**Why is science a starting point, yet not the end point?*
As a research scientist my answer is:
Electronics / electromagnetism / acoustics should be the stating point of every design, and biology / pshcyhoacoustics should be the end point of all designs.
So, the proper scientific workflow of audio gear design is from engineering science to biological science.
The last link (biological science) is ALWAYS missing, as most manufacturers want (and understand only) validation from electronics standpoint. Yet, all the electronic performance validation gets is whether a unit performs up to design specifications or not, gives only very vague pointers on how the human biological system interprets the results.
The reason for this design workflow deficency is two fold:
1., We know little of phscyoacoustics (that is, how our brain interprets soundwaves) - but we most certainly know more than enough that it should be the core of design that dares to call itself scientific. (If we leave out the human, then we are just designing lab equipment, and not stereo to play back music.)2., Shoddy planning rationale, half-scientific approach. (Sadly true for most fields today, the side-effect of over-specialization.) Specialized experts cannot see beyond their field of specialization, and thus neglect core parameters and considerations: for example, an electric engineer cannot see beyond the scope of his instruments and the electric domain, and does not even recognize that there is a human element - the very element that should be the goal of all his efforts.
Once we start involving psychoacoustics, I project that there will be a massive boom in music reproduction quality, and we will also see the birth of a working measure of sound quality.
As a research scientist my answer is:
Electronics / electromagnetism / acoustics should be the stating point of every design, and biology / pshcyhoacoustics should be the end point of all designs.
So, the proper scientific workflow of audio gear design is from engineering science to biological science.
The last link (biological science) is ALWAYS missing, as most manufacturers want (and understand only) validation from electronics standpoint. Yet, all the electronic performance validation gets is whether a unit performs up to design specifications or not, gives only very vague pointers on how the human biological system interprets the results.
The reason for this design workflow deficency is two fold:
1., We know little of phscyoacoustics (that is, how our brain interprets soundwaves) - but we most certainly know more than enough that it should be the core of design that dares to call itself scientific. (If we leave out the human, then we are just designing lab equipment, and not stereo to play back music.)2., Shoddy planning rationale, half-scientific approach. (Sadly true for most fields today, the side-effect of over-specialization.) Specialized experts cannot see beyond their field of specialization, and thus neglect core parameters and considerations: for example, an electric engineer cannot see beyond the scope of his instruments and the electric domain, and does not even recognize that there is a human element - the very element that should be the goal of all his efforts.
Once we start involving psychoacoustics, I project that there will be a massive boom in music reproduction quality, and we will also see the birth of a working measure of sound quality.