audio myths
I appreciate when people like mikeks have the courage to speak their mind and go against the status quo to raise valid points. My problem with subjectivism as a viable method of audio component analysis boils down to these points:
1.what sounds good to you, may very well sound bad to me. How do you discern who has the "Golden Ears" and who is an "Uneducated Listener" especially when discussing topics like we do on this forum.
2. How do you know if your design is moving in a positive direction. You may think your current version of a 'audio widget' is better than the last, but an audiophile critic may shun your latest work for some subjective reason, killing some of its commercial appeal.
3. Other fields show clear quantifiable advancements. Car manufacturers boast better MPG, more HP, etc.. Digital electronics designers show improvement in instructions executed per second. Why does the audio community shun measurement as the only viable method that shows clear advancement of the discipline.
Why is it so hard to believe it is a good thing if an amplifier passes a signal from input to output adding only minute amounts of harmonic content and noise? It's not a conspiracy, black magic, or a trick. It can be proven and has repeatibility. It shows advancement of the science.This is undoubtedly and undeniably a GOOD THING!
I appreciate when people like mikeks have the courage to speak their mind and go against the status quo to raise valid points. My problem with subjectivism as a viable method of audio component analysis boils down to these points:
1.what sounds good to you, may very well sound bad to me. How do you discern who has the "Golden Ears" and who is an "Uneducated Listener" especially when discussing topics like we do on this forum.
2. How do you know if your design is moving in a positive direction. You may think your current version of a 'audio widget' is better than the last, but an audiophile critic may shun your latest work for some subjective reason, killing some of its commercial appeal.
3. Other fields show clear quantifiable advancements. Car manufacturers boast better MPG, more HP, etc.. Digital electronics designers show improvement in instructions executed per second. Why does the audio community shun measurement as the only viable method that shows clear advancement of the discipline.
Why is it so hard to believe it is a good thing if an amplifier passes a signal from input to output adding only minute amounts of harmonic content and noise? It's not a conspiracy, black magic, or a trick. It can be proven and has repeatibility. It shows advancement of the science.This is undoubtedly and undeniably a GOOD THING!
SY said:
Thank god someone else thinks that as well (and mentioned it). I'm a believer that many subjective differences are all in the head.
One of my favorites of audio reviewers is ones who write in their article that they immediately disliked "X" product, but after burn-in (say, 200 hours), it sounded wonderful.
Durr.. No kidding, maybe it's because you're used to hearing it now.. You know, that you've listened to it long enough that your brain has acclimated itself to whatever differences there were before it.
I don't agree with everything in the article, but a lot of it really holds true in my mind
I have thought about this way we can do some 'real life' testing.
Say you have a friend that is very happy, because he has installed some new 'audiograde' caps in his amplifier. He says it sounds so much better now. Definitively an improvement!
You buy some 'no-name' normal quality caps with same size, some caps of the audiograde brand and exchange the plastic wrapping with label on.
Now you have 'no-name' caps with 'audiophile' and identical look.
Say you know someone in his family and are allowed to get in to his amplifier.
You exchange his caps in amplifier when he is at work.
Now just wait.
Maybe he starts posting here his amplifier does not sound as good.
And needs advice about what is the matter with his amplifier.
Maybe he doesnt notice a thing.
After a couple of years, you can reveal the truth about his audiograde' caps.
I have my own opinion of the probability he would notice anything.
Say you have a friend that is very happy, because he has installed some new 'audiograde' caps in his amplifier. He says it sounds so much better now. Definitively an improvement!
You buy some 'no-name' normal quality caps with same size, some caps of the audiograde brand and exchange the plastic wrapping with label on.
Now you have 'no-name' caps with 'audiophile' and identical look.
Say you know someone in his family and are allowed to get in to his amplifier.
You exchange his caps in amplifier when he is at work.
Now just wait.
Maybe he starts posting here his amplifier does not sound as good.
And needs advice about what is the matter with his amplifier.
Maybe he doesnt notice a thing.
After a couple of years, you can reveal the truth about his audiograde' caps.
I have my own opinion of the probability he would notice anything.
i see this posted every now and then, but the opposite seems to work with me, first time hearing an amp, i get goose pimples, hair standing on end! elated!
but several sessions later with the amp, the magic wears off!
wonder if others experience the same!
that is why i can not relate to that 200hour burn in thing!
