# Audio Critic's 10 biggest lies in audio, Your responses



## haydenlake

I'm not trolling (or whatever you call it) I'm just wondering if you agree with this review. Much of what it states seems to make sense (electronically) (and oddly enough I don't know that much about electricity). 

 What interests me the most are the topics of cables, power conditioners, and burn in.

 Thanks,

 b

http://www.theaudiocritic.com (go to samples and then 10 biggest lies)

 the file was too large to attatch.


----------



## Welly Wu

That was a great and free webzine article. It crystallizes a lot for me right now in my young journey as an audiophile. I always knew that digital is superior to analog and that two very high end digital / analog systems will sound of comparable quality sans the convenience and reliability of the digital rig (not to mention the greater flexibility). I am in agreement with the listening test lie in its truest sense too: no fool would subject himself or herself solely to listening tests and call that a living. You simply must have a consistent application of testing procedures for all manner of things including cables. Now, the issue of cables is number one on the author's list of Top 10 Audio Lies and most of me agrees -- to a point. I have discovered that very high end cables and low cost yet quality cables are nearly indistinguishable even when I know which cables I'm testing and switching! Part of me agrees with the argument against power conditioners except I do have one important statement to make: what about your particular house's electrical system? I live in a home that is at least 85 years old. In fact, it is a historical landmark in West Orange, NJ on Park Avenue. So, the mere idea of tearing up the electrical wiring to make it meet or exceed NEC 2006 is impossible for me. When my air conditioners, refrigerators, and televisions along with computers get turned on or off, it effects my audio and video system -- I know because I took away the fancy power conditioner and cables one day. I got fading and inconsistent signals, interference, dropouts, etc when all of the other appliances or computers were cranking away. The burn in lie is a damned lie too. I was switching out my top of the line ultra expensive Cardas cables with my quality Blue Jeans Cable and stock power cords a few days ago. Cardas product literature tells its owners to allow for 500 -- FIVE HUNDRED -- HOURS of continuous burn in time before it sounds good. As another kicker, Cardas says that you can't touch the cable after it's burned in or it has to start from the beginning. It's a freakin' cable, not some kind of crime scene with the yellow do not trespass tape all over the audio gear! The CD tweaks are pretty much a personal preference issue for me, but I have to say that my Ringmat Statmat CDi Blue has made little improvement in terms of both audio/video improvements. Sort of in line with cables in terms of the same and small yield of discernable differences.

 This article is a watershed for me in my young audiophile career. It is no wonder why so few Americans want to become audiophiles in the first place. I'm saving this article on my computer and I'm backing up that file along with printing two hardcopies.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Quote:


 Your responses 
 

There is nothing worse than a deaf audiophile.


----------



## PsychoZX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CRESCENDOPOWER* 
_There is nothing worse than a deaf audiophile. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Exactly. That list is bull.


----------



## Czilla9000

I concur with him for the most part.

 Let me tell you a little secret...


 There is one thing the author does not consider when it comes to cables - euphonic distortion. He talks about euphonic distortion when it comes to vacuum tubes, but says nothing of it when it comes to cables.

 A Nordost Valhalla _will_ sound different from a stock cable. Why? Because it distorts more! Independent measurements have shown that the Valhalla has really, really, really high inductance. (Nordost is one of the few companies to submit there cables to DBT testing... I wonder why) The inductance will help filter out any RFI or EMI signals out of the audio stream, but if high enough could roll off some highs, making the system less bright. High capacitance will also roll off highs, but raising the inductance is safer. 

 Many cables, including my own RatShack fusions, include ferrite chokes to raise inductance.

 Those of you who were around two and three years ago will remember the Virtual Dynamics craze. Everyone, it seemed, was forking over $1000 for one of their "Nite" cables. The VD cables were famous for their pebble/powder imprugnated jackets. The company claimed that the pebbles helped dampen vibrations for better audio, which is BS. In reality, as Jude found out, the pebbles were ferromagnetic. In a sense, the cable was a giant ferrite choke!!
 (Note: PS Audio adopted something similar for their power cables.)

 Transparent Cables also intentionally raises inductance the good ol' fashion way - inductors! Inside each of their cables lies an inductor, or something similar to a Zobel network. MIT cables do the same thing.

 Goetz cables are known for high capacitance as well. Back when Zu Cable posted the specs for their cables, one could notice that the cables had greater and greater capacitance as you went up the line. (The 'better' the model, the greater the capacitance).


----------



## JJ15k

I would also agree with the article, even though I have a tube amp (good amp, fairly priced, tubes allow you to change sound coloration, plus it s cool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ).
 The point made about inductance and capacitance in cable is a VERY good one, and very refreshing after all the nonsense we always hear(no offense)


----------



## Beauregard

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Welly Wu* 
_This article is a watershed for me in my young audiophile career._

 

I'm a huge fan of Peter Aczel and hope to make time to write more about my experiences with hi-end audio that led me to appreciate the objectivist point of view.

 For now, let me express my amazement that someone as thoughtful, knowledgeable, and curious as Welly is *JUST NOW* discovering the viewpoint that's shared by virtually the entire universe of credentialed academics and professional engineers in all fields related to audio equipment design and human perception. It's a statement of the extent to which the hi-end mythmakers have utterly dominated the flow of information to consumers.

 I think it would be very beneficial, especially for people new to quality audio, to have a constructive - and civil - discussion of objectivism vs subjectivism in audio evaluation. This thread would serve nicely - but I imagine it would require a special dispensation by the mods allowing suspension of the DBT rule for it to proceed in this forum.

 For further reading, you can get to Aczel's write-up on the Benchmark DAC1 via the link page at the Benchmark site.

 Archived articles from The Audio Critic and similar can be found here and here.

 And I think everyone who wants to learn more should do as Welly did and order the back issues of The Audio Critic. Nascent audiophiles with open minds will find the contents most illuminating - not to mention money saving. Well worth the asking price.

 Best,
 Beau


----------



## PhilS

He's wrong on several points. (His position on tubes, IMO, is ridiculous and that alone undercuts most of the rest of what he says.) The dogmatic nature of his statements also undercuts his argument. The more certain someone is that they are right on these issues, the more questionable their conclusions often are, IMO. He's probably deaf (in the audiophile) sense, or he's figured out a good way to make some extra money. There's always people willing to pay money to people who will tell them what they want to hear. This applies to both sides of the issue.


----------



## Len

Another vote for the article being absurd. I strongly disagree with 9 of his 10 assertions (which I find pretty amazing).

 Talk about timing: I just spent the better part of last evening auditioning the dozen+ cables I have around the house. There is a clear, discernable difference in some cables, while others sound very similiar. FWIW, Nordost was pretty terrible


----------



## aerius

The writer's worldview on audio can be summed up as "digital good, analogue bad, everything sounds the same except the speakers". I don't know what his priorities and preferences for sound are, but if it works for him that's cool.


----------



## recstar24

i agree with him about the golden ears thing - with the exception of the actual music phenomenon known as perfect pitch, i think good ears are more of a being trained and learning what to hear and how to hear, vs. some innate born with golden talent that no one has access to other than the blessed recipients of golden ears.

 With practice and experience and a good mentor, we are all capable of developing our ears to easily discern subtle differences beween audio equipment.


----------



## philodox

Most of this article is complete garbage in my opinion. He is right on a few of the points I am sure, but on a whole his arguments seem to be even more baseless and fervent than the audiophiles that he is attacking. It reads like a conspiracy theory newspaper! I won't be wasting my money on any of his publications any time soon.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *recstar24* 
_i agree with him about the golden ears thing - with the exception of the actual music phenomenon known as perfect pitch, i think good ears are more of a being trained and learning what to hear and how to hear, vs. some innate born with golden talent that no one has access to other than the blessed recipients of golden ears.
_

 

 I agree with this, and in some ways it reminds me of people who can tell subtle differences between wines. I have very little capacity at this time to distinguish between wines, as I don't drink wine. It would be easy for me to say that all wine taste the same. But I bet if I spent a few years training (i.e., tasting) and learning to understand the differences between wines, I would be much more accomplished at identifying and appreciating subtle differences.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *recstar24* 
_i agree with him about the golden ears thing - with the exception of the actual music phenomenon known as perfect pitch, i think good ears are more of a being trained and learning what to hear and how to hear, vs. some innate born with golden talent that no one has access to other than the blessed recipients of golden ears.

 With practice and experience and a good mentor, we are all capable of developing our ears to easily discern subtle differences beween audio equipment._

 

Recstar, you know this isn't true. I know you've been trained musically, and I know you know that some of your colleagues just don't have good ears no matter how hard they train. I'm a middle of the pack guy, but there are people on both ends of the spectrum and that's generally where they stay.


----------



## recstar24

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* 
_Recstar, you know this isn't true. I know you've been trained musically, and I know you know that some of your colleagues just don't have good ears no matter how hard they train. I'm a middle of the pack guy, but there are people on both ends of the spectrum and that's generally where they stay._

 

Yes, trust me I'm aware of that, i am a high school choir director and imagine trying to teach a male kid smack dab in puberty and changing his voice, trying to train him to hear pitches and use his falsetto properly when the damn kid cant even hit the pitch more or less think it (sorry for mini-rant). 

 I was thinking on a more fundamental level however with audio equipment. I feel confident that regardless of the quality of one's hearing (barring any hearing impairments), i could train an individual to at least be able to dscern various differences and determine for themselves what sounds good and bad. Now, dealing with someone who is tone-deaf, that is a completely different issue, and maybe i am seeing this with rose-colored glasses (...why wont my sopranos sing with some balls, they sound like cackling hyenas...), but i really do believe that even the most lower functioning head-fier can be trained to at least be able to trust what they are hearing and use some kind of foundation to guide them in NOT wasting their money.


----------



## clarke68

I certainly agree with the general sentiment of his article, and there are plenty of solid facts present. However Aczel is an unfortunate spokesperson for the objectivist "movement" because this article has nearly as many relevant facts left out, and contains smatterings of misinformation and oversimplification.

 For example: 

 Rule #2 - no mention of the sonic differences between odd-order and even-order harmonic distortion. Sure, a typical tube amp has more distortion than a typical solid-state amp...congratulations, Aczel, you can read a spec sheet. It's the _type_ of distortion that makes a difference. Fact is, there are good and bad tube amps and there are good and bad solid state amps...you pays your money and you makes your choice. But to say the only possibilities someone might prefer a tube amp is because they are deluded or have corrupted taste is oversimplification and merely a dogmatic imposition of his own subjective opinion.

 Rule #3 - no mention of jitter, which is the main reason why digital can sound hard and edgy. 

 Rule #4 - Dismisses the only legitimate argument against ABX tests as "psychobabble on the subject of aural perception".

 I'd like to see someone write this again, but with less attitude and more solid engineering data. It'll require a longer article, but maybe it can happen now that _The Audio Critic_ is no longer confined by the financial realities of the print world.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *recstar24* 
_Yes, trust me I'm aware of that, i am a high school choir director and imagine trying to teach a male kid smack dab in puberty and changing his voice, trying to train him to hear pitches and use his falsetto properly when the damn kid cant even hit the pitch more or less think it (sorry for mini-rant). 

 I was thinking on a more fundamental level however with audio equipment. I feel confident that regardless of the quality of one's hearing (barring any hearing impairments), i could train an individual to at least be able to dscern various differences and determine for themselves what sounds good and bad. Now, dealing with someone who is tone-deaf, that is a completely different issue, and maybe i am seeing this with rose-colored glasses (...why wont my sopranos sing with some balls, they sound like cackling hyenas...), but i really do believe that even the most lower functioning head-fier can be trained to at least be able to trust what they are hearing and use some kind of foundation to guide them in NOT wasting their money._

 


 Yes, I think it's your background in music _education_ that is coloring your glasses


----------



## Publius

Well, Audio Critic doesn't seem to try very hard to _persuade_ anybody towards an objectivist slant. If it were, it wouldn't be bodyslamming people any chance it can. It is simply geared towards an objectivist audience, that's all. I think the top 10 is only really useful to educate people who were skeptical about audio in the first place.

 I guess you could think of AC as a hifi mag written by a bunch of HA guys. Which is not a bad thing at all, even if you don't subscribe to the objectivist worldview. The reviews are replete with detailed measurements.


----------



## JJ15k

It s true he doesn t support his arguments with enough evidence and that there are some oversimplifications, I agree with clarke it would be nice to have a longer ,more detailled article.
 On the technical issues I believe that most of it has been said and in the end either you agree that current physical theories are precise enough to determine what you hear or not.
 But of course in the end, what s important is that you are happy


----------



## viator122

I don't really know enough about the technical issues to say if he's right or not, but I do know that I do not like the dogmatic, domineering way in which this guy writes. He's way too pejorative and I feel he's insulting. He's not only saying that tubes, cables, and vinyl gear are inferior, he's also calling manufacturers, dealers and reviewers of these products liars. He's saying they're dishonest for associating with this stuff. I don't think the writer is credible.


----------



## PsychoZX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *viator122* 
_I don't think the writer is credible._

 

I think that is a bit of an understatement. IMO this guy is a completely close-minded wanabe know it all.


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_bodyslamming_

 

Oh, man...that is the funniest thing I've read in a while...a "sensationalist tabloid" take on the audio industry! I don't know enough about the guys mentioned to be able to agree or disagree, but this guy's rabid, "gonzo journalism" approach to his methodical, engineering-based opinions on audio gear certainly represents the most unique editorial position that I know of.


----------



## clarke68

Nosing around the site that Publius posted the 'bodyslamming' article, I found this, which I completely agree with. Well, I completely agree with the first three points, anyway. Points 4 and 5 are vague and conditional enough that he essentially isn't saying anything. Points 6 and 7 are repeats from the 'Top 10' article.


----------



## PhilS

From the "bodyslamming" site appears this statement:

 "What about the preamp, CD player, and other line-level electronics?
 As long as they meet the fairly exacting specifications expected these days--and most of them do--they will sound the same, regardless of price. That does not mean, of course, that some are not far superior in measured performance (well below the threshold of audibility) and construction quality."

 All CD players sound the same? Yeah, right. And all beer tastes the same. And all cars drive the same. And all video displays look the same. Man, life must be really dull for people whose senses are so dull.


----------



## Aman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PsychoZX* 
_Exactly. That list is bull._

 

Well, not all of it. But the majority, yes.

 You cannot say what IS better and what ISN'T - that's a matter of preference. It shows an incredibly imature way of comparison on the author's part. This guy obviously never went to journalism school.

 Tubes are NOT as good as SS? Solid State can do anything Tubes can do better? BULL! Who's to say what I like better, and what I think is a more realistic sound? I personally DO think that tubes sound better at the expense of minor detail - am I just blatantly wrong? Am I stupid for paying more money than I should? I am obviously paying the extra cash for a damn good reason, or else I wouldn't be!

 I will make sure to absolutely never endorse anything from that periodical... ever.


----------



## ooheadsoo

*sigh* Some of you are saying the exact "faux" arguments he made on your behalf.


----------



## PsychoZX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Aman* 
_Well, not all of it. But the majority, yes._

 

The only point where I agree with the author is the cd treatments.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* 
_*sigh* Some of you are saying the exact "faux" arguments he made on your behalf._

 

What's to sigh about? He thinks their "faux" arguments, and apparently you agree with the writer. That's your subjective opinion, and it's far from absolute or exclusively valid.


----------



## ooheadsoo

The faux arguments are strawmen deliberately phrased to sound stupid.

 Oh yeah, if you believe in bi-WIRING, I don't know what to say. Dunno what you can possibly gain by hooking up 2 wires from 1 amp to 1 speaker. Bi-amping is a different matter, but I don't know why people get caught up in bi-wiring. 

 I also have problems with people who listen without skepticism. Do you know how easily your ears are fooled? Sometimes, I can't help but think that the golden eared are the most deluded of us all. There's no way to verify your "subjectivity." People don't do this kind of thing with the eyes. It's a centuries old issue with the senses. No one questions the eyes because they're viewed as penetrating. However the other senses are all pentrated and therefore susceptible to suggestion. How can you tell if you're not imagining things? I think every frugal audiophile should abx for their own sakes.

 Is there anything I agree with? Maybe power. Maybe tubes. More likely analog. But they all deserve at least an honest to yourself A/B test, if not abx. I don't trust anything I didn't hear in the last couple of seconds unless it was a HUGE difference, and in my books, huge differences don't come by every day.


----------



## DevilDog

This article is one I could have written a while back. I used to argue with a friend of mine that all cd players are the same, all cables are the same, etc. I've learned a bit since then. I'm not from Missouri, but I didn't really take anyone's word for what I considered "snake oil." I did my own listening. I drew my own conclusions.
 I write this as I sit here listening to a cd (I know, I know) through my Emu 1212m, (which is better than my Audigy) going to my MPX3 amp, (yes it sounds better with an amp) to my Zu Mobius cable, (it brightens and extends) then to my Sennheiser HD650s, (which sound much better after they burned in). I can hear all of these improvements very clearly. There's really no room for argument.
 Now, I admit, some things haven't been proven to me. I still believe that a well made interconnect will do the job. I'm not convinced that solid state components have a burn in time (headphone drivers are different). And I still don't know about power conditioners. I'm not ready to say they can't make a difference. Not anymore. I've learned. I've been proven wrong about some things I "knew" back then. Things that I can't explain electronically but that I can tell make an audible difference.
 So, what do I think about the article? He's got a lot to learn.


----------



## Born2bwire

Let's see. On cables I agree pretty much with all that he said, tubes yes, anti-digital yes, listening test eh, don't know enough about feedback to have an opinoin, burn-in somewhat, biwire yes from what I know of it, power conditioner somewhat, CD treatment yes, golden ear yes.

 The stuff with the cables is pretty much spot on with my own impressions. They do not scale in performance like any other equipment but I do believe in buying low priced audiophile cables for the craftsmanship, quality, and attention to sheilding. With tubes, its far easier to get solid state amps with better measurements. Ideally, CD's would be perfect but the real world implementation proves otherwise. But for accurate reproduction, I would take that over a process of extracting a compressed signal by dragging a rock along a continually degrading plastic groove and then passing it all through an analog filter.

 Personally though, the attitude and voice of the article is horrible and so is the narrow views that he holds. A lot of this, like tubes and vinyl, lie with personal taste. With tubes, it isn't about the measurements, it's about the end product and how it sounds which this is why I own a tube amp. I have a vinyl setup because a lot of the digital remasters I have are not as good as the original analogs and I like the warmer sound. Most of his points have validity to them, but his absolution prevents taking into account other views and his brevity prevents him from providing any proof to those that are not already in the know. Like with cables, he writes tersely about transmission line theorem but this isn't going to be of any evidence to anyone but electrical engineers, same with citing Nyquist (which he then berates people that don't understand it).

 EDIT: Does the 2000 posts without being banned happy dance.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Born2bwire* 
_The stuff with the cables is pretty much spot on with my own impressions. They do not scale in performance like any other equipment but I do believe in buying low priced audiophile cables for the craftsmanship, quality, and attention to sheilding._

 

Do you recognize any sonic difference in cables, or none whatsoever as the author pontificates?

  Quote:


 With tubes, its far easier to get solid state amps with better measurements. 
 

I assume you, like the author, would rather aim for quantitative, empirical values versus qualitative, personal experiences. I find significant differences in amps that have comparable measurements. Perhaps I'm fooling myself, or perhaps our limited measurements aren't quantifying all the human senses can interpret. The human body is an amazing instrument.

 Solid state vanguards can have their numbers. I'll take my music anyday, colored or flawed as my preferences may be.

  Quote:


 Ideally, CD's would be perfect but the real world implementation proves otherwise. But for accurate reproduction, I would take that over a process of extracting a compressed signal by dragging a rock along a continually degrading plastic groove and then passing it all through an analog filter. 
 

I prefer digital too, mostly for its convenience and consistency. But analog sounds very different, and I can definitely appreciate vinyl's full-bodied sound.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

It really is just a simple matter of subjective versus objective. Objectively speaking, he is correct for the most part that say a $4000 power cable will not make the system sound better (i.e. measureably). However, he dismisses the subjective aspect of taste, ignoring that the cable might make the system sound different, and perhaps subjectively better to someone's particular taste, even if it technically has more distortion or the like. The more stuff I listen to, the more I start to believe the objectivists though, at least in that meaning I naturally prefer a sound which is objectively better.


----------



## Born2bwire

My main viewpoint is that as an engineer, I understand a lot of the science and design considerations behind audio equipment. But at the same time, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something as subjective as audio, as long as it is within reason.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_Do you recognize any sonic difference in cables, or none whatsoever as the author pontificates?_

 

I felt that I could hear a difference between the cheap Radio Shack RCA's and my first pair of Nordost Sonic Winds. I also feel that I can hear a difference with my Cardas cable on my Sennheisers. I wouldn't have bought them at the time if I did not feel they were worthwhile. At the same time though, my main area of study is electromagnetics so I have had some study into the design and properties of cables. We can use a simple model for cables and properly design them for applications from DC all the way up to the gigahertz (microwave) range. At the gigahertz range, one tends to start using more exact models and simulations in their design. In transmission line modeling, the RLC that he quoted are the three characteristics the define the model (in addition to G and conductivity if you want to model it as lossy). This is fine for RF and many microwave applications. So what is usually stated in regards to cable design like skin effect and such is a valid point for megahertz and up applications, but I would never hear of it in regards to short runs of kilohertz-fed cables. Other concerns like shielding are quite valid. The Nordost cable configurations are subsceptible to outside noise and I have picked up radio stations from them. The configuration of the cable, like coax versus the signal ground signal in dielectric of Nordost makes a difference. So I am of the mind that low priced audiophile cables are ok and valid buys. But only buy them because you feel they make a difference and not based on anything else.

  Quote:


 I assume you, like the author, would rather aim for quantitative, empirical values versus qualitative, personal experiences. I find significant differences in amps that have comparable measurements. Perhaps I'm fooling myself, or perhaps our limited measurements aren't quantifying all the human senses can interpret. The human body is an amazing instrument. Solid state vanguards can have their numbers. I'll take my music anyday, colored or flawed as my preferences may be. 
 

Well, just numbers-wise solid state carries the day, that's all I'm pointing out and why I agree on the tubes argument. But tubes do have a different sound to them and I like being able to voice my amp by changing out the tubes. So like you said, the numbers aren't everything.


----------



## Ferbose

I agree with about 70% of the article, but I don't agree on the following issues:

 #2: Vacuum Tube Lie
 Vacuum tube has more THD+N than SS--sure. But do we understand how noise is analyzed by the brain in relation to perceived audio quality? No, not even close. We can measure noise in many ways, but we can't directly categorize them in terms of good sounding or bad sounding. Intermodulation distortion from complex music signals is very complicated and I have yet to seen anyone who claims to know how to quantify them in a meaningful way. Different kinds of tubes and transistors have different characteristics in terms of distortion. Using a simple measurement, such as THD+N, to speculate on the audio quality of a piece of electonics is very misleading. The author claims that tubes don't have a place in modern hi-fi audio. That is a joke. Look at pro-audio catalogs like Sweetwater's. Some of the finest microphones and mic preamps today still use tubes. Some of these things sell for thousands of dollars per unit and are used by well-respected audio engineers. Do serious recording engineers buy $1000 cables? Probably never.
 But why do they buy $3000 tube microphones from Neumann and AKG? Clearly, tubes have some charming sonic qualities. 


 #3: Antidigital lie
 Sure, digital audio is perfect as a transmission medium, but is there not a price to pay for such perfection? The price is that you have to convert analog signal to digital and back to analog somewhere. Both A/D and D/A conversions are not perfect. Jitter during A/D and D/A (clock accuracy) is one problem and another problem is distortions arising from band-limiting. In digital recording and playback you have to apply filtering during A/D and D/A to remove signal/noise above 22 kHz. This filtering occurs too close to the audio srectrum and introduces several types of artifacts, such as alias and phase distortion. Audio engineers are starting to address these issues by introducing hi-res formats and using very accurate clocks (even atomic clocks) in ADC and DAC. There are also computational artifacts introduced during editing/mastering, and even during PCM and Sigma-Delta conversion inside DAC and ADC chips. But as chips become more powerful, these artifacts are becoming smaller. The author tries to present CD as a perfect audio medium, which is quite misleading. From what I have read, many recording engineers now consider hi-res digital format as good as analog tapes for recording sessions. So IMHO digital and analog media are equally competent for capturing the magic of music. 44.1/16 CD is a watered-down version of hi-res digital masters in studios and LPs don't sound as good as analog master tapes. Both CDs and LPs are still capable of delivering highly enjoyable hi-fi music at home, though. 

 #8: Power Conditioner Lie
 I am under the impression that professional studios generally have power conditioners, although I can't be completely sure. I agree that the very-well-designed audio electronics should not be affected by small power problems. But real world power problems are sometimes quite serious and not all afforable audio electronics have great power supply section. It is conceivable that power conditioners can improve the sound of real-world hi-fi systems. I think the author should change the tile to "Power Cord Lie."


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Czilla9000* 
_I concur with him for the most part.

 Let me tell you a little secret...


 There is one thing the author does not consider when it comes to cables - euphonic distortion. He talks about euphonic distortion when it comes to vacuum tubes, but says nothing of it when it comes to cables.

 A Nordost Valhalla will sound different from a stock cable. Why? Because it distorts more! Independent measurements have shown that the Valhalla has really, really, really high inductance. (Nordost is one of the few companies to submit there cables to DBT testing... I wonder why) The inductance will help filter out any RFI or EMI signals out of the audio stream, but if high enough could roll off some highs, making the system less bright. High capacitance will also roll off highs, but raising the inductance is safer. 

 Many cables, including my own RatShack fusions, include ferrite chokes to raise inductance.

 Those of you who were around two and three years ago will remember the Virtual Dynamics craze. Everyone, it seemed, was forking over $1000 for one of their "Nite" cables. The VD cables were famous for their pebble/powder imprugnated jackets. The company claimed that the pebbles helped dampen vibrations for better audio, which is BS. In reality, as Jude found out, the pebbles were ferromagnetic. In a sense, the cable was a giant ferrite choke!!
 (Note: PS Audio adopted something similar for their power cables.)

 Transparent Cables also intentionally raises inductance the good ol' fashion way - inductors! Inside each of their cables lies an inductor, or something similar to a Zobel network. MIT cables do the same thing.

 Goetz cables are known for high capacitance as well. Back when Zu Cable posted the specs for their cables, one could notice that the cables had greater and greater capacitance as you went up the line. (The 'better' the model, the greater the capacitance)._

 

Many thanks for your informative post.
 This is the most precious information (if they are accurate) I have learned since joining head-fi. 
 It is sad that few audio presses try to tear down all the myth about interconnects. Audioholics is one of them and I admire their honesty. 
 If we need to roll off hi-frequency, all we really need is tone control button on the pre-amp. It is sad that tone control is considered a blasphemy in hi-end nowadyas. I tried bidding on EBAY for a Fisher 500C receiver and was shocked to find that it uses TELEFUNKEN 12AX7 in the tone control circuitry. How can any piece of properly-designed circuit with TELEFUNKEN tubes cause bad sound? No way. It is sad that we on longer have have Telefunken tubes or tone control circuits in hi-end. And some resort to $1000 cables with high inductance-- 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 .


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_
 #2: Vacuum Tube Lie
 But why do they buy $3000 tube microphones from Neumann and AKG? Clearly, tubes have some charming sonic qualities. 

 #8: Power Conditioner Lie
 I am under the impression that professional studios generally have power conditioners, although I can't be completely sure. I agree that the very-well-designed audio electronics should not be affected by small power problems. But real world power problems are sometimes quite serious and not all afforable audio electronics have great power supply section. It is conceivable that power conditioners can improve the sound of real-world hi-fi systems. I think the author should change the tile to "Power Cord Lie."_

 

2) They use them for their pleasing coloration. But it is coloration. They don't exactly want it to sound like it does at the studio, they want it to sound "good."

 8) They do. And they cost just as much as audiophile filters, except that they start cheaper to reel you in faster. His argument makes sense except that not every powersupply in all your gear is built with sufficient filtering and regulation. Also better to destress the piece of gear if possible. It's just a waste because of potential redundancy.


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_#2: Vacuum Tube Lie_

 

Others have commented on this, but my earlier point bears repeating: The perfect amplifier is defined by AC _a priori_ as one with complete neutrality and no distortion, and all tests (subjective or otherwise) revolve around that axiom. 

 From a systems point of view, this assertion is completely compatible with the idea that tube amps "sound" better. All that would be needed to make a perfectly neutral amp sound more like a tube amp would be to add a tube preamp of some sort to predistort the signal, just as an equalizer would. (Assuming that such a device could make the result sound exactly like the original system. I'm not going to debate whether or not that is possible.)

  Quote:


 Intermodulation distortion from complex music signals is very complicated and I have yet to seen anyone who claims to know how to quantify them in a meaningful way. 
 

Wrong. IMD measurements have been quantified to the limits of measurement for the past 30 years. The general engineering concensus is that IMD on a full audio signal is completely quantified by the IMD measurement on a polyphonic signal, and attempting to do an IMD test on a music selection is pointless. (IMHO, and I don't have supporting evidence immediately on hand. However, Jon Risch did try to publicize an IMD test based on 16+ simultaneous tones at AES and apparantly that went over like a lead balloon. Also cf old AudioReview forum posts.)


----------



## JaZZ

I agree with the «********» judgement. This article is full of bias and empty of evidence. I have experienced all points mentioned rated as «lies» to be at least partially true, and this with absolutely critical and self-critical listening. I've been a «snake-oil» believer myself in the past, but had to learn that there are audible audio phenomena which can't be measured and definitely explained.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_Others have commented on this, but my earlier point bears repeating: The perfect amplifier is defined by AC a priori as one with complete neutrality and no distortion, and all tests (subjective or otherwise) revolve around that axiom. 

 From a systems point of view, this assertion is completely compatible with the idea that tube amps "sound" better. All that would be needed to make a perfectly neutral amp sound more like a tube amp would be to add a tube preamp of some sort to predistort the signal, just as an equalizer would._

 

I have decent experience with solid-state and tube amps. I don't know how you have gained your conviction that typical solid-state amps sound (virtually) neutral and tube amps don't. Therefore you would have to compare the original signal with the amp's output signal. Well, I've done that -- with the result that tube amps tendentially sound more organic and euphonic than solid-state amps, also «slower» with attacks, whereas solid-state amps sound more technical and «faster». The comparison with the source signal has shown that the tube amps auditioned are indeed slower, more euphonic and less clear; most solid-state amps on the other hand sound edgier or more metallic, at the same time less focussed at the upper end, more technical, still slower than the original and still less clear, and also more euphonic than the original. I have not found closer similarity to the original signal with either design principle, so pretending that solid-state electronics be more accurate is probably based on the impression of its greater edginess, and a technical flavor is probably often mixed up with precision, finally the admitted slower attacks may be decisive. All I can say is that to my ears tubes don't generally color the sound more than solid-state electronics -- although tube amps may often sound more colorful in comparison to solid-state amps. 

 Also interesting in this context is that the sonic differences among solid-state amps are by no means smaller than those between tube amps -- which is a further indication that both principles are equally (in)accurate. And there is no clear correlation between harmonic-distortion spectra and sonic characteristic. Also note that the HD level with typical SS amps is extremely low (and the same applies to some tube designs, which nonetheless don't sound like SS amps), and other measuring criteria such as frequency response are negligible in most cases, nevertheless the audible differences are there.


----------



## meat01

I don't know why some of you claim this article is false because the author does not back up his claims. The author is actually using science and facts and for some reason audiophiles do not accept science. It is a fact that CDs are digital and made up of 1s and 0s and that treatments can not make a 1 or a 0 sound better, yet some people claim that green markers and rainbow foil improves the bass 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The author agrees that loudspeakers and headphones can burn in because of being mechanical and uses basic electrical knowledge to explain why cables and electrical components do not need hours of burn in. He uses basic electrical knowledge on the power conditioner also, but I guess electricity is not a fact and audiophiles know more about the subject. Why doesn't clean power benefit anything else in the world? Will my vacuum work better? Will my TV give me a better picture? No, but it will definitely improve your digital 1s and 0s.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_The author agrees that loudspeakers and headphones can burn in because of being mechanical and uses basic electrical knowledge to explain why cables and electrical components do not need hours of burn in._

 

Physics once were used to prove why humans can't survive velocities greater than 30 km/h and objects heavier than air can't fly (astonishing from today's perspective, considering birds, bats and insects). Science has introduced many theories throughout the history, and most of them had to be rejected. There is no proof that all unproven audio phenomena are impossible, and the author's «basic electrical knowledge» is very basic. 

 Of course electronics change their sound during a burn-in or warm-up phase. Headphone amp developers will tell you the same. My now digital player didn't sound good in the beginning, and each of my new amps needed some time for developing its final characteristic.


----------



## digitaldave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Of course electronics change their sound during a burn-in or warm-up phase. Headphone amp developers will tell you the same. My now digital player didn't sound good in the beginning, and each of my new amps needed some time for developing its final characteristic.




_

 

But is it a case of the electrical components burning in, or you becoming acustomed to the sound? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 I personally am skeptical that electronic components have a burn in effect, but I will happily agree that mechanical components (e.g. speaker cones or headphone transducers) can have a burn in effect.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 and the author's «basic electrical knowledge» is very basic. 
 

That's all it takes.

 Everytime someone has asked on the forum about the reasons or proof that cables burn in and improve the sound, no one can back it up, yet people here claim the the author doesn't back up his claims. I am supposed to believe, because your ears hear burn in that it exists.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_I am supposed to believe, because your ears hear burn in that it exists._

 

Nope, but that is why we believe it... you can believe whatever half baked theories you want. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I personally find a reproducable phenomena that is detectable by my own senses to be a more convincing truth that reading some arrogant know it all blather on about scientific 'facts'. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I suppose that if you heard a difference yourself you would just disprove your own ears with blinding logic and extreme knowledge of science? If you can't trust your own ears, what can you trust?


----------



## JJ15k

All right, the guy doesn t extensively justify his points. But his "basic" knowledge is nearly all it takes to prove them. Of course science has already introduced blatantly "false" theories but it does not mean electrodynamics are really flawed. The precision of the theory has been experimentaly proven countless times and it is clear it must be able to explain wave conduction through a cable correctly enough(I am a student in engeneering(sp?)).Now maybe in his explanations there are certain phenomenoms he doesn t account for, but are they audible? Like previously said, could you distinguish those phenomenoms on a DBT? Nobody here has proven those "unnaccounted" phenomenoms really matter.
 On a side note I agree that different kinds of distortion are felt differently by the human ear.
 It s not that I do not want to beleive audiophiles who say they hear the stuff, I would just like proof,because in my view, everything points to the fact that he is mostly right


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JJ15k* 
_...everything points to the fact that he is mostly right._

 

Until you listen for yourself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If you want to know if some (pretended) effects are indeed audible and e.g. different cables make a difference, you can't refuse to let your ears judge. You also don't evaluate headphones and speakers by means of their specs and measurements.


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitaldave* 
_I personally am skeptical that electronic components have a burn in effect, but I will happily agree that mechanical components (e.g. speaker cones or headphone transducers) can have a burn in effect._

 

I'm not an expert by all means but one issue among probably many other things is that new capacitors or capacitors which haven't been in use for a long time will have a part of them oxided to a certain degree. By running current through the device, the oxidation will gradually go away. This is roughly what I have been told by a cd player designer. Certainly, the amp or cdp is not voiced/designed to be used with the capacitors not working at their full potential. For example, the healthiest thing for many electronic devices is to have them On all the time but this is neither energy-conserving nor does it really lengthen the LED's limited lifetime. And I'm sure there are many other things besides the capacitor issue to consider.

 I think the article aspires to be simple but happens to be simplifying on many issues and as a scepticist, the author certainly won't mind receiving the same treatment - unless he is a firm believer in the definite character of his words of course...


----------



## adhoc

POST EDITED OUT: ugh - scanning quickly through threads is bad. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 my apologies if any offence was caused.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *adhoc* 
_POST EDITED OUT: ugh - scanning quickly through threads is bad. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 my apologies if any offence was caused._

 

Well implemented is key. Who would object to a "well implemented" SS setup? Certainly both can be astronomically priced.


----------



## Publius

At risk of going completely OT I'll wade into this, but I'm not really interested in debating this. We're not going anywhere on this subject.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I don't know how you have gained your conviction that typical solid-state amps sound (virtually) neutral and tube amps don't._

 

"Neutrality" in this discussion is defined as zero distortion in all possible measurements. Or, if you will, linearity. If you need to get especially pedantic and want to say that CDs have just as many distortion figures as CDs, then you could also define it in terms of distortion measurements that are ranked from most to least audible, based on objective criteria. Or you could just define it as THD+N and IMD, and +-0.1db at all audible frequencies. Any way you slice it, under any objective criteria of neutrality, SS wins.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Until you listen for yourself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you want to know it some (pretended) effects are indeed audible and e.g. different cables make a difference, you can't refuse to let your ears judge. You also don't evaluate headphones and speakers by means of their specs and measurements._

 

Actually, yes, a lot of people do. Headphone/speaker measurements are one of the few areas where there are audible differences, and they can invariably be traced to some objective measurement.

  Quote:


 Physics once were used to prove why humans can't survive velocities greater than 30 km/h and objects heavier than air can't fly (astonishing from today's perspective, considering birds, bats and insects). Science has introduced many theories throughout the history, and most of them had to be rejected. There is no proof that all unproven audio phenomena are impossible, and the author's «basic electrical knowledge» is very basic. 
 

Ah! Now you're going all Kuhnian on us. Your basic argument - that established theories have come and gone over the centuries, and that anomalous phenomena are indications that the existing theories are wrong - could apply just as well against subjectivism as it could against objectivism; there are plenty of questions I could ask about subjective listening (why do ABX tests fail so much? Why does vinyl sound better than CD? etc) which could be used to support the objective position.

 Moreover, this has nothing to do with unexplained phenomena per se. One of the hallmarks of a scientific paradigm is that it is continuously extended to answer new questions, although it often comes up with some pretty crappy answers. That is, both sides can explain everything. And right now, objective audio engineering has some pretty good answers to all the hard questions, and subjective audio engineering doesn't. IMHO.

 Also, just because the author doesn't mention said electrical phenomena doesn't mean he's oblivious to them. It's more likely he considers them irrelevant and inaudible.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_I personally find a reproducable phenomena that is detectable by my own senses to be a more convincing truth that reading some arrogant know it all blather on about scientific 'facts'._

 

What this boils down to is that I find it much easier to believe that you can't actually hear a difference - and _nobody_ can hear a difference - than to believe that you really do. My truth is not contingent on sense information. Your arguments about _you_ hearing a difference, and about me being able to hear a difference if I tried, are specious. 

 That's not being closed minded, that's beind rational - admittedly under a very different set of beliefs than others. The placebo effect is just a really compelling argument to me. I could be convinced otherwise, but it would be very very hard to do so, simply because the objective theories on audio are extremely self-consistent with few rough edges.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_What this boils down to is that I find it much easier to believe that you can't actually hear a difference - and nobody can hear a difference - than to believe that you really do. My truth is not contingent on sense information. Your arguments about you hearing a difference, and about me being able to hear a difference if I tried, are specious. 

 That's not being closed minded, that's being rational._

 

I would say it is more the difference between pessimism and optimism than rationality and irrationality. My arguments are no less rational than yours, I just have a different viewpoint. I will continue to believe what my senses tell me in all things audio and in regards to life in general I will remain optimistic. I think you avoid more headaches that way.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_"Neutrality" in this discussion is defined as zero distortion in all possible measurements._

 

Sorry, no -- that's your personal definition. But since neutrality is an unachievable goal, let's better talk about coloration. I'm not interested in perfect data -- since they don't tell much when it comes to electronics (and cables for that matter) --, because since we're talking about audio phenomena, we should seriously care for audibility, not measurability. Even you can't be sure that harmonic distortion is really the decisive criterion (apart from linearity issues in rare cases) -- although you make it look like that, for lack of alternatives.


  Quote:


 _Headphone/speaker measurements are one of the few areas where there are audible differences, and they can invariably be traced to some objective measurement._ 
 

That's a bold statement! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So electronics all sound the same? Of course, I forgot -- because you won't find significant measuring differences, so it's not worth auditioning them... 


  Quote:


 _basic argument - that established theories have come and gone over the centuries, and that anomalous phenomena are indications that the existing theories are wrong - could apply just as well against subjectivism as it could against objectivism; there are plenty of questions I could ask about subjective listening (why do ABX tests fail so much? Why does vinyl sound better than CD? etc) which could be used to support the objective position._ 
 

I have a really good explanation why D.B.T often fail -- but we're not allowed to discuss this subject here. No, there's no real need to argue about the validity of established physical theories, because there are none that prove the inexistence/impossibility of unexplained audio phenomena. I'm not a defender of vinyl, so I have no problems with the objections against it, although you won't find me concurring on the perfection of the CD format.


  Quote:


 _Also, just because the author doesn't mention said electrical phenomena doesn't mean he's oblivious to them. It's more likely he considers them irrelevant and inaudible._ 
 

Maybe -- and that's part of his simplification and bias. 


  Quote:


 _That's not being closed minded, that's beind rational - admittedly under a very different set of beliefs than others. The placebo effect is just a really compelling argument to me. I could be convinced otherwise, but it would be very very hard to do so, simply because the objective theories on audio are extremely self-consistent with few rough edges._ 
 

From the above mentioned I'd not call your approach to «rationalism» open minded. The fear of the placebo effect should not hold you back from auditioning gear. Just relying on DBT data and measurings is a strange and actually hyperrational, top-heavy approach, absolutely ignoring human qualities such as intuition and trust in your own senses. How is it possible that there's unanimity that a Stradivari sounds better than a Radio-Shack violin? Placebo? I'm sure you can't measure the abolute quality of a violin tone, although you'll possibly be able to measure the differences. But that's not how people have come to acknowledge the artistry of the Maestro. It was by listening to his products.

 As to beliefs: I don't think the subjectivist approach has much to do with beliefs -- save for you'd call believing his own ears a belief. Actually it even represents the rejection of beliefs and theories as long as your ears tell you otherwise. A good approach in my opinion.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_
 How is it possible that there's unanimity that a Stradivari sounds better than a Radio-Shack violin? Placebo? I'm sure you can't measure the absolute quality of a violin tone, although you'll possibly be able to measure the differences. But that's not how people have come to acknowledge the artistry of the Maestro. It was by listening to his products.
_

 

Several of the posters on this thread, if challenged to listen to the Stradivari, would put their hands over their ears, claiming that until science affirmatively demonstrates it must sound better, there is no reason to even listen to it.


----------



## recstar24

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_ How is it possible that there's unanimity that a Stradivari sounds better than a Radio-Shack violin? Placebo? I'm sure you can't measure the abolute quality of a violin tone, although you'll possibly be able to measure the differences. But that's not how people have come to acknowledge the artistry of the Maestro. It was by listening to his products.





_

 

Good example! I have actually had the pleasure of having a stradivarious for a period of two weeks, and the music that came out of that thing was sublime, the tone was so beautiful, beat the crap out of my generic Fritz and Reuter, to say the least!


----------



## Sleestack

I do know that I used to be a huge skeptic of differences in cables and interconnects, however that is no longer the case. I definitely hear a difference between my Cardas Neutral Reference interconnects and my Cobalt interconnects. Whether or not the Cardas sounds better is a matter of opinion and certainly the justification for the difference in price is questionable. Nevertheless, for me it is all about getting the sound I want. If a pair of $100 interconnects can get me there, great. In my case, however, I went the opposite direction and just ordered a full set of Cardas Golden Reference interconnects and speaker cable.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Several of the posters on this thread, if challenged to listen to the Stradivari, would put their hands over their ears, claiming that until science affirmatively demonstrates it must sound better, there is no reason to even listen to it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ah, the familiar "objectivists as unmusical philistines" straw man!

 I'm quite sure some of the _perceived_ differences between a Stradivarius and a Radio-Shack violin (good one, JaZZ!) result from placebo. Indeed, it would be interesting to see results of a blind test concerning the experts' ability to recognize violin tones. But the point is: the violins really do sound different, whether the differences can be exhaustively measured or not. Power cables do not.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_The placebo effect is just a really compelling argument to me._

 

Same here...I think it has a lot more power than people give credit. It affects me all the time in areas besides audio...for example, practically every morning for the last 15 years or so I drink a cup of coffee, and it helps me wake up. Just the simple act of putting something hot under my nose that smells like coffee wakes me up...it no longer matters if it has caffiene or not. Now, the objectivist nazi would say, "Decaf does _not_ wake you up! It couldn't...it has _no caffiene!!!_" But the fact is that it works. I don't get all jittery with decaf like I do with too much regular coffee, but it gets me moving quicker and sharpens my senses. Why? The placebo effect. Maybe I'm "faking myself out" but who cares? If it works, it works.

 Just the same in audio, my system sounds different to me depending on a wide variety of factors like what mood I'm in, how well rested I am, how clean my ears are, etc., and they impact the sound of my system just as much, if not more, than a change of interconnects. The placebo effect is a significant factor, but, like my coffee thing, there's nothing wrong with that.

 I don't think there's thing wrong with using products that invoke the placebo effect, within reason. For me, personally, it would be stupid to buy a set of $500 interconnects because, at $500, they would be the single most expensive component in my rig. It'd be much more effective for me to get better 'phones.

 However, I've got a buddy here on Head-Fi who recently bought a pair of $500 interconnects. Now, he's a really wealthy guy who can drop that much on cables as easily as I can pick up a $20 pair of socks. So, the objectivist nazi would say, "It's stupid to spend $20 on socks when there are plenty of $5 socks that do the job just as well!" But who cares? Maybe it makes me feel special, like I'm going the extra mile putting on fancy socks when I take my wife out for a nice dinner. Or maybe I just like the way they look, even though I can't even see them when I'm wearing them.

 The point is, and it's been made several times in this thread, that taste is taste and there's no scientifically accounting for it. The guys at AC's agenda is "true to the original"...that the goal of audiophiledom is to produce the most accurate reproduction of the original performance. Certainly a valid goal, but not the only legitimate one. Not all recordings are recorded/mastered/released with the same intention, and some people would like to enjoy those, too.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *recstar24* 
_Good example! I have actually had the pleasure of having a stradivarious for a period of two weeks, and the music that came out of that thing was sublime, the tone was so beautiful, beat the crap out of my generic Fritz and Reuter, to say the least!_

 

I'm hesitant on this. I'm no violin major (though my viola teacher did urge me to major in viola) but I do sell violins wholesale and have been to all the top end stores in LA. To my ears, they just sound different. I usually have very little opinion as to which violin sounds "better." We don't often compare a $50k strad to a $10-20k new violin.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_Same here...I think it has a lot more power than people give credit. It affects me all the time in areas besides audio...for example, practically every morning for the last 15 years or so I drink a cup of coffee, and it helps me wake up. Just the simple act of putting something hot under my nose that smells like coffee wakes me up...it no longer matters if it has caffiene or not. Now, the objectivist nazi would say, "Decaf does not wake you up! It couldn't...it has no caffiene!!!" But the fact is that it works. I don't get all jittery with decaf like I do with too much regular coffee, but it gets me moving quicker and sharpens my senses. Why? The placebo effect. Maybe I'm "faking myself out" but who cares? If it works, it works.

 Just the same in audio, my system sounds different to me depending on a wide variety of factors like what mood I'm in, how well rested I am, how clean my ears are, etc., and they impact the sound of my system just as much, if not more, than a change of interconnects. The placebo effect is a significant factor, but, like my coffee thing, there's nothing wrong with that.

 I don't think there's thing wrong with using products that invoke the placebo effect, within reason. For me, personally, it would be stupid to buy a set of $500 interconnects because, at $500, they would be the single most expensive component in my rig. It'd be much more effective for me to get better 'phones.

 However, I've got a buddy here on Head-Fi who recently bought a pair of $500 interconnects. Now, he's a really wealthy guy who can drop that much on cables as easily as I can pick up a $20 pair of socks. So, the objectivist nazi would say, "It's stupid to spend $20 on socks when there are plenty of $5 socks that do the job just as well!" But who cares? Maybe it makes me feel special, like I'm going the extra mile putting on fancy socks when I take my wife out for a nice dinner. Or maybe I just like the way they look, even though I can't even see them when I'm wearing them.

 The point is, and it's been made several times in this thread, that taste is taste and there's no scientifically accounting for it. The guys at AC's agenda is "true to the original"...that the goal of audiophiledom is to produce the most accurate reproduction of the original performance. Certainly a valid goal, but not the only legitimate one. Not all recordings are recorded/mastered/released with the same intention, and some people would like to enjoy those, too._

 

Exactly. What we hear is a matter of perception. Many things affect those perceptions, including factors such as one's (i.e. "my" ) desire to justify a gross expenditure. If in the end, those factors enable my brain to perceive something as sounding better, so be it. Tests can only measure objective criteria, but perception is inherently subjective. Who is to say that expectation or desire is not a legitimate factor in determining how one perceives a certain sound? Even if in a double blind test one can't distinguish between 2 interconnects, if it does affect one's perceptions when he knows which cable is being used, why is it no less valid? We process information, not just receive it. I don't care about accuracy as much as I do about creating a sound that is pleasing to my ears.... make that my brain.

 I know the above sounds like a justification for ignorant buying. That was not the intent. It is more to highlight the fact that for any particular person, his/her brain is going to play a large part in how something is perceived. Give 2 people the exact same auditory signal and you have no idea how it is being perceived by the 2 individauls. They could give the same description, but you really have no idea what exactly they are experiencing.

 I do believe there is a difference between certain cables. I also think that some of the difference are purely in my head. Nevertheless, if it makes my brain happy, that's enough justification for me. I'm not nearly smart enough to figure out how exactly my brain is working.


----------



## JJ15k

Jazz, Im not saying that cables dont make a difference, but like previously mentionned, that the difference heard is due to cables made to have a high inductance/capacitance. Therefore no need to buy expensive cables when you could have the same effects with much cheaper equipment


----------



## Beauregard

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_... [Peter Azcel is] probably deaf (in the audiophile) sense, or he's figured out a good way to make some extra money. There's always people willing to pay money to people who will tell them what they want to hear. This applies to both sides of the issue. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Phil, I couldn't let this pass. First, shame on you for resorting to an unsubstantiated smear; it hardly contributes to a constructive discussion. Second, audiophiles have accused Peter Aczel of lots of things but one of them isn't getting rich from his journalistic efforts. The publishing schedule of The Audio Critic was, to put it kindly, erratic. More than once, a new business arrangement was announced that never lived up to its promise of regular publication and readership was never more than a miniscule fraction of that of SP or TAS. You can easily imagine that, given the magazine's message for the hi-end, advertising revenue hardly rolled in - a difficulty compounded by the fact that Aczel refused to accept ads with unsubstantiated claims. And if ol' Pete is living the good life in his golden years, it ain't because of the revenue generated by a publishing empire consisting of a one-man webzine with a _lifetime_ subscription of $13.

 Speaking of publishing empires... I do agree with the idea implicit in your statement that it is important to ask _qui bono_ in evaluating the credibility of those who disseminate information about hi-end audio products. I think some light is shed on that issue in this thoughtful analysis by, of all people, a *subjectivist audiophile*. Stereophile fans should be sure to check it out...


 A couple of brief thoughts based on what I've seen in this thread:

 I'd encourage those put off by Peter Aczel's style not to neglect the substance of what he says. He was frequently criticized by his readers in letters to the editor expressing concern that his acerbic approach wasn't the best way to spread light in the darkness - attempting to get people to question the basic givens of subjective audio evaluation. I tend to agree - though I'm not unsympathetic to Aczel's defense of his confrontational style as a necessary counterbalance to the ignorance perpetuated by those with vested interest in maintaining the mythology of the hi-end.

 So don't condemn the message for the messenger. I haven't the technical knowledge or experience in audio to support or challenge specific contentions he makes - but I'd remind you that Aczel is hardly a lone voice spouting "bullsh*t theory". His ideas fundamentally represent cumulative knowledge gained via scientific investigation in audio engineering and psychoacoustics. Indeed, one of most astounding things about the phenomenon of hi-end audio in the twenty-first century is that a journalist speaking for the scientific method in the consumer press is the one regarded as a heretical loony! I'd suggest that anyone who regards the assertions made in the Aczel articles available online as "unsupported" have a look at the back issues of The Audio Critic. You'll find in-depth technical articles authored by noted scientists from academia and industry, including engineers affiliated with hi-end companies whose products are regularly praised by audiophiles.

 I'll try to make time over the weekend to contribute my personal take on some of the ideas that have been discussed so far...

 Best,
 Beau


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JJ15k* 
_...Im not saying that cables dont make a difference, but like previously mentionned, that the difference heard is due to cables made to have a high inductance/capacitance._

 

No. 

 Sorry! That's not how it works. I've measured several headphone cables with significantly different sonic behavior, and the electrical values were very close. I made different sorts of cables myself, and while capacitance made a difference, the decisive difference was caused by other factors, such as geometry and material of the conductor.


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* 
_I'm not nearly smart enough to figure out how exactly my brain is working._

 

Neither is anyone else...I heard an interview on the radio recently with one of the guys on the forefront of research on how the brain works, and he freely admits that they understand maybe 10% of it.


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Sorry, no -- that's your personal definition. But since neutrality is an unachievable goal, let's better talk about coloration. I'm not interested in perfect data -- since they don't tell much when it comes to electronics (and cables for that matter) --, because since we're talking about audio phenomena, we should seriously care for audibility, not measurability. Even you can't be sure that harmonic distortion is really the decisive criterion (apart from linearity issues in rare cases) -- although you make it look like that, for lack of alternatives._

 

Look at my original comment:
  Quote:


 The perfect amplifier is defined by AC a priori as one with complete neutrality and no distortion, and all tests (subjective or otherwise) revolve around that axiom. 
 

I was trying to elaborate on what AC considers to be "neutrality". I wasn't trying to enter a debate on what "neutrality" actually means. Do you disagree with what my interpretation of AC's definition of neutrality?

  Quote:


 That's a bold statement! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So electronics all sound the same? Of course, I forgot -- because you won't find significant measuring differences, so it's not worth auditioning them... 
 

Not at all! I never said that, and I resent you putting words into my mouth like that. All speakers and headphones sound different.

  Quote:


 I have a really good explanation why D.B.T often fail -- but we're not allowed to discuss this subject here. No, there's no real need to argue about the validity of established physical theories, because there are none that prove the inexistence/impossibility of unexplained audio phenomena. I'm not a defender of vinyl, so I have no problems with the objections against it, although you won't find me concurring on the perfection of the CD format. 
 

Exactly! Each side has answers to all the questions. It's a matter of interpretation - indeed, to a certain degree a matter of social dynamics and personal experience - as to how each side evolves and wins/loses. Because both sides are internally self-consistent.

  Quote:


 Maybe -- and that's part of his simplification and bias. 
 

I can admit that possibility.

  Quote:


 From the above mentioned I'd not call your approach to «rationalism» open minded. The fear of the placebo effect should not hold you back from auditioning gear. Just relying on DBT data and measurings is a strange and actually hyperrational, top-heavy approach, absolutely ignoring human qualities such as intuition and trust in your own senses. How is it possible that there's unanimity that a Stradivari sounds better than a Radio-Shack violin? Placebo? I'm sure you can't measure the abolute quality of a violin tone, although you'll possibly be able to measure the differences. But that's not how people have come to acknowledge the artistry of the Maestro. It was by listening to his products. 
 

Actually, I just googled on the subject, and apparantly a lot of people have blind tested Strats against other violins. And failed.

 I have no problems with auditioning gear - I'll be going to the Ft Worth meet with a lot of stuff. I'll be especially interested in listening to the DAC1 there, and maybe whatever tube amps are there. The key point I'm making is that even if I hear something that I can't explain - say that somebody brings an Intelligent Chip in, and somehow I notice a change - I still believe that the difference is quantifiable, even though I may not be able to do it myself. And I can be perfectly OK with believing that what I may hear is placebo.

 In general, I believe that what my senses tell me and what my measurements tell me should be the same. I think everybody can agree that this would be a pretty ideal situation, no matter what they believe. If they don't line up, I won't trust that which is most suspect, which may be my senses rather than my measurements (although measurements can be quite wrong too). Obviously that's not a license to stop listening.

  Quote:


 As to beliefs: I don't think the subjectivist approach has much to do with beliefs -- save for you'd call believing his own ears a belief. Actually it even represents the rejection of beliefs and theories as long as your ears tell you otherwise. A good approach in my opinion. 
 

It requires that the truth of perception be axiomatic, which as much of a belief as anything else. Unfortunately I don't have any specific philosophical references on the subject, although Kuhn does discuss it (ironically in the context of dissing scientific modernism).


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Beauregard* 
_Phil, I couldn't let this pass. First, shame on you for resorting to an unsubstantiated smear; it hardly contributes to a constructive discussion. Second, audiophiles have accused Peter Aczel of lots of things but one of them isn't getting rich from his journalistic efforts._

 

First, in terms of "unsubstantiated smears," Mr. Aczel outdoes yours truly in spades, since much of what he says in his article either explicity or implicitly (1) "smears" thousands, if not millions, of intelligent, rational people who supposedly are complete morons for believing their ears, and (2) "smears" large numbers of audio manufacturers and vendors who are allegedly guilty of outright fraud. Furthermore, IMO, much of what HE says is "unsubstantiated." It is only "substantiated" if you accept his premise that scientific measurements tell us everything about what we hear.

 I have to concede that I have not read any of his other articles, but reading the article under discussion, my first impresssion was that I mystified why someone would say the things he says in the tone he says them. Thus, I concluded that one possbility is that he's "deaf" in the audiophile sense, since he can't hear what I and thousands of others hear. Frankly, I simply do not believe that anyone who has really spent a signifiant amount of time actually listening to all of the items referenced in his article could possibly make ALL of the statements he makes, and make them with such categorical certainty.

 On the other hand, my speculation that he had some financial motivation was not really serious. I don't know for a fact that this has anything to do with what he says, but it does seem fairly obvious that he has some axe to grind. Perhaps he just gets his jollies by preaching to all the "deluded audiophiles" with "corrupted tastes" who like to listen to "perverse" and "deliberate" coloration (see, e.g., his disussion on tube equipment). There are many inhabiting the planet who obtain a satisfying feeling of superiority by acting is if they have some specialized knowledge in certain areas, which enables them to view and criticize others around them as fools, and their pleasure seems to be only compounded (for some "perverse" reason) when the dogma they spew forth is laced with ridicule . 

 Anyway, you're right, I don't know what his motivation is for the substance and tone of his article. But I don't really care. It it looks like ****, and it smells like ****, then it's ****.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_I was trying to elaborate on what AC considers to be "neutrality". I wasn't trying to enter a debate on what "neutrality" actually means. Do you disagree with my interpretation of AC's definition of neutrality?_

 

No. I'm too lazy to search for AC's statement to this subject, but (theoretically) there's nothing more welcome than a non-distorting amplifier. Nevertheless I don't agree if you equate measured neutrality (= ultra-low distortion) with sonic neutrality. Because obviously we still don't know what makes amps sound different, even those with virtually identical measurings. 


  Quote:


 _Not at all! I never said that, and I resent you putting words into my mouth like that. All speakers and headphones sound different._ 
 

Now I'm confused. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_«Headphone/speaker measurements are one of the few areas where there are audible differences.»_ This your then statement, repeated here in other words, without much need for interpretation. You do exclude electronics (amps and sources) from the devices which can cause sonic differences, don't you? 


  Quote:


 _Actually, I just googled on the subject, and apparantly a lot of people have blind tested Strats against other violins. And failed._ 
 

So does that mean Stradivaris are no better than normal violins? You should know that blind tests don't prove anything. Fact is that Stradivaris have gained enormous respect with a broad public for their beautiful sound and were considered superior to (most) other violins of the same era. I don't know if some of today's violins aren't just as good, but that's not the point. 


  Quote:


 _In general, I believe that what my senses tell me and what my measurements tell me should be the same. I think everybody can agree that this would be a pretty ideal situation, no matter what they believe._ 
 

Not necessarily. Of course, from a scientific point of view it would be ideal, but I don't like the idea of having everything gaplessly explained by science, no white spots on the map, no mysteries waiting for solution... Not that that's my motif for audiophile hallucinations, don't get me wrong! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But science and data can never explain the world, so don't give them too much power!


  Quote:


 _It requires that the truth of perception be axiomatic, which as much of a belief as anything else. Unfortunately I don't have any specific philosophical references on the subject, although Kuhn does discuss it (ironically in the context of dissing scientific modernism)._ 
 

Whatever Mr. Kuhn or anybody else may have to say to the matter, I don't buy it if it means that trusting your senses (with all due self-criticism) equates to belief. That's a typical top-heavy-objectivist attitude rating the intellectual, data-oriented input above all other things. Tell an acrobat to not trust his senses!


----------



## MonkeyMan

When it comes to audio gear, NOTHING matters. ALL components are interchangeable and will yield absolutely NO difference in system performance.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Tongue firmly planted in cheek... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I say forget the details; buy and listen to that which pleases you.


----------



## JB.

I also support Peter Aczel, his articles, and his methods. He does come off as dogmatic and self-important, but this is only the result of needing to overshoot the mark, so to speak, to combat the overwhelming ignorance and credulity that have become hallmarks of high-end audio. I generally don’t engage in discussions like this, as this seems to boil down to “The Credulous Mind vs The Incredulous Mind.” 

 For those of us who have refrained from judgments until having thoroughly examined evidence from sources that support or reject some of claims familiar to high-end audio, it seems remarkable that such unbelievable ignorance could persist. Many researchers have conducted double-blind studies for peer-reviewed journals in order to supply evidence for or against every topic that Mr. Aczel has addressed. Despite conclusive results, people either haven’t read the material at all or they outright reject the double-blind test standard. If you find what I’m writing to be upsetting, check out Carl Sagan’s, “The Demon Haunted World” from your local library- your brain will thank you.

 BTW, I find an interesting correlation between people who believe in many of the topics discussed in the article and people who believe in:
 1.Ghosts
 2.Spontaneous Human Combustion
 3.Psychics
 4.Superstitions
 5.Demons
 6.Crackpot Medical Treatments (Psychic surgery, etc.)
 7.Bigfoot, Vampires, Nessie . . .
 8.UFO’s/Aliens (Do they exist? Maybe. Have they visited earth? No.) 
 9.Creationism as the rejection of Evolution
 10.Etc.

 I would love to hear from a member who rejects the previous nine items as “real” but who believes that Mr. Aczel was completely wrong in more than one area.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_I also support Peter Aczel, his articles, and his methods. He does come off as dogmatic and self-important, but this is only the result of needing to overshoot the mark, so to speak, to combat the overwhelming ignorance and credulity that have become hallmarks of high-end audio. ._

 

 Oh man, I hate this kind of "end justifies the means" reasoning. It's in the same category as: "It's ok to steal from Walmart because . . . . " Mr. Aczel comes off as dogmatic and self-important because he's full of kaka, and the fact that he justifies his conduct as necessary to counteract what he calls ignorance just confirms, IMO, a defect in his character.  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_BTW, I find an interesting correlation between people who believe in many of the topics discussed in the article and people who believe in:
 1. Ghosts
 2. Spontaneous Human Combustion
 3. Psychics
 4. Superstitions
 5. Demons
 6. Crackpot Medical Treatments (Psychic surgery, etc.)
 7. Bigfoot, Vampires, Nessie . . .
 8. UFO’s/Aliens (Do they exist? Maybe. Have they visited earth? No.) 
 9. Creationism as the rejection of Evolution
 10. Etc.

_

 

You can't be serious?! If you are, I understand why you appreciate Aczel's methods and madness.


----------



## JB.

Are you saying that the things in the list exist? or that they're ridiculous?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_Are you saying that the things in the list exist? or that they're ridiculous?_

 

I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest a correlation between people who beleive in one or more of the things in the list and the audio issues under discussion. In addition, without getting into a lengthly off-topic debate, issue #9 is of a totally different character and nature than #2, for example.


----------



## JaZZ

I agree with Phil: Equating audiophiles with believers in demons and UFOs is below the belt. No wonder you sympathize with your soulmate Peter Aczel...


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_From the above mentioned I'd not call your approach to «rationalism» open minded. The fear of the placebo effect should not hold you back from auditioning gear. Just relying on DBT data and measurings is a strange and actually hyperrational, top-heavy approach, absolutely ignoring human qualities such as intuition and trust in your own senses. How is it possible that there's unanimity that a Stradivari sounds better than a Radio-Shack violin? Placebo? I'm sure you can't measure the abolute quality of a violin tone, although you'll possibly be able to measure the differences. But that's not how people have come to acknowledge the artistry of the Maestro. It was by listening to his products._

 

Here is a link to one of the finest violin makers in the world today and the foremost expert on the chemical treatment of wood used by Cremonese masters: http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/ 

 If you go over the website, you will realize that it is impossible to make two violins that measure exactly identical, even just playing a single, sustained note. Different Stradivari violins measure differently and sound differently. The measured difference is quite big and it is not suprising that they all sound different. However, to decide which violin sounds better requires humans to listen to it. For example, Nagyvari's new violin bettered a multi-million Stradivari violin in a blind test in fron of a concert hall of listeners. 

 Back to cables--the electrical property differences between reasonably constructed cables are so small that we really have to question if it is possible to hear a difference. When these differences are simulated, controlled tests show that people can't hear a difference. When people actually listen to different cables, in controlled blind tests in Canada's NRC or other labs, they can't detect a difference either. However, I guess headphone cable may be one area when cables may make a difference because hi-end phones are incredibly accurate transducers, but I am not sure if anyone has done extensive research into this. 

 To claim that our scientific understanding of passive, bulk electronic devices such as cables is incomplete is ridiculous. Sure, modern physics can not explain everything about electrons and matters. This is true when it comes to strange quantum states such as superconductivity or ultra-small scale phenomena the internal structure of an electron. However, electricity flow through cables is fully and properly described by classical electromagnetism.

