Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Re: Dramatic effect.....

> What I meant to say is that Engineers use learned techniques to achieve their "subjective take" on what THEY THINK good, accurate, or "pleasing" sounding musical playback equipment is. I was simply stating that there is no agreed upon objectivity, or no definition of what constitutes "the accurate" or "the good." <

Perhaps, but that's just the old subjective/objective argument all over again, which has been discussed to death without any real outcome. However, I think that most audiophiles on this forum would concur that the "best sounding" devices are usually the ones that are most faithful to the input signal (i.e., the "highest fidelity"). Devices that add coloration, distortion, etc., may be pleasing to some, but generally aren't as successful in the marketplace.

> Does employing/using "science" mean that one is using the "scientific method?" <

Of course not--"scientific method" is the property of pure, investigative science.

> I am not so certain that designing and building an amplification device is engaging in science, - or is "applied science." <

Obviously, it is the latter. The point I was trying to make (in my rather heavy-handed manner) is that high-end audio as we know it today would be impossible without the contributions of real-world, investigative science. Think of any high-tech innovation in the audio world from the last fifty years or so--semiconductors, or lasers, or rare-earth magnets--it's all due to the efforts of hard-working, objective scientists, and their co-conspirators, those evil, unfeeling engineers.

I confess to being one of the latter, though not an EE--thank God. I'd probably get eaten alive on this forun if I were!




This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.