As a microelectronics engineer (in theory.. I actually forgot most of that while becoming a software engineer) I read all kinds of wonderous claims about audiophile sound. Jitter! Bit depth! Quantisation noise! Crosstalk! I'm familiar with all of these concepts, so I know they are real phenomena in principle. What I am very confused about is the actual relative impact of all these effects when appreciating sound quality in practice.
For example, I bet a Skoda car salesmen will gush about how totally awesome the cup holders in their cars are, never mentioning that the fact the engine is horrible (don't hurt me Skoda people)
Back in audio land, some audiophile may go on and on about his $10000 powerline noise filter, or his $1000 power cables. While I'm sure that if you're the Sultan of Brunei, it is better to be on the safe side, for most mere mortals, it probably pays off a lot more to replace your wonky $100 cd player first.
So. This brings me to the question at hand: Considering the entire signal line, from the digital source medium (cd/dvda/sacd/flac file) to your ears:
* Assuming an undamaged, 'perfect' source medium
* Assuming the goal is exact reproduction, not (necessarily) the warm tube sound.
* Assuming a standard signal line, so no active speakers, biamping etc
- Which audiophile factors play a role worth mentioning
- How do the impacts of these factors compare to eachother
Please note that I said 'audiophile factors' which indicates I am talking about the 'upper percentile' here already. Im sure we will all agree that the first thing to do is not use $5 headphones, which matters a lot more than the aforementioned powerline noise filter, but assuming the beginning audiophile has at least done his base homework. Also, I hope the sense of 'value for money' works the same for most people.
The first stage is identifying the factors. Here's my first attempt:
- Jitter compensation/prevention
- Quantisation Noise
- Source Bit Depth
- Source Sample Rate - DAC internal Bit Depth (upsampling)
- DAC internal Sample Rate (upsampling)
- Analog Interconnect Quality (between source and Pre)
- Analog Interconnect Type (XLR, Rca, jack?)
- Analog Amp Connect Quality (between pre and power amp)
- Analog Amp Connect Type (XLR, RCA, Jack??)
- Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)
- Power headroom (a 400W amp driving a 100W max speaker set?)
- Speaker Cable Quality
- Digital Interconnect Quality (between medium reader and DAC)
- Digital Interconnect system (USB/SPDIF/TOSLINK/AES)
- Power cable quality
- Power noise filtering
- In/output stage impedances of the various subsystems
- Amplifier class (discrete class A AB AC AD.. )
- DAC chip brand/type 'Burr Brown.. '...
- Geometric considerations (Room layout, speaker positioning)
- Echo (due to the type of room)
[edit 1] added 'geometric considerations' and 'echo'
AFTER we've listed most 'voodoo factors' people go on about, I would like to ask you all (this would be phase 2, perhaps Ill open a new topic with a poll) to put these elements in order of importance. Which are the irrelevant cupholders and which factors should be your main focus when shopping for improvements? Since im sure some people will feel the psychological need to defend their purchase of gold plated cupholders, please feel free to include justifications especially for your #1 choices.
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 13:12) 
- Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)
As a coleague-engineer, I have to say that there's no such thing as a passive amplifier. The Law of Conservation of Energy. It would be nice if audiophiles had a better technical knowledge. Don't you agree?
A preamp is sometimes described to simply mean a volume control. And heck, it's not called an amp, it's called a pre-amp. So the fact that sometimes it's only a potentiometer doesn't seem incorrect to me. What else would you call it?
It's called the attenuator
A pre-amp has volume control? I thought a pre-amp would only let you select the source and destination and maybe also offer an EQ, while the volume is on the final.
The terminology is probably not well defined all around. Here's at least one audiophile vendor using it in the same way I am:
http://www.dact.com/html/passive_preamp.html
http://www.dact.com/html/passive_preamp.html
My old pre-amp has an awful lot of transistors in it to be just a volume control! It does act as an amp for low power inputs such as phono cartridges. I just checked the specs and it has 30 transistors, 2 IC's and 12 diodes. I do not think they are in there for show. 
Well, 4 diodes can be for the AC/DC conversion of the power supply, unless that doesn't count. 
Guys! Cut it out. I'm not saying that a preamp only does attenuation. I'm saying that some people use the term "passive preamp" for a passive attenuator and that this is common terminology in the industry.
I worked in an "audiophile" stereo shop for about 5 years. We actually sold a variety of stuff, affordable and some higher end stuff.
We had a switching system so you could immediately compare sources, amps, and speakers. It was very expensive and seemed well made,gold contacts, silver solder etc. its hard to a/b stuff but this was as good as we could manage.
Overall, most decent amps we were selling sounded approximately the same. We had Sony, Sony ES, Rotel, Sansui and briefly NAD. The Rotel seemed to have more impact in lower bass ranges. I think this is referred to as "slam" these days. But for the most part at listening levels that were not extreme, a good amp was a good amp.
Stereo cartidges for vinyl varied significantly, but the cd players were all pretty good over about $300 Canadian.
The soundroom was damped and allowed for equilateral triangle listening, speakers out from the walls etc.
The biggest impact on any system was the speakers and we encouraged all customers to invest 50% or more of their money in the speakers and decent stands. We tried to steer people toward the smaller Kef and Celestion speakers coupled with a decent subwoofer.
Speakers by far and away impacted the quality of the system more than any other factor. We sold Sony, Boston Acoustics, Kef, and later Celestion.
Every speaker was unique, both within a brand, and between brands.
$.02
We had a switching system so you could immediately compare sources, amps, and speakers. It was very expensive and seemed well made,gold contacts, silver solder etc. its hard to a/b stuff but this was as good as we could manage.
Overall, most decent amps we were selling sounded approximately the same. We had Sony, Sony ES, Rotel, Sansui and briefly NAD. The Rotel seemed to have more impact in lower bass ranges. I think this is referred to as "slam" these days. But for the most part at listening levels that were not extreme, a good amp was a good amp.
Stereo cartidges for vinyl varied significantly, but the cd players were all pretty good over about $300 Canadian.
The soundroom was damped and allowed for equilateral triangle listening, speakers out from the walls etc.
The biggest impact on any system was the speakers and we encouraged all customers to invest 50% or more of their money in the speakers and decent stands. We tried to steer people toward the smaller Kef and Celestion speakers coupled with a decent subwoofer.
Speakers by far and away impacted the quality of the system more than any other factor. We sold Sony, Boston Acoustics, Kef, and later Celestion.
Every speaker was unique, both within a brand, and between brands.