 What modern science can't explain is psychoacoustics. We don't know how the brain determines what sounds good or bad. Very different signals may sound very similar to the brain and that is called audio illusion. If you have seen any picture demonstrating visual illusion you will understand audio illusion. The classic example is having two lines of identical lengths with end arrows pointing in different directions. You think one line looks longer than the other. In fact, everyone sees the same illusion. But if you measure with a ruler, you realize they are the same length and your brain fools itself. Now imagine a person saying: "You can't use a stupid low-tech measurement such as a ruler to tell me what I see is wrong. In fact, my buddy aslo sees the same thing, and I can find 10,000 people on-line who swear they see the same thing. Your sciecne is flawed. Your objectivism is erroneous. I beleive what I see and no one can convince me what I and another 10,000 people see is wrong." 

 Back to amplifiers--every amplifier in the world has measurable distortions. 
 This is becuase our electronic devices are incredibly sensitive. Now, to say solid state sounds better because it has lower total distortion is ridiculous, becuase the types of distortion are different. If we take two defective 1024*768 LCD screens, one has 5 contiguous dead pixels in the center, and the other has 1024 contiguous dead pixes at the very top (becomes 1023*768). Which one would look better, which one would you buy? Would you buy the one that has 200 times lower total distortion? Does the 1024 dead pixel screen look better becuase it introduces "pleasant coloration"? No. A big distortion may escape detection of human hearing if it is in the right spot, and a small distortion can annoy the brian if it is in a critical spot. Unfortunately we understand little about music perception to determine what kind of distortion is benign or serious or even euphonic. We don't know why tubes sound good but many people do prefer them in blind tests. And the difference is measurable--so it is not just placebo effect.


----------



## JB.

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest a correlation between people who beleive in one or more of the things in the list and the audio issues under discussion. In addition, without getting into a lengthly off-topic debate, issue #9 is of a totally different character and nature than #2, for example._

 

They were included specifically because they are of "different character" in order to establish some baseline so discussion can move forward. A thing exists or it doesn't; decent through common ancestry is no less arbitrary than is spontaneous human combustion.

 Any assertion that is non-falsifiable classifies as dogma. The nuances of cables and rainbow foil lend themselves very well to research. These products are without question capable of being tested empirically, and can be done so easily and with valid and meaningful results. To say that testing could not be performed is, by definition, a dogmatic assertion.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I agree with Phil: Equating audiophiles with believers in demons and UFOs is below the belt. No wonder you sympathize with your soulmate Peter Aczel...




_

 


 I'm not saying they believe in ALL of those things, just one or more of them.


----------



## philodox

Congrats JB, you just moved this discussion into the next level of needless insult. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I suppose that the sceptics are all:
 1. Impotent.
 2. Living with their mothers.
 3. Graduates of Law school.
 4. Wearing track pants.
 5. Etc.






 Yeah, I believe in Vampires all right... come on Nessie, we don't need to listen to this bullsh!t. We've got a UFO to catch.


----------



## JB.

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Congrats JB, you just moved this discussion into the next level of needless insult. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I suppose that the sceptics [sic] are all:
 1. Impotent.
 2. Living with their mothers.
 3. Graduates of Law school.
 4. Wearing track pants.
 5. Etc._

 


 OK, again, I was just attempting to establish a baseline, and not to alienate the Cables/Power Tweaks clan in the Head-Fi basement. You guys have obviously had enough time to rationalize this stuff, and I'm not one to undermine another's reality- at some time we all prefer illusion to despair.

 Also, Philodox, my mother and I don't appreciate you spying on us. I'm too busy will law school and my fertility treatments to deal with this right now.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_Also, Philodox, my mother and I don't appreciate you spying on us. I'm too busy will law school and my fertility treatments to deal with this right now._

 

LOL... Touché!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_ You guys have obviously had enough time to rationalize this stuff, and I'm not one to undermine another's reality- at some time we all prefer illusion to despair.
_

 

 Maybe you're just kidding, but the similarity between your approach and that of Mr. Azcel is amusing, or maybe disturbing. I submit that you're not as bright as you seem to think you are (and neither is Azcel), and that we're not as stupid as you seem to think we are (and Azcel does). But other than that, I think I'll turn the other cheek at this point with respect to any further insults, intentional or otherwise.


----------



## crazyfrenchman27

I think that James got out of line with his last few remarks.

 I mean, I believe in vampires, demons, spontaneous combustion, and nessie but I sure as heck don't believe in cable burn-in.

 I think it's a big leap to go from believing in big foot to believing that moving current through a cable will somehow improve its sound. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously though, here's how I feel about the various issues raised in "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio":

 "1. The Cable Lie"

 I feel that this is mostly true: an expensive, high-quality interconnect possesses no advantage over an affordable, high-quality interconnect. As long as the cable is properly shielded from inductance, you really shouldn't hear an "improvement" with the more expensive cable. That's my experience and that's my logic, and I'm sticking to it! That said...I feel that a lot of headphone cables out there are pretty cheap and might benefit from replacement; I feel as though I can hear a difference on some recabled headphones. Perhaps a little brighter and more detailed?

 "2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie"

 I feel this is mostly true. Solid-state sounds a lot more crisp and accurate, at least to my ears. I think people like tube amps because they artificially color the sound to make it feel warm, lush, and inviting. I always choose SS over tube for listening preferences.

 "3. The Anti-Digital Lie"

 I don't have enough experience, I really can't comment. I bet analog sounds different, though, and that people may prefer that difference.

 "4. The Listening-Test Lie"

 I firmly stand by ABx testing. People would save a lot of money on amps if they merely compared amps using an ABx switch-box. You'd be surprised how small or non-existent the differences are.

 "5. The Feedback Lie"

 Meh, I really don't care about this. Lots of amps have feedback these days, right?

 "6. The Burn-In Lie"

 You can definitely hear some burn-in on dynamic headphones. I believe his assertion for speakers (that they're a mechanical component) works for dynamic headphones as well. As for amps and capacitors or cables... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've certainly never heard it. 

 "7. The Biwiring Lie"

 I really know nothing about this, either way.

 "8. The Power Conditioner Lie"

 If the wiring in your house is good (it's not good in mine, believe me), I believe this is a lie.

 "9. The CD-treatment Lie"

 Never tried it, so I don't know whether to believe it or not. I'm inclined to think that it is a lie.

 "10. The Golden Ear Lie"

 Of course this is a lie!


 Just my opinions, of course.

 I don't mean to offend anyone who spends lots of money on tube amps or interconnects.

 -Matt


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_However, to decide which violin sounds better requires humans to listen to it._

 

Thanks!


  Quote:


 _Back to cables--the electrical property differences between reasonably constructed cables are so small that we really have to question if it is possible to hear a difference. When these differences are simulated, controlled tests show that people can't hear a difference. When people actually listen to different cables, in controlled blind tests in Canada's NRC or other labs, they can't detect a difference either. However, I guess headphone cable may be one area when cables may make a difference because hi-end phones are incredibly accurate transducers, but I am not sure if anyone has done extensive research into this._ 
 

As already mentioned, I have a good idea why so many blind tests fail, but this is a DBT-free forum, so I will not discuss this subject any further, and I hope other posters will respect the restriction as well -- just so much: I have passed a headphone-cable (blind) test myself. 


  Quote:


 _To claim that our scientific understanding of passive, bulk electronic devices such as cables is incomplete is ridiculous. Sure, modern physics can not explain everything about electrons and matters. This is true when it comes to strange quantum states such as superconductivity or ultra-small scale phenomena the internal structure of an electron. However, electricity flow through cables is fully and properly described by classical electromagnetism._ 
 

I don't disagree when it comes to the technical aspects of data transmission. But what does it tell us about audibility? This area isn't covered by science. There are enough measuring criteria with which cables show significant differences (and I don't think R/L/C are the most meaningful of them), so e.g. frequency-dependent phase distortion or leakage conductance. It's just that nobody takes them seriously enough. 

 The GaborLink is a device based on the idea of phase distortion in the context of the skin effect. Since high frequencies tend to be transported on the surface of a conductor, they can be delayed by microseconds by means of simple mechanical detours, the exchangeable GaborLink elements, to simulate cable behavior and bring a given system into sonic balance. A friend an I have tested it in his setup. I've been very skeptical, not so much because I've mistrusted the manufacturer's claims, but because I had to listen to a completely unfamiliar setup with relatively cheap fullrange paper cones, design recycling. The greater the surprise after the test: Without influencing eachother, we had virtually the same results with the different tuning elements (about 36 or so) and preferred the same configurations, and the effect from the device was astonishingly clear to my ears, despite the not so highly resolving speakers. 


  Quote:


 _What modern science can't explain is psychoacoustics. We don't know how the brain determines what sounds good or bad. Very different signals may sound very similar to the brain and that is called audio illusion. If you have seen any picture demonstrating visual illusion you will understand audio illusion. The classic example is having two lines of identical lengths with end arrows pointing in different directions. You think one line looks longer than the other. In fact, everyone sees the same illusion. But if you measure with a ruler, you realize they are the same length and your brain fools itself. Now imagine a person saying: "You can't use a stupid low-tech measurement such as a ruler to tell me what I see is wrong. In fact, my buddy aslo sees the same thing, and I can find 10,000 people on-line who swear they see the same thing. Your science is flawed. Your objectivism is erroneous. I believe what I see and no one can convince me what I and another 10,000 people see is wrong."_ 
 

You can suppose that even die-hard audiophiles and subjectivists don't reject the idea of self-delusion and placebo effects and may even have experienced them on themselves, so the above scenario is rather naive, more so than audiophiles' attitude of trusting their hearing. 


  Quote:


 _Back to amplifiers--every amplifier in the world has measurable distortions. This is because our electronic devices are incredibly sensitive. Now, to say solid state sounds better because it has lower total distortion is ridiculous, because the types of distortion are different. If we take two defective 1024*768 LCD screens, one has 5 contiguous dead pixels in the center, and the other has 1024 contiguous dead pixes at the very top (becomes 1023*768). Which one would look better, which one would you buy? Would you buy the one that has 200 times lower total distortion? Does the 1024 dead pixel screen look better because it introduces "pleasant coloration"? No. A big distortion may escape detection of human hearing if it is in the right spot, and a small distortion can annoy the brain if it is in a critical spot. Unfortunately we understand little about music perception to determine what kind of distortion is benign or serious or even euphonic. We don't know why tubes sound good but many people do prefer them in blind tests. And the difference is measurable--so it is not just placebo effect._ 
 

Good examples. But still it's not possible to identify an amplifier's sonic characteristic by means of its distortion spectrum. Also, distortion with typical solid-state gear is extremely low (think 0.005% and the like) and therefore not broadly accepted among objectivists as cause for sonic differences, and I'm not sure if it's indeed responsible or the only cause.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_Here is a link to one of the finest violin makers in the world today and the foremost expert on the chemical treatment of wood used by Cremonese masters: http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/ 

 If you go over the website, you will realize that it is impossible to make two violins that measure exactly identical, even just playing a single, sustained note. Different Stradivari violins measure differently and sound differently. The measured difference is quite big and it is not suprising that they all sound different. However, to decide which violin sounds better requires humans to listen to it. For example, Nagyvari's new violin bettered a multi-million Stradivari violin in a blind test in fron of a concert hall of listeners._

 

Did you notice that the recording clips on the site are clipped to hell and back? Ironic.


----------



## ChaosCow

You guys are missing the point. The author probably could go for pages backing this stuff up. He wants you to ABx everything you buy. BE SKEPTICAL. Don't just say "I disagree, I'm gonna go buy some $2000 cables now." Double-blind test them. His inflammatory tone should make you mad. So DO something about it. Don't sit about hopelessly moaning "I swear I can tell a difference. Really." Go test your beliefs! The audio critic challenges you - prove him wrong! He's asking for it! Boy, what a jerk! Show him who's boss! And, if he's right, he's right. You've rationally done a double-blind test. It's an experiment. It's fun. You're a scientist, without any technical mumbo-jumbo!

 While I entirely agree with all of objectivists here, I won't argue that line, as many know far more than me and are far more eloquent.


 But at times, I feel the crux of the subjectivist argument is this:

  Quote:


 But science and data can never explain the world, so don't give them too much power! 
 

Yes, it can. Science is doing amazing things that one never thought possible. Some day, science WILL understand the world, as long as we have enough time. For every effect, there is a cause - things don't just "happen". Naturally, that creates a problem for "the beginning", but I'll think about that later. But I can guarantee that if you demonstrate to me any, ANY phenomenon, there is a cause. So believing good sound just "happens" with magical (and coincidentally expensive) components for no real reason is insane.

 Er, but right. Go out and do those tests. Then you can show us what's what.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChaosCow* 
_You guys are missing the point. The author probably could go for pages backing this stuff up. He wants you to ABx everything you buy. BE SKEPTICAL. Don't just say "I disagree, I'm gonna go buy some $2000 cables now." Double-blind test them. ._

 

No, you miss the point. As Jazz pointed out, and as has been discussed many times before, there are significant problems with DBT'ing everything -- at least doing it in a fashion that mirrors the real world listening environment.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChaosCow* 
_ So believing good sound just "happens" with magical (and coincidentally expensive) components for no real reason is insane._

 

Who said that? Talk about a "straw man."


----------



## PhilS

I was ruminating on where this thread has gone and reviewing again the article under discussion, and I recalled the evolution of my headphone-only system from where it was a year ago to where it is now. The sound I enjoy now is really terrific in all respects. Without elaborating to much, it is focused, dynamic, detailed, and it sounds wonderful at each point in the spectrum. It sounds like music should sound. A year ago, with my SS amp, with different cables and power cords, and with no power conditioner, it sounded harsh, brittle, with little bass, and with no real detail at the higher end, and you just couldn't listen for more than an hour without fatigue. But if I take what Mr. Aczel and many of the skeptics say to heart, I guess I would have to conclude that nothing I did to it really made any difference. (The headphones have not changed.) So now when I listen to the system for hours with a smile on my face, it really sounds like krap like it did before, but I've just deluded myself into thinking it sounds better -- or -- it sounded really wonderful before, but for some reason I convinced myself it did not. Yeah, right.

 Alternatively, I suppose Mr. Aczel might suggest that the tube amp alone changed the sound, and that the wonderful sound that I now enjoy solely as a result of the change from a SS amp to a tube amp is really distorted sound which I enjoy only becuase of my "corrupted tastes." What a completely absurd proposition.

 I guess my point is that, it's one thing to argue that changing a single interconnect or a power cord cannot make an audible difference. I might disagree, but I understand and appreciate the proposition. But the notion that the cumulative effect of changing cables, amps, etc., and redesiging an entire system with each of the components or items that he and others say do not make a difference etc. -- while keeping the speakers or headphones a constant -- will reveal no real audible difference in sound overall is just laughable. Nobody who has experience with these kinds of things believes this or will testify to that. It's just wrong. And if there is anybody out there who does believe that, speak up and state your case and identify your experience. Tell us how what you've listened to, and what you've changed, etc., and how it all sounds the same. We may not be convinced, but the contrary expiences of others will be educational, and may illuminate, moreso tham mere "theory."


----------



## aerius

Article on THD and measurements
 Excerpt: Quote:


 With electronics, it all seems so much simpler; no worries about polar response, transient response is superb compared to speakers, and just about any amplifier is flatter and more wide-band than the best transducers - microphones, headphones, or speakers. So what’s to worry about? Just measure the distortion, and there you are.

 Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. In electronics, the subjective correlation between Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) and what you actually hear is close to zero. After all, a low-fi rack-stereo receiver has far lower THD than the best-regarded triode amplifier. Does that mean that "all amplifiers sound the same?" No, certainly not with high-performance speakers. Is the converse true — that measurements are meaningless? No, that’s not true either; there are plenty of amplifiers with terrible measurements that do indeed sound terrible. 
 

New Methodology for Audio Frequency Amplifier Testing (PDF File)
 Excerpt: Quote:


 Norman Crowhearst is the most prolific writer on audio technology in the
 late 1950’s through the mid 1970’s. He is the lone technical voice in this period
 campaigning for the concept that simply performing the standard SMPTE IMD or THD
 test with better and better accuracy is not improving the selectivity of which amplifiers
 sound better. Amplifiers at this time offer specifications of 0.05% THD and frequency
 response within 0.1dB to hundreds of kHz. He states “By these figures such amplifiers
 should sound the same and perfect” [17]. Crowhearst is first to propose that the very high
 orders of harmonics due to the proliferation of high levels and multiple loops of feedback
 create a signal correlated modulating noise floor. Static single sine test signal
 performance may not quantify this abrasive effect. In 1957 with “Some Defects in
 Amplifier Performance not covered by Standard Specifications” [17] he explains that if the
 feedback is accomplished in smaller loops the frequency multiplying effect is further
 aggravated, as the local loop will result in reduced 2nd and 3rd order harmonics and
 generate small components of 4th through 9th. Then the global loop takes this and adds
 further 4th, 6th, and due to the residual of the original 2nd and 3rd now contributes 8th, 12th,
 16th, 18th, 24th, 36th, 54th and all the way to 81st! Any phase errors due to reactive loading
 can accentuate rather than minimize high order harmonics. 
 

