advertisement


Naim = bright? (part II)

Mescalito

pfm Member
Does this excuse their lack of ethics as engineers?

Dave, this is business we are talking about. Ethics had sod all to do with it. Bottom line was everything. If the whole bankers thing has not amply demonstrated that.....

Those managers may have started life as engineers. But they moved into management, where everything is measured against one thing & one thing only.

They no doubt carried out a risk assessment. And don't forget, these O rings had had problems any many previous flights, in some cases suffering complete loss of integrity on the inner ring, but the outer ones had always held. So whilst the engineer in them may have said hold the flight, the manager in them, under almost intolerable pressure from NASA, said "go".


Chris
 
I guess it all comes down to the bold part. Personally, being of a technical/scientific bent I would take it to mean measurably sonically undetectable rather than audibly by humans undetectable. That said, I'll freely admit to being a pedant. :D

Measurably sonically undetectable sounds to me like tautology. It can be measured and then experience shows whether that's likely to be sonically detectable or not. This experience has been gained over the past perhaps 60 or 70 years where the amount of distortions, frequency response differences, level differences etc that are audible have been known. This was achieved through listening tests with sufficiently large samples to be statistically valid. It doesn't mean, as I have said before, that someone somewhere couldn't hear 0.001% distortion or 0.5dB level differences on programme material, but that a sufficiently large sample of the population can't.

Alternatively, every change in a system can be tested by panel listening tests, involving sufficient numbers to make it statistically valid.

Measuring what has changed and drawing conclusions from that seems to me to be more efficient, but then I'm just an engineer.

S.
 
You are claiming that your equipment is microphonic, or sensitive to vibration, but at the same time insensitive to vibration. Do you see the conundrum?

The ball is in your court. An impulse test stimulates a system with every frequency, so why is it inappropriate? What is the physical mechanism you are invoking?

Paul

A pure zero duration impulse test would do so, but jabbing at something with a finger falls a long way from this criteria. There will most definitely be a discrete amount of time during which the component is being accelerated by the force applied to it which will determine the upper bounds of the frequency that the component is being stimulated with (a la Fourier transformation). So I would posit, (as a pedant about testing methodology), that in order to assert that a component is immune to the affects of vibration across the audible spectrum you would need to subject it to such vibration and then measure any output of either a) the component or b) the electronic device within which it is placed (in a "fully on" normal operating condition).

From there you can argue about whether even a positive result of such a test is audible within the context of a system playing music, but it would be nothing more than opinion unless again it was empirically measured. i.e. system set up in place and subjected to external vibration by playing music through the speakers and then some method of measuring if the output was distorted in any way by such a stimulus.
 
So even with the evidence that the HF response is actually slightly drooping at 20kHz, you still persist with the idea that they must somehow sound bright?

As to output inductors, have you any idea what the effect of this actually is at audio frequencies?

S.

But who said that "bright" was defined by the 20khz response?

This is where we all run in to the problem of meaning again. Personally I'd have said that 20khz was way to high for most people to perceive in any true sonic way. In my own experience of building a few speakers, (and using my own subjective opinion of course), bright would be more the region around 12khz. But then many others would probably relate to the "presence" region (which I've always taken to be 6-8khz) as being the originator of a "bright" sound. Others may even say the 4-6khz region is responsible for "brightness" where I would say that was the spectrum that leads to "forwardness". So there we have the issue..
 
But who said that "bright" was defined by the 20khz response?

This is where we all run in to the problem of meaning again. Personally I'd have said that 20khz was way to high for most people to perceive in any true sonic way. In my own experience of building a few speakers, (and using my own subjective opinion of course), bright would be more the region around 12khz. But then many others would probably relate to the "presence" region (which I've always taken to be 6-8khz) as being the originator of a "bright" sound. Others may even say the 4-6khz region is responsible for "brightness" where I would say that was the spectrum that leads to "forwardness". So there we have the issue..

Either way, there's no evidence from the frequency response plots that there's any boost at any frequency, whether presence, brightness or forwardness. Just a gentle roll off at the very top end, insufficient to have any audible effect.

S.
 
Dave, this is business we are talking about. Ethics had sod all to do with it. Bottom line was everything. If the whole bankers thing has not amply demonstrated that.....

Those managers may have started life as engineers. But they moved into management, where everything is measured against one thing & one thing only.

They no doubt carried out a risk assessment. And don't forget, these O rings had had problems any many previous flights, in some cases suffering complete loss of integrity on the inner ring, but the outer ones had always held. So whilst the engineer in them may have said hold the flight, the manager in them, under almost intolerable pressure from NASA, said "go".


Chris

Sorry Chris, I understand you intended that as merely an explanation but it excuses folks to forgive (or just forget) as it's simply the way business is conducted today which just magnifies a lack of ethics or a sense of what's right.

regards,

dave
 
Sorry Chris, I understand you intended that as merely an explanation but it excuses folks to forgive (or just forget) as it's simply the way business is conducted today which just magnifies a lack of ethics or a sense of what's right.

regards,

dave

The only point I was trying to make was that engineers do engineering & managers do management. It makes little difference that the managers were once engineers.

Chris
 
Who were management - school lunch counter ladies? No, they were engineers.

No they were managers. They were also predominantly American, white, male and over 40.

From one of the report authors:

Feynman’s account reveals a disconnect between NASA’s engineers and executives that was far more striking than he expected. His interviews of NASA’s high-ranking managers revealed startling misunderstandings of elementary concepts. He concluded that the NASA management’s space shuttle reliability estimate was fantastically unrealistic. He warned in his appendix to the commission’s report, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
 
No they were managers. They were also predominantly American, white, male and over 40.

From one of the report authors:

Feynman’s account reveals a disconnect between NASA’s engineers and executives that was far more striking than he expected. His interviews of NASA’s high-ranking managers revealed startling misunderstandings of elementary concepts. He concluded that the NASA management’s space shuttle reliability estimate was fantastically unrealistic. He warned in his appendix to the commission’s report, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

Unlike much of the HiFi Industry, where fantasy takes precedent over reality.

S.
 
No they were managers. They were also predominantly American, white, male and over 40.

From one of the report authors:

Feynman’s account reveals a disconnect between NASA’s engineers and executives that was far more striking than he expected. His interviews of NASA’s high-ranking managers revealed startling misunderstandings of elementary concepts. He concluded that the NASA management’s space shuttle reliability estimate was fantastically unrealistic. He warned in his appendix to the commission’s report, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

DLF,

My source stated management were engineers unless I'm mistaken. I'll double-check tonight once I'm off duty and report back.

regards,

dave
 
DLF,

My source stated management were engineers unless I'm mistaken. I'll double-check tonight once I'm off duty and report back.

regards,

dave

Don't forget the boosters were provided by a third party and the engineers actually responsible for designing them said 'don't go'. NASA decided to go and whether the decision was made by former engineers is irrelevant. They had nothing to do with the booster rockets design or testing themselves, they were acting as management.
 
You would hope once an engineer, always an engineer and retaining the morals and ethics of the discipline to stand up and say no, this is wrong and dangerous.

Back to the reason why I brought up the Challenger incident...do any of you believe engineers are infallible and all knowing?
 
You would hope once an engineer, always an engineer and retaining the morals and ethics of the discipline to stand up and say no, this is wrong and dangerous.

Back to the reason why I brought up the Challenger incident...do any of you believe engineers are infallible and all knowing?

Of course not. But what we are talking about here (the design of hi-fi kit is nowhere near the cutting edge, unlike making a re-useable solid fuel booster was at the time). They know how electronics work to a level of certainty and precision way, way beyond that required to faithfully and accurately amplify an analog AC signal.

With regard to managers who are ex-engineers, you tend to find that engineers who move into management are the ones who were not particularly good engineers. The good' uns remain engineers. A bit loke "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Chris

Chris
 
Or, as Paul Haney put it in the TV commentary of one of the early Apollo missions on the launch pad, "How would you feel sitting on top of two million parts, each one having been manufactured by the lowest bidder on a government contract."
 
Don't forget the boosters were provided by a third party and the engineers actually responsible for designing them said 'don't go'. NASA decided to go and whether the decision was made by former engineers is irrelevant. They had nothing to do with the booster rockets design or testing themselves, they were acting as management.

Just did a bit of quick research while at lunch and I stand corrected regarding my ability to prove NASA management were comprised of engineers. I cannot prove this using my current source but I'd say it's a strong possibility managment had engineering backgrounds (supported to an extent in the quote below.) Hopefully NASA wouldn't award such positions to lunch counter ladies.

Regardless, you might be interested in this:

"The Challenger disaster has several issues which are relevant to engineers. These issues raise many questions which may not have any definite answers, but can serve to heighten the awareness of engineers when faced with a similar situation. One of the most important issues deals with engineers who are placed in management positions. It is important that these managers not ignore their own engineering experience, or the expertise of their subordinate engineers. Often a manager, even if she has engineering experience, is not as up to date on current engineering practices as are the actual practicing engineers. She should keep this in mind when making any sort of decision that involves an understanding of technical matters. Another issue is the fact that managers encouraged launching due to the fact that there was insufficient low temperature data. Since there was not enough data available to make an informed decision, this was not, in their opinion, grounds for stopping a launch. This was a reversal in the thinking that went on in the early years of the space program, which discouraged launching until all the facts were known about a particular problem. This same reasoning can be traced back to an earlier phase in the shuttle program, when upper-level NASA management was alerted to problems in the booster design, yet did not halt the program until the problem was solved. To better understand the responsibility of the engineer, some key elements of the professional responsibilities of an engineer should be examined. This will be done from two perspectives: the implicit social contract between engineers and society, and the guidance of the codes of ethics of professional societies. As engineers test designs for ever-increasing speeds, loads, capacities and the like, they must always be aware of their obligation to society to protect the public welfare. After all, the public has provided engineers, through the tax base, with the means for obtaining an education and, through legislation, the means to license and regulate themselves. In return, engineers have a responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of the public in all of their professional efforts. This is part of the implicit social contract all engineers have agreed to when they accepted admission to an engineering college. The first canon in the ASME Code of Ethics urges engineers to "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties." Every major engineering code of ethics reminds engineers of the importance of their responsibility to keep the safety and well being of the public at the top of their list of priorities. Although company loyalty is important, it must not be allowed to override the engineer's obligation to the public. Marcia Baron, in an excellent monograph on loyalty, states: "It is a sad fact about loyalty that it invites...single-mindedness. Single-minded pursuit of a goal is sometimes delightfully romantic, even a real inspiration. But it is hardly something to advocate to engineers, whose impact on the safety of the public is so very significant. Irresponsibility, whether caused by selfishness or by magnificently unselfish loyalty, can have most unfortunate consequences."

Source:

http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm

regards,

dave
 
Of course not. But what we are talking about here (the design of hi-fi kit is nowhere near the cutting edge, unlike making a re-useable solid fuel booster was at the time). They know how electronics work to a level of certainty and precision way, way beyond that required to faithfully and accurately amplify an analog AC signal.

With regard to managers who are ex-engineers, you tend to find that engineers who move into management are the ones who were not particularly good engineers. The good' uns remain engineers. A bit loke "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Chris

Chris

Which brings up a good point Chris.

Nevermind what I hear in a consistent and reliable fashion over a period of decades and can point out in a blind test, why should I trust an alleged audio engineer here who I know nothing about or even five audio engineers elsewhere who make a claim based on the results of limited studies with a handful of components and a handful of listeners? Why shouldn't I trust all the engineers in the R&D department of a reputable firm instead who state the effect exists?

How do I know which group is right if I'm to rely on essentially what is belief since it's really all hearsay unless I prove it to myself by listening with my own ears?

regards,

dave
 
Tread creep reaching red zone.....

I feel an unsubscribe coming on. Waste of time really as those who don't know their arse from their elbow are going to continue to insist that shelves and mains leads and flooby dust are important and are in no why whatsoever going to admit that they are wrong. Ever tried persuading a committed Christian that there is actually no god??? They have so much faith (IE so brainwashed and gullible) that you will never in a month of Sundays get anywhere. It's as pointless as trying to teach a pig to sing; it just wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I'll get my coat....
 
Which brings up a good point Chris.

Nevermind what I hear in a consistent and reliable fashion over a period of decades and can point out in a blind test, why should I trust an alleged audio engineer here who I know nothing about or even five audio engineers elsewhere who make a claim based on the results of limited studies with a handful of components and a handful of listeners? Why shouldn't I trust all the engineers in the R&D department of a reputable firm instead who state the effect exists? How do I know which group is right if I'm to rely on essentially what is belief since it's really all hearsay unless I prove it to myself by listening with my own ears?

regards,

dave

If the effect exists outside of the imagination of the marketing department of your "reputable firm", it will be measurable. If these same engineers have discovered an effect which is not explainable by a physics as mature as that describing electronics, they are in line for a Nobel prize.

And listening with your own ears will merely reinforce what you want to believe.

All you actually have to do is buy any competently designed amplifier & then get on with enjoying the music. By all means, buy your favourite manufacturer's bits of kit. As long as it is a transparent design, it will be as good as, but no better, than any other transparent design.

Chris
 
Tread creep reaching red zone.....

I feel an unsubscribe coming on. Waste of time really as those who don't know their arse from their elbow are going to continue to insist that shelves and mains leads and flooby dust are important and are in no why whatsoever going to admit that they are wrong. Ever tried persuading a committed Christian that there is actually no god??? They have so much faith (IE so brainwashed and gullible) that you will never in a month of Sundays get anywhere. It's as pointless as trying to teach a pig to sing; it just wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I'll get my coat....

Jez, take off that coat and perhaps try my approach to these threads.
Visit them perhaps only once or twice a week, slap the brainwashed and gullible around the face a bit to make your point, then sod off and do something useful. That's just as effective at getting across the point than getting embroiled in pedantic arguments with people who as you rightly say, don't know their arse from their elbow.

Another tip with these long circular threads is to never bother going back more than two pages. Whatever sits there is quickly forgotten :)

Spend your time on the useful stuff, like will X cartridge work in Y arm etc.

regards,
 


advertisement


Back
Top