$.02
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims. I understand this is obvious, but I'm confused at the topic being the majority of the members of hydrogenaudio are hard skeptics of audiophile concepts/components to begin with. You're more or less preaching to the choir.
Having said for reading on the subject i'd point out a couple of Stereophile editorials (hold your breath it's going to hurt):
You Heard What?!?!?! (the ambiguity of audiophile reviews, good source of audiophile jargon)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/806awsi/
Information on their "review" process (more jargon herein)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/
In my opinion, cables and power sources are by far the greatest offenders in the audiophile world. If you listen to a 10 dollar pair of speakers compared to a 1k dollar pair and then a 10k dollar pair, you're going to hear positive differences assuming reasonable source / transport. This is not nearly as much the case when comparing a 10, 100, 1k, 10k pair of speaker cables, interconnects or power sources. Quality is relevant sure, but it doesn't exist solely in the 1k+ market.
Hope my first post isn't too annoying
Having said for reading on the subject i'd point out a couple of Stereophile editorials (hold your breath it's going to hurt):
You Heard What?!?!?! (the ambiguity of audiophile reviews, good source of audiophile jargon)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/806awsi/
QUOTE
This range of contradictory reactions from audiophiles presumably well versed in critical listening underscores the challenges confronting equipment reviewers. As much as we may think we have a handle on how something sounds, people's reference points, hearing differences, and mental filters seem more than capable of making a silk purse from any sow's ear. All of which suggests that, in addition to controlling variables by adding to a reference system whose sound we know backward and forward only one new component—the component under review—humility is in order before we voice observations and make critical pronouncements. In a world in which one person's Carnegie Hall is another's Madison Square Garden, how can you be sure which way is up?
Information on their "review" process (more jargon herein)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/
In my opinion, cables and power sources are by far the greatest offenders in the audiophile world. If you listen to a 10 dollar pair of speakers compared to a 1k dollar pair and then a 10k dollar pair, you're going to hear positive differences assuming reasonable source / transport. This is not nearly as much the case when comparing a 10, 100, 1k, 10k pair of speaker cables, interconnects or power sources. Quality is relevant sure, but it doesn't exist solely in the 1k+ market.
Hope my first post isn't too annoying
A cable is a cable is a cable.
Give me 2 cables with exact same RLC, and as long as the cables are not broken, they will sound the same.
Give me 2 cables with exact same RLC, and as long as the cables are not broken, they will sound the same.
Short answer: ABX
If you can't ABX it, you can claim whatever you want; it won't matter a bit.
If you can't ABX it, you can claim whatever you want; it won't matter a bit.
A preamp is whatever device is in the audio chain prior to the power amp. The distinction is somewhat artificial - where does one end and the other begin? Depends upon definitions and purpose.
I think that for practical purposes a preamp in consumer electronics has meant "a line level device that provides control over the audio signal". So it typically meant the box that housed input selectors, volume controls, EQ, etc. But it could NOT deliver power to speakers. This does not mean that the preamp is "passive" - I love that term, used to glorify potentiometers and switches in a box - it very likely will use active components in order to achieve goals, such as:
1. Phono stages
2. Silent switching between sources
3. Boosting gain of signals
4. EQ
5. Impedance matching for both sources and outputs
A power amp generally accepts line level inputs but provides no or minimal controls. It does deliver power to speakers.
Specialized cases exist for certain purposes. The most common example is a phono preamp, which takes the very weak signal from a phono cartridge, applies the RIAA EQ and boosts the signal to line level. It must provide proper impedance matching for the cartridge. It need not provide any other control, but in most cases it is integrated with some device that does provide control.
The definition can still get fuzzy.
For example, if I have a some audio source with a line level output (defined as -10dBV for consumer gear) then you might connect it directly to a "power amp" and successfully drive speakers. Of course the power amp has some input stage (buffer) followed by driver stages and output stages. In that case, you have no "preamp" per se, though you may achieve your goals.
The notion that a separate preamp is preferable to an integrated preamp is thus a canard. What is important is the functionality delivered, whether in one box or three or four. The only difference is one of choice in mixing and matching the components, which may be of value to some but has no intrinsic virtue.
I think that for practical purposes a preamp in consumer electronics has meant "a line level device that provides control over the audio signal". So it typically meant the box that housed input selectors, volume controls, EQ, etc. But it could NOT deliver power to speakers. This does not mean that the preamp is "passive" - I love that term, used to glorify potentiometers and switches in a box - it very likely will use active components in order to achieve goals, such as:
1. Phono stages
2. Silent switching between sources
3. Boosting gain of signals
4. EQ
5. Impedance matching for both sources and outputs
A power amp generally accepts line level inputs but provides no or minimal controls. It does deliver power to speakers.
Specialized cases exist for certain purposes. The most common example is a phono preamp, which takes the very weak signal from a phono cartridge, applies the RIAA EQ and boosts the signal to line level. It must provide proper impedance matching for the cartridge. It need not provide any other control, but in most cases it is integrated with some device that does provide control.
The definition can still get fuzzy.
For example, if I have a some audio source with a line level output (defined as -10dBV for consumer gear) then you might connect it directly to a "power amp" and successfully drive speakers. Of course the power amp has some input stage (buffer) followed by driver stages and output stages. In that case, you have no "preamp" per se, though you may achieve your goals.
The notion that a separate preamp is preferable to an integrated preamp is thus a canard. What is important is the functionality delivered, whether in one box or three or four. The only difference is one of choice in mixing and matching the components, which may be of value to some but has no intrinsic virtue.
QUOTE (b3n @ May 23 2007, 19:37)
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims.
What you mean is right, but the words are choosen a bit unlucky. Believers actually do NOT rely on their perception and instead on their ability to manipulate their perception to their liking. Or simpler: they rely on fantasy - believing is compensating deficits with fantasy (important: this does not mean that fantasy is identical to believing - it just means that believing makes use of it).
To get back on topic: I agree that it is useless to disprove believers with science (except if the goal is learning yourself something from your investigation, instead of "converting" believers). The reason for this is the same as above: believers dont need reality and truth to justify their judgements - their worldview is based on fantasy... you cannot take fantasy from them, therefore you cannot destroy their worldview - their worldview exists completely independent of reality (thats the whole point about believing in the first place - as i said "compensating deficits with fantasy".
- Lyx
QUOTE (BradPDX @ May 23 2007, 12:28)
A preamp is whatever device is in the audio chain prior to the power amp. The distinction is somewhat artificial - where does one end and the other begin? Depends upon definitions and purpose.
