Quote:
Originally Posted by KingStyles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A fact that is overlooked, is everybody has different taste. Does it really matter what is supposedly superior? We all hear different frequencies and have different sensitivities. We all have trained our ears and minds to percieve the same song differently through the same equipment. There is no perfect system out there for a reference point to look to and say if it doesnt sound like that than its not good. There is no truer statement in audio as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Regardless of scientific fact, untill a dac is able to be adjusted to fit everybody taste there will be no perfect implementation of a dac. I once owned a antique square grand piano. No modern piano tuner with there digital tuners could get the piano tuned correctly. I finally found a old man that was blind but has tuned these rare pianos. He did it not with scientific formulas or fancy electronics, but by carefully listening to every string one at a time over many hours adjusting and readjusting each string by ear. Science is good and provides us with a great starting point, but we cant discount what God has given us either.
|
Sorry, I have to respond to that post.
I never argue about tastes, likes and dislikes. That is SUBJECTIVE. I am very tired of and disinterested in the never ending use of phrases such as "full bass", "warm mids" and "crisp highs" that are in my view mostly marketing driven.
One can like or dislike anything, and that is NOT well defined. Such concepts have DIFFRENT MEANINGS to different people, because it is very difficult to express in words what one hears. So at the end of the day, people put too much weight on other’s personal opinions that may not apply to their own tastes.
But my statements are about the OBJECTIVE, and the gear I design reflects it. How can it be? It is so, because my stated goal is TRANSPARENT SOUND. The idea is to have the music (in electronics it is "waveform") altered by the least amount possible! One can HEAR the differences between a source and the processed outcome. That is how we test the gear in a quality studio. It is a "before" and "after" type of a test. Transparency is not about liking the sound or disliking the sound. It is about RETAING the sound. And while listening in some top notch studios is a must, and having well trained ears do the listening is also a must, the listening is one of 2 types of tests.
The other set of testing IS about engineering. You should not put down an elaborate and costly audio test gear. If you have real good testing equipment, and it tells you that you have some serious noise in the audible range, or say a significant 3rd harmonics at 3KHz and so on, then you have no chance to have transparent sound. The ear will hear it, and you should not bother to set up "studio listening time".
The folks that put down science do not have a clue. One can not design by ear alone. Designing gear is a complicated matter, It calls for a lot of conceptual knowledge (yes, math and theory), understanding of components, circuits, layout, materials…. and the specific application (such as audio, video or what not). The number of variables and compromises is huge. One can not do it by ear. If you play chess, you have 64 squares and only a few pieces (pawn, bishop, king...). One can not play chess by ear. You need to know what you are doing. I can give you 10 digits (0,1,2...9), and what chances do you have put them together and win the lottery? Don’t dismiss my examples. When you design gear, changing the value of a single part may have an impact on very large number of issues. One just does not get to design by trail and error! Do you want your doctor to try all sorts of pills until something works?
Much of the anti science in audio is driven by those that can not achieve transparency. What else can they say? Sorry about the poor specifications? They will not say that! Instead, some do not bother to even publish their specifications. Others say over and over - specifications do not count, or sell you the old "full bass", "warm mids" and "crisp highs"...
I agree that a few specification numbers are FAR from telling the story, and an in depth measurements require pages upon pages of data, to be examined by an experienced professional design engineer in audio. (for example, I would prefer take a 1% distortion at 20KHz over .01% at 3KHz, and so on...)
It would be fine if one stated that understanding measurements is not for a novice, or that most product specifications lack much detail. But instead, I see a lot of people attacking specs as a bunch of nonsense. This is true ignorance at it's worse.
I understand and appreciate that some folks want to alter the original sound. I understand in great detail the specific alterations due to a tube, a transformer... That is ok with me if folks like it. Other then tubes and transformers, there is a lot of gear that is designed specifically for sonic alterations (such as EQ, reverb, compressors, expenders...). I am not against any of it. But my question is: Do you want the AD to do some EQ? Do you want the speaker cable transfer energy to the speaker, or do you also wish for it to impact the stereo image?
In my book, an AD should convert an analog wave to digital numbers. A DA should convert digital numbers back to analog. A "back to back AD and DA" should ideally do nothing (like a 1 inch piece of wire). I do not want any un intended consequences, such as additional noise, a less then flat response, phase alterations, more bass, less bas… and of course much unintended distortions. I do not want my AD to sound like a tube, and my DA to sound like a tube, because when one hooks it to a tube amp, you do not hear your tube amp, you hear 3 tubes in series. That is a total loss of control, often followed by much fast talk and self convincing about what one like or does not like.
While some of the gear is design specifically or chosen for coloration, it is best to realize that much of the gear should not alter the sound. Take for example good speaker wire. It is good when it DOES NOT alter the sound. Same with converters and so on.
Do you want to have a camera that always adds some orange tint on everything? You can not remove the orange. If you like some orange tint on some SPECIFIC photos, you can get a “tool” to do so. But a correct photo, a clear representation, IS the best starting point. Someone else may prefer green tint, or no coloration. You can add art to the photo, but if it you start with already altered colors and warped proportions, you can not bring it back to the original. In fact, people that were not presence at the original scene (or musical performance) do not even know how the original looked or sounded. I do mind if one likes to live in “orange tint world”, or “missing high frequency world”. The sad part is that quite often they do not realize that if the get “out of the house”, the world has “less orange tint” and real acoustic instruments sound different…
Putting down science and engineering is really out of place. It is ignorance based pass time on many hi fi forums. I have been making audio gear for a long time, and the list of my gear users includes many of the greatest audio professionals world wide. I do pay much attention to how it sounds (I am a musician). But I get to achieve my results to a large degree because I also do respect and practice engineering and science. I can not select the printed circuit material by ear! One can not design for low noise by ear, and you do not get lucky. Design is a deliberate process that calls for knowhow and experience. Less knowhow and experience end up with a lesser product. That should not be a surprised.
Regards
Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering
