Is your favorite audio designer an objectivist or subjectivist or both?

[PYP]

From online stereophile - https://www.stereophile.com/content/aavik-acoustics-u-380-integrated-amplifier  discussing his latest integrated amp:

 

In describing his engineering goals, Børreson said, "When we come to hi-fi, the idea is to impose as little as absolutely possible on the sound. It's okay for a guitar amp to have a specific tone—a Gibson has a different character than a Fender—because some musicians like it. But when we reproduce things, we should be true to what's on the recording. We listen for scale, density, and color of tone, impact, slam, presence, and extension, [and work to] maximize dynamics rather than filtering them away. When you have a transient, how long does it remain floating in the room? How well and long can you hear the complexity of overtones to a violin? These things all relate to the extremes of resolution. You can measure distortion and other things, but they don't matter. Every time we take away noise, even if the noise level is below the floor at which we can hear, it matters. If you lower a power supply's noise suppression from –120dB to –130dB, it's so low that it shouldn't matter, but it does. As another example, you may not be able to hear above 14kHz, but if you play a sound wave at 18kHz and another at 19kHz, they modulate at 1kHz, which you can hear. Everything you design, you design from the point that enough is never enough."

 

So in which camp does he fall?  I haven't heard his products but enjoyed the interview about his products.  Hope folks add their favorite designer and discuss their approach.   

[PYP]

My favorite audio designer, Bruno Putzeys - https://www.soundandvision.com/content/bruno-putzeys-head-class-d-page-2 

 

"Class D is also thoroughly unforgiving. Every detail has to be right and there simply isn’t room to indulge scientifically unproven flights of fancy. Established audiophile habits become a blocking item. You can always construct a passable Class A amplifier that tiptoes around any conceivable set of personal taboos. Not so in Class D. If you try to replace the tiny output capacitor with a reassuringly big paper-in-oil equivalent, you end up with a nonworking amplifier. If you believe in star grounding, fireworks ensue. A high-performance Class D amplifier contradicts every single item of audiophile superstition. Designing one is the ultimate test to see if you’ve got your head screwed on right.

This morass of folk lore has slowed down real progress in high-end audio for over a generation now. When it comes to Class D, it bars access completely. You have to love great sound and great music but you have to be equally fanatic about facts. Reality makes logical sense. Anything that doesn’t make logical sense isn’t real."  ....

 

"I’ve heard several reports of valve aficionados ditching their glassware and switching to Ncore. All I can conclude from that is that those people clearly weren’t actively seeking the distortion of valves as many believe, but instead had a legitimate beef with certain sonic aspects common to most solid-state designs. That’s one thing I have to explain again and again to my fellow doubters: when audiophiles report a particular listening experience, that experience is real. Trust that. Just don’t trust the explanation they proffer."

 

He seems to me to be a math first, then measurement, then listen to the listeners.  

[PYP]

On 5/29/2020 at 3:33 PM, sandyk said:

He falls into the same camp as Nelson Pass, which is in both.

 Nelson Pass (https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2018/02/21/an-interview-with-hifi-legend-nelson-pass/ )  

"I like measurements, and I use them all the time, but they don’t get the last word.  Generally, there isn’t much conflict between what we measure and what we like to hear. I’ve spent decades working to correlate good sound with measurements, and we have a reasonable picture of what works, and you see that in our products. These represent our own listening tastes, and appeal to a large enough portion of customers to keep us in business.

 

With low-order harmonics, there is agreement that low-order distortion is much less offensive than high-order harmonics and IM (Inter modulated) sidebands, and this drove the development of the Threshold 800A back in 1975, where the nature of the distortion was considered as important as the size of the “single number.”

 

By 1991 when I started Pass Labs, I began to focus more on the specific character of second and third harmonics, and slowly settled into a character where negative-phase second harmonic dominates at low levels, segueing into symmetric third harmonic at higher power. The second fosters an illusion of expanded space and localization, and the third seems to improve dynamics. The distortion of these amplifiers is still quite low, but they are not sterile."

[PYP]

On 5/29/2020 at 3:50 PM, Speedskater said:

for loudspeakers 'Subjective' as in the Floyd Toole and j.j. (James D. Johnston) meaning of the word.

for accurate electronics, objective.

 

Floyd Toole (https://hub.yamaha.com/how-we-interpret-sound/  

 

 “The reality is that in the history of audio, the mythology that has built up about certain brands and speaker designs and electronic algorithms and so on … [but] precious few if any of those comments are based on double-blind tests, so the opinions people have expressed were partially formed before they ever heard a sound.  I did my first double-blind sound test in 1966. I thought I would [use] a [single] loudspeaker and that would be that, [but] this particular loudspeaker was awful. A friend brought [another] … loudspeaker in and it was very different. So I did [a] randomized double-blind listening test. It was very important [that] people not know what they were hearing.