*cackle* hey, thanks for another out, explicitly using the word 'pre' as a pronoun.. genius!
My own justification to call my box a passive preamp was that I own an Adcom GFP750 which is a box which contains an attenuator, relays and a disconnectable active amplification stage. (I can choose wether or not I want it to act as an amplifier or just an attenuator).
As for the whole 'meta discussion'.. I wholly sympathize (hence this topic). There was some french audio group who did an actual double blind test with one hidden guy switching speaker cables (E0.5/m, E10/m, E500/m) and 4 guys sitting in a row. Noone could distinguish between them, which makes sense to my microelectronics mind. I used to love the word 'negligible' when doing tests too. Calling stuff negligible was an excellent out which was correct most of the time
In this case Im sure that minor variations of resistances, crosstalk, impedances will cause minor quality changes, but (pulling figures out of my hiney here..) if the THD caused by this would be more than 0.001% I would be surprised, while for example speakers often have 5% or more THD (yes even 'audiophile ones).Anyway, this is where my question came from, I would love to hear people order the terms Ive already suggested, and for example give me numerical grounds for my hunches
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 05:12)
Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)
As has been outlined, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What do you mean by passive or active pre-amp?
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 05:12)
- Amplifier class (discrete class A AB AC AD.. )
Here again, you're making up terms. Class AC? Amplifiers come in A, B, AB, C, D, G, H... but no AC or AD.
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 05:12)
- DAC chip brand/type 'Burr Brown.. '...
My personal feeling is that any modern DAC uses such a high sample rate and bit depth that they've long since moved beyond the point where human beings could audibly detect a difference. That is, of course, a personal opinion
BradPDX gave a very good explanation, I had no time to write the longer reply.
What I ment to say can be clearly seen here
If people had some more knowledge, they couldn't be scamed in this way. Mark the price at the upper right corner of the page, and read the description of the "product". It's sad.
All parts of the audio reproduction chain have their impact on the final audio quality. That'a fact. But if I don't hear the difference between product A (300 €) and product B (3000 €), I won't even consider to buy it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that B is not better than A, but there's no point in buying it even if I had that money to spend on it.
What I ment to say can be clearly seen here
If people had some more knowledge, they couldn't be scamed in this way. Mark the price at the upper right corner of the page, and read the description of the "product". It's sad.
All parts of the audio reproduction chain have their impact on the final audio quality. That'a fact. But if I don't hear the difference between product A (300 €) and product B (3000 €), I won't even consider to buy it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that B is not better than A, but there's no point in buying it even if I had that money to spend on it.
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics! That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.
If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them. I'm always open to revising my beliefs.
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.
If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them. I'm always open to revising my beliefs.
QUOTE (Room101 @ May 24 2007, 00:33)
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics! That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
I agree absolutely with that. When you want to improve something in your audio chain you must begin with the parts that are the closest to the ear. And if the listening room isn't as it should be, there's nothing to talk about any further
QUOTE (Room101 @ May 23 2007, 14:33)
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics! That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.
CD-Player and Amps sound all the same but cables sound different???
I can't believe you're serious ...
... if you are serious, listen to a nearfield Studio-speaker with different amps ... you can ABX the amp from the next room ...
QUOTE (Curtor @ May 23 2007, 13:41)
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 05:12)
Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)
As has been outlined, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What do you mean by passive or active pre-amp?
See the previous post. While it is a touch fuzzy terminology, a fair description of what people mean by 'passive preamp' is 'an attenuator and/or a source switching system' instead of a powered, signal processing stage that must by design alter and (negatively?) influence the signal. Additionally, if you want to get all scientific-y about it, 'negative amplification' is still a form of amplification, a.k.a. attenuation.
QUOTE
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 05:12)
- Amplifier class (discrete class A AB AC AD.. )
Here again, you're making up terms. Class AC? Amplifiers come in A, B, AB, C, D, G, H... but no AC or AD.
Yes I made a joke.
but not 'again' QUOTE (Room101 @ May 23 2007, 14:33)
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics! That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).
Good point! Ill add that to the original post if I can.
QUOTE
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
And let the debate rage on.
QUOTE
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).
That is a touchy question. I do disagree with you, but perhaps not for the reasons you would assume. The reason I disagree is that I make a distinction between what I personally call 'Just In Time (JIT)' sources and prepared sources. If you press 'play' on a settop CD player, its goal is to produce the best possible sound, starting 0.3 seconds after 'play' and no hiccups. A bad ($100?) cd player will probably a/ have bad error correction/recovery (I know, I said let's discount that here!), and b/ low quality DA conversion chips that for example don't smooth/filter and so forth.
Personally, I use a $30 computer CDROM player that can take its merry time to read, reread and read again a certain CD track, and 'buffer' it to harddisk at a strict 44/16 rate. Compare it to online cdrip CRC databases, and there isn't much more to do to make it perfect-er.
QUOTE
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.
If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them. I'm always open to revising my beliefs.
If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them. I'm always open to revising my beliefs.
Blind ABX Cable test (in french)
Reasonably clear google translation
("The choice of the programme line [cable - ed] did not have an audible effect for the listeners present, on the selected system. ")
saw you post this on headfi. going to bet you're going to get flamed for no reason
you're being difficult
almost always, the preamp refers to the "control".
for the most part you are correct. however it is definitely unfair to say that ALL audiophiles are lunatics.
define "properly designed". are you an engineer? do you have any idea what you are talking about? do you know anything about d/a conversion?
it is probably pretty obvious that i am an "audiophile". i am somewhat ashamed, thanks to all of the bullshit that other "audiophiles" indulge in. on the other hand, there are just as uninformed skeptical jerkoffs like some people here, not necessarily in this topic, that enjoy making sweeping generalizations. live and let live for god's sake. for reference i do not believe in cable sound.
QUOTE
It's called the attenuator
you're being difficult
QUOTE
A pre-amp has volume control? I thought a pre-amp would only let you select the source and destination and maybe also offer an EQ, while the volume is on the final.
almost always, the preamp refers to the "control".
QUOTE
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims. I understand this is obvious, but I'm confused at the topic being the majority of the members of hydrogenaudio are hard skeptics of audiophile concepts/components to begin with. You're more or less preaching to the choir.
Having said for reading on the subject i'd point out a couple of Stereophile editorials (hold your breath it's going to hurt):
You Heard What?!?!?! (the ambiguity of audiophile reviews, good source of audiophile jargon)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/806awsi/
Information on their "review" process (more jargon herein)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/
In my opinion, cables and power sources are by far the greatest offenders in the audiophile world. If you listen to a 10 dollar pair of speakers compared to a 1k dollar pair and then a 10k dollar pair, you're going to hear positive differences assuming reasonable source / transport. This is not nearly as much the case when comparing a 10, 100, 1k, 10k pair of speaker cables, interconnects or power sources. Quality is relevant sure, but it doesn't exist solely in the 1k+ market.
