Funniest snake oil theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been to numerous, expensive live shows where I'm sure the FR was fiddled with, fiddled with, fiddled with, over and over again to "get it right" - and the sound was truly execrable. IME, the FR is never part of the problem - it's a way of minimising the impact of problems, sweeping them under the carpet so to speak, I'll grant you that; I've listened to exercises where the FR was "perfectly" fixed, using a DEQX - went from ordinary sound A, to ordinary sound B. If a person was extremely sensitive to subtleties there, fair enough - but I have never heard playing with such "fix things", in the true sense of the phrase ...
 
What is this 'burden' business anyway? Who says that I have to PROVE to someone else what I hear? What something sound like is all there is to it, not that I have to prove something about it.
John, you just have to face it, :p - the "other crowd" have got this Catch 22 beautifully constructed, it's a sticky web which has no way through at the moment - probably best to completely ignore it, and plug on in the meantime, :D ...
 
The point should be emphasised that a truly competent DiffMaker style of mechanism would be an extremely powerful tool for sorting out these issues - but first steps first: get the tool to work at least vaguely close to as well as it needs to, and steadily enhance from there ...
 
We have constant prodding to look up the "literature" - I do this every now and again for a laugh ...

Look at articles available on the AES site ... ah-ha, "On the Replacement of T.H.D. as the Standard Figure of Merit", by Aartsen - sounds exactly what could be relevant, everyone says THD is "not enough" - okay, there should be quite a bit of discussion about this ... uh-oh, Google gives me just 2 hits, the original article and a list of works by the author ... which was done in '84 ...

This is typical, dead ends everywhere one goes - face it, the people in the industry have not the slightest interest in understanding what's going on ...
 
What are the benefits?
I'm curious to know.

When I listen seriously, I listen to the music that is being played and how it is being played. I'm not mainly concerned with any "illusions of being there" with audio (or video) reproduction. I never have been, and I've been spinning records since about age 5. It's fine for others, I've no problem with it, but your downside is just too drastic for my liking.

It is so refreshing to hear someone say that! I really have no interest in hearing a realistic rendition of the sound of a symphony orchestra or a rock band in my tiny living room. Both would sound terrible there!

I suppose that then begs the question "What, then, is hifi? Fidelity to what?" I don't know how to explain it, I want to hear the orchestra, or the crunch of the guitars, but the last thing I want is an illusion that either is in the room with me.

Even simpler, more human-sized stuff: somebody went to some effort to produce the sound of Ella singing with Nelson Riddle's orchestra, and I want to hear what they produced. I'm sure that Ella singing in my living room would sound wonderful, but that's not what I bought the record for.
 
Actually, the illusion normally created is not that they are in the room with you, but rather that the performance exists beyond the confines of that space. An analogy I've used a number of times is that the musical event occurs in the space where it was recorded, and your listening area has the wall beyond the speakers removed and is physically transported to that recording place - your room exists as a large, "private box" at an acoustically appropriate spot in that location, while the musicians do their thing.

Subjectively that's how it comes across to me - so a "big" sound occurs in a very "big" space, well beyond where I'm sitting.

Edit: I have no idea how I could manipulate the sound, as recorded, to make it seem that the instruments exist in close proximity, "in the room with you" - I have never heard such, and I think would require rather severe DSP to make it happen ...
 
Last edited:
What is this 'burden' business anyway? Who says that I have to PROVE to someone else what I hear? What something sound like is all there is to it, not that I have to prove something about it.

An analogy:
If you think there's life on Mars, its not up to me to go to Mars and turn every stone upside down to prove there's no life. Its up to you to go to Mars and come back with stuff that's alive.

Believing someone's word is not what smart people tend to do. But you insist we believe you on your word, its not going to happen.

And finally one very important thing: You make money selling relatively expensive equipment that depends on your claims its better than for example an ipod. You certainly have something to prove, jet you refuse. This smells of a scam. I'm not saying your a scam artist, its actually very likely that you realy believe your claims. But believing is a bit hard without real proof for people like me who know the science involved.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Pano, I am looking forward very much to the mud test v.2.0. The original one should already become a debunk evergreen, so expectations are high.
Thanks. I built some shielded PVC pipes that can be used to hold whatever conductor is under test; mud, steel wool, water, whatever. The main trouble in the last test was the high impedance of some materials led to a noisy signal. I'm hoping that shielding will help. I'll also be using what should be a better D/A A/D conversion; a PreSonus digital console at work.

As to the digital sparkles, it is just the error correction mechanism kicking in when the original signal can no longer be reconstructed because of drop outs.
Yes, quite likely. I have to say tho, that the HD-SDI video transmission is very robust. The transmit and receive ends