Maybe they choose not to expose themselves , because the technical story behind it is very thin
Better than Live??
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
I think you should ask the people who are designing this stuff, micro. If it was half the mysterious black art you make it out to be, there would be no product consistency, even within the same model, much less a "sound" for a brand. Components, speakers and cables are not listened to individually in the manufacturing process then tweaked to some broad, organic target, they are built to specifications and, evidently miraculously, achieve a pretty specific target sound from one piece to the next. This means that consistent sound is predicted by the specifications the components are built to, and that means it can be measured. It can't mean anything less than that. Go ask the designers. I don't think they'll get a whole lot more specific than I did, but I'm pretty certain they're not going to tell you that they achieve their sound by ear, one component at a time.
Tim
Tim,
I have asked several or them and entertained talks with them, and I have read a lot from their interviews and opinions, most of the time reading between the lines. There is a wide gap between being understandable and becoming scientific and prepared to face debate.
For manufacturers or me audio design it is not a mysterious black art, it seems to be for you, as this knowledge is not systematic and public, and can not be backed by widely accepted measurements. But I recognize that for me almost of all is mysterious - I can not correlate measurements with sound quality. Can you?
Any way I appreciate now that you recognize the existence of a typical "sound" for a brand, even between excellent measuring electronics - some people say they all sound almost the same.
BTW, we both went through these questions sometime ago, no need to re-write it all:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7457-Objectivist-or-Subjectivist-Give-Me-a-Break&p=126828&viewfull=1#post126828
Tim-I agree with Micro that you are oversimplifying amplifier design and the sound of those designs. I know of no man who can look at a good set of specifications/test results from an amplifier and predict how that amplifier will actually sound unless there are gross aberrations in its measured performance. Two amplifiers from two different manufacturers which have similar measured performance probably won't sound similar unless you subscribe to the "all amplifiers sound the same" theory. And while I have always stated that it is my personal belief that the actual quality of the design is more important sound quality wise than the parts its built with, there is no doubt that the parts used to build a given design contribute to the end sound.
I'm really not trying to oversimplify anything guys, but the question is pretty simple, and I don't think you've got a good answer:
Without predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements, and production specifications derived from those measurements, how can an audio component designer/manufacturer create a "sound" that is repeatable from one component to the next, even of the same model?
Actually, that is a fairly complex question, but the answer, I think, is bone-simple: "He can't."
So we've established, not only that it can be measured, but that it has been measured.
Tim
Without predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements, and production specifications derived from those measurements, how can an audio component designer/manufacturer create a "sound" that is repeatable from one component to the next, even of the same model?
Actually, that is a fairly complex question, but the answer, I think, is bone-simple: "He can't."
So we've established, not only that it can be measured, but that it has been measured.
Tim
You are moving from the main question. Once you have a design, you can have predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements and production specifications derived from those measurements that enable you to control quality if you keep some rigid manufacturing rules - e.g. you do not change the suppliers or use equivalent products. But some manufacturers have had problems just because they had to change a component and although they measure the same they sounded different.
This subject was addressed by Bret d'Agostino in WBF, and by Dieter Burmester in his company site (advanced google is really fantastic in these moments.
)http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?8050-Components-Specifications-use-and-the-Truth&p=138837&viewfull=1#post138837
"Now when I listen to an audio system, I would not be able to say that a particular company’s amplifier had more distortion than mine did. Unless the design topology was more or less directly proportional to mine, the interpretation of the specifications is not apples to apples. So comparing a set of specs between a 100watt tube amp and a 100watt SS Amp will tell you virtually nothing about what you are going to hear unless a spec is wildly out of whack. "
Manufacturers use measurements in their development - we all know about it. But, sorry, you have not established anything! Unhappily, otherwise you (and WBF) would become famous - the person who established the absolute correlation between measured specifications and sound quality. No more need to build prototypes and listen - just using the simulators to create the specification list - these things are very accurate nowadays.
Tim, you are 100% correct here.
Even the exact same two amplifiers from the same manufacturer won't measure and sound exactly the same.
Because there is no exactly the same parts inside with zero tolerance difference. We simply live in an imperfect world for that.
It's the same with a live performance as yourself well know this; it never can be replicated exactly the same.
...There are simply too many variables (human) for this.
Electronics are even more unreliable.
_______________
* To no one in particular: If we want to talk real science here, might as well come fully equipped.
You are moving from the main question. Once you have a design, you can have predictable, quantifiable, repeatable measurements and production specifications derived from those measurements that enable you to control quality if you keep some rigid manufacturing rules - e.g. you do not change the suppliers or use equivalent products. But some manufacturers have had problems just because they had to change a component and although they measure the same they sounded different.