Hope my first post isn't too annoying
Having said for reading on the subject i'd point out a couple of Stereophile editorials (hold your breath it's going to hurt):
You Heard What?!?!?! (the ambiguity of audiophile reviews, good source of audiophile jargon)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/806awsi/
QUOTE
This range of contradictory reactions from audiophiles presumably well versed in critical listening underscores the challenges confronting equipment reviewers. As much as we may think we have a handle on how something sounds, people's reference points, hearing differences, and mental filters seem more than capable of making a silk purse from any sow's ear. All of which suggests that, in addition to controlling variables by adding to a reference system whose sound we know backward and forward only one new component—the component under review—humility is in order before we voice observations and make critical pronouncements. In a world in which one person's Carnegie Hall is another's Madison Square Garden, how can you be sure which way is up?
Information on their "review" process (more jargon herein)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/
In my opinion, cables and power sources are by far the greatest offenders in the audiophile world. If you listen to a 10 dollar pair of speakers compared to a 1k dollar pair and then a 10k dollar pair, you're going to hear positive differences assuming reasonable source / transport. This is not nearly as much the case when comparing a 10, 100, 1k, 10k pair of speaker cables, interconnects or power sources. Quality is relevant sure, but it doesn't exist solely in the 1k+ market.
Hope my first post isn't too annoying
for the most part you are correct. however it is definitely unfair to say that ALL audiophiles are lunatics.
QUOTE
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics! That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.
If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them. I'm always open to revising my beliefs.
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.
All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.
If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them. I'm always open to revising my beliefs.
define "properly designed". are you an engineer? do you have any idea what you are talking about? do you know anything about d/a conversion?
it is probably pretty obvious that i am an "audiophile". i am somewhat ashamed, thanks to all of the bullshit that other "audiophiles" indulge in. on the other hand, there are just as uninformed skeptical jerkoffs like some people here, not necessarily in this topic, that enjoy making sweeping generalizations. live and let live for god's sake. for reference i do not believe in cable sound.
QUOTE (Thelonious Monk @ May 23 2007, 16:13)
for the most part you are correct. however it is definitely unfair to say that ALL audiophiles are lunatics.
I never used the word lunatic. I did however accurately describe audiophiles. How? Because I am for the most part, one of them. I am however - more so then most, a skeptic. It takes more then John Atkinson gushing over something to convince me of the intrinsic value of a piece of gear. Pseudo science presented as fact will not guide my pushing decisions, nor will it convince me better sound can be found through 5k magical pads to rest my turn-table upon. Over the last 4 years I've come to depend on hydrogenaudio for the cold hard facts, when I want my piece of placebo heaven ( and I do ) I'll hit the pages of stereophile, hi-fi+, and the plethora of sites dedicated to their shared thought process.
QUOTE (henkersmahlzeit @ May 23 2007, 18:03)
CD-Player and Amps sound all the same but cables sound different???
I can't believe you're serious ...
I can't believe you're serious ...
Sorry, no I didn't mean to suggest that cables sound different. I'm not saying that Belden or Canare sound better than any other cable, only that no other cable sounds better than they do. Even freebies are probably audibly indistinguishable from higher quality cables.
I suspect that my hearing is not good enough to hear a difference between cables unless one set of cables is well below what are generally recomended to be the appropriate guage and type for a given connection and length. I like Belden and Canare because I feel confident that they will live up to their stated specifications and because they are known for top notch construction quality. Construction quality, I think, counts for something even though it doesn't influence sound quality (at least not until the low quality cables start to fail at the connections, etc.)
[EDIT: clarification]
QUOTE (henkersmahlzeit @ May 23 2007, 18:03)
... if you are serious, listen to a nearfield Studio-speaker with different amps ... you can ABX the amp from the next room ...
Unfortunately I don't know of anyplace where I could really do that under controlled conditions, so I have to trust what I have read from various sources that seem trustworthy. I would be most interested in reading about the results of any such ABX testing, if you could direct me to such information.
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 18:55)
A bad ($100?) cd player will probably a/ have bad error correction/recovery (I know, I said let's discount that here!), and b/ low quality DA conversion chips that for example don't smooth/filter and so forth.
If you wan't to consider error correction, I'm more inclined to believe there might be audible differences; however, as for DA conversion, the tests I have read about suggest that all CD players sound the same, with the possible exceptions of the earliest models, really cheap off-brand stuff, and cheap portables. Again, I'm willing to consider any evidence to the contrary; I don't mean to represent my beliefs about amps and CD players as definitive.
QUOTE (Thelonious Monk @ May 23 2007, 19:13)
define "properly designed". are you an engineer? do you have any idea what you are talking about? do you know anything about d/a conversion?
I can't define "properly designed" and in that regard, no I don't have any idea what I am talking about. No, I am not an engineer, and I don't know anything about D/A conversion, either. As for determining what is a "properly designed" amp, I rely on design philosophy (e.g. no nonsense) and reputation.
My previously declared beliefs are based on the conclusions of those sources which seem most trustworthy to me and on the reports I have read about carefully controlled listening tests which support those conclusions. I don't recall ever reading about any listening tests which contradicted those conclusions, however, I realize that record in this regard is less thorough and complete than one could hope. As such, I remain willing to concede that these conclusions could still be disproven. I rest my beliefs solely on the weight of the evidence I have seen so far.
QUOTE (Thelonious Monk @ May 23 2007, 17:13)
define "properly designed". are you an engineer? do you have any idea what you are talking about? do you know anything about d/a conversion?
I am.
He's right.
Any properly designed DAC should sound the same as any other DAC doing the same conversion. Any change WHATSOEVER means that one or the other DAC is broken .
And if you don't like ABX tests, you can use ABC/hr tests, or any number of other double-blind test methodologies.
Some comments before answering the main question.
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims.
What you mean is right, but the words are choosen a bit unlucky. Believers actually do NOT rely on their perception and instead on their ability to manipulate their perception to their liking. Or simpler: they rely on fantasy - believing is compensating deficits with fantasy
I don't think that this reflects how audiophile behave at all. These points of view seem very forum-biased in my opinion.
An audiophile do not claim that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because is has been told so, and he does not want to believe science rather than voodoo. That would be relying on fath or on fantasy.