 

I spent the rest of my [career] doing that.  Everything that followed since those early tests has confirmed those findings: The smoothest, flattest loudspeakers win double-blind listening tests. However, when you go into a store and remember what you may have heard about a product, or listen to a salesman, your mind is partially made up. When listening “blind,” without the biasing influences of price, size, brand and appearance, people turn out to be remarkably similar in [terms of] what they like and dislike.

 

Recordings sound better when played through neutral loudspeakers. The goal is for everybody in the audio universe to have neutral loudspeakers. And we’re not far away.  Most of the professionals and [many] loudspeaker manufacturers have figured it out. The problem is, the populace at large is not well-informed.”

[PYP]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Alex, my approach is to listen to gear, and if I hear problems, and

 

 

 

@fas42 this thread is meant to be about established audio designers whose designs are manufactured and sold in the audiophile marketplace.  If you are not one of those designers, please refrain from posting about your approach in this thread.  Thank you.  

[PYP]

Laurence Dickie (now at Vivid, but designed for B&W for many years)   https://www.soundstageultra.com/index.php/features-menu/general-interest-interviews-menu/242-searching-for-the-extreme-laurence-dickie-of-vivid-audio-part-one 

 

Ultimately, what I try to do is to give people pleasure -- essentially, to create something that allows people to sit there and listen to music in a way they find most emotional, in a manner that transports them to the place they wish to be. That is what it is all about to me -- the listening experience.

 

My belief is the loudspeaker should disappear and the person will be transported to the original performance. I do tend toward the goal of transparency. One analogy I often use is we are effectively providing a window to the performance, and our task is to make that window as clear and colorless as possible. I want the listener to be unaware of its presence so they really are transported to the place they want to be, which is usually right there with the musicians.

 

There is a danger, whenever you try to tailor to a particular sound, that it won’t work for anyone else. I would strive to be at the opposite end of tweaky, simply because there is a danger at the tweaky end. I’m not denying that some tweaks work, but we don’t always know why. And as an engineer, that not knowing is very, very difficult to work with. If you can’t actually nail a rational, causal explanation for what is going on, it makes progress very difficult. So I tend to stay away from that. I like to know why I’m doing something. I can give you a reason for every aspect of what goes on in a Vivid Audio loudspeaker.

[PYP]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Exactly!  The interesting thing is, if one actually listens to Vivid Audio loudspeakers in a decent set up, one finds that they sound fantastic-this happened to me long before I never knew anything about what Laurence Dickie's design process was (for all I knew he could have designed them by ear alone...), but right away I knew I was hearing something special.

Wow, and I did not even have to be blinded to be able to discern these speakers outstanding performance.

 

I had the same experience the first time I listened to the Mola Mola DAC circuit (in the Makua preamp).

 

What do you know, subjective experience of listening, not blinded in any way, picking up exceptionally well engineered products...

 

Completely agree that one can find low distortion components by listening.  One hears music -- flowing, unforced, natural, organic, exciting...  That said, one can just as easily discern live music from afar (before you can see the performers).  Perhaps these skills were developed by sapiens when we were hunter gatherers, when our senses were very tuned to our environment.  But that topic is for the great philosophers of our time (some of whom will hopefully comment in this thread).    

 

From that same interview with Dickie:  "...when the Giya G2 was measured in the anechoic chamber at Canada’s National Research Council, it set new benchmarks in several categories." (mentioned by the interviewer)  

 

Floyd Toole (mentioned above) was the senior research officer at the NRC for nearly 27 years. (says google) 

[PYP]

2 hours ago, audiobomber said:

"A competitively priced DAC that has great THD+N numbers ( jitter etc) and also sounds great….it's not the same thing."

 

"No matter how many filters we have (or LDOs) it seems to me that once noise reaches the PCB , it somehow changes the output. The funny thing is that I am unable to see it on THD+N numbers."

 

IOAN B. from Allo

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/review-allo-revolution-dac-part-1-r935/

 

And:  "Once you reach a certain level of THD+N (and I would argue for -110) no further SQ improvements can be had using THD as a guide. Further SQ improvement can be reached by tweaking the analog stage, ... clocks and more."

 

 

 

[PYP]

19 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I think most designers are both. They have to be. Selling equipment is subjective and saying yours is the best is also.

 

It does seem, however, that many designers leave the marketing/pricing/branding/external design to others.   It was interesting to me that for my own gear, the designer drove the industrial design and the name for the products.  In doing that, he was shaping the branding.  He did all this as a contractor, not as an employee.  Also interesting.