Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How aware are audio engineers of Psychoacoustics and other BS beliefs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How aware are audio engineers of Psychoacoustics and other BS beliefs? - Page 2

post #16 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post
That's how, when you're at your most vulnerable, when the doctor tells you, 'you have cancer', you don't get sold a pig in a poke when it comes to treatment. If you don't subscribe to this view as a doctor, you don't get to practice medicine in a civilized country.

 

In America doctors often resort to the euphemism "alternative medicine". This should be spread to other fields, e.g. "alternative engineering" - all hip and enlightened and ultimately full of crap.

post #17 of 64

I'm sure most engineers actually know what they are doing. A lot of these audiophile oriented companies obviously do not.

post #18 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

I'm sure most engineers actually know what they are doing. A lot of these audiophile oriented companies obviously do not.


I don't think most engineers know what they're doing, otherwise there wouldn't be so much deterioration in the recording standards. Or maybe they know, but are forced to change their ways. 

 

Either way, I'd like to hear what they have to say.

post #19 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post


I don't think most engineers know what they're doing, otherwise there wouldn't be so much deterioration in the recording standards. Or maybe they know, but are forced to change their ways. 

 

Either way, I'd like to hear what they have to say.

 

I think he means real engineers... like the ones who use measuring devices, and CAD drawings, and talk about the resonate frequencies of different materials, inert cabinets, etc.... engineers in music production are different, and as had been pointed out earlier in the thread, might not even have a degree in "engineering". But even in that case, if a CD is recorded/mastered badly it might not be the mastering engineer's fault. I've heard many stories of mastering engineers who, despite being unhappy with the final result of an album, bit their lip, and were forced to increase the compression/loudness in a track because the artist or producer sitting behind them (who ultimatley pays for the session) wanted a track louder. 

post #20 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove424 View Post

 

I think he means real engineers... like the ones who use measuring devices, and CAD drawings, and talk about the resonate frequencies of different materials, inert cabinets, etc.... engineers in music production are different, and as had been pointed out earlier in the thread, might not even have a degree in "engineering". But even in that case, if a CD is recorded/mastered badly it might not be the mastering engineer's fault. I've heard many stories of mastering engineers who, despite being unhappy with the final result of an album, bit their lip, and were forced to increase the compression/loudness in a track because the artist or producer sitting behind them (who ultimatley pays for the session) wanted a track louder. 


I understand.

Taking a look at the equipment designers, I think they pretty much know what they're making. But, research and development costs money, and it needs to be recouped somehow, hence the top of the line is always much more expensive than the run-of-the mill, even though performance improvements may not be that high.

Then there's always the issue of making profits. As I understand, profits are extra income after all expenditures have been accounted for. Which means there's no limit to the amount of profit a company might want to make, hence insane markups on price.

 

In the realm of marketing and sales, a product is worth whatever it can sell for. Totally unrelated to design.

post #21 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

I'm sure most engineers actually know what they are doing. A lot of these audiophile oriented companies obviously do not.

There seem to be a whole lot of sweeping generalizations in this thread about who knows what they are doing. It's actually pretty unfair to all sorts of engineers.

Look, most know exactly what they are doing. That's not the issue at all. There is an errant coupling here with knowledge and result. They are related, but the result is influenced by other factors like economic goals, marketability, artistic demands, etc.

The example in the quote above about audiophile oriented companies...yes, they do know what they are doing. If they didn't, their companies wouldn't survive in the marketplace. What they are doing is producing equipment with high build quality, exotic industrial and electronic design, that fulfills the desire of a small segment of the market for upper echelon targeted gear. The fact that you can get excellent sound from a fraction of that investment isn't the point at all.

A low priced economy car will go the top posted speed limit, and so will a Bugatti Veyron. Both have four wheels and an engine, and one costs a fortune, one does not. If your only goal is to hit the posted limit, both fill the bill. Do you get your money's worth in the Veyron? Most car owners would say not in the least, but the Veyron owner thinks differently. Bugatti isn't ripping people off, they're filling a market niche.

Music production is creating marketable art. We all here might think loud mastering is a terrible idea, I know I do, but those paying the bills for that record have made their artistic decision. The recording and mastering engineers probably are just doing their bidding, though arguable many today are comparatively under-schooled for their jobs. The only thing that speaks here is money. If bad mastering is to stop, those records have to sell poorly.

You have to vote with your wallet, and music purchasing is totally self serving. Any chance of that happening?

