First of all, technologies change. What might have been "best" before is not necessarily "best" after a technological breakthrough. For example, when compact discs came along, nobody in their right minds listened to records any more if the same music were available in the new format. Yet, for many years, records were the "best" way of delivering music to consumers. (Tape would certainly have been better, but the engineering design trade-offs have to include things such as cost, size, etc.)

Second, virtually every design in engineering represents a series of trade-offs, compromises in the real world. The quality of items is not linearly ordered. One item may be better at one thing and worse at another. For example, one amplifier may be capable of lower distortion within its operating limits, and another my have higher distortion with wider operating limits. Neither one is "best." One is better at one thing, and another is better at another thing. The form follows the function.

Martin

As an engineer I prefer to use the word "optimum", becasue there always is a optimum solutions to a problem and a given set of contraints. The "optimum" may not be the "best".

As an audio engineer the thing I have always liked about the "older" stuff is its simplicity. But, also as an engineer, we have come a long way in our understanding of audio and the materials and tools that we use in our designs. As engineers we would be doing a pretty poor job if somehow we hadn't improved on the old. I consider myself a good engineer so I think that I can improve on the old. But I always try and do it as simply as possible. Don't usematerials that don't matter. Don't add components that don't make a difference. Don't pay more for something if it isn't any better. In short - optimize the design.

In my expereince, the audio "optimum" is converging on some final principles. I won't belabor them all here, but a few are readily apparent. In electronics its minimize feedback. Among amplifier designers that I know (some of the best) this is pretty well standard thinking - tubes have always had this. In loudspeakers, it appears to be good polar control. The Harman guys and I certainly agree on this point. Room acoustics - well thats still in turmoil I'm affraid to say.

At any rate, I am partially agreing with you that as the constraints become less and our knowledge increases, the "optimum" solutions should (and will) converge on a finite set of answers. In principle this set can be as large as the number of degrees of freedom in the contraint set, but in reality, I think that it will be a whole lot less.

I think the paramters that govern whether we like or dislike a system are few: mainly frequency curve & distotion, but once the curve is reasonably flat, and the distortion reasonably low (say below 4%) then it becomes subjective.

Just my two cents.
-akhilesh

I have had people visit before during the summer and one guy drove from as far as southern NJ for an afternoon/evening listening session. One guy hauled a set of speakers up and we had a great time swapping the three sets of speakers in and out of my system. Then there is my buddy up the street and we go back and forth a few times a year.

If you want ot make the trip, I should have a new amp and preamp by the early summer. Any time after I replace my failing Adcom preamp would be a good time. Once fall starts, the school activities, dance lessons, and piano lessons grind starts again.

E-mail me off line in June and we can see if a date and time can be worked out,

Martin

• Quarter Wavelength Loudspeaker Design