johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
What and how do we know what IS ‘Better’?
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 17 Designers vs Users
Designers vs Users
This is a distinction that I have not seen mentioned in audio, specifically, what are the differences between designers/engineers of our coveted gear and us as users.
These 2 groups perform very different 'tests', have very different expectations, utilize the gear very differently, and have very different environments within which we evaluate gear.
And I need to point out that this isn’t meant as a value judgement, in any way shape or form, but as an examination of the 2 very different approaches these 2 groups use in spending their time in ‘working on’ their system/component.
Indeed the lines between these 2 ‘camps’ can all to easily get blurred if exactitude is attempted.
So this is primarily aimed at exploring these 2 different approaches to using all this gear.
And granted many designers will spend many hours listening to gear but are they doing so as users or designers?
I submit it isn’t as a designer, at least not for hours and hours on end.
The ‘luxury’ of listening for listening’s sake is what a user does.
To expect a designer/engineer to spend hundreds or thousands of hours using and listening to the same piece of gear and document its changes thru time is unrealistic, at best.
But that is exactly what we as users can and actually do.
To expect a designer/engineer to run a particular design with the same ancillary gear, let alone in a typical 'home' as we users will, for these extended periods is also unrealistic.
Conversely while some users might have extensive measurement capabilities, this is somewhat rare.
So we users use the ubiquitous test and measurement systems available to us, namely our hearing which is conditioned by our expectations and has been calibrated by our experiences.
In short we as users determine if a component might work well in our system(s) based upon our previous experience and from experiences of those whom we trust or those who have a congruent set of expectations to ours.
And as an aside. Another similar type of comparison is…
Some would prefer to use a musician as a 'standard' or benchmark to determine what is 'real’. This approach is going to yield different results because what we as 'the audience' experience is by definition going to be a different experience from that of the musician.
Much like the recorded sound of any instrument is going to be different than what the musician experiences.
A case in point is, a friend of mine listened to my headphone system and said "This doesn't sound like what I heard while playing in the orchestra".
Quite right!
We hear what the audience is supposed to hear which is the sum total of the piece of music that is being projected towards the audience.
And not what the musicians themselves hear while playing.
And in a similar vein designers/engineers are concerned with the specifics of the operation of the circuit and also tackle the challenges of manufacturing the design etc.
While we users are tasked with integrating this specific design into our existing setup.
Our process of integrating can run the gamut of using different cables, or tubes, or acoustic treatments, or selling off that component or perhaps others because they simply don't work well in our system anymore.
Which brings me to my next point.
Some of us can and do change gear like changing our wardrobe. If it doesn't fit, we sell it off.
While others (myself for instance) will explore what can be done to see if our new electro-marvel will or can be made to fit, just a bit better.
Which presupposes that we chose well to begin with.
Or better yet we will tweak the gear to more closely match our specific expectations, to suit our requirements all the more.
Sometimes this process can take many thousands of hours of experimentation, to try this and that, mostly based upon suggestions, or tweaks performed by others, and/or our own past experiences.
And as we gain experience with dialing in these tweaks we come to know what their ‘signature’ is so we can then tailor our desired end results to better suit our expectations, or perhaps, hopefully, exceed them.
But once these tweaks have ‘proven’ themselves so as to become a ‘known’ factor, they usually take much much less time to implement. Such as change a fuse, or add vibration control, or perhaps additional cooling, etc.
All of this is not something designers/engineers will take the time nor devote the resources to explore.
And to a certain extent the amount of time spent in pursuing these sorts of tweaks can become counter productive, especially for a designer/engineer, and especially if taken to an extreme.
But not for us as users…
That's what we (can) do as hobbyist’s, play around with stuff to dial in our system to meet our expectations, which are unique and often not fully realized to begin with.
And yes some do take modding to an extreme, but they usually also know to take responsibility for their actions, although some will try to ‘pull a fast one’…
Some users mod and push the envelope to explore the scaleability of the gear we own by whatever means is ‘appropriate’, based upon the users circumstance, $, experience/talent etc, which all factor in.
Some experienced DIY’rs have a range of options and choices of tweaks to choose from in order to push the envelope, and hopefully in the direction of choice, ie. ‘Better’.
IOW the purchase of gear is just the 1st step in ownership for us as users.
But it’s the last step (except for any warranty/repair issues) for the designer/engineer.
