Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:42:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
>> I fully respect good test methodology for the science it represents.
>
>...but not necessarily applying it fully when it fits, it seems
I do appreciate your concern about the methods we use to develop
products. But at the risk of saying it too many times, our circuit
evaluation techniques serve our goals and objectives (not yours). If
you feel that they are inadequate, I'll respect your opinions, but it
doesn't mean I'm going to embrace further rigor where I perceive no
further need. Is this not a satisfying explanation for you?
In the case of ADC testing, the differences among devices were
relatively easy to perceive. Differences between analog circuits are
often much more subtle and difficult to detect and/or characterize.
>Again, the relevance of winemaking to audio is not really strong enough to
>be helpful discussions of either.
Actually, I find the analogies to be remarkably similar. Winemakers
and circuit designers both use a healthy combination of science and
art in their creations. And in both industries, there are endless
critics.
>Which methods that are generally accepted in winemaking do you find
>applicable to audio?
1.) The maker's use of scientific method (bio-chemistry / math) to
achieve parametric control of the end product
2.) The crucial role of the maker's personal tastes in subtlety and
nuance.
Science is not the only ingredient in our efforts. There is no "ideal"
audio circuit. Subtle differences in sonic performance may be
perceived as better, worse, or just different, depending on who is
listening.
Rather than open the final determination of subtlety to a broader
panel of "experts" I prefer to trust my own judgment in qualifying a
design for production.
Anti-scientific? No. Just a personal preference, with a clear
understanding of the alternative methods available to me, the level of
scientific rigor associated with each alternative, and the
consequences and tradeoffs therein.
>"...audio circuit design is not always pure science."
>
>does this mean that audio circuits can work in ways that science can't
>possibly explain?
Today's audio sciences cannot always adequately correlate measured
performance vs. subjective performance. In these cases, human
listening takes precedent over measured performance. Not surprisingly,
the best sounding ADC in our trials had the worst overall measured
specifications.
>> Are you denying that there is an artistic aspect to audio product design?
>
>In some ways yes, in some ways no.
Then we agree, a little bit.
>Finally and ultimately every audio
>circuit has to perform in accordance with the laws of physics.
Well, this isn't exactly an audio circuit, but if you can adequately
explain the "laws of physics" here, call Professor Chiao at Berkeley's
Dept of Physics. He has a position open for you.
http
/www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/morgan/supcir.pdf
JL
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:42:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
>> I fully respect good test methodology for the science it represents.
>
>...but not necessarily applying it fully when it fits, it seems
I do appreciate your concern about the methods we use to develop
products. But at the risk of saying it too many times, our circuit
evaluation techniques serve our goals and objectives (not yours). If
you feel that they are inadequate, I'll respect your opinions, but it
doesn't mean I'm going to embrace further rigor where I perceive no
further need. Is this not a satisfying explanation for you?
In the case of ADC testing, the differences among devices were
relatively easy to perceive. Differences between analog circuits are
often much more subtle and difficult to detect and/or characterize.
>Again, the relevance of winemaking to audio is not really strong enough to
>be helpful discussions of either.
Actually, I find the analogies to be remarkably similar. Winemakers
and circuit designers both use a healthy combination of science and
art in their creations. And in both industries, there are endless
critics.
>Which methods that are generally accepted in winemaking do you find
>applicable to audio?
1.) The maker's use of scientific method (bio-chemistry / math) to
achieve parametric control of the end product
2.) The crucial role of the maker's personal tastes in subtlety and
nuance.
Science is not the only ingredient in our efforts. There is no "ideal"
audio circuit. Subtle differences in sonic performance may be
perceived as better, worse, or just different, depending on who is
listening.
Rather than open the final determination of subtlety to a broader
panel of "experts" I prefer to trust my own judgment in qualifying a
design for production.
Anti-scientific? No. Just a personal preference, with a clear
understanding of the alternative methods available to me, the level of
scientific rigor associated with each alternative, and the
consequences and tradeoffs therein.
>"...audio circuit design is not always pure science."
>
>does this mean that audio circuits can work in ways that science can't
>possibly explain?
Today's audio sciences cannot always adequately correlate measured
performance vs. subjective performance. In these cases, human
listening takes precedent over measured performance. Not surprisingly,
the best sounding ADC in our trials had the worst overall measured
specifications.
>> Are you denying that there is an artistic aspect to audio product design?
>
>In some ways yes, in some ways no.
Then we agree, a little bit.
>Finally and ultimately every audio
>circuit has to perform in accordance with the laws of physics.
Well, this isn't exactly an audio circuit, but if you can adequately
explain the "laws of physics" here, call Professor Chiao at Berkeley's
Dept of Physics. He has a position open for you.
http
/www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/morgan/supcir.pdfJL
Facebook
Twitter