engineering argument is that quality parts are now cheap, and good engineering is well known, so designing by the book pretty much gets you there, and measurements are the key indicators. Also, if you are a regular in the group, you know that pro equipment is often cited as a good sounding, reliable, economical alternative to high-end audio. The pro engineers are seen as sensible, straightforward types producing quality functional gear; the boutique high-end designers are often portrayed as amateurish, not very knowledgeable types. Thus the "listening in" they do to component parts is because they are not very good engineers or they would know better. Not necessarily. They may be very good engineers who do not know what the placebo effect is. So I thought it might be of interest to the group to hear the thoughts of some of the pro audio engineers who design and build current pro equipment, which is nowadays usually a mixture of analog and digital technology. The engineers quoted are Alan T. Meyer, Director of Engineering, Alesis; John Hanson, VP Engineering and Product Development, M! Group, Harman Music Group; Michal Jurewicz, President of Mytek; Nathan O'Neill, CTO of Symetrix; and Marc Lindahl, a prominent engineering consultant to the industry. The quotes are taken from a feature article entitled "Sounding Off on Semiconductors", a special report in the current (Feb 2005 ) issue of ProSoundNews. The basic thrust of the report is to see how the most recent batches of advanced modular analog and digital chips have affected their design approaches and thinking. In the course of the report, I ran across the following observations about the design process: Jurewicz - "(We) believe that our (semi-discrete) approach is far more advanced than function chips offered when it comes to the main characteristic of our products: transparent and detailed high-end sound." I'm sure he does believe this. Whether it's true or not... Hanson (agreeing) - "Most of the time, we are able to achieve as good or better results with our discrete designs". Meyer - "It's the difference between art (analog) and logic (digital). From my experience, a good analog design is completed by an engineer with an artistic mind, while a good digital design is completed by a system level designer with superb high-level vision". Lindahl - "It's much harder to simulate an analog design, so you end up with more trial and error to get it right. The approach is more simulation- and modeling- oriented when you're working in the digital domain, just because you can, and it's a lot easier. Either way, if you don't use your ears, and if you're not willing to work on something until it sounds right, then, well, as they say, 'GIGO' ". Jurewicz (commenting on the simplification/improvement in ADC design from 15 years ago) - "In mid-quality equipment, decent performance can be achieved 'by the book' (i.e. easily) and at moderate cost. This is reflected in the price of equipment which has plummeted threefold since the mid-'90's. However, top-notch high-end design still requires special selection of parts and a lot of design experience, and by no means can be described as easy." O'Neill (agreeing) - (T)he market expectation has increased in such a way that our designs still cost about the same to make, but now offer greatly improved performance". Meyer (adding) - "(E)xcellent measured performance doesn't always mean excellent-sounding performance. All the best converters measure well, so the true test that sets one converter apart from another is purely subjective." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. If Chung is right, then it's not funny at all, since anyone with the basic knowledge can design good audio electronics. The real question is, can these guys tell their own products from their competitors when they can't see the faceplates? I gather the folks at ProSoundNews don't know enough to ask them. bob |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. Well, except for that guy from Alesis  |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Ross wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. Well, except for that guy from Alesis What Harry still doesnt' seem to get is, if a designer indulges in 'tweaks' that are in fact neutral --- that is, they don't *really* change the sound, despite what the designer believes -- then, assuming the rest of the work that *does* really affect the sound is competent, his gear will of course *still* end up being 'functional and practical' from the user's (and bench-tester's) POV. Whether it's 'well designed' is another matter. ; It's incumbent upon the 'tweaker' to provide a a good reason why his tweak either *should* or *does* make a real difference. I don't see that in the quotes cited. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. A sadder truth still is that these days most sound 'professionals' are only professional in the sense that they're playing with toys the industry markets as "Pro Audio" rather than those designated "Consumer Audio". (That plus maybe on occasion they've been able to cajole someone into being their "client", at which point they immediately flock to the very sort of internet forum Steve cited and beg for advice: "Help! I've got my first paying gig tomorrow and I don't know how to plug a mic into a speaker!") Note that scientific standards of proof are not a necessary requirement to build and sell audio equipment, nor are they needed to become a successful professional audio engineer. For that matter, scientific standards of proof are not even required in order for one to become a perfectly satiated audiophile. They only become necessary when designers, engineers, or listeners attempt to characterize their perceptions as truths. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Bob Ross wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. Well, except for that guy from Alesis What Harry still doesnt' seem to get is, if a designer indulges in 'tweaks' that are in fact neutral --- that is, they don't *really* change the sound, despite what the designer believes -- then, assuming the rest of the work that *does* really affect the sound is competent, his gear will of course *still* end up being 'functional and practical' from the user's (and bench-tester's) POV. Whether it's 'well designed' is another matter. ; It's incumbent upon the 'tweaker' to provide a a good reason why his tweak either *should* or *does* make a real difference. I don't see that in the quotes cited. Sorry, I suspect what is "incumbent upon them" as far as their bosses/companies are concerned is to build the best possible equipment at a given price point. And they seem to accept that some tweaking and subjective listening are an important part of that endeavor. If they and their bosses/companies/customers didn't find that it mattered, they wouldn't do it now, would they? To say that they are all ignorant of the literature re listening testing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: If Chung is right, then it's not funny at all, since anyone with the basic knowledge can design good audio electronics. The real question is, can these guys tell their own products from their competitors when they can't see the faceplates? I gather the folks at ProSoundNews don't know enough to ask them. It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. On the ProSoundWeb (not affiliated w/ProSoundNews afaik), some of the pro forums are *notably* more 'objectivist' than others -- Dan Lavry's 'Audio Electronics' forum being a good example. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ As I said in reply to another of your posts, to say that they as practicing pro audio design engineers are all ignorant of the literature re listening testing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob Ross" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. A sadder truth still is that these days most sound 'professionals' are only professional in the sense that they're playing with toys the industry markets as "Pro Audio" rather than those designated "Consumer Audio". (That plus maybe on occasion they've been able to cajole someone into being their "client", at which point they immediately flock to the very sort of internet forum Steve cited and beg for advice: "Help! I've got my first paying gig tomorrow and I don't know how to plug a mic into a speaker!") I don't disagree with you as for many sound engineers - although I might point out that there is more general knowledge today of microphone techniques than back in the '70's when multitracking was first at its peak. Thanks in no small part to the proliferation of "schools" and the widespread availablility of advice and discussion on the internet. But experience using that knowledge is still a perequisite for true "professionalism". Note that scientific standards of proof are not a necessary requirement to build and sell audio equipment, nor are they needed to become a successful professional audio engineer. For that matter, scientific standards of proof are not even required in order for one to become a perfectly satiated audiophile. Not required, but the folks I was quoting are EE's designing audio equipment, who populate a pretty disciplined profession. They only become necessary when designers, engineers, or listeners attempt to characterize their perceptions as truths. Well, to these folks "truth" comes in the form of sales reputation and industry perception of sound quality. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: If Chung is right, then it's not funny at all, since anyone with the basic knowledge can design good audio electronics. The real question is, can these guys tell their own products from their competitors when they can't see the faceplates? I gather the folks at ProSoundNews don't know enough to ask them. It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. On the ProSoundWeb (not affiliated w/ProSoundNews afaik), some of the pro forums are *notably* more 'objectivist' than others -- Dan Lavry's 'Audio Electronics' forum being a good example. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ What a bunch of experts say when gathered together on a forum such as this, often has little to do with their actual beliefs. They're usually engaged in damage control, and certainly don't want to say anything that might have negative repercussions on their respective companies. Norm Strong |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Sorry, I suspect what is "incumbent upon them" as far as their bosses/companies are concerned is to build the best possible equipment at a given price point. And they seem to accept that some tweaking and subjective listening are an important part of that endeavor. If they and their bosses/companies/customers didn't find that it mattered, they wouldn't do it now, would they? No, if they didn't *believe* that it mattered, they wouldn't do it. The difference between "believing" something and "finding" something is objective evidence, which they don't have. bob |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. I'd put it differently: Being a trained electrical engineer does not guarantee knowledge of psychoacoustic principles, which aren't part of the core curriculum of most engineering programs. For a good example of a skilled audio engineer/designer who is clueless about this, see this interview: http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/996russell/ My favorite bit: "The difference is that it actually sounds better. It's difficult to prove in double-blind listening tests. Unfortunately, double-blind listening tests often result in guesswork, and you'll find that you've guessed wrong as often as you've guessed right." Yes, that is unfortunate, isn't it? bob |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: If Chung is right, then it's not funny at all, since anyone with the basic knowledge can design good audio electronics. The real question is, can these guys tell their own products from their competitors when they can't see the faceplates? I gather the folks at ProSoundNews don't know enough to ask them. It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. On the ProSoundWeb (not affiliated w/ProSoundNews afaik), some of the pro forums are *notably* more 'objectivist' than others -- Dan Lavry's 'Audio Electronics' forum being a good example. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ As I said in reply to another of your posts, to say that they as practicing pro audio design engineers are all ignorant of the literature re listening testing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Harry, I didn't say that. It's plain right up there in what I postedn, that I didn't say that. In fact, I even noted exactly the opposite -- that *some* most definitely *aren't* ignorant of the literature. So what on earth are you trying to prove? -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Bob Ross wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. Well, except for that guy from Alesis What Harry still doesnt' seem to get is, if a designer indulges in 'tweaks' that are in fact neutral --- that is, they don't *really* change the sound, despite what the designer believes -- then, assuming the rest of the work that *does* really affect the sound is competent, his gear will of course *still* end up being 'functional and practical' from the user's (and bench-tester's) POV. Whether it's 'well designed' is another matter. ; It's incumbent upon the 'tweaker' to provide a a good reason why his tweak either *should* or *does* make a real difference. I don't see that in the quotes cited. Sorry, I suspect what is "incumbent upon them" as far as their bosses/companies are concerned is to build the best possible equipment at a given price point. And they seem to accept that some tweaking and subjective listening are an important part of that endeavor. If they and their bosses/companies/customers didn't find that it mattered, they wouldn't do it now, would they? Alas, "finding that it mattered' is far from establishing that it makes an audible difference. If that's what they mean by 'matters', they haven't made their case. To say that they are all ignorant of the literature re listening testing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? They may not be ignornant of it -- I didn't say they were. I await their evidence that the literature is wrong and they are right. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: If Chung is right, then it's not funny at all, since anyone with the basic knowledge can design good audio electronics. The real question is, can these guys tell their own products from their competitors when they can't see the faceplates? I gather the folks at ProSoundNews don't know enough to ask them. It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. On the ProSoundWeb (not affiliated w/ProSoundNews afaik), some of the pro forums are *notably* more 'objectivist' than others -- Dan Lavry's 'Audio Electronics' forum being a good example. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ What a bunch of experts say when gathered together on a forum such as this, often has little to do with their actual beliefs. They're usually engaged in damage control, and certainly don't want to say anything that might have negative repercussions on their respective companies. Yes, that's possible --- especially in a published article. But I think in a comparatively obscure place like a web forum, there's not very much pressure to 'fib' that way -- you don't even have to use your real name, for pete's sake. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here are some comments from this EE's perspectives. My perspectives are
not necessarily better, but I think the differences are interesting. Harry Lavo wrote: If you have followed the Linkwitz-Orion thread and the debate between Chung and I thereon, you know that the argument boils down to "is it useful for an engineer nowadays to 'listen in' his design", or not. The engineering argument is that quality parts are now cheap, and good engineering is well known, so designing by the book pretty much gets you there, and measurements are the key indicators. Also, if you are a regular in the group, you know that pro equipment is often cited as a good sounding, reliable, economical alternative to high-end audio. The pro engineers are seen as sensible, straightforward types producing quality functional gear; the boutique high-end designers are often portrayed as amateurish, not very knowledgeable types. Thus the "listening in" they do to component parts is because they are not very good engineers or they would know better. Or, more likely, Harry has highly exaggerated the amount of "listening in" that took place. So I thought it might be of interest to the group to hear the thoughts of some of the pro audio engineers who design and build current pro equipment, which is nowadays usually a mixture of analog and digital technology. The engineers quoted are Alan T. Meyer, Director of Engineering, Alesis; John Hanson, VP Engineering and Product Development, M! Group, Harman Music Group; Michal Jurewicz, President of Mytek; Nathan O'Neill, CTO of Symetrix; and Marc Lindahl, a prominent engineering consultant to the industry. The quotes are taken from a feature article entitled "Sounding Off on Semiconductors", a special report in the current (Feb 2005 ) issue of ProSoundNews. The basic thrust of the report is to see how the most recent batches of advanced modular analog and digital chips have affected their design approaches and thinking. In the course of the report, I ran across the following observations about the design process: Jurewicz - "(We) believe that our (semi-discrete) approach is far more advanced than function chips offered when it comes to the main characteristic of our products: transparent and detailed high-end sound." This statement has to be put into the proper context. In some applications, a semi-discrete approach may work best. In others, IC's have much better performance. Examples of the former: power amplifiers. Of the latter, high-resolution converters (ADC's and DAC's). Not sure what Mytek produces. Hanson (agreeing) - "Most of the time, we are able to achieve as good or better results with our discrete designs". Try designing a 24 bit DAC with discrete components. Also, not clear what this person considers discrete. Is an op-amp considered discrete? Meyer - "It's the difference between art (analog) and logic (digital). From my experience, a good analog design is completed by an engineer with an artistic mind, while a good digital design is completed by a system level designer with superb high-level vision". This is an extremely self-serving viewpoint. Great designs require intuition and creativity. Does not matter if we are talking about digital, analog or, for what it's worth, industrial design. To the outsider, that great intuition and creativity may appear artisitic, but there is definitely a big difference between artisitry in the fine arts and artisitry in circuit design. Take the iPod's industrial design, for example. Is it artistic? I would say that the iPod's UI and the mechanical designs are a lot more "artistic" than the analog output amplifier design. Lindahl - "It's much harder to simulate an analog design, so you end up with more trial and error to get it right. The approach is more simulation- and modeling- oriented when you're working in the digital domain, just because you can, and it's a lot easier. Either way, if you don't use your ears, and if you're not willing to work on something until it sounds right, then, well, as they say, 'GIGO' ". The tools for digital design are more advanced, and it is possible to generate very efficient digital designs automatically. But analog designs have also been increasingly dependent on simulaton tools, to the point that many engineers do not bother building prototypes using discrete parts. In any event, if you don't use your tools correctly and if you don't use your measurement gear, it's GIGO. Simulations, measurements and verifications are the foundations of the modern design process. Not subjective evaluation. Jurewicz (commenting on the simplification/improvement in ADC design from 15 years ago) - "In mid-quality equipment, decent performance can be achieved 'by the book' (i.e. easily) and at moderate cost. This is reflected in the price of equipment which has plummeted threefold since the mid-'90's. However, top-notch high-end design still requires special selection of parts and a lot of design experience, and by no means can be described as easy." To achieve the best possible performance is never an easy task. Nowadays, it is possible for mid-priced products to achieve a level of sonic performance that is indistinguishable from that of the ultra-expensive products. But, certainly, even designing good mid-priced products requires a level of competence and experience, which sometimes is sadly lacking in the designers of the ultra-expensive gear. I have a tremendous amount of respect for those designing high-volume consumer products, and less for those designining expensive, niche, so-called high-end products that cannot measure any better. I mean, what's their excuse? O'Neill (agreeing) - (T)he market expectation has increased in such a way that our designs still cost about the same to make, but now offer greatly improved performance". Isn't progress wonderful? It's good to remember that this improvement comes from widespread use of digital techniques, from design tools to actual digital audio advances, and is driven by semiconductor industry's relentless march towards higher and higher performance at lower and lower costs. You know, stuff that EE's have accomplished. Worth noting that said improved performance does not come from more expensive passives .Meyer (adding) - "(E)xcellent measured performance doesn't always mean excellent-sounding performance. All the best converters measure well, so the true test that sets one converter apart from another is purely subjective." If a piece of gear measures great but does not sound great, then here are the possibilities: (1) The right measurements were not made, or the right interpretations were not made. (2) Sometimes highly accurate gear does not sound good subjectively to some people. It is my experience that the performance of today's converters have far exceeded that required for great audio reproduction. I don't really understand how two converters can sound different, and yet both measure well. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. This group did not say anything about the importance of using expensive passives, or modding. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. Better than high-end ? |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Steven Sullivan wrote: It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. I'd put it differently: Being a trained electrical engineer does not guarantee knowledge of psychoacoustic principles, which aren't part of the core curriculum of most engineering programs. For a good example of a skilled audio engineer/designer who is clueless about this, see this interview: http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/996russell/ My favorite bit: "The difference is that it actually sounds better. It's difficult to prove in double-blind listening tests. Unfortunately, double-blind listening tests often result in guesswork, and you'll find that you've guessed wrong as often as you've guessed right." Yes, that is unfortunate, isn't it? Well, since there hasn't been a positive control test done, he may be correct for certain kinds of perceptions. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: If Chung is right, then it's not funny at all, since anyone with the basic knowledge can design good audio electronics. The real question is, can these guys tell their own products from their competitors when they can't see the faceplates? I gather the folks at ProSoundNews don't know enough to ask them. It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. On the ProSoundWeb (not affiliated w/ProSoundNews afaik), some of the pro forums are *notably* more 'objectivist' than others -- Dan Lavry's 'Audio Electronics' forum being a good example. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ As I said in reply to another of your posts, to say that they as practicing pro audio design engineers are all ignorant of the literature re listening testing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Harry, I didn't say that. It's plain right up there in what I postedn, that I didn't say that. In fact, I even noted exactly the opposite -- that *some* most definitely *aren't* ignorant of the literature. So what on earth are you trying to prove? Sorry, you are right. I was really referring back to the original quote above yours, which was not yours. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Bob Ross wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. Well, except for that guy from Alesis What Harry still doesnt' seem to get is, if a designer indulges in 'tweaks' that are in fact neutral --- that is, they don't *really* change the sound, despite what the designer believes -- then, assuming the rest of the work that *does* really affect the sound is competent, his gear will of course *still* end up being 'functional and practical' from the user's (and bench-tester's) POV. Whether it's 'well designed' is another matter. ; It's incumbent upon the 'tweaker' to provide a a good reason why his tweak either *should* or *does* make a real difference. I don't see that in the quotes cited. Sorry, I suspect what is "incumbent upon them" as far as their bosses/companies are concerned is to build the best possible equipment at a given price point. And they seem to accept that some tweaking and subjective listening are an important part of that endeavor. If they and their bosses/companies/customers didn't find that it mattered, they wouldn't do it now, would they? Alas, "finding that it mattered' is far from establishing that it makes an audible difference. If that's what they mean by 'matters', they haven't made their case. To say that they are all ignorant of the literature re listening testing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? They may not be ignornant of it -- I didn't say they were. I await their evidence that the literature is wrong and they are right. What seems to escape you and many other critics here is that the audio world -- engineers, critics, audiophiles -- all seem to get along just fine without feeling they have to justify or "present evidence" or "make a case" for every decision they make. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much. But most of us are simply willing to trust our hearing, knowing that it is not infallible. And obviously the engineers I quoted don't think "designing by the book" is a terrific approach if one wants to approach the state-of-the-art at a given price point. They factor "listening" as an important part of the equation. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: If Chung is right, then it's not funny at all, since anyone with the basic knowledge can design good audio electronics. The real question is, can these guys tell their own products from their competitors when they can't see the faceplates? I gather the folks at ProSoundNews don't know enough to ask them. It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. On the ProSoundWeb (not affiliated w/ProSoundNews afaik), some of the pro forums are *notably* more 'objectivist' than others -- Dan Lavry's 'Audio Electronics' forum being a good example. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ As I said in reply to another of your posts, to say that they as practicing pro audio design engineers are all ignorant of the literature re listening testing is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Harry, I didn't say that. It's plain right up there in what I postedn, that I didn't say that. In fact, I even noted exactly the opposite -- that *some* most definitely *aren't* ignorant of the literature. So what on earth are you trying to prove? Sorry, you are right. I was really referring back to the original quote above yours, which was not yours. Yeah, but it was mine, and I didn't say that either! bob |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the past few months I attended both Las Vegas CES and
the Audio Engineering Society show in San Francisco. I only saw one company that exhibited at both shows. That was Manley Labs. What has always been something of a mystery to me is why hi-end audio guys seem to do so little location recording. Very few that I know do, and many of those who do give it a try only do so half-heartedly. There are always a few who do give it a serious go, but they are very much the exception. There's something really special about going out and recording a performance live and bringing it back home. Kind of like an audio version of big game hunting. You get to try out different microphone techniques and see what it does to the recording. A lot of fun. You'd be surprised what you can do with some relatively inexpensive equipment. Of course spending more money *can* get you better results, or not... And then there's the problem with recording technology continuing to evolve much more than playback technology. That DAT machine you paid $1500 for not that many years ago is now a boat anchor. Russ |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