But engineers...perhaps we ought to let them off the hook, at least a little.

I, and all other engineers, thank you.
post #22 of 64

I would much rather drive around in a Bugatti than have hundred dollar wires in my stereo system. I don't see any connection between the two at all,

post #23 of 64
If you are going to use cars as an analogy, both cars should have identical performance, but one should be "engineered" with flames painted on the hood to make it faster. It may feel faster and look faster, but don't ask anyone to take it to the track and prove it.
post #24 of 64

If I can afford a Veyron, the last thing on my mind would be high end audio.

post #25 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post


Music production is creating marketable art. We all here might think loud mastering is a terrible idea, I know I do, but those paying the bills for that record have made their artistic decision. The recording and mastering engineers probably are just doing their bidding, though arguable many today are comparatively under-schooled for their jobs. The only thing that speaks here is money. If bad mastering is to stop, those records have to sell poorly.

You have to vote with your wallet, and music purchasing is totally self serving. Any chance of that happening?

But engineers...perhaps we ought to let them off the hook, at least a little.

I, and all other engineers, thank you.

 

From what I gather, the argument about voting from the wallet wouldn't even arise if music companies would put their effort in quality, rather than think about ways to make instant millions.

Signing a good talent doesn't entitle a big label to make millions, while equally talented vocalists and musicians who're not willing to sell their soul to these companies struggle for recognition.

post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonitus mirus View Post

If you are going to use cars as an analogy, both cars should have identical performance, but one should be "engineered" with flames painted on the hood to make it faster. It may feel faster and look faster, but don't ask anyone to take it to the track and prove it.


Cars are a bad analogy IMO. The margin on a car is much lower in terms of the overall %, and performance measurements of cars are well respected, compared to those in audio.

post #27 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuwhere View Post

 

Tubes never went away. You have heard of Marshall, Ampeg, Fender, and many others continued making vacuum tube guitar amplifiers? In audio, companies like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, McIntosh and others were making tube amps and still are today. These are just US companies. Many companies were making tube audio equipment as well in Europe and Japan. Analog didn't went to digital that quick. In the 80's when CDs came out they were horrendous. Vinyls and tapes were forced out by the record companies eventually. Analog is not making a strong comeback. You need to get more reliable information.

 

 

Tubes went away in mainstream tech.....Any tube amps in best buy or Target?

 

Analog LP is making a comeback in terms of sales....never gonna be mainstream but the LP clearly isn't going the way of the 8 track player and the cassette.

post #28 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonitus mirus View Post

If you are going to use cars as an analogy, both cars should have identical performance, but one should be "engineered" with flames painted on the hood to make it faster. It may feel faster and look faster, but don't ask anyone to take it to the track and prove it.

Ok, ok, cars were a bad analogy.  But did anyone get the point that the two products are in the same general category (cars) but targeted at two completely different markets?  High-end and mainstream can co-exist.  It's not a question of engineers not knowing what they're doing, it's a question of which market they're designing for.

 

Sorry for the car thing, I though it would be more obvious.

post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

 

From what I gather, the argument about voting from the wallet wouldn't even arise if music companies would put their effort in quality, rather than think about ways to make instant millions.

Signing a good talent doesn't entitle a big label to make millions, while equally talented vocalists and musicians who're not willing to sell their soul to these companies struggle for recognition.

Ah, so true...but so unrealistic.  It's what we would all like and hope for, but there's one quality that would have to be eliminated to make it possible: greed.  

post #30 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

Ok, ok, cars were a bad analogy.  But did anyone get the point that the two products are in the same general category (cars) but targeted at two completely different markets?  High-end and mainstream can co-exist.  It's not a question of engineers not knowing what they're doing, it's a question of which market they're designing for.

 

Sorry for the car thing, I though it would be more obvious.

 

I get the point in the sense that a carbon fiber/kevlar/diamond woofer or tweeter might be equivalent to something like a carbon fiber monocoque in R&D terms. I think trickling down of exotic technology into lower end models can sometimes, but not often, apply to audio as well. But I don’t know where a company like Bose would fit in the analogy… maybe a Ford Escort that sold for the price of a Mercedes? I see what you’re saying about exotic materials and exotic R&D, which are both expensive, but auto makers are forced to publish meaningful specs and have those specs verified by reviewers. They must live and die by hard numbers, where manufacturers of high end audio are often protected by a dreamy bubble of superstition and magic.     

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How aware are audio engineers of Psychoacoustics and other BS beliefs?