I am also very skeptical to electronic components need a burn in.
I think most of it will work as good from start.
Trafos, transistors, resistors, wires and cables.
When it comes to loudspeaker woofers, I am not so sure.
They are mechnical constructions that are moving.
Maybe the suspension can change some after some use.
I think most of it will work as good from start.
Trafos, transistors, resistors, wires and cables.
When it comes to loudspeaker woofers, I am not so sure.
They are mechnical constructions that are moving.
Maybe the suspension can change some after some use.
Well poobah, it probably doesn't surprise you I don't. Once again the presumption is people who've written published reviews of equipment for years, in some cases decades, are rubes who would never have considered this. It's uncharitable at best. Some of these people, Cordesman for example, are very intelligent and accomplished individuals outside of the audio industry. I'm not sure how many of us have provided military analysis on Nightline. They are not uniformly dumb.
It a common problem with authors like Aczel and Elliot who claim to represent reason and science, they often throw the method out the window in regards to the characters, motivations and capabilities of those with whom they disagree. Take his comments about Golden Ears, which describes no one I know on this forum. Here's a worthwhile exercise: prove his conjecture 10. Demonstrate how the majority of those who claim to hear things he considers impossible also claim it's the result of 'special auditory powers'. Plenty here ascribe it to the same learned skill and experience Aczel describes, none I know claim otherwise. There's mountain of material here, on usenet, on other forums, it should be a cakewalk to cull dozens of such comments from the cable thread alone if Peter is right.
Once again the presumption is people who've written published reviews of equipment for years, in some cases decades, are rubes who would never have considered this. It's uncharitable at best. Some of these people, Cordesman for example, are very intelligent and accomplished individuals outside of the audio industry. I'm not sure how many of us have provided military analysis on Nightline. They are not uniformly dumb.It a common problem with authors like Aczel and Elliot who claim to represent reason and science, they often throw the method out the window in regards to the characters, motivations and capabilities of those with whom they disagree. Take his comments about Golden Ears, which describes no one I know on this forum. Here's a worthwhile exercise: prove his conjecture 10. Demonstrate how the majority of those who claim to hear things he considers impossible also claim it's the result of 'special auditory powers'. Plenty here ascribe it to the same learned skill and experience Aczel describes, none I know claim otherwise. There's mountain of material here, on usenet, on other forums, it should be a cakewalk to cull dozens of such comments from the cable thread alone if Peter is right.
SY said:
I believe you heard the real thing, SY. And I thought that the original statement was just a typo.
There's a brand known as Shark. They have silver speaker cable called "Musical Love" and a copper cable called "Fullrange (?)". Having used their products, I don't think they are stupid in term of listening ability.
I'm also agree with GRollins about hearing compensation for the blinds. I have audio hobby for more than 15 years, but I have a very limited knowledge related to audio. So I have been pushed to use my ears.
About "taster". I'm not only sensitive with sound but also with everything. I don't like drinking (pure) water. But I know that it is good for kidney health. So there are brands that my "mouth" cannot accept, and there are brands that I like better. I have done AB test to prove this. I don't drink sparkling water because I have too much money. Many here boil their drinking water.
What I don't like about this article is that he leads the unaware reader to be 100% scientific in his reasoning.
There are things however that can be disproven:
Cables:
No, I wouldn't buy the most expensive cables (not even moderately expensive ones to be precise) myself nor would I try to voice a system that way. But cables do fefinitely interact with the electronics they are connected to and can make an audible difference.
Tubes:
They do definitely (and scientifically proven) have different transfer functions than silicon (BTW: did anyone ever mention that tube amps contain much mure Silicon than SS amps ususally ???) with different distortion characteristics. While I agree that distortion should be as low as possible one must not forget (and this guy should definitely know) that perception of distortion is not depending on amount alone but on spectral distribution as well.
Bi-wiring:
I don't do this either personally (it simply makes no sense since I am running active !) but claiming to be able to disprove it by oversimplifying things like he does is as unscientific as could be. There are indeed scientific reasons why it COULD make a difference. Hint: Voltage dividers and nonlinear loads !
Regards
Charles
There are things however that can be disproven:
Cables:
No, I wouldn't buy the most expensive cables (not even moderately expensive ones to be precise) myself nor would I try to voice a system that way. But cables do fefinitely interact with the electronics they are connected to and can make an audible difference.
