Conrad, I don't understand how you can have conclusions about something that you are not expert at. We have tried for many decades to understand exactly what makes quality audio electronics, and people before I was born, had been very seriously working on it as well.
It isn't something that you can measure with a few tests, or list on a piece of paper. Even when you are a real designer, making state of the art electronics, you can never be absolutely sure of the results, even if the measurements are almost perfect. You might have to modify your circuit, change parts, etc., to really get it right.
It would be great IF we could just measure, but it hasn't worked up till now.
Many here come with preconceived opinions as to what is possible and what is not. This is the problem, and you will just wear out thinking in circles.
It isn't something that you can measure with a few tests, or list on a piece of paper. Even when you are a real designer, making state of the art electronics, you can never be absolutely sure of the results, even if the measurements are almost perfect. You might have to modify your circuit, change parts, etc., to really get it right.
It would be great IF we could just measure, but it hasn't worked up till now.
Many here come with preconceived opinions as to what is possible and what is not. This is the problem, and you will just wear out thinking in circles.
john curl said:
Maybe you have tried in wrong directions. Maybe you are not so great experts as you are saying.
For example, I do not see you posting any results of your recent measurements. All we have are Stereophile reviews of few Parasound products. We only read that you repeatedly say that you are an expert. This is everything but scientific method.
PMA said:
Pavel,
that was unnecessarily rude and not very clever, sorry. You should understand that a person involved in a manufacturing and professional design is most of the time not at liberty to disclose information. We should be grateful for John's participation and input - it is more than you would normally expect in a public forum, and his experience is most welcome here, IMHO.
Alex
I think Alex has a point. This is not the moment to bash people who hold different opinions and expectations; John must maintain circumspection about what he says, where Pavel, who makes his living from Instrumentation Engineering (and thus has a strong interest in the relevance of measurement in audio), is free to post his clever innovative circuits and analyses without commercial constraint.
This contest, if it is such, is hardly equal. Certainly John speaks in riddles at times, and seems aloof, but anyone would with his experience and constraints.
Pavel, all personal feelings aside, you really do challenge people to 'stand and deliver', and this probably reflects your desire to get something back for what you selflessly put into this forum. GK had a similar outlook. However, you do this voluntarily, you have no automatic right to respect, admiration, or reciprocity, and you certainly have no right to be rude.
I've just been personally upbraided for an inadequate skillset and a poor knowledge of electronics by one of apparent learning, but the fact is I have nothing to prove, and do not seek to do so here. I sell audio products, and seek only to keep sales up and my customers happy. Although accused of using this forum for marketing purposes, I post merely for fun, with considerable circumspection, and like most I have another life which is far richer than life behind a keyboard.
We are all free to contribute as much or as little as we please. Charles has now left as a result of needless accusation. The forum is not a University insisting on publication, or a Corporate employer expecting productivity, or a society of friends seeking each other's approbation. Lighten up......
Hugh
This contest, if it is such, is hardly equal. Certainly John speaks in riddles at times, and seems aloof, but anyone would with his experience and constraints.
Pavel, all personal feelings aside, you really do challenge people to 'stand and deliver', and this probably reflects your desire to get something back for what you selflessly put into this forum. GK had a similar outlook. However, you do this voluntarily, you have no automatic right to respect, admiration, or reciprocity, and you certainly have no right to be rude.
I've just been personally upbraided for an inadequate skillset and a poor knowledge of electronics by one of apparent learning, but the fact is I have nothing to prove, and do not seek to do so here. I sell audio products, and seek only to keep sales up and my customers happy. Although accused of using this forum for marketing purposes, I post merely for fun, with considerable circumspection, and like most I have another life which is far richer than life behind a keyboard.
We are all free to contribute as much or as little as we please. Charles has now left as a result of needless accusation. The forum is not a University insisting on publication, or a Corporate employer expecting productivity, or a society of friends seeking each other's approbation. Lighten up......