This subject was addressed by Bret d'Agostino in WBF, and by Dieter Burmester in his company site (advanced google is really fantastic in these moments.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?8050-Components-Specifications-use-and-the-Truth&p=138837&viewfull=1#post138837
"Now when I listen to an audio system, I would not be able to say that a particular company’s amplifier had more distortion than mine did. Unless the design topology was more or less directly proportional to mine, the interpretation of the specifications is not apples to apples. So comparing a set of specs between a 100watt tube amp and a 100watt SS Amp will tell you virtually nothing about what you are going to hear unless a spec is wildly out of whack. "
Manufacturers use measurements in their development - we all know about it. But, sorry, you have not established anything! Unhappily, otherwise you (and WBF) would become famous - the person who established the absolute correlation between measured specifications and sound quality. No more need to build prototypes and listen - just using the simulators to create the specification list - these things are very accurate nowadays.
Well, this is yet another live vs Memorex thread, so we long ago moved from the main question, but we have made a breakthrough:
, you said.
Of course you can! This is what I've been saying all along! These measurements and production specifications not only predict how the component will sound, they control the consistency of that sound in manufacturing. We agree. So, get those measurements, those specs instead of the ones published by the marketing departments, and what would prevent the knowledgable (say a reviewing team similar to the old days at Stereo Review) from not only predicting sound from measurements, as we've agreed that manufacturers do, but comparing those measurements to predict differences and similarities in sound from one component to another?
The answer, of course, is the lack of the will or the resources to take the kinds of measurements that manufacturers use all the time to produce consistent products. Mostly will and skill, I suspect. But it can be measured and predicted from those measurements. Without such measurements, consistent-sounding products would be all but impossible to produce.
By the way, while I appreciate the thought, I expect no fame from this breakthrough. I expect this is common knowledge to all engineers who do not believe in magic.
Tim
You're correct that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. But tolerances within audible limits? Tolerances close enough to predict the performance of a part and how it will sound in a component? Without this, we would have chaos. Not only would a Krell sound noticeably, audibly, obviously different from a Levinson, no 2 Krells would sound alike. It would be impossible for audio manufacturers to create a consistent product.
Tim
But that's exactly what's the beauty in our world; everything's different, sounds different, smells different, ...
If there was another exactly same 'me' living around, then that would be true real chaos.
* You believe in cloning Tim?
I never mentioned "within audible limits" prior, but was certainly referring to 'accuracy', from very minute precision measurements.
Less than total perfection will always be a subject of conversation, in a world where boredom is the ultimate enemy.
If there was another exactly same 'me' living around, then that would be true real chaos.
* You believe in cloning Tim?
I never mentioned "within audible limits" prior, but was certainly referring to 'accuracy', from very minute precision measurements.
Less than total perfection will always be a subject of conversation, in a world where boredom is the ultimate enemy.
Tim-Is the quote above from me from some time ago? It sounds like something I said awhile back.
just my normal cable opinion , nothing new
Andromedaaudio,
Is this your opinion, or just some speculation?
OK, we now know you have suspects. I prefer to use information coming from professionals that I can quote. BTW, no one except you is speaking about magic - I refer to expertise and knowledge that can not be directly supported by measurements correlated with sound quality. But you love ambiguous and vague references.
BTW, any one involved in manufacturing processes will remember that during the process most manufacturers take signatures (measurements) at critical points to identify possible faults. Most of the time these signatures have no connection with the normal operation of the system - they are optimized to identify production faults and check consistency. Life of a manufacturer is much complicated than consumers think.
Tom,
As usual, engineers and people familiar with audio design knows all and can do everything ... Even an OTL that sounds like Mep Krell KSA250.
Before addressing you cable question, can you quantify with exact numbers what you mean by "given enough differences in their design"?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. In this case, I'm talking about your own references:
...which strike me as neither vague nor ambiguous. You are saying the quality of sound is measured, production specifications are created from those measurements, and those specifications are applied in manufacturing to control the consistency of the sound of the product. I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your statement; it was straightforward and clear and I'm pretty sure I understood it. The only thing that remains hard to understand is how you can believe this and continue to hold that the quality of sound cannot be captured by and predicted with measurements.
Tim
What I meant was if it's good. ...If it's good to be cloning other people?
...And eventually we'll be able to replicate the same live experience (performance).
...But at a different time, and at a different place too.
Better than Live? No, different.
Last edited:
Similar threads