Read both articles in their entirety.


----------



## eric343

Well, I'm officially 'out of the biz,' so I guess I can comment on this now.

 While I can understand his book-theory approach to the world, the guy who wrote the article obviously needs to get out and spend some quality time with a decent audio system or ten. There are a number of phenomena in high-end audio which I find inexplicable if one applies the standard electrical engineering formulae; indeed, the results of going from the lecture-hall direct to the designing-table are often laughable. It is through real-world experience that one learns to factor in those factors which are often un-apparent or indeed completely omitted from most electrical design manuals.

 There is a reason why so many high-end audio products are either strongly grounded in tried-and-true designs (e.g. Ray Samuels, Rudistor) or created by engineers with decades of analog experience (HeadAmp, LaRocco) -- and so few true high-end products by people like this guy.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_Well, I'm officially 'out of the biz,' so I guess I can comment on this now.

 While I can understand his book-theory approach to the world, the guy who wrote the article obviously needs to get out and spend some quality time with a decent audio system or ten. There are a number of phenomena in high-end audio which I find inexplicable if one applies the standard electrical engineering formulae; indeed, the results of going from the lecture-hall direct to the designing-table are often laughable. It is through real-world experience that one learns to factor in those factors which are often un-apparent or indeed completely omitted from most electrical design manuals._

 

He has done at least 29 of his published mags, so I suspect he has "spent some quality time" with decent systems.
 I agree with most, if not all, of what he is saying. It was very funney reading some of the responses.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I agree with most, if not all, of what he is saying._

 

 Based on any practical experience?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_He has done at least 29 of his published mags, so I suspect he has "spent some quality time" with decent systems._

 

As many of the threads on this forum and others establish, having or expressing opinions about what things sound like or should sound like is not confined to those who have actually listened to anything.


----------



## JB.

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_ I submit that you're not as bright as you seem to think you are (and neither is Azcel), and that we're not as stupid as you seem to think we are (and Azcel does). But other than that, I think I'll turn the other cheek at this point with respect to any further insults, intentional or otherwise. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Um . . .I don't think that you think that I am as smart as you think I think I am.

 I hope you can read my "insults" with the touch of irony I hope to be coloring them with (many people mistake what I say for what I mean). 

 Look, all knowledge is orientation. My single concern in this entire thread is this: it's more than a little disturbing that the basic tenants of epistemological inquiry are to be left out in the cold in this forum. “Insults” land where they may, just be sure to strengthen your argument instead of falling into defensive recriminations- smeltit dealtit.

 I’m also not claiming to have any special knowledge here- I’m just sick of the continual retreat of reason in high-end circles. I just cancelled (this month) my subscription of Stereophile after god-knows how many years because I can’t stand that half the ads in each issue are for cables and power cords. Here’s a sample of the ads from my last issue:

 “PowerSnakes power cables have single-handedly legitimized a product category that has been mired in skepticism . . .Shunyata Research’s investments in custom parts engineering, patented geometries and specialized materials have revolutionized expectations . . .AudioQuest DBS cables include additional dedicated internal conductors attached to a DBS battery pack. DBS creates a stable electrostatic field which organizes the electrical properties of a cable’s insulation . . . Analysis Plus- Scientifically Verifiable Quality! . . .Siltech- 20 years of metallurgic perfection . . .” and at least TEN MORE that I’m seeing as I’m flipping through.


----------



## ucbEE

Something I don't get: I'm not even trying to argue here, so don't be mad if my logic doesn't make sense. I am quite new to audio and maybe I'm missing something. This is my thought process.


 axiom: what sounds better is better
 --> (sounds better) does not necessarily equal (looks better/has better reputation/more expensive/anything other than sounds better)
 -->perceptions can change with prior knowlege, other sensory input (vision for example) this is called placebo effect
 --> best way to test audio components is to deprive all other senses/knowlege
 -->double blind test right?


----------



## eric343

DBT-free forum.


----------



## ChaosCow

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_There is a reason why so many high-end audio products are either strongly grounded in tried-and-true designs (e.g. Ray Samuels, Rudistor) or created by engineers with decades of analog experience (HeadAmp, LaRocco) -- and so few true high-end products by people like this guy._

 

While I'm certainly careful to lump anybody in the same category as this guy (although I would lump myself), seeing as everyone seems to have taken serious offense to his comments, I think Xin Feng is an example of an actual scientist making headphone amplifiers. He looks for quantifiable results, and boy howdy, does he get them.


----------



## JJ15k

Quick question, why is it a DBT-free forum?


----------



## crazyfrenchman27

This thread was originally in a non-DBT-free forum, so I think it's pretty lame that we can't talk about DBT like adults.

 The only reason why they don't want to talk about DBT is that they don't want to reach the startling conclusion that some of the things they believe and spend thousands of dollars on are, in fact, untrue.

 -Matt


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_Um . . .I don't think that you think that I am as smart as you think I think I am._

 

 LOL. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_I’m also not claiming to have any special knowledge here- I’m just sick of the continual retreat of reason in high-end circles._

 

 I'm not sure what this refers to. I understand if by "continual retreat of reason" you mean some of the ads you reference. But many objectivists seem to think that "reason" absolutely refutes what people claim to hear, and it does not. It may be evidence to be weighed against what people hear, but it is not absolute truth -- in the sense that we can't say with absolute scientific certainty that the things we are talking about don't result in audible differences. Thus, for example, I don't ignore the science (and I doubt that many other believers ignore it). I don't say that science or measurements don't play a role in all this, nor I am saying that the "scientists" are possessed by Satan, etc. It's just that I find my actual listening experience to outweigh what I understand about the science, even considering the "placebo effect," etc. I suspect that many other "believers" have "reasoned" to a similar conclusion.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyfrenchman27* 
_The only reason why they don't want to talk about DBT is that they don't want to reach the startling conclusion that some of the things they believe and spend thousands of dollars on are, in fact, untrue._

 

Yeah, that's it alright. You figured us out. But now you ruined it for us by reminding us of how we are fooling ourselves. It's going to be real hard to put on the delusion again. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously, the reason it is a DBT forum, I suspect, is to provide a place where people can seek helpful advice about cables, power cords, and other audio tweaks without every thread turning into a discussion about the issues we are discussing now. These issues are interesting and fun to discuss (most of the time), but they don't need to overrun every thread.


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aerius* 
_Article on THD and measurements
 Excerpt:

New Methodology for Audio Frequency Amplifier Testing (PDF File)
 Excerpt:

 Read both articles in their entirety._

 

Thanks a million! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The thesis you linked is the most interesting article written about audio I have EVER read--no kidding. 

 The theory being proposed is very interesting, and he has provided enough evidence to make me think that it might be right. Admittedly, I don't have a whole lot of knowledge in EE, hi-end audio and human auditory system. But his knowledge of hi-end audio seems to me quite spot-on. His description of human hearing, at for least the parts that I understand, is consistent with what I learned in introductory neurobiology classes. His experimental design, methods and data analysis, which are far beyond my limited knowledge of circuits and electronics from undergrad classes, appear to me as sound and credible. His style of writing appears sincere and strives for rationality and accuracy (this is a degree thesis). His explanation of why conventional THD and IMD measurements correlate poorly with perceived quality is very elegant, IMHO. If all the research advances presented in this thesis is his original idea, I think this person may some day revolutionize how we measure audio equipment. His conjecture on why CD may sound no better than LP is very intriguing. I am ultra impressed by this thesis. If his theory can be verified by more measurements and listening tests, we might see a major leap in our understanding of music perception and audio equipment design. 

 I wish I could meet and talk to this person about audio someday--seriously. Aerius--is there any chance this person may be a registered member on head-fi?

 BTW, the fact that the author may not have designed a great amplifier himself does not reduce his credibility. Most science/engineering professors in top research universities today do not conduct experiments at all. Students and postdocs do the actual work requiring hands. Besides, experimental methods change so much every ten years that many senior professors do not have any idea about how to do a simple experiment using today's lab equipment. Yet these professors talk/write brilliantly about their research and are considered the foremost experts in their discipline. Lots of hands-on experience is not required for establising credibility and authority, although some degree of it is probably necessary. Hey, this author has built an SET class A amp himself--that's probably good enough.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChaosCow* 
_You guys are missing the point. The author probably could go for pages backing this stuff up. He wants you to ABx everything you buy. BE SKEPTICAL. Don't just say "I disagree, I'm gonna go buy some $2000 cables now." Double-blind test them. His inflammatory tone should make you mad. So DO something about it. Don't sit about hopelessly moaning "I swear I can tell a difference. Really." Go test your beliefs! The audio critic challenges you - prove him wrong! He's asking for it! Boy, what a jerk! Show him who's boss! And, if he's right, he's right. You've rationally done a double-blind test. It's an experiment. It's fun. You're a scientist, without any technical mumbo-jumbo!_

 

Just for the record: This is a DBT-free forum. And with good reason. I keep my own audio world DBT-free as well. 


  Quote:


 _But at times, I feel the crux of the subjectivist argument is this:

_«...science and data can never explain the world, so don't give them too much power!»_ 

 Yes, it can. Science is doing amazing things that one never thought possible. Some day, science WILL understand the world, as long as we have enough time. For every effect, there is a cause - things don't just "happen". Naturally, that creates a problem for "the beginning", but I'll think about that later. But I can guarantee that if you demonstrate to me any, ANY phenomenon, there is a cause. So believing good sound just "happens" with magical (and coincidentally expensive) components for no real reason is insane._ 
 

You're missing the point. I'm not saying things happen magically. Of course there's cause and effect. And science _is_ fascinating and useful. That doesn't change the fact that it will never be able to explain the world. Like measurements don't do Brahms' piano concertos or Dante's «Divina Commedia» justice.


----------



## majid

1. I agree most esoteric cables are snake oil. The quality of the connectors and soldering can make a difference, though. If you really are paranoid about your interconnects, you should use balanced cables like professionals do, not precious moebius-braided unobtainium cables sheathed in virgin llama hide insulation jackets...
 2. Irrelevant - tube vs. solid state is a subjective preference, mostly a matter of personal taste
 3. Mostly agree. Your DACs have to be good, though, and ultimately DACs are analog components.
 4. Agree for purposes of comparison, but there is a difference between short-term auditions and extended ones. My first audiophile gear had very sharp impulse response and sounded great at first, but the punchiness became tiresome during extended listening, and I had to switch to a more mellow amp.
 5. Agree, from my long-forgotten classes in op-amp circuit design. Negative feedback keeps circuits stable.
 6. Agree for solid-state, not for tubes.
 7. Agree
 8. Decent equipment should cope with the vagaries of mains power, but the ever deteriorating quality of the US' power grid may in places yield atrocious brown-outs and spikes that may need to be corrected. There is no point in highly regulated power supplies, that's the jobs of the AC/DC circuitry in your amp.
 9. Agree. In theory, some compounds can compensate for gouges in an optical medium, and are in fact commonly used to mask scratches in film prior to scanning. That said, the ECC in CD-Audio is redundant enough to compensate for any scratch fine enough to be masked by wet-mounting oil.
 10. Disagree. If nothing else, our ears' high-frequency sensitivity decreases with age, so a younger listener will probably catch more nuances, if he or she hasn't shot his or her hearing from too much loud rock at too high volumes...


----------



## aerius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_Thanks a million! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The thesis you linked is the most interesting article written about audio I have EVER read--no kidding._

 

No problem! Glad someone took the time to read the articles and think about them. 

  Quote:


 If all the research advances presented in this thesis is his original idea, I think this person may some day revolutionize how we measure audio equipment. His conjecture on why CD may sound no better than LP is very intriguing. I am ultra impressed by this thesis. If his theory can be verified by more measurements and listening tests, we might see a major leap in our understanding of music perception and audio equipment design. 
 

A lot of what he presents is based on ideas which were aborted when the specifications race started. He's taken those ideas, expanded on them, and used modern equipment and science to investigate and try to understand them.

  Quote:


 I wish I could meet and talk to this person about audio someday--seriously. Aerius--is there any chance this person may be a registered member on head-fi? 
 

Likewise. No idea if he's a head-fi member, I don't think so but you never know.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 I keep my own audio world DBT-free as well. 
 

I think that is obvious, or else you would realize that most of what this author is saying is true


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_I think that is obvious, or else you would realize that most of what this author is saying is true 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Interesting contention. So what's your experience with the items referenced in the article, both in terms of long terms use and comparisons between specific equipment or devices?


----------



## JB.

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Interesting contention. So what's your experience with the items referenced in the article, both in terms of long terms use and comparisons between specific equipment or devices?_

 

This effectively gets at the heart of the discussion; the preference of anecdotal evidence over quantifiable knowledge.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Just for the record: This is a DBT-free forum. And with good reason. I keep my own audio world DBT-free as well. _

 

I'm not sure how DBT could be so stigmatized that a person would prefer anecdotal evidence. The methods of “science” are not only available to aliens in lab coats operating in isolated research environments. A small collection of equipment can yield valid and meaningful data, even in your own living room. 

 In order to break out of tautological constraints, it is necessary to test things. 

 Accept no eternal verity; change and be ready to change again; experiment.


----------



## geardoc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *haydenlake* 
_..snip
 What interests me the most are the topics of cables, power conditioners, and burn in.

 .._

 

What they said about cables and power conditioning make perfect sense. Anyone with a modest education in electronics would agree. (I stay quiet on cable discussions mostly because of my amusement of the sophisticated sonic descriptions ascribed to certain cables, all of course, not ABX tested) 

 Burn-in, however, they made exception of it being a lie in the case of mechanical devices like speakers. Presumably this applies to headphones too. I guess it makes sense to remain open minded on this one.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_This effectively gets at the heart of the discussion; the preference of anecdotal evidence over quantifiable knowledge.
_

 

 No, it says nothing about a "preference." That is not in issue yet. I'm just asking for the actual listening experiences of those who are the skeptics. Once we are told what it is, we can decide how to value it. I am even willing to assume for the sake of argument at this point that the listening experiences of the 'believers," including mine, are entirely irrelevant. But notice that I haven't yet been provided with any substantial listening experience from the skeptics or DBT propooents or those who "think" this or that doesn't make a difference. Fact is, you can never get this on any of these threads. Why?

 EDIT: And for a moment, assume that I and other "believers" have a preference for what you say is "anecdotal evidence." At least we are willing to consider the other side of the coin. It is the skeptics who will only consider one type of evidence, which is rather ironic for those who favor the scientific disciplines. Frankly, the position of anyone who advances an absolute position without obtaining some knowledge based on their own experiences is, in this context, worthy of no serious consideration.


----------



## JB.

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, it says nothing about a "preference." That is not in issue yet. I'm just asking for the actual listening experiences of those who are the skeptics. Once we are told what it is, we can decide how to value it._

 

Arguing anecdotal evidence using anecdotal evidence?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JB.* 
_Arguing anecdotal evidence using anecdotal evidence? 
_

 

Huh?


----------



## aerius

You know what I don't understand? Why do people on both sides of the debate, especially the objectivists, act as if the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive? This is not a black & white issue, it's not "this is what the measurements say, therefore your ears are full of crap" or "this is what I hear, therefore the measurements are full of crap". Thinking in black & white doesn't get you very far, the real world comes in shades of grey.

 Fine, so you don't find a correlation between measurements & hearing experiences. So instead of trying to find out what the heck's going on or if you're even measuring the right thing, the 2 sides dedicate all their energy towards smearing the other and hyping their points, real productive there. I'm sure it's a good ego boost, especially when you have an audience, but really, what are you accomplishing? You're not going to sway anyone or gain converts, and you're getting nowhere closer to finding out what's really going on.

 Those 2 articles I linked to earlier are a start in the right direction. They gather data and try to find patterns in the measurements which better correlate with actual listening results. It's not the same tired old "let's do a study to prove that my viewpoint is right" crap. 

 What have we learned from decades of ABX studies? Well, we learned that everything except speakers sounds the same in those tests. What has listening experience told us? Almost everything has a unique sound to it. What has decades of measuring the crap out of gear taught us? Well, we now know how to build stuff that measures really well on the test bench. Does it sound good? Sometimes, sometimes not. So what have we really learned? I'd say we've got a whole bunch of pieces for the puzzle but we've barely begun to put it all together.

 To quote Isaac Asimov, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'" We've got data that doesn't fit into the current model, people should be going "that's funny...what the heck's going on..?", but instead, it's being tossed away and dismissed. That's not science. That's dogma.