An audiophile claims that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because he hears it. And as any sensible people, he believes what he hears.
Sonic illusions have been documented, and we can see them occuring often in ABX tests. A good example is given in http://www.auricles.com/Kiang_Power_cable_test(2).xls (final result of http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614.html ), listener 3.
Or listener 5 group 1 of http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html
In a discussion forum, people use arguments in order to exchange point of views. That's why they seem to rely on fantasy in this context, but in reality, they rely on what they hear.
I'd be curious to see the result of an opposite experiment : having a skeptic listener listen to alledgedly different speakers, or different codecs at 64 kbps, while they are actally the same. There is no reason to believe that the rate of sonic illusions would be lower than among audiophiles.
This may be true in some cases, but I've been in touch with several people who were different.
Do you have an account of this listening test ?
QUOTE (Lyx @ May 23 2007, 22:45)
QUOTE (b3n @ May 23 2007, 19:37)
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims.
What you mean is right, but the words are choosen a bit unlucky. Believers actually do NOT rely on their perception and instead on their ability to manipulate their perception to their liking. Or simpler: they rely on fantasy - believing is compensating deficits with fantasy
I don't think that this reflects how audiophile behave at all. These points of view seem very forum-biased in my opinion.
An audiophile do not claim that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because is has been told so, and he does not want to believe science rather than voodoo. That would be relying on fath or on fantasy.
An audiophile claims that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because he hears it. And as any sensible people, he believes what he hears.
Sonic illusions have been documented, and we can see them occuring often in ABX tests. A good example is given in http://www.auricles.com/Kiang_Power_cable_test(2).xls (final result of http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614.html ), listener 3.
Or listener 5 group 1 of http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html
In a discussion forum, people use arguments in order to exchange point of views. That's why they seem to rely on fantasy in this context, but in reality, they rely on what they hear.
I'd be curious to see the result of an opposite experiment : having a skeptic listener listen to alledgedly different speakers, or different codecs at 64 kbps, while they are actally the same. There is no reason to believe that the rate of sonic illusions would be lower than among audiophiles.
QUOTE (Lyx @ May 23 2007, 22:45)
To get back on topic: I agree that it is useless to disprove believers with science (except if the goal is learning yourself something from your investigation, instead of "converting" believers). The reason for this is the same as above: believers dont need reality and truth to justify their judgements - their worldview is based on fantasy... you cannot take fantasy from them, therefore you cannot destroy their worldview - their worldview exists completely independent of reality (thats the whole point about believing in the first place - as i said "compensating deficits with fantasy".
This may be true in some cases, but I've been in touch with several people who were different.
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 23:09)
As for the whole 'meta discussion'.. I wholly sympathize (hence this topic). There was some french audio group who did an actual double blind test with one hidden guy switching speaker cables (E0.5/m, E10/m, E500/m) and 4 guys sitting in a row. Noone could distinguish between them, which makes sense to my microelectronics mind.
Do you have an account of this listening test ?
QUOTE
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 23:09)
As for the whole 'meta discussion'.. I wholly sympathize (hence this topic). There was some french audio group who did an actual double blind test with one hidden guy switching speaker cables (E0.5/m, E10/m, E500/m) and 4 guys sitting in a row. Noone could distinguish between them, which makes sense to my microelectronics mind.
Do you have an account of this listening test ?
You should already have it. - you were one of the participants I think.
http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29781210
(I pointed to this URL in one of my earlier posts in this topic)
QUOTE (Pio2001 @ May 24 2007, 21:41)
An audiophile do not claim that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because is has been told so, and he does not want to believe science rather than voodoo. That would be relying on fath or on fantasy.
An audiophile claims that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because he hears it. And as any sensible people, he believes what he hears.
An audiophile claims that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because he hears it. And as any sensible people, he believes what he hears.
What you are describing seems to be "naive realism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
The topic-relevant aspect of it is: "My perception and interpretation is perfect. Things are indeed as i perceive them."
This is contrasted with "critical realism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
The topic-relevant aspect of it is: "My perception and interpretation is imperfect. Things may not always be as i perceive them."
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 24 2007, 22:06)
QUOTE
Do you have an account of this listening test ?
You should already have it. - you were one of the participants I think.
Ah yes.
But it was an interconnect listening test, not speaker
QUOTE (Lyx @ May 24 2007, 23:08)
What you are describing seems to be "naive realism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
The topic-relevant aspect of it is: "My perception and interpretation is perfect. Things are indeed as i perceive them."
This is contrasted with "critical realism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
The topic-relevant aspect of it is: "My perception and interpretation is imperfect. Things may not always be as i perceive them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
The topic-relevant aspect of it is: "My perception and interpretation is perfect. Things are indeed as i perceive them."
This is contrasted with "critical realism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
The topic-relevant aspect of it is: "My perception and interpretation is imperfect. Things may not always be as i perceive them."
That's true, but it is quite rare for an audiophile to consider how things are.
They usually consider only how they perceive things, no matter how they are.
Subjectivist listeners usually doesn't consider that his or her hearing can change. They assume that if they hear an illusion now, they will hear it all their life. Thus if the illusion needs a 1000 $ power cord to appear, then a 1000 $ power cord is needed. Otherwise, the illusion doesn't work and the sound is not perceived as good.
At this point, the discussion becomes useless, and only real listening tests can lead the matter ahead.
Pio2001 - I would respond that a person can hear something that isn't there. Even more so when he or she has been told it's there.
Further problems exist when several professional audiophiles or seasoned editors of audiophile magazines all listen to the same thing and come away describing it in different ways. The same hardware being described using contradicting terms by different people. This is discussed in the editorial I linked in my first post in the thread.
Further problems exist when several professional audiophiles or seasoned editors of audiophile magazines all listen to the same thing and come away describing it in different ways. The same hardware being described using contradicting terms by different people. This is discussed in the editorial I linked in my first post in the thread.
QUOTE (puntloos @ May 23 2007, 13:12)
What I am very confused about is the actual relative impact of all these effects when appreciating sound quality in practice.
As we saw above, all of these factors can affect the appreciation of sound quality through psychological effects. Even if the listener is an engineer.
But the stereo system itself doesn't need to be modified for the perception to improve. The listener just have to believe that the system has changed.
Therefore the actual content of the system components only matters if it has a real effect on the sound.
From this point of view, we can consider the effect of various parameters on sound through double blind listening tests.
Here are all the blind listening test that I know on the web :
http://chaud7.forumactif.fr/1ere-categorie...s-ABX-p2557.htm
Some of the links in this page redirect themselves to other lists of blind tests.
