0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 45281 times.
Daygloworange,I already told you there was one good sounding transistor in the bunch, which could be determined by listening. All of the transistors were deemed adequate by their manufacturers and there is no economic incentive to the manufacturers to make a good sounding transistor.
Yeah....I don't buy into that at all. Technological advancements are based in science, not art.It's not magic. Calling it art is conjuring and attemptimg to shroud the science in mystery. Synergy in audio, to me, is just ameliorating deficiencies to suit someone's tastes, which is fine, but let's call it was it is.Musical instruments are made better sounding today than they were in the past due to science and understanding of materials and physics. Before, development and advancement was through trial and error. It was stumbled upon, and became known as art. It's not talent, it's knowledge.Ask any modder who modifies gear, and his mods are rooted in his firm grasp of science, and sonically, is shows. I own numerous guitars and vintage amps. They are all modded to some degree, and perform better than stock. All the mods are done by people who know science very well, and the mods are rooted in science.I mod my own guitars. I can tell you what I do, why I do it, and know what the results are going to do. Any variables in sound can be attributed to the fact that they're made of wood, and that no two trees are the same.And before you say that which instrument sounds better is a subjective thing...Audio is no different. There have been, over the last number of years, a number of vast improvements in driver technology. Motor structures, materials etc... Science and technology is making better transformers, capacitors, inductors, wire etc....I see science as the leader in advancing audio, not art....Keep in mind, it's science that invented all the different brushes, paints and canvas that artists use.Science is also what created all the instruments musicians play, not art.Cheers
jon_010101, definitely no magic involved,but you do have to listen to the circuit and chosing the best sounding parts is integral to the design process. You can design on the back of a napkin or on a computer screen but eventually you have to build the circuit and listen to it.
Before Western "science" or the scientific method was a concept there were musical instruments and painters.
I think that you are putting scientists and "science" on a pedestal like it's just another religion. I believe the line between art and science is not absolute but they're constantly mingling to the benefit of both . In science there has been intuitive leaps that resulted in great discoveries. Sort of like great art. eh??
Without reading first all the postings before mine, most important, IMH, is the "final" sound one hears. I'd work backwards from there with each variable along the chain.
Quote from: rajacat on 10 Apr 2008, 02:03 amBefore Western "science" or the scientific method was a concept there were musical instruments and painters.No! Western science had "been a concept," as we understand it today, at least since Aristotle. Musicians, painters, mathematicians, astrologers, philosophers, etc. tended to consider themselves a part of that tradition. Those disciplines were all "the humanities" and the "Renaissance man" tried to be knowledgeable in all of them. The Renaissance was about rediscovery as much as new discovery, since medieval science had basically cauterized into people thinking everything had already been worked out, and being ignorant of the scientific method pursued by people like Aristotle 1500 years before. Anyways....QuoteI think that you are putting scientists and "science" on a pedestal like it's just another religion. I believe the line between art and science is not absolute but they're constantly mingling to the benefit of both . In science there has been intuitive leaps that resulted in great discoveries. Sort of like great art. eh??I agree that they intermingle - that's exactly why the Romantics sought to make the distinction they did, because they recognized (or believed) that such things weren't ALL scientific. But in the hierarchy of things that require individually inspired genius, building audio gear is very low, as is listening to audio gear to determine what merit it has. Just because something is "subjective" doesn't make it "art." IMO we should pursue a scientific path for how people hear things and what they listen for -- pursue it alongside everyone's current subjective preferences, that is, and not at the expense of them.
A piece has to be well engineered to have a chance of being good. The designer has to understand that's not the end of it to have a chance to be great.
Without clearing all the "noise" from both within and outside the component & chain,,,, you'll never have any concept of what that "final" sound could actually consist of so there's nothing to go back to cuz your dead right out of the gate. No one can, regardless of how much has been spent on a system unless of course these conditions have been met in manufacturing,,,, which I hardly doubt. Cheers,Robin
.......or you could just buy battery-powered components......
And that is what this twisted, sick hobby that we all love is all about: The listeners opinion. There is no wrong or right once we get past all the debates. Does it make you smile? Does it sound like music? Does it make you happy? Because that is what counts. The rest is just a way to pass the time and exercise our debating skills .Happy listening,Walt