Tubes:
They do definitely (and scientifically proven) have different transfer functions than silicon (BTW: did anyone ever mention that tube amps contain much mure Silicon than SS amps ususally ???) with different distortion characteristics. While I agree that distortion should be as low as possible one must not forget (and this guy should definitely know) that perception of distortion is not depending on amount alone but on spectral distribution as well.
Bi-wiring:
I don't do this either personally (it simply makes no sense since I am running active !) but claiming to be able to disprove it by oversimplifying things like he does is as unscientific as could be. There are indeed scientific reasons why it COULD make a difference. Hint: Voltage dividers and nonlinear loads !
Regards
Charles
Tony said:
Yes, what is very strange with the burn-in theory is that all who believe in it seem to get improvements after burning in their equipment. If burning in could change the sound, wouldn't it be just as likely that the sound gets worse?
Anyway, with the exception of a few components types, there is still no technical explanation why burning in could change the sound. On the other hand, human hearing is very adaptive and deliberate modifications of the sounds we hear can give measurable alterations to our hearing, clearly visible in audiograms (it is not the physical ear that changes, but the filter functions in the brain). If there is anything more than pure psychological bias to burning in, my bet is that it is the hearing that changes, since this seems much more likely.
Not to get into any really deep thoughts or anything, but lets say for argument's sake all of the so called "magic" in audio IS completely false and is actually all in your brain, then why does it matter? Doesn't it still provide you with more joy this way, at least in your head, and isn't your head where YOU truly exist?
Wierd example: Sometimes when I have a headache (which is pretty rare) I take an ibuprofen tablet to help alleviate the pain, yet my headache goes away literally within a minute after taking it. I know for a fact the medicine did not get dissolved and put into my bloodstream yet, so it has to be in my head, but if this is the case then it is great, because it only means I am pain free faster. When I tell people ibuprofen takes my headache away almost instantly they never believe me of course and say that I am wrong, but on the other hand I refuse to listen to them (essentially lying to myself) because if I convinced myself that it doesn't help instantly then I am quite sure it will stop working so fast, which in turn will have a negative impact on my life - especially when I get headaches. Why would I ever believe something if it means my quality of life will go down because of it? I know, kind of wierd...
I think this article was put out to deliberately be blunt against the people who believe these alleged myths are true, maybe to start firefights and threads on audio forums. While I do not yet have enough experience to comment on the validity of the so-called myths, I can say the brain is a lot more complex than any piece of equipment you will ever listen to, so maybe the argument really shouldn't be directed toward the components, but rather to the REAL signal processor in our lives, the one between our ears.
My 2 cents.
Ron
Wierd example: Sometimes when I have a headache (which is pretty rare) I take an ibuprofen tablet to help alleviate the pain, yet my headache goes away literally within a minute after taking it. I know for a fact the medicine did not get dissolved and put into my bloodstream yet, so it has to be in my head, but if this is the case then it is great, because it only means I am pain free faster. When I tell people ibuprofen takes my headache away almost instantly they never believe me of course and say that I am wrong, but on the other hand I refuse to listen to them (essentially lying to myself) because if I convinced myself that it doesn't help instantly then I am quite sure it will stop working so fast, which in turn will have a negative impact on my life - especially when I get headaches. Why would I ever believe something if it means my quality of life will go down because of it? I know, kind of wierd...
I think this article was put out to deliberately be blunt against the people who believe these alleged myths are true, maybe to start firefights and threads on audio forums. While I do not yet have enough experience to comment on the validity of the so-called myths, I can say the brain is a lot more complex than any piece of equipment you will ever listen to, so maybe the argument really shouldn't be directed toward the components, but rather to the REAL signal processor in our lives, the one between our ears.
My 2 cents.
Ron
darkfenriz said:
Good movie, nice reference - very relevant to this thread. I agree. Maybe if some logic and scientific methods were applied we could stop accidentally burning the non-witches at the stake, and get rid of all those pesky real witches. Maybe that should be the slogan on this thread, "What would Sir. Bedevere do?", but good luck convincing people amplifiers are made of wood and weigh the same as a duck.
It's not that they're rubes, it's that they have no particular expertise other than the ability to write in an entertaining way and churn out copy on a regular basis. Some are deluded, some are cynical, but none of the reviewers I have known (including Tony) are dumb. But they're no more often right than a coin flip.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.