From all those results, we can tell the following :
- Power cable quality
- Power noise filtering
-> No effect so far in double blind tests, even carefully designed ones.
- Jitter compensation/prevention
- Digital Interconnect Quality (between medium reader and DAC)
- Digital Interconnect system (USB/SPDIF/TOSLINK/AES)
->Never tested to my knowledge in blind listening test. However, in Dunn, Dennis and Carson's study about the sound of CDs, a profesional DAC shows its ability to remove all trace of measurable jitter effets in its analog output.
In the homecinema-fr.com forum, GBO suggests to simulate jitter in digital samples.
- Quantisation Noise
- Source Bit Depth
->According to the tests that I just added at the bottom of the main compilation (Ethan Winer's test), for most people, 13 bits are already enough. However, some isolated results (*), yet to be reproduced, seem to show that 16 bits quantization noise can be audible.
(*)in Ethan Winer's test, ff123, what was the conclusion of your analysis ? And in the 24/96 challenge too.
- Source Sample Rate - DAC internal Bit Depth (upsampling)
- DAC internal Sample Rate (upsampling)
- DAC chip brand/type 'Burr Brown.. '...
-> Same as above. They sound the same for most people, but the existing ABX success should draw our attention. If they are not all flawed, either 44.1 kHz 16 bits is borderline for transparent quality, either DACs or ADCs can be improved.
- Analog Interconnect Quality (between source and Pre)
->Negative results in carefully designed tests about RCA. Measurments show an extremely small effect (0.02 dB attenuation at 20 kHz through 5 meters of cheapo cable).
- Analog Interconnect Type (XLR, Rca, jack?)
XLR is unlikely to be worse than RCA. I don't know about jack.
- Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)
->Not tested to my knowledge.
- Analog Amp Connect Quality (between pre and power amp)
- Analog Amp Connect Type (XLR, RCA, Jack??)
->Not tested to my knowledge.
- Amplifier class (discrete class A AB AC AD.. )
->Amplifier tests show success in transistor vs tube double blind comparisons, but not between transistors.
But I don't know if different classes have been compared, and the amplifier double blind tests that I know are not well documented.
- Power headroom (a 400W amp driving a 100W max speaker set?)
->The maximum power of a speaker set is a mostly commercial characteristic. The real maximum power depends on frequency in various ways from speaker to speaker.
- Speaker Cable Quality
->The main quality factor seems to be the inductance, and for standard cable, it is minimal around 4mm2. The two conductors should be as close as possible from each other and should not lie on a conductive ground (like concrete) (1).
The successfull ABX result opposed a standard cable with a complex audiophile setup with a lot of conductors. I don't know of ABX success between standard cables, but according to the measurments, the effect of the cable should become quickly audible as the cable lenght rises above 10 meters.
- Geometric considerations (Room layout, speaker positioning)
- Echo (due to the type of room)
->Extremely strong influence. Can produce peaks as high as +20 dB in the frequency response !
- In/output stage impedances of the various subsystems.
->Never tested to my knowledge.
Footnote (1) : this gives credit to one of the most incredible audiophool tweaks : the cable stands, that prevent speaker cables from touching the floor !
QUOTE (Pio2001 @ May 25 2007, 00:16)
Subjectivist listeners usually doesn't consider that his or her hearing can change. They assume that if they hear an illusion now, they will hear it all their life. Thus if the illusion needs a 1000 $ power cord to appear, then a 1000 $ power cord is needed. Otherwise, the illusion doesn't work and the sound is not perceived as good.
At this point, the discussion becomes useless, and only real listening tests can lead the matter ahead.
At this point, the discussion becomes useless, and only real listening tests can lead the matter ahead.
And thats when believing often DOES become an issue. Naive realism, idealism and believing are all very close connected to each other. In your example the person typically did invest alot of money, mental stability and self-confidence on this illusion. Thus, since he/she is already in the subjective-bias corner (yes, "objective-bias" is also a form of corruption - typically found among narrow-minded scientists), he or she typically will not like the idea of accepting that all those investments were worthless, thus accepting a significant personal loss. Instead, such people go into denial-mode and start turning their illusions into beliefs. Maybe this is to some extend a reason, why audiophiles appear like believers on discussion-boards, when their arguments get rationally criticized.
- Lyx
@Room101
There is no need for an ABX-test in the amp-sector. Audible differences between amps may be sometimes anything but subtle. However, ABX-tests with your Home-speakers are not easy to accomplish (you can't do it alone). A provider of professional Studio-Equipment will probably have several Speakers but only one amp (for testing) with most Studio-Speakers having built-in amps anyway. You might bring-in your own amplifier if you make it believable that you will buy something. It's a pity if you don't have this chance for testing.
The aspect of audible quality differences between CD-Player may be way overrated, but is anybody here seriously suggesting you could replace any CD-Player with a 30 Dollar DVD-Player without quality loss
There is no need for an ABX-test in the amp-sector. Audible differences between amps may be sometimes anything but subtle. However, ABX-tests with your Home-speakers are not easy to accomplish (you can't do it alone). A provider of professional Studio-Equipment will probably have several Speakers but only one amp (for testing) with most Studio-Speakers having built-in amps anyway. You might bring-in your own amplifier if you make it believable that you will buy something. It's a pity if you don't have this chance for testing.
The aspect of audible quality differences between CD-Player may be way overrated, but is anybody here seriously suggesting you could replace any CD-Player with a 30 Dollar DVD-Player without quality loss
QUOTE (henkersmahlzeit @ May 25 2007, 02:36)
There is no need for an ABX-test in the amp-sector. Audible differences between amps may be sometimes anything but subtle.
The need for ABX is not related to the amplitude of the perceived difference.
How many times have I seen people claiming that ABX was unnecessary because the difference was so obvious that anyone could hear it without effort, then not performing better than chance in ABX ? Well, several times already !
ABX is typically unnecessary when measured difference are far above what have been ABXed before. And measured differences between amplifiers are rather below the audible threshold than above.
In the amplifier domain, many tests have shown that heard differences are nowhere near real differences. You can find several ABX test in the list above that have failed (especially in Matrix-hifi and David Carlstrom sub-lists).
QUOTE (henkersmahlzeit @ May 25 2007, 02:36)
The aspect of audible quality differences between CD-Player may be way overrated, but is anybody here seriously suggesting you could replace any CD-Player with a 30 Dollar DVD-Player without quality loss
I don't know.
Some tests have failed to show an audible difference between a regular cd player and a portable player (example : http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_sonydiscman.htm ).
Other tests have shown a difference. Example : http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=169329500
Another test have shown a difference between a portable player and a high-end audiophile cd player, but all listeners found the portable player to sound better than the high end player (they did not know which was which) !
http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_discmandac3.htm
And here are measurments made on what we are talking about : a 29.90 € DVD player (Akai) : http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/VideoSon/HiFi...98.htm#t1225121
The measured performances are really bad.
Is the distortion audible ? Maybe.
An ABX test should be performed in order to answer this question.
QUOTE (henkersmahlzeit @ May 25 2007, 03:36)
There is no need for an ABX-test in the amp-sector. Audible differences between amps may be sometimes anything but subtle.
ABX test is always needed. Especially if a lot of people are living in a pre-learned mindset that 'the differences are obvious.' Like in the case of amplifiers.
...or in the case of lossless codecs.
QUOTE (Pio2001 @ May 24 2007, 18:55)
Here are all the blind listening test that I know on the web :
http://chaud7.forumactif.fr/1ere-categorie...s-ABX-p2557.htm
http://chaud7.forumactif.fr/1ere-categorie...s-ABX-p2557.htm
Wow, awesome link! Even though I don't know a lick of French, there's plenty to keep me busy for a while.
One group of highly interesting tests I didn't see mentioned were those conducted at the NRC in Canada by, e.g. Floyd O'Toole. Perhaps these are slightly off topic since they were aimed at determining preference rather than establishing audible differences, however, it was blind testing nevertheless. The conclusion I found so interesting was that, under controlled conditions and blind testing, loudspeaker preferences corresponded very well to what would be considered theoretically better measured performance characteristics. That is to say, designing loudspeakers is a science, not an art. Of course, that conclusion becomes far more hazy when you leave the idealized conditions of the NRC listening room and bring the speakers into your own home.
QUOTE (Pio2001 @ May 24 2007, 19:41)
An audiophile claims that cables or cd players etc can make a difference because he hears it. And as any sensible people, he believes what he hears.
That's where psychology kicks in ... the human ear/brain system is the most powerful and versatile sound processing system known to mankind (although Creative's marketing guru's will surely disagree and tell you how much transistors are attached to the X-Fi series).
In short terms ... audiophiles who spend lots of serious cash on scientifically unnecessary equipment actually want to hear the difference of their precious investment. Their brain will - as a consequence to these wishes - then adjust their hearing experience accordingly to make them believe through hearing.
Additionally, we all know that any given person's specific listening experience depends upon these person's state of concentration during listening. Getting used to environmental circumstances plays a great role in listening experience, too.
I repeatedly made the following experience:
If I concentrate/focus on the music content using e.g. cheap computer speakers with a limited frequency range, my brain will - after some time - adjust and add e.g. missing low frequency content (that I'm sure the speakers physically can't transmit) to my listening experience to make the music sound good to me. If I switch to my fullrange speakers afterwards and play the same kind of music, these speakers will sound terrible to my ears at first ... I experience overemphasized low frequency content that physically isn't there. After some time, this experience will vanish and I'm happy with my stereo setup again.
This leads me to the conclusion that - talking sound quality - the influence of human perception is totally underrated. It's all in our heads and not in our playback hardware. Your hearing system can and will adjust extremely fast to what you wish to experience. For me, this could be tricky when choosing a stereo system through comparison and listen too long to single components.
As a side note: if I - instead of concentrating on the music - try to concentrate on the sound or recording quality of the playing music, I sometimes have to rewind because I simply missed my favourite guitar or sax solo ... very strange in my opinion.
QUOTE (JeanLuc @ May 25 2007, 21:37)
I repeatedly made the following experience:
...
...
Interesting. Even though it doesnt surprise me, because the effect (interpolation and sense-relativity) isn't new, this is a scenario which i didnt consider yet. Thanks.
QUOTE
As a side note: if I - instead of concentrating on the music - try to concentrate on the sound or recording quality of the playing music, I sometimes have to rewind because I simply missed my favourite guitar or sax solo ... very strange in my opinion.
Sounds like focus-shift to me. What makes a song sound "polished" typically are many minor details. Music does exist which even makes extensive use of this effect (most popularily known with "overtone"-singing) - the foreground gets unfocussed and the details and the "in-between" gets the focus.
- Lyx
The most absurd audiophile claim to date is:
"A (silver) power cord can make your system sound better"
I used to go to an audiophile forum where I was not allowed to talk about power cords (because of my opinions.) And nobody was allowed to talk about ABX!!!
Audiphiles don't like ABX because they know in the back of their minds that it will prove they have wasted thousand of dollars in their equipment without any sound improvement.
"A (silver) power cord can make your system sound better"
I used to go to an audiophile forum where I was not allowed to talk about power cords (because of my opinions.) And nobody was allowed to talk about ABX!!!
Audiphiles don't like ABX because they know in the back of their minds that it will prove they have wasted thousand of dollars in their equipment without any sound improvement.
QUOTE (Light-Fire @ May 26 2007, 01:47)
The most absurd audiophile claim to date is:
"A (silver) power cord can make your system sound better"
"A (silver) power cord can make your system sound better"
NO
Here is a sincere, non-commercial audiophile claim found on a french forum :
Palladium-plated mains plugs take longer to break-in than rhodium-plated mains plugs.
In case you don't believe me, here is the original claim : http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtop...01905#169401905
I think the real issue is how do you define a scientific test for the audiophile?
Lets get it to the lowest level with only two variables. Light in room on. light in room off. I don't think anyone would say either would be better.
Second test with two variables: Electricity on and electricity off. I don't think anyone would say that there is no difference.
Now how do we collect all the variables involved from the initial analog/digital bits throughout the audio chain until you have the sound processed in the brain and then we may be able to have a conclusive A/B test. But that test is only possible with a single person. Why, because somewhere along that train individual people come into play, usually at the ear opening most of the time. After that it gets really subjective. No longer is it possible to do an A/B session with more than a single person involved. Each session becomes a different test since the audio train chances with each person every time. And sometimes depending on how that person is feeling the individual test changes across time with the same individual. How do you measure the audio train after the sound enters the ear?
Therefore, that is the issue with Audiophiles and their subjectivity.
Lets get it to the lowest level with only two variables. Light in room on. light in room off. I don't think anyone would say either would be better.
Second test with two variables: Electricity on and electricity off. I don't think anyone would say that there is no difference.