What a bunch of experts say when gathered together on a forum such as this, often has little to do with their actual beliefs. They're usually engaged in damage control, and certainly don't want to say anything that might have negative repercussions on their respective companies. Norm Strong Is there concrete evidence for this, or is it merely an assertion? If there is evidence, please present it. Mike Prager North Carolina, USA |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Mar 2005 20:37:22 GMT, wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: It's a sad truth, but being a sound 'professional' doesn't guarantee knowledge of, or belief in the utility of, scientific standards of proof. I'd put it differently: Being a trained electrical engineer does not guarantee knowledge of psychoacoustic principles, which aren't part of the core curriculum of most engineering programs. For a good example of a skilled audio engineer/designer who is clueless about this, see this interview: http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/996russell/ Having read this, it seems clear that Chris Russell is *not* a trained EE, but uses real engineers like Stuart Taylor to get the job done right. Look at Russell's description of how the 4B was cobbled together, and shudder..................... His description of DBTs also strikes one as that of someone who has little basic training in scientific principles, and he follows it by the usual 'high-end' handwaving and claims of customer feedback for changes which would clearly be inaudible. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Mar 2005 15:39:14 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
What seems to escape you and many other critics here is that the audio world -- engineers, critics, audiophiles -- all seem to get along just fine without feeling they have to justify or "present evidence" or "make a case" for every decision they make. Oh no, we're *well* aware that the audio industry never tries to justify the weird stuff they sell to 'audiophiles', especially in the so-called 'high end' market. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much. But most of us are simply willing to trust our hearing, knowing that it is not infallible. Actually, you guys *never* trust your hearing, you always insist on *knowing* what's connected before you pass an opinion. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Russ Button" wrote in message
... In the past few months I attended both Las Vegas CES and the Audio Engineering Society show in San Francisco. I only saw one company that exhibited at both shows. That was Manley Labs. What has always been something of a mystery to me is why hi-end audio guys seem to do so little location recording. Very few that I know do, and many of those who do give it a try only do so half-heartedly. There are always a few who do give it a serious go, but they are very much the exception. There's something really special about going out and recording a performance live and bringing it back home. Kind of like an audio version of big game hunting. You get to try out different microphone techniques and see what it does to the recording. A lot of fun. You'd be surprised what you can do with some relatively inexpensive equipment. Of course spending more money *can* get you better results, or not... And then there's the problem with recording technology continuing to evolve much more than playback technology. That DAT machine you paid $1500 for not that many years ago is now a boat anchor. Russ I'll second this, Russ. I became a serious "audiophile" in the mid-late sixties and started recording live music within a year. By the early-mid=seventies I was a good semi-pro recordist specializing in acoustic music (classical, chamber, jazz, folk) using purist mic techniques, enough so that I considered making it a full time career. The effort taught me a lot about acoustics, particularly since I also took a night course in NYC at the Institute for Audio Research under John Woram and got a thorough grounding in theory and principles. More importantly, the effort taught me much about audio evaluation, since I could play second generation tapes of my efforts, or the phonograph records that were produced from them, or both, through my own system. It was one of the things that alerted me to how badly the SS gear of that time mangled the sound compared to the tube gear of the sixties. Interestingly enough, when Harry Pearson started The Abso!ute Sound, he also had invested in some fairly high-end semi-pro gear (a Revox A700 15ips half-track and some Beyer ribbon and other mikes I now do not recall) and done some recording. It was our discussions of some of what these shared endeavors yielded in the way of insight that led him to ask me to write for his then on-the-boards magazine. I think doing your own recording gives your a good frame of reference for what a) live sound sounds like, and b) what recordings of that sound sound like at various points in the chain. It is one of the things that allows me to make judgment with a fair degree of confidence about the generic characteristics of various pieces of gear as it affects overall sound quality of the playback system. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
What seems to escape you and many other critics here is that the audio world -- engineers, critics, audiophiles -- all seem to get along just fine without feeling they have to justify or "present evidence" or "make a case" for every decision they make. Nonsense. Of course they do. That's precisely why they insist that it's so important to listen. The problem isn't that they don't believe in evidence. The problem is that their evidence doesn't hold up. bob |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: Sorry, I suspect what is "incumbent upon them" as far as their bosses/companies are concerned is to build the best possible equipment at a given price point. And they seem to accept that some tweaking and subjective listening are an important part of that endeavor. If they and their bosses/companies/customers didn't find that it mattered, they wouldn't do it now, would they? No, if they didn't *believe* that it mattered, they wouldn't do it. The difference between "believing" something and "finding" something is objective evidence, which they don't have. Gosh, I wish I could read peoples minds and know what they based their belief on, without ever so much as speaking to them. It must be a wonderful gift. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: What seems to escape you and many other critics here is that the audio world -- engineers, critics, audiophiles -- all seem to get along just fine without feeling they have to justify or "present evidence" or "make a case" for every decision they make. Nonsense. Of course they do. That's precisely why they insist that it's so important to listen. The problem isn't that they don't believe in evidence. The problem is that their evidence doesn't hold up. Once again, your ability to read minds and discern objective information therein is truly amazing, Bob. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: What seems to escape you and many other critics here is that the audio world -- engineers, critics, audiophiles -- all seem to get along just fine without feeling they have to justify or "present evidence" or "make a case" for every decision they make. Nonsense. Of course they do. That's precisely why they insist that it's so important to listen. The problem isn't that they don't believe in evidence. The problem is that their evidence doesn't hold up. Once again, your ability to read minds and discern objective information therein is truly amazing, Bob. Who's reading anyone's mind? I'm merely taking them at their word. They say it's important to listen, and I presume they believe that. Are you suggesting that they don't really believe it's important to listen? bob |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... And obviously the engineers I quoted don't think "designing by the book" is a terrific approach if one wants to approach the state-of-the-art at a given price point. They factor "listening" as an important part of the equation. How does this work in practice. Let's say an engineer has designed an amplifier "by the book" and it performs on the bench like the book says it should. Now the engineer listens to it and finds that the PRAT is poor--or perhaps the soundstage is too narrow. What does he do now? How does he link a circuit design change to what he subjectively hears? Although I'm a design engineer myself, I wouldn't know where to start. Norm Strong |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Prager" wrote in message
... wrote: What a bunch of experts say when gathered together on a forum such as this, often has little to do with their actual beliefs. They're usually engaged in damage control, and certainly don't want to say anything that might have negative repercussions on their respective companies. Norm Strong Is there concrete evidence for this, or is it merely an assertion? If there is evidence, please present it. It's merely an assertion. Norm Strong |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... And obviously the engineers I quoted don't think "designing by the book" is a terrific approach if one wants to approach the state-of-the-art at a given price point. They factor "listening" as an important part of the equation. How does this work in practice. Let's say an engineer has designed an amplifier "by the book" and it performs on the bench like the book says it should. Now the engineer listens to it and finds that the PRAT is poor--or perhaps the soundstage is too narrow. What does he do now? How does he link a circuit design change to what he subjectively hears? Although I'm a design engineer myself, I wouldn't know where to start. Norm Strong That's why for some of them it is something approaching art. And where some trial and error (remember the comment originally quoted about analog) enters in. Perhaps substituting passive components and listening. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Mar 2005 17:06:36 GMT, wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... And obviously the engineers I quoted don't think "designing by the book" is a terrific approach if one wants to approach the state-of-the-art at a given price point. They factor "listening" as an important part of the equation. How does this work in practice. Let's say an engineer has designed an amplifier "by the book" and it performs on the bench like the book says it should. Now the engineer listens to it and finds that the PRAT is poor--or perhaps the soundstage is too narrow. What does he do now? How does he link a circuit design change to what he subjectively hears? Although I'm a design engineer myself, I wouldn't know where to start. Well of course you wouldn't - because if you build it right, it will sound *exactly* the same as any other good amp, despite Martin Colloms' nonsense about PRAT, and 'subjective scoring'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
So I thought it might be of interest to the group to hear the thoughts of some of the pro audio engineers who design and build current pro equipment, which is nowadays usually a mixture of analog and digital technology. Haven't been here for a little while, so missed the beginning of this thread. You raise some *very* interesting points. As a 'pro-audio' designer of some 30 yrs + experience, I think I may have something to contribute. As for the simple question 'does it matter to listen' ? - Yes damn sure it does. Some of my designs have been lauded simply because users say ' they sound good ' ! Enough said. Superficial 'tech performance figure' similarities may be entirely irrelevant. The question is - is the tech test a meaningful one that reveals useful info ? Modern techniques will allow DSP based test sets to simulate far more critical test signals than classic sine wave or IMD figures. Is this a recipe for charlatans to promote so-called 'super components' ? No way ! A real engineer knows what characteristics of his circuitry matter. It's down to design. Plain and simple. There's no Voodoo. Graham |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
To my ears, this group sounds an awful lot like that group of dilettante, tweako high end designers No, they're actually making very relevant points actually ! You need to filter the signal from the noise ( that emanates from the snake oilers ) ! that Chung as an EE has no use for. Funny that they design such functional, practical, well-designed equipment. That's what *pro-audio* designers do ! At a price that makes high-end 'hi-fi' look seriously indecently priced. Graham |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
| OT Political | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