----------



## RnB180

the article is BS,

 too bad audio noobs will follow him in droves, since it will convince them that high end audio is cheap.

 there is a reason why that article was used as a freebie, He totally goes against every concept of higher end audio and makes the reader think, "wow!, I didn't know this, this is totally different from what Ive been told, this guy must know what he's talking about! Your article will save me loads of cash in the future, I must susbscribe"

 If he's attacking snake oil, then he can also be blamed for Shock Jock samplers to pull in subscriptions.

 I stopped reading after the cables comparison of a rat shack being no different then a $4000 cable and his statements about tubes sucking.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Interesting contention. So what's your experience with the items referenced in the article, both in terms of long terms use and comparisons between specific equipment or devices?_

 

My experience is basic electronics knowledge, knowing that cables unless broken will sound the same.

 I have tested "glass" toslinks and I can hear no difference. I have listened to Kimber Kable, Audioqest cable and Radio Shack cable with no difference.

 I admit, I have never painted CDs green, but basic knowledge tells me that CDs are 1s and 0s.

 I have listened to my amps and my cables before "burn-in" and after "burn-in" and could not really come to a conclusion of being different. If I did think it was different, it could just be because I am getting more used to the sound, not because the caps are changing the sound.

 If someone is a golden ear, they are spending way too much time analyzing the music rather than enjoying it. You could say that about blind testing also, but if I am going to spend $500 on cables, they better sound different, and they don't.

 People can barely tell the difference between a well encoded MP3 and a CD.CD vs. MP3 test 

 I have not jumped out of an airplane either, but basic physics tells me that I will fall at the 9.8 m/s - air resitance. Science has to prevail on this stuff, we are not talking magic here.


----------



## RnB180

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyfrenchman27* 
_This thread was originally in a non-DBT-free forum, so I think it's pretty lame that we can't talk about DBT like adults.

 The only reason why they don't want to talk about DBT is that they don't want to reach the startling conclusion that some of the things they believe and spend thousands of dollars on are, in fact, untrue.

 -Matt_

 

actually it was converted to non-DBT because the arguments and heated debates would get out of hand. I read an explaination from one of the mods I think a while back. as you can see this thread getting a bit hot, making it non-DBT keeps some level of composure. Also you'd also have to take into consideration the well-being of the sponsors.

 my 2 cents.


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aerius* 
_What have we learned from decades of ABX studies? Well, we learned that everything except speakers sounds the same in those tests. What has listening experience told us? Almost everything has a unique sound to it. What has decades of measuring the crap out of gear taught us? Well, we now know how to build stuff that measures really well on the test bench. Does it sound good? Sometimes, sometimes not. So what have we really learned? I'd say we've got a whole bunch of pieces for the puzzle but we've barely begun to put it all together._

 

I thought ABX studies in general showed that speakers, pre-amp and source can make a difference, and power amps and cables do not. 

 This is a DBT free forum--ha, ha, that's funny--I always forget. Why is that you can only listen with your eyes open but not with your eyes closed? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway I am reminded of a little test we had in neurobiology class. We are shown two similar pictures on screen, and people who see a difference will raise their hands. Sometimes it may take 10 sec-10 min minutes for some people to notice a fairly obvious difference, such as two living rooms with or without a cat beside the couch. It is funny that once you have seen the difference the next time you are shown the same two pictures you immediately see the differnece. Also, if you get instruction for what to look for, you notice the difference much more quickly. Now imagine if we show these two similar pictures in some kind of ABX test. If the viewers are forced to conduct the test quickly, then we may even find that people cannot distinguish the two pictures by statistical analysis, alhtough the few poeple who sucessfully see the difference will testify that the difference is very apparant. This is of course not a very good analogy because auio and visual perception works differently. But I guess it is quite possible minute differences may not be easily easily discernible in ABX tests. On the other hand, familiarity or verbal hints may help people to identify differences. My impression is that people's performance in cognitive tests very much relies on how the test protocol is designed. Perhaps we have not yet found optimized DBT protocols for audio stuff. But if the majority of audiophiles are vehemently opposed to DBT, it is likely that no one will ever invest the neccessary resources to optimize such test protocols.


----------



## JB.

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aerius* 
_Fine, so you don't find a correlation between measurements & hearing experiences. So instead of trying to find out what the heck's going on or if you're even measuring the right thing, the 2 sides dedicate all their energy towards smearing the other and hyping their points, real productive there. I'm sure it's a good ego boost, especially when you have an audience, but really, what are you accomplishing? You're not going to sway anyone or gain converts, and you're getting nowhere closer to finding out what's really going on._

 

Always appreciate mediation, but . . .

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aerius* 
_What have we learned from decades of ABX studies? Well, we learned that everything except speakers sounds the same in those tests. What has listening experience told us? Almost everything has a unique sound to it. What has decades of measuring the crap out of gear taught us? Well, we now know how to build stuff that measures really well on the test bench. Does it sound good? Sometimes, sometimes not. So what have we really learned? I'd say we've got a whole bunch of pieces for the puzzle but we've barely begun to put it all together._

 

Decades of ABX studies? Good mediation requires an unbiased mediator, and the implicit viewpoint in your statements is one of “belief.” To accuse others of smearing to create an illusion of unbiased credibility is underhanded. 
 Comparisons of equipment have been made, peer reviewed, replicated, and repeated. They have been subject to the same procedures used to verify the effectiveness of medications, surgical procedures, auto safety, etc, etc. The only real difference in the experimental designs is how unbelievably easy it is to conduct tests on audio gear. 
 Nearly every study of audition requires a baseline to be established. Undergrads in sensation/perception research are often required to create research designs that can test audible differences in equipment as a way to introduce them to basic concepts of research. The data produced by well-conducted research provide results that are so clear that statistics are often not required to establish validity. So why the controversy? Because someone invariably takes issue with the data and claims that it is not accounting for “real world” experiences of others, in effect, that “anecdotal evidence” seems to contradict the results. This is so basic a premise that it seems unimaginable that so many intelligent people fail to consider it.

 To say, “all that decades of research have taught us is that everything but speakers sounds the same in the tests” is a misrepresentation. Decades of research have only shown that the credulous mind is fertile ground for profiteering and that critical thinking has yet to be seen commonly as something of value.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Based on any practical experience?




 As many of the threads on this forum and others establish, having or expressing opinions about what things sound like or should sound like is not confined to those who have actually listened to anything._

 

Chill out Phil. We know where each other stand on this subject. It is fairly clear that no ones mind is going to be changed.
 Dana


----------



## Beauregard

*Pop quiz for audio oldtimers!*

 This is from a 1982 review of the ABX Comparator, a piece of equipment that allows blind evaluation of hi-fi equipment. (Order of snippets reversed.) 

 "*The ABX Comparator*

 Now here's an inspired idea! A device which virtually guarantees the integrity of any comparative component-listening session. ...

 ... But it has to be used. Few audiophiles would pay $500 for a gadget that might do no more for then than prove they have been deluding themselves all these years. But audio clubs could afford them, and should use them. So can and should every component manufacturer that really wants to find out if its latest product is truly better than the competition. The device could cause more embarrassment in this world than the invention of the rattlefart, but whenever truth and conviction are at odds with one another, embarrassment for some is inevitable, good, and necessary for the advance of knowledge. The losers will be the dissemblers, the frauds, and those most skilled in the art of the autohype. The winners, ultimately, will be music and the rest of us who are interested only in the maximal fidelity of reproduced music."

 Question 1. In which audio magazine did the review appear and who was the author?

 Question 2. Which audio magazine editor/publishers adopted the device and published reviews based on its use? If they didn't, why didn't they?

 Extra credit. Do you agree with the sentiments expressed above? If not, why not?

 No cheating, now... We're on the honor system.

 The answers to question 1 with full text can be found here. 

 Who got it right?? Anyone surprised?

 Feel free to discuss question 2 etc. in my absence... Time permitting, I'll post my thoughts tomorrow. But now teach has to grade last week's papers and get some sleep.

 Best,
 Professor Beau


----------



## Publius

I was away from the computer the last few days so here's an ill-timed reply.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_No. I'm too lazy to search for AC's statement to this subject, but (theoretically) there's nothing more welcome than a non-distorting amplifier. Nevertheless I don't agree if you equate measured neutrality (= ultra-low distortion) with sonic neutrality. Because obviously we still don't know what makes amps sound different, even those with virtually identical measurings._

 

Well, I didn't say I equated measured neutrality to anything, so I think we're in agreement to disagree.

  Quote:


 Now I'm confused. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_«Headphone/speaker measurements are one of the few areas where there are audible differences.»_ This your then statement, repeated here in other words, without much need for interpretation. You do exclude electronics (amps and sources) from the devices which can cause sonic differences, don't you? 
 

Right. The point I was trying to make is that people - even pro/academic audio engineers - can look at the frequency/distortion response of a headphone/speaker and make very concrete statements about the sound of the speaker. In fact, there was an AES conference article last year where a guy was able to get excellent predictive power between his speaker response measurements and subjective audio reviews from audiophiles.

  Quote:


 So does that mean Stradivaris are no better than normal violins? You should know that blind tests don't prove anything. Fact is that Stradivaris have gained enormous respect with a broad public for their beautiful sound and were considered superior to (most) other violins of the same era. I don't know if some of today's violins aren't just as good, but that's not the point. 
 

The point I was making was that your analogy sucks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Not necessarily. Of course, from a scientific point of view it would be ideal, but I don't like the idea of having everything gaplessly explained by science, no white spots on the map, no mysteries waiting for solution... Not that that's my motif for audiophile hallucinations, don't get me wrong! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But science and data can never explain the world, so don't give them too much power! 
 

I'll actually agree with you on this one: science has never been able to completely explain the world - even physical science cannot do this for non-audio topics. But I think it's impossible to be either fully complete or fully consistent - either you can't explain everything you observe, or the explanations you come up with are thin.

 The key distinguisher - what makes my philosophy being incomplete rather than inconsistent - is that even if you can't explain everything, you can build on top of what you can consistently explain to explain other things. But if your theory is inconsistent, you can't reason past the inconsistentcy. You can be on one side or the other, but the more you try to put on top of it, the weaker the theory becomes.

 In terms of a more scientific audio world.... it could work a lot of ways. But the worst case scenario is that people stop caring about their gear and spend more money on music. I don't see a problem with that. Assuming, of course, that we're right.

  Quote:


 Whatever Mr. Kuhn or anybody else may have to say to the matter, I don't buy it if it means that trusting your senses (with all due self-criticism) equates to belief. That's a typical top-heavy-objectivist attitude rating the intellectual, data-oriented input above all other things. Tell an acrobat to not trust his senses! 
 

Either you assert that you should trust your senses, or you don't assert it. Why is this a particularly objective argument?


----------



## PhilS

I was away from the thread for a few days as well. When I got back, I saw Danamr's response to my request for his practical experience, and the practical experience of other "non-believers," regarding the items and components under discussion. He said I should "chill out" and that neither side will convince the other. Then the following scenario ran through my head:

 John to his friend Mary: "You should try this pistachio ice cream. You'll really like it."

 Mary: "I know I won't like it."

 John: "Just try it. Thousands of people have tried it and they all loved it. They say it's the best pistachio ever."

 Mary: "They probably like any kind of ice cream. I don't." 

 John: "Just taste it; many of people who have tried it and liked it said they never liked pistachio ice cream before and never would, but when they finally tried this kind, they all loved it."

 Mary: "That's impossible, all pistachio ice cream tastes the same."

 John: "Won't you just try it; this is really different."

 Mary: "No I won't try it and nothing you ever say will ever convince me that it tastes different."

 John: "I guess you're right. You've convinced yourself in your mind that it can't taste different, and I guess nothing I can SAY will ever convince you, since you won't try it."

 John decided that Mary was not being entirely rational, and that there was no point in talking to her anymore about the delicious pistachio ice cream, but they still remained friends.


----------



## Sleestack

All I know is that my brain and whatever subconscious forces are at work, better keep being suceptible to pysyhoacoustic phenomenon, or I'm really going to end up regretting all of the Cardas Golden Reference interconnects and cables I bought for my 2 channlel system. 

 I've had a number of well-doers on audioholics try to change my mind. Much to their chagrin, I stood firm in my decision.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_Right._

 

All the more I'm astonished about your then indignation. I find it hard to understand how someone with open and healthy ears can refuse to hear the obvious differences with electronics. Which lets me question what all the technical progress is worth for.


  Quote:


 _The point I was making was that your analogy sucks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_ 
 

It doesn't suck at all. Stradivari violins are/have been broadly acknowledged to have extraordinarily beautiful tone, superior to all or most other violins. The point is that people have heard that and haven't waited for measurements to allow them to be sure about their impressions. It doesn't matter if (today) there are other competitive violins, the clue is that not all violins sound the same, and you don't have to consult a technician to judge it -- and if you're a musician, you take the instrument whose tone you prefer (and not whose measuring data tell you it's better). 


  Quote:


 _I'll actually agree with you on this one: science has never been able to completely explain the world - even physical science cannot do this for non-audio topics. But I think it's impossible to be either fully complete or fully consistent - either you can't explain everything you observe, or the explanations you come up with are thin._ 
 

I don't generally question the competence of (natural) science. If you look back at my statement, you'll notice that it just served to show why I prefer not to have everything explained. Many physicists and engineers are prone enough to think they can explain everything in a materialistic and mechanistic way -- but please don't interprete this statement as related to audio. 


  Quote:


 _Either you assert that you should trust your senses, or you don't assert it. Why is this a particularly objective argument?_ 
 

I don't get what you're trying to say. Trusting your senses is a subjective thing, nevertheless can lead to objective, reproduceable results (just like measuring instruments, BTW). Well, an acrobat who doesn't trust his senses will get reproduceable results as well, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Trusting your senses usually is a highly useful attitude, sometimes even essential for survival. Our own existence (as homo sapiens) is based on this attitude, not least when it comes to our hearing. A self-centered, psychically healthy human will trust his senses without questioning if this attitude has something to do with belief. A top-heavy, intellectual or otherwise unsettled person can be brought to the delegation of his self-confidence to authorities in the form of persons, religions, ideologies or data. Of course we're humans and as such capable of erring as well as capable of being aware of our erring -- among other things. All the more we should be proud of what we are and what we're capable of. That's not a belief, just a healthy attitude -- proven to be useful over many eras.


----------



## crazyfrenchman27

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I was away from the thread for a few days as well. When I got back, I saw Danamr's response to my request for his practical experience, and the practical experience of other "non-believers," regarding the items and components under discussion. He said I should "chill out" and that neither side will convince the other. Then the following scenario ran through my head:

 John to his friend Mary: "You should try this pistachio ice cream. You'll really like it."

 Mary: "I know I won't like it."

 John: "Just try it. Thousands of people have tried it and they all loved it. They say it's the best pistachio ever."

 Mary: "They probably like any kind of ice cream. I don't." 

 John: "Just taste it; many of people who have tried it and liked it said they never liked pistachio ice cream before and never would, but when they finally tried this kind, they all loved it."

 Mary: "That's impossible, all pistachio ice cream tastes the same."

 John: "Won't you just try it; this is really different."

 Mary: "No I won't try it and nothing you ever say will ever convince me that it tastes different."

 John: "I guess you're right. You've convinced yourself in your mind that it can't taste different, and I guess nothing I can SAY will ever convince you, since you won't try it."

 John decided that Mary was not being entirely rational, and that there was no point in talking to her anymore about the delicious pistachio ice cream, but they still remained friends. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I suppose the same holds true for DBT.

 Why not try it with some hi-fi audio equipment? It's not going to hurt you and it might further illuminate the "differences" that you hear.

 And yes, I have DBT high-quality amps and interconnects. That seems like the only reasonable way to test gear without experiencing the "rainbow foil" effect.

 I'd love to read these "studies" that show that DBT is completely invalid.

 -Matt


----------



## crazyfrenchman27

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Seriously, the reason it is a DBT forum, I suspect, is to provide a place where people can seek helpful advice about cables, power cords, and other audio tweaks without every thread turning into a discussion about the issues we are discussing now._

 

To detect a discernible difference between cables, power cords, and audio tweaks in a DBT would justify the expense, thus making the advice that much more helpful. There's no reason why you wouldn't want to DBT gear. I agree that DBT isn't the only way one should experience new gear; however, I think it's pretty ridiculous to denigrate it as a useful way to make comparisons. 

 If you can't detect a meaningful difference between A and B in a DBT, then why pay twice as much for B?

 In addition, just because one can't detect a difference does not mean that there is no difference: not everyone has perfect hearing. If that person can't hear the difference between A and B while others can, why pay more for B?

 People who refuse to DBT are making themselves susceptible to powerful placebo effects. However, in this case, ignorance is not only fleecing the wallets of DBT-nay sayers, but those whom they provide "professional" advice to as well.

 -Matt


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aerius* 
_This is not a black & white issue, it's not "this is what the measurements say, therefore your ears are full of crap" or "this is what I hear, therefore the measurements are full of crap". Thinking in black & white doesn't get you very far, the real world comes in shades of grey._

 

Yes, as Obi-One would put it: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes"


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazyfrenchman27* 
_To detect a discernible difference between cables, power cords, and audio tweaks in a DBT would justify the expense, thus making the advice that much more helpful. There's no reason why you wouldn't want to DBT gear. I agree that DBT isn't the only way one should experience new gear; however, I think it's pretty ridiculous to denigrate it as a useful way to make comparisons. 

 People who refuse to DBT are making themselves susceptible to powerful placebo effects. However, in this case, ignorance is not only fleecing the wallets of DBT-nay sayers, but those whom they provide "professional" advice to as well.

 -Matt_

 

No offense, but you are being a bit presumptious in assuming that everyone needs to have the same reasons as you for justifying an expense. The only thing I need to justify an expense is the desire to buy and the resources to do so. I certainly never feel the need to go back and make sure I got "my money's worth." I'll live with my own mistakes. 

 While I have no objections to DBT, I wouldn't want to DBT gear simply b/c I have better things to do than worry about whether or not the item I bought is identifiable in a listening environment I would never subject myself to unless I was doing a DBT. I buy gear b/c I like the way it sounds, the way it looks and because it arouses my compulsion to buy. The fact that I may not be able to distinguish my $1000 Denon PMA2000IVR integrated amp from my $6K EAR/Meridian preamp/amp combo (although I don't think that is the case)does not diminish my satisfaction with the more expensive pieces one bit. All it does is make me happy that my Denon sounds so good. 

 Ahh yes, but I could have spent my money so much more wisely.... I really don't care. If I get fleeced on interconnects, I'm not losing any sleep over it. I'm not saying that you can't have different prioirites, but to assume that people who refuse to DBT are being ignorant, is just you judging people for not having the same concerns. 

 If I listen to something and it sounds good to me that's al that matters. IMO it's about enjoying the music, not fretting about the relatively insignificant, evil cable manufacturers of the world. I completely understand why it is important to some people to know that their money is being well spent, however, I can do without the paternalistic audiophiles who feel the need to shove their thrifty ways down my throat. There are many aspects in of my life where I consider myself to be fairly informed and wise.... if I'm being ignorant about audio equipment, it provides a nice balance.


----------



## recstar24

sleestack,

 IMO you appear to have a very healthy and positive attitude, and i commend it. I share a very similar attitude as well, however i dont think my wallet is as fearless as yours


----------



## recstar24

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* 
_Yes, as Obi-One would put it: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

And as yoda would say: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate is the path to the darkside."


----------



## jude

What about the fact that this is a DBT-free forum do you guys not understand? You want to argue with me about it? Don't waste your time--it'd fall on deaf ears. (Har har. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## thefuzzybird

I've been reading this thread and find it very interesting. I'm new to the subject of high-end equipment and because I have little experience, I couldn't easily justify an opinion on the matter through any other means than common sense. And my concept of common sense isn't always the most accurate, especially when there isn't an easily proven "correct" answer. As a music major, however, I find the violin analogy particularly interesting.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_It doesn't suck at all. Stradivari violins are/have been broadly acknowledged to have extraordinarily beautiful tone, superior to all or most other violins. The point is that people have heard that and haven't waited for measurements to allow them to be sure about their impressions. It doesn't matter if (today) there are other competitive violins, the clue is that not all violins sound the same, and you don't have to consult a technician to judge it -- and if you're a musician, you take the instrument whose tone you prefer (and not whose measuring data tell you it's better)._

 



 I am a saxophonist, and while my experience with this instrument may be slightly different because the saxophone lacks the violin's maturity (and because the differences between saxophone makes are more pronounced), I think the principle remains the same. It is true that with any instrument some brands will carry a reputation of excellence, and these brands will often, though not always, justify their reputation through their performance. It is also true that many makes of instrument gain such reputations through years of hype.

 With a musical instrument, such factors as intonation can be quantitatively measured. You can take a tuner to a violin and tell if A measures 440, or whether the thing is playing out of tune. This doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the tone, but it does tell you that you're playing it in tune. Sure, you could strangle a cat, and that cat might reproduce the tone A, but it wouldn't sound very good. At the same time, no instrument, however well made, will sound good if played significantly out of tune. I like to think this analogy corresponds well to distortion in the amplification. I don't think the measurements commonly used will quantitatively tell you if the thing is going to sound fanastic or horrible. Ideally, yes, you want them to be perfect. You want to be playing precisely in tune. But a professional player playing just slightly out of tune will sound better than a hack honking away with perfect intonation. I believe that it would be theoretically possible to graph out the sound waves emerging from the instrument and discern why a particular intrument sounds good. It has to sound good for a reason. Are we capable of detecting that reason right now? No, probably not. That's why subjective listening is important. But I can tell you that if I showed up to a wind ensemble rehearsal playing horrendously out of tune, I'd be thrown out just as quickly as someone honking away accurately.


 As far as the subjectivity goes, I think I can accurately continue the analogy. I've played dozens, if not hundreds of professional-grade saxophones. Some had better reputations than others, but each had some wacko who would absolutely swear by them. The number of wackos varied based on the hype or the performance of the horn. I can tell you that for a long time, it seemed like half the horns I tested were the best horns I'd ever played. Every time I played something new, I fell in love with something about its sound. I don't think it would have mattered whether I were testing them blind (although that isn't really possible with an instrument, since you can feel the differences). Blind or not, I would have found things about the sound that I liked with each. Yes, I could decide which I liked better, but it seemed like I was second-guessing myself every time I played something new. After playing probably hundreds of these things over the last several years, I've reached the conclusion that there isn't quantatively a best horn for tone quality. Could you say that there is a best instrument for quantitative things like intonation. Oh, definitely. Coincidentally, the saxophones that are reported to have the best intonation and measurable characteristics are also accused of sounding bland and sterile, as solid state amps are accused of sounding harsh.

 Could someone listening to a player testing two horns side by side hear a difference? Yeah. And the listener could probably pick out which he liked better. But what's going to happen when you change the player (or to complete the analogy, the recording)? Not every player is going to sound better on one instrument or the other. And between two very well-made instruments, it barely even matters to the audience which is being played, because the quality of the performance is more directly affected by the musician. And I don't think there are too many musicians out there who are going to be drastically affected by a change between two very good instruments. He'll probably prefer one or the other, though.


 (Honestly, I think between two well-made instruments, I'd take the one with better intonation. While the instrument is certainly going to affect the tone, the musician is ultimately going to have a greater impact.)


 Here's the thing, though. With audio equipment, you're not just producing a tone. You're reproducing a tone. IF your goal is to reproduce the original sound that was recorded, I believe you can quantitatively measure which reproduction is more accurate. Yes, you need to trust your ears, and like a musical instrument, some people will prefer the sound of one system to another. However, if your goal is to reproduce the original sound as accurately as possible, I believe you an objectively decide which reproduction is more accurate. Yes, you'll ultimately decide with your ears. With the proper measuring medium, I don't think this would be a necessity. I don't think we have that medium.

 This is a completely different standard from the question of which sounds better. You could design a synthesizer with a violin channel that sounds better than any wooden violin ever made and record a Sonata with it. If your goal was to provide the best musical representation of that Sonata, you'd go with the synthesized performance (factors like musicianship aside).

 If your goal is to reproduce a recording of that Sonata accurately, the synthesizer is useless. This is where I feel the difference between judging equipment with more emphasis on scientific measurements comes into play.



 Was any of that relevant or sensible? Did anyone even read that, or did I try to go way too far with it?


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_All the more I'm astonished about your then indignation. I find it hard to understand how someone with open and healthy ears can refuse to hear the obvious differences with electronics. Which lets me question what all the technical progress is worth for._

 

I'll leave open the possibility I'm just deaf 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I once failed a sighted A/B comparison between a MMF5 and a much, much more expensive turntable, possibly a VPI Super Scout (I forget the exact model, and it's probably not a VPI - it had a really thick greenish plinth). I would not at all be surprised that real audible differences existed between those decks and I'm just not experienced enough to notice.

 I was originally just trying to call you out on saying that some objective measurements were completely useless, but I can understand that I was implying between the lines that measurement perfection equates to inaudibility, and I was really trying to avoid that debate in the first place, and I didn't really believe it in the first place. Apologies. I'm just going to drop that argument on the floor and slowly walk away.
  Quote:


 The point is that people have heard that and haven't waited for measurements to allow them to be sure about their impressions. 
 

I can agree that Strads are superior, but only because of obvious differences that I'm not sure are comparable to the relatively subtle (and often immeasurable!) qualities expressed in many equipment reviews. I haven't listened to a Strad myself, but as I understand it, it would not be entirely uncommon for a trained classical listener to sit down to an quartet or small orchestral performance, not knowing what is being played, and be able to deduce that a Strad is being played without being told.

 In any case I can admit that you don't _need_ an objective criterion to conclusively observe a difference. But you do need one to explain why that difference exists, and to replicate that difference consistently. (Which is why so few Strad copies are better than Strads - to consistently beat it, they need to first concretely identify why it's so good.)
  Quote:


 I don't generally question the competence of (natural) science. If you look back at my statement, you'll notice that it just served to show why I prefer not to have everything explained. Many physicists and engineers are prone enough to think they can explain everything in a materialistic and mechanistic way -- but please don't interprete this statement as related to audio. 
 

As a nonpracticing electrical engineer, forgive me if it's harder for me to walk away from such a topic so easily 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The exceptional issue about audio is that it was borne out of, and is intertwined with, a lot of science and engineering. Nevertheless I'll agree that science will probably never explain everything about audio. That doesn't stop people like me from trying.


----------



## crazyfrenchman27

The main issue I have with this thread existing in a "DBT-free" forum is that the topic itself is about DBT, if you read the article.

 The fact that DBT is directly pertinent to the article really ought to make DBT talk permissible. If you don't like that, why can't we move this back to the forum where it was originally posted so that we can actually talk about the topics presented in the article?

 -Matt


----------



## ChaosCow

This whole article was ABOUT double blind testing. I'd really like to discuss the merits of it, because so far, nobody has really defended the actual notion of refusing to do double-blind testing, quite possibly out of respect for this rule. I just don't understand how you can rule out double-blind testing.

 I feel like this is SUCH a critical issue to discuss; can't we discuss it SOMEWHERE? This changes the way many would probably think about audio. (It's made me reconsider quite a bit.)


----------



## Publius

Split into a separate reply because this one point got very, very long. In fact I'm tempted to move this to a separate thread, possibly in General. Mods?
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I don't get what you're trying to say. Trusting your senses is a subjective thing, nevertheless can lead to objective, reproduceable results (just like measuring instruments, BTW)._

 

Yeah. I can agree with that. But I don't think they will _always_ lead to that. Let me backtrack a bit, maybe even backpedal a bit, and restate my position. You may not care about thinking about the issue this abstractly, since you mentioned you care more about enjoying the music rather than engaging in such feats of sophistry as this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I think this is an important point to make, and if I don't keel over from exhaustion from writing this, maybe I'll back it up too.

 [size=large]Listening[/size]
 Let's say that tomorrow - or, say, July 23rd *wink* - I come across and listen to a state of the art SET amp. And let's say that I hear a difference. Let's say _further_ that I love the sound. I don't have any problem with that! And I don't really have a problem with people not wanting to look any further into audio gear and just enjoy what they have and what they've heard. What I _do_ have a problem with is a lack of an attempt to take what we experience and integrate it into theories that are falsifiable and predictive. Like I said, I can't help but analyze and criticize.

 [size=large]What it means to think objectively[/size]
 All I'm asserting is two things:
If I do hear a difference, either it is in some sense quantifiable, or else it's placebo.
If I do measure a difference, the rationale must make more scientific sense than the placebo effect to explain the audible difference. Otherwise, the placebo effect is the more likely hypothesis (although it is not guaranteed to be the correct one).
I can't even say that I even _know_ how to measure the difference - I'm certainly not saying that audio engineering has the answers to everything right now. All I can say is that, unless no difference existed in the first place, right now or some point in the future, a theory will exist that will explain why that amp sounds so good using numeric measurements and analysis. In a more wishy-washy sense, we're smart enough to figure it out. Pretty weak, eh? The second point is there because anybody can find a difference between two different things, even two of the same make and model, but it takes hard proof to say that difference means anything, backed up with logic and experience.

 [size=large]Truth and theory[/size]
 And it's here where I think we're never going to agree. For every device, there are always going to be any number of parameters and failure modes. Without exception, the audiophile community will attribute differences in sound to *every* parameter and failure mode of the device! 

 Thus, interconnects sound different because of different dielectrics, resistances, capacitances, characteristic impedances, electrostatic forces, microphonics, crystalline structures, quantum alignments, conductor widths, conductor lengths, connector types, connector materials, conductor materials, conductor distances, numbers of conductors, solder types, and braid topologies. In other words, according to various audio manufacturers, audiophiles and Head-Fi members, _every conceivable difference_ to a cable changes the sound.

 This is not sound science! Or sound engineering for that matter! Occam would roll in his grave if he saw a state of the art engineering theory such as this, practiced by the most famous people in the industry. No, I'm not saying everybody believes every effect is important - but that's an even more complicated situation, because then everybody has their own little theory as to how cables work, and will choose different effects to work towards the same goals.

 What does all that mean in the end? Surprisingly, not as much as you'd think I'd say, but still a lot. Even if you attributed audible differences to all those effects, you'd still have a consistent theory of interconnects, and there wouldn't be any evidence I could show you to sway you towards thinking one of those effects didn't matter. You could even build cables based on your theory, and they could sound good, and people would buy them.

 It's on the fringes that this sort of thinking breaks down.
When some people think a $200 cable sounds as good as a $1000 cable, or a $10,000 cable, that's because the $200 cable got it right and everybody else is overcharging. Or the designers got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
When a cable that takes all these effects into account sounds only as good as those that don't, the other cables got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
When some differences are clear as day sometimes and impossible to detect in others, it is due to emotions/stress in the listener, or a flawed audio system, or a flawed detection system, or a hitherto-unseen effect.
When RCA connections still invariably used for even the top of the line gear when the optimum characteristic impedances are obtained with BNC or coax, it's because of the entrenched standard, vendor stupidity, or a hitherto-unseen effect. (Anybody who doubts me on this can show me a 20Ghz switch with RCA inputs.)
 When 6N copper so highly desired for interconnects, yet the amplifiers themselves use regular copper and (heaven forbid) 66/37 solder, it's because the interconnect can affect the sound independently of the materials inside of the electronics due to some hitherto-unseen effect.
When audio salesmen tell you to purchase cables based on a percentage of the total value of the system, rather than how much intrinsic value the cable adds to the system, it's because the cables are always less important to the final sound quality than the other components of the system, regardless of how any of them sound or cost.
Of course you can answer all of these questions. Everybody can. You might be able to answer them better than I have. That's not the point. The point is that to answer them you will almost invariably need to appeal to ad hoc hypotheses. Either here's a flaw somewhere else in a system, or a new effect is discovered, or an existing effect is less important than some other effect. Never is an effect considered completely inaudible based on new evidence, nor is an effect generalized to explain more evidence. Rarely (if ever) does an experiment in a new cable result in a poorer sounding cable. Ever since audiophiledom has started, and people started caring about cables, the theory of their quality has _never simplified_ over time, and it remains a collection of guidelines about how certain parameters of construction affect certain dimensions of listening, without significant predictive power about how _not_ to build a cable beyond what has been already manufactured. Of course I'm singling out cables in particular here but I could repeat this argument for all sorts of other things.

_Truth_, per se, is not directly a part of the conversation. Everybody can explain the evidence, and if you are comfortable with believing that every effect is audible and everything sounds different I won't be able to convince you otherwise. But if you don't - if you admit that some effects are not audible, that some audible differences may in fact not exist, that we humans are smart enough to agree on what is and is not audible, and that we can program a computer to test for everything that is audible - then everything else must fall into place.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_A
 It doesn't suck at all. Stradivari violins are/have been broadly acknowledged to have extraordinarily beautiful tone, superior to all or most other violins. The point is that people have heard that and haven't waited for measurements to allow them to be sure about their impressions. It doesn't matter if (today) there are other competitive violins, the clue is that not all violins sound the same, and you don't have to consult a technician to judge it -- and if you're a musician, you take the instrument whose tone you prefer (and not whose measuring data tell you it's better). _

 

You are equating a differences between a Strad and other violins to differences between cables??????????????
 ROFL!


----------