Now how do we collect all the variables involved from the initial analog/digital bits throughout the audio chain until you have the sound processed in the brain and then we may be able to have a conclusive A/B test. But that test is only possible with a single person. Why, because somewhere along that train individual people come into play, usually at the ear opening most of the time. After that it gets really subjective. No longer is it possible to do an A/B session with more than a single person involved. Each session becomes a different test since the audio train chances with each person every time. And sometimes depending on how that person is feeling the individual test changes across time with the same individual. How do you measure the audio train after the sound enters the ear?
Therefore, that is the issue with Audiophiles and their subjectivity.
With this issue, you position yourself in the perspective of describing objectively the totality of what a given person hears during a given listening session.
In this topic, related to "audiophile claims", I rather start from an audible difference between two hifi systems, then look for the origin of this difference : the listener, or the hifi system.
If the difference is caused by the listener, who imagines things, then
1 - The experience of the listener is entirely subjective and doesn't give me any information about the change in the system.
2 - Wether the listener wants to investigate further is his own business.
If the difference is caused by the change is the system, then
1 - Can it be measured ?
2 - What is the technical parameter that causes the difference ?
3 - How to get information about this parameter from a given commercial hifi system ?
4 - What's the perceived amplitude of the change, and how does it positions itself in order of importance among other known changes ?
In this topic, related to "audiophile claims", I rather start from an audible difference between two hifi systems, then look for the origin of this difference : the listener, or the hifi system.
If the difference is caused by the listener, who imagines things, then
1 - The experience of the listener is entirely subjective and doesn't give me any information about the change in the system.
2 - Wether the listener wants to investigate further is his own business.
If the difference is caused by the change is the system, then
1 - Can it be measured ?
2 - What is the technical parameter that causes the difference ?
3 - How to get information about this parameter from a given commercial hifi system ?
4 - What's the perceived amplitude of the change, and how does it positions itself in order of importance among other known changes ?
I wonder if many of the differences people claim they hear are not due to the thing they attribute it to (ie silver power cords) but other factors introduced in the testing/switching.
Or, if such factors are controlled, perhaps some improvements are extremely environmentally specific - they work in one case for reasons that have nothing to do with "audiophileness" of the component but rather environmental factors - poor grounding, grid power leaking into the ground, materials or construction that are transparent or inductive to a particular radio frequency, "dirty" or widely fluctuating AC.
In such a cases, they may see an improvement, but not for the reasons they think and it is not generalizable.
For example, in my neighborhood, souped up CB's and car car service radios are very popular. Most of the boost jobs are sloppy and they blast RF noise over a wide spectrum. Some interconnects, even relatively high end ones, I've used are poorly shielded and the this stuff bleeds into the system. One particular brand never has this problem.
I could see where RF noise like this from utility transformers, broadcast towers and even solar flares could degrade a listening experience if a particular cable was sensitive. And the difference would be ascribed to the esoteric nature of the cable rather than the real problem addressed.
I saw a similar thing with one of my outlets where a heavier gauge power cord provided dramatically better sound. A closer examination of the outlet determined that the ground was never properly connected to the 3rd prong. Fixing that not only improved the sound, but made both power cables sound the same.
In both cases, I did in fact hear an "improvement" but it was not generalizable and had nothing to do with the exotic materials or construction.
Or, if such factors are controlled, perhaps some improvements are extremely environmentally specific - they work in one case for reasons that have nothing to do with "audiophileness" of the component but rather environmental factors - poor grounding, grid power leaking into the ground, materials or construction that are transparent or inductive to a particular radio frequency, "dirty" or widely fluctuating AC.
In such a cases, they may see an improvement, but not for the reasons they think and it is not generalizable.
For example, in my neighborhood, souped up CB's and car car service radios are very popular. Most of the boost jobs are sloppy and they blast RF noise over a wide spectrum. Some interconnects, even relatively high end ones, I've used are poorly shielded and the this stuff bleeds into the system. One particular brand never has this problem.
I could see where RF noise like this from utility transformers, broadcast towers and even solar flares could degrade a listening experience if a particular cable was sensitive. And the difference would be ascribed to the esoteric nature of the cable rather than the real problem addressed.
I saw a similar thing with one of my outlets where a heavier gauge power cord provided dramatically better sound. A closer examination of the outlet determined that the ground was never properly connected to the 3rd prong. Fixing that not only improved the sound, but made both power cables sound the same.
In both cases, I did in fact hear an "improvement" but it was not generalizable and had nothing to do with the exotic materials or construction.
QUOTE (UrbanVoyeur @ May 26 2007, 20:40)
I wonder if many of the differences people claim they hear are not due to the thing they attribute it to (ie silver power cords) but other factors introduced in the testing/switching...
When I mentioned power cords affecting sound quality I wasn't talking about line noise. There are (lots of) people out there that believe a silver power cord will provide "brighter" high frequency sounds, while a copper cable will provide you "warmer" "well round" bass!
I know it sounds ridiculous but there are people out there that believe it and are not ashamed to express their opinion.
I'm with you guys: however, the only way to get 'audiofools' to cease and desist once and for all would be to place them in a situation where they were:
1) In their own homes
2) Listening to their own systems
3) With their favorite music that they knew intimately
4) In a mood for listening
5) Comfortable and happy
...and get them to listen to whatever cable or tweak they choose, for as long as they choose, in whatever order they select. Do this, but have the loudspeakers in the room they select, and the reproduction equipment in an adjacent room with a solid door closed between the rooms. It needn't be a rigid double-blind evaluation, just an 'unsighted' one. Keep track of how you swapped whatever around and compare notes in the end.
Guess what, you may just help someone see the light! If it wasn't for the global, 'most forum members don't get to meet one-another' kinds' scenario we deal with online, we could have this BS filled hobby cleaned up in no time!
Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com
PS: Applicable tune of the moment: Nomeansno ~ All Lies
.
1) In their own homes
2) Listening to their own systems
3) With their favorite music that they knew intimately
4) In a mood for listening
5) Comfortable and happy
...and get them to listen to whatever cable or tweak they choose, for as long as they choose, in whatever order they select. Do this, but have the loudspeakers in the room they select, and the reproduction equipment in an adjacent room with a solid door closed between the rooms. It needn't be a rigid double-blind evaluation, just an 'unsighted' one. Keep track of how you swapped whatever around and compare notes in the end.
Guess what, you may just help someone see the light! If it wasn't for the global, 'most forum members don't get to meet one-another' kinds' scenario we deal with online, we could have this BS filled hobby cleaned up in no time!
Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com
PS: Applicable tune of the moment: Nomeansno ~ All Lies
.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.