Hugh
PMA said:
Pavel,
I personally think that this discussion is as clear as it can be on this forum and on this subject. I understand John very well and quite agree with almost everything he said, as it matches my own experience. There are many things in making audio gear that do not get a proper scientific explanation - you just use what works even when you don't have a solid science behind it (it is nice to have it, thought
). Unfortunately, modern consumer society is used to a scientific (much more often pceudoscientific) explanations and demands "science". That is a source of many often silly claims made by different people in the industry. It doesn't mean they telling lies, no. They just tell not the whole truth - most of the time because they don't know it themselves or they are affraid to explain what they know or suspect because of a high probability of an attack from EE crowd. This problem is as old as audio electronics itself and going over in circles. All what possible - is to pick up bits and pieces of somebody else's experience and incorporate it into your own experience. Don't expect a clear science in audio - it is not. Quite often it is a black art , thought people would not usually say it loud .Cheers
Alex
Hugh,
I appreciate the thrust of your post. I must say I have been in the past also guilty at challenging John to 'stand up and deliver'. Surely you see the dilemma. Everone can state here whatever he likes even if its the greatest BS. We try to separate the chaff from the corn by asking for prove, arguments, documented cases. That really is the only way to do that.
Your argument is that some people because of commercial or other constraints are not at liberty to give those arguments, proofs, documented cases. (I leave out the argument that sales is proof of expertise in some of these (technical) discussions for obvious reasons).
I personally have given up asking 'luminaries' for proof etc. But I am also not ready to believe everything at face value, because I can easily find another 'luminary' who states the opposite. Unless I do my own research, I don't know who to believe.
I don't see a way out here, and I fully understand PMA's frustration at the situation. I only would ask the 'luminaries' to realise that giving a statement without argument or proof often gives the impression that maybe there really isn't anything behind it.
Jan Didden
PS I try to live by my sig...
I appreciate the thrust of your post. I must say I have been in the past also guilty at challenging John to 'stand up and deliver'. Surely you see the dilemma. Everone can state here whatever he likes even if its the greatest BS. We try to separate the chaff from the corn by asking for prove, arguments, documented cases. That really is the only way to do that.
Your argument is that some people because of commercial or other constraints are not at liberty to give those arguments, proofs, documented cases. (I leave out the argument that sales is proof of expertise in some of these (technical) discussions for obvious reasons).
I personally have given up asking 'luminaries' for proof etc. But I am also not ready to believe everything at face value, because I can easily find another 'luminary' who states the opposite. Unless I do my own research, I don't know who to believe.
I don't see a way out here, and I fully understand PMA's frustration at the situation. I only would ask the 'luminaries' to realise that giving a statement without argument or proof often gives the impression that maybe there really isn't anything behind it.
Jan Didden
PS I try to live by my sig...
That's the cyber world for ya. In person (trust me on this), John is exactly the opposite. Totally down to earth and direct. Despite the fact that he and I have vastly different philosophies and opinions about audio, we manage to share ideas. I've learned a lot from him. I don't know that it's "experience and constraints" so much as the different atmosphere of a written-word forum.
Although I am probably more on the side of PMA I always start thinking:
1. why do John Curl and Charles Hansen and others like them participate here because I'm sure it isn't making them any money
and
2. are there any other forums of general interest such as cars or boats or woodworking or ....... where (for want of a better expression) recognized world authorities participate
??
On the other hand, have they ever contributed something that someone can build? It doesn't have to be SOTA, just something that people would appreciate.
1. why do John Curl and Charles Hansen and others like them participate here because I'm sure it isn't making them any money
and
2. are there any other forums of general interest such as cars or boats or woodworking or ....... where (for want of a better expression) recognized world authorities participate
??
On the other hand, have they ever contributed something that someone can build? It doesn't have to be SOTA, just something that people would appreciate.
stoolpigeon said:
From what I've noticed - as an example, John participated nicely in a thread about building a clone of one of his early amps here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107592
and in general I suspect that John was in the industry for so long that quite a few things build by DIY-ers here have something to do with his work
.Alex
Jan,
Thank you for your post. I do not profess to particularly deep technical knowledge, but I build amps anyway and irritate the bejesus out of them until they perform well with music. My strength lies perhaps with not knowing what I cannot do! While this approach does require basic engineering, it also calls up component choice, layout, compensation regimes - all empirical aspects which are generally not much discussed here but contribute hugely, as John has intimated. And they take the most time, and are not sexy, and bore most clever people.
A builder need not be an architect to be successful at making a durable edifice. This should be remembered by those who limit themselves to the theory. I do agree that it should be possible to measure it all, and correlate the results closely with the musical experience, but at this stage that particular science is not yet honed to perfection. The work of Pavel in instrumentation may yet be fruitful, to give him credit where it is due. He certainly alerts us to distortion spectra, and this is probably where the answer lies.
Another point that should be remembered is that in this discipline there is little protection in patent or design law. This is a very good reason why people are so cagey. Patents are expensive, offer imperfect protection, are enforced only with expensive litigation, so this is one reason for developing integrated circuits and encapsulated modules. Substantive proof with incontrovertible math is a dead giveaway in the public domain, and this appears to be sometimes forgotten in the heat of the argument.
Often I receive emails from interested DIYers who suspect I could help them. Invariably I can offer something, and as a rule I'm far more open in private dialogue. I have found the same from others here, too, and would suggest to the frustrated cognoscenti amongst us that rather than ask in the forum, use the opportunity to contact the person in a friendly way to ask in private.
If challenged rudely privately or publicly, I make it a rule to either ignore the post or say nothing at all, either in defence or justification. My attitude at 56 is that I have limited time remaining and I would never, ever spend it in dialogue with someone who is rude or demanding. Let 'em learn from someone else......
And if that doesn't sound like the smugness and tyranny of age, I don't know what does, but no apologies, mind!
Hugh
Thank you for your post. I do not profess to particularly deep technical knowledge, but I build amps anyway and irritate the bejesus out of them until they perform well with music. My strength lies perhaps with not knowing what I cannot do! While this approach does require basic engineering, it also calls up component choice, layout, compensation regimes - all empirical aspects which are generally not much discussed here but contribute hugely, as John has intimated. And they take the most time, and are not sexy, and bore most clever people.
A builder need not be an architect to be successful at making a durable edifice. This should be remembered by those who limit themselves to the theory. I do agree that it should be possible to measure it all, and correlate the results closely with the musical experience, but at this stage that particular science is not yet honed to perfection. The work of Pavel in instrumentation may yet be fruitful, to give him credit where it is due. He certainly alerts us to distortion spectra, and this is probably where the answer lies.
Another point that should be remembered is that in this discipline there is little protection in patent or design law. This is a very good reason why people are so cagey. Patents are expensive, offer imperfect protection, are enforced only with expensive litigation, so this is one reason for developing integrated circuits and encapsulated modules. Substantive proof with incontrovertible math is a dead giveaway in the public domain, and this appears to be sometimes forgotten in the heat of the argument.
Often I receive emails from interested DIYers who suspect I could help them. Invariably I can offer something, and as a rule I'm far more open in private dialogue. I have found the same from others here, too, and would suggest to the frustrated cognoscenti amongst us that rather than ask in the forum, use the opportunity to contact the person in a friendly way to ask in private.
If challenged rudely privately or publicly, I make it a rule to either ignore the post or say nothing at all, either in defence or justification. My attitude at 56 is that I have limited time remaining and I would never, ever spend it in dialogue with someone who is rude or demanding. Let 'em learn from someone else......
And if that doesn't sound like the smugness and tyranny of age, I don't know what does, but no apologies, mind!
Hugh
John, there are varying degrees of expertise, and it's a bit limiting to divide them into expert and non-expert. I don't usually delve into qualifications or achievements, as I'm more interested in the topic at hand; the baggage tends to discourage out-of-the-box thinking. Suffice it to say I've been designing precision analog circuits for about 30 years, from input stages for atomic force microscopes, to a custom design for an audio frequency amplifier that commercial manufactures declined to quote because they couldn't meet the noise and distortion specs the (research) customer needed. All specs were met and the design was reproducible and inexpensive. I also have some not-insignificant experience with resonance and mechanical systems. Back in the '70s my friends and I were pondering the exact same questions of cap types, topologies, tube & solid stage, that are brought up today. Over the years I've heard many subtle differences in equipment, but have no evidence what-so-ever for some unmeasurable "x-factor" that seems to drive thinking here. Still, there has been little progress in connecting what we hear to what we can detect on the test bench- I hesitate to even use the word "measure" because it seems to imply a very limited group of tests to most people. Anyway, the thread has drifted far away from any useful specifics pertaining to audio performance, and I'd still like to discuss what objective tests can be correlated with what we hear. It sure ain't gross THD!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.