JJ
End Part 17
Next up Connector Contact patch resistance reduction
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 17 Designers vs Users
Designers vs Users
This is a distinction that I have not seen mentioned in audio, specifically, what are the differences between designers/engineers of our coveted gear and us as users.
These 2 groups perform very different 'tests', have very different expectations, utilize the gear very differently, and have very different environments within which we evaluate gear.
And I need to point out that this isn’t meant as a value judgement, in any way shape or form, but as an examination of the 2 very different approaches these 2 groups use in spending their time in ‘working on’ their system/component.
Indeed the lines between these 2 ‘camps’ can all to easily get blurred if exactitude is attempted.
So this is primarily aimed at exploring these 2 different approaches to using all this gear.
And granted many designers will spend many hours listening to gear but are they doing so as users or designers?
I submit it isn’t as a designer, at least not for hours and hours on end.
The ‘luxury’ of listening for listening’s sake is what a user does.
To expect a designer/engineer to spend hundreds or thousands of hours using and listening to the same piece of gear and document its changes thru time is unrealistic, at best.
But that is exactly what we as users can and actually do.
To expect a designer/engineer to run a particular design with the same ancillary gear, let alone in a typical 'home' as we users will, for these extended periods is also unrealistic.
Conversely while some users might have extensive measurement capabilities, this is somewhat rare.
So we users use the ubiquitous test and measurement systems available to us, namely our hearing which is conditioned by our expectations and has been calibrated by our experiences.
In short we as users determine if a component might work well in our system(s) based upon our previous experience and from experiences of those whom we trust or those who have a congruent set of expectations to ours.
And as an aside. Another similar type of comparison is…
Some would prefer to use a musician as a 'standard' or benchmark to determine what is 'real’. This approach is going to yield different results because what we as 'the audience' experience is by definition going to be a different experience from that of the musician.
Much like the recorded sound of any instrument is going to be different than what the musician experiences.
A case in point is, a friend of mine listened to my headphone system and said "This doesn't sound like what I heard while playing in the orchestra".
Quite right!
We hear what the audience is supposed to hear which is the sum total of the piece of music that is being projected towards the audience.
And not what the musicians themselves hear while playing.
And in a similar vein designers/engineers are concerned with the specifics of the operation of the circuit and also tackle the challenges of manufacturing the design etc.
While we users are tasked with integrating this specific design into our existing setup.
Our process of integrating can run the gamut of using different cables, or tubes, or acoustic treatments, or selling off that component or perhaps others because they simply don't work well in our system anymore.
Which brings me to my next point.
Some of us can and do change gear like changing our wardrobe. If it doesn't fit, we sell it off.
While others (myself for instance) will explore what can be done to see if our new electro-marvel will or can be made to fit, just a bit better.
Which presupposes that we chose well to begin with.
Or better yet we will tweak the gear to more closely match our specific expectations, to suit our requirements all the more.
Sometimes this process can take many thousands of hours of experimentation, to try this and that, mostly based upon suggestions, or tweaks performed by others, and/or our own past experiences.
And as we gain experience with dialing in these tweaks we come to know what their ‘signature’ is so we can then tailor our desired end results to better suit our expectations, or perhaps, hopefully, exceed them.
But once these tweaks have ‘proven’ themselves so as to become a ‘known’ factor, they usually take much much less time to implement. Such as change a fuse, or add vibration control, or perhaps additional cooling, etc.
All of this is not something designers/engineers will take the time nor devote the resources to explore.
And to a certain extent the amount of time spent in pursuing these sorts of tweaks can become counter productive, especially for a designer/engineer, and especially if taken to an extreme.
But not for us as users…
That's what we (can) do as hobbyist’s, play around with stuff to dial in our system to meet our expectations, which are unique and often not fully realized to begin with.
And yes some do take modding to an extreme, but they usually also know to take responsibility for their actions, although some will try to ‘pull a fast one’…
Some users mod and push the envelope to explore the scaleability of the gear we own by whatever means is ‘appropriate’, based upon the users circumstance, $, experience/talent etc, which all factor in.
Some experienced DIY’rs have a range of options and choices of tweaks to choose from in order to push the envelope, and hopefully in the direction of choice, ie. ‘Better’.
IOW the purchase of gear is just the 1st step in ownership for us as users.
But it’s the last step (except for any warranty/repair issues) for the designer/engineer.
JJ
End Part 17
Next up Connector Contact patch resistance reduction
