Dertonearm your comments appear to be trolls. I cant believe that youre actually serious. As you expound on your own philosophy however, you are taking crack shots at the work of some brilliant designers Ive had the opportunity to meet. Only because of this, am I following up. You obviously have much more free time than I do.
I did not say that Occams razor is the ONLY valid design approach, but rather that it is A VALID APPROACH, and one that I adhere to. Its a metaphor for an approach, and nothing more.
Time and again, as I look at audio components, the ones of lasting value are those which are the result of pairing down of unnecessary design elements, unnecessary points of failure, as well as ones that, while they may be based in solid theory, are an utter failure from a perspective of producing a musically involving component. We still dont know everything we need to measure, and unless you can contribute something to this body of knowledge, you have to deal with it.
With regard to the topic of paring down the unnecessary (or what doesnt work), Ill give you two examples.
*** NOTE *** while composing this post, I see that Atma-sphere made some parallel comments regarding feedback.
In the development of a phono stage, Mike Sanders of Quicksilver followed the path of regulation. It produced beautiful square waves ... and irritating musical reproduction. Try as he might, with different regulation schemes, he continued to return to an unregulated supply.
Before you go about misinterpreting these comments, I am NOT arguing for or against regulation. This example is about one designer who focussed on a solution based on the skills he brought to the table, with an eye on the final design goal satisfying musical reproduction. Someone else might solve this problem very nicely with a regulation scheme.
Theres a phono stage (name witheld) which uses 9 small signal tubes to regulate each channel of its power supply. Thes tubes in turn have their filament supply regulated by LM317 regulators. Whether this section of the power supply circuit is the reason for the bleached (lacking in tone color) and undynamic, and uninvolving sound, is something that I cant say for certain, but it is certainly characteristic of a design approach of: if a little is good, then more must be better.
I see this (approach of excess) over and over again in our industry the piling on of extra circuit elements. One designer I know calls it gratuitous parts selection. It fits into a pattern that too much hi-fi gear falls into gear that does everything right except satisfy the listener.
In writing the above, I can anticipate your hearty objections that there must be objective criteria to which the designer is held accountable. Well guess what? We (as an industry) are still trying to figure out what to measure.
I had breakfast with Ron Sutherland (Sutherland Electronics) at the Audiofest. Ron told me the key challenge he faces (from a design discipline perspective) is to know when hes done to stop piling unnecessary elements into a design.
Ron revisits his design goal to determine whether hes achieved it, in the context of the design architecture he laid out. A corralary of this is of course to re-visit the design to see if you inadvertently bypassed your end point, and to strip away the unnecessary components. This was the background to my Mark Twain quote about taking more time to write a shorter letter. It was apparently lost on you.
Lastly, your proclamation that something has only the value that ascribe to it is a bit extreme. The market as whole determines the value of something. You or I may disagree with the market, but we still have to deal with the fact that we are but two individuals with opinions. We can make an individual case for our opinions, and perhaps sway opinion in the process... or not. One thing is clear - we wont sell our case by proclamation.
Lastly, perhaps you didnt intend to come off as being arrogant, but this is how I interpret many of your posts. I believe that that English is not your first language, and perhaps this is the source of the communication problem. In any case, I have limited time to walk you through this.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
I did not say that Occams razor is the ONLY valid design approach, but rather that it is A VALID APPROACH, and one that I adhere to. Its a metaphor for an approach, and nothing more.
Time and again, as I look at audio components, the ones of lasting value are those which are the result of pairing down of unnecessary design elements, unnecessary points of failure, as well as ones that, while they may be based in solid theory, are an utter failure from a perspective of producing a musically involving component. We still dont know everything we need to measure, and unless you can contribute something to this body of knowledge, you have to deal with it.
With regard to the topic of paring down the unnecessary (or what doesnt work), Ill give you two examples.
*** NOTE *** while composing this post, I see that Atma-sphere made some parallel comments regarding feedback.
In the development of a phono stage, Mike Sanders of Quicksilver followed the path of regulation. It produced beautiful square waves ... and irritating musical reproduction. Try as he might, with different regulation schemes, he continued to return to an unregulated supply.
Before you go about misinterpreting these comments, I am NOT arguing for or against regulation. This example is about one designer who focussed on a solution based on the skills he brought to the table, with an eye on the final design goal satisfying musical reproduction. Someone else might solve this problem very nicely with a regulation scheme.
Theres a phono stage (name witheld) which uses 9 small signal tubes to regulate each channel of its power supply. Thes tubes in turn have their filament supply regulated by LM317 regulators. Whether this section of the power supply circuit is the reason for the bleached (lacking in tone color) and undynamic, and uninvolving sound, is something that I cant say for certain, but it is certainly characteristic of a design approach of: if a little is good, then more must be better.
I see this (approach of excess) over and over again in our industry the piling on of extra circuit elements. One designer I know calls it gratuitous parts selection. It fits into a pattern that too much hi-fi gear falls into gear that does everything right except satisfy the listener.
In writing the above, I can anticipate your hearty objections that there must be objective criteria to which the designer is held accountable. Well guess what? We (as an industry) are still trying to figure out what to measure.
I had breakfast with Ron Sutherland (Sutherland Electronics) at the Audiofest. Ron told me the key challenge he faces (from a design discipline perspective) is to know when hes done to stop piling unnecessary elements into a design.
Ron revisits his design goal to determine whether hes achieved it, in the context of the design architecture he laid out. A corralary of this is of course to re-visit the design to see if you inadvertently bypassed your end point, and to strip away the unnecessary components. This was the background to my Mark Twain quote about taking more time to write a shorter letter. It was apparently lost on you.
Lastly, your proclamation that something has only the value that ascribe to it is a bit extreme. The market as whole determines the value of something. You or I may disagree with the market, but we still have to deal with the fact that we are but two individuals with opinions. We can make an individual case for our opinions, and perhaps sway opinion in the process... or not. One thing is clear - we wont sell our case by proclamation.
Lastly, perhaps you didnt intend to come off as being arrogant, but this is how I interpret many of your posts. I believe that that English is not your first language, and perhaps this is the source of the communication problem. In any case, I have limited time to walk you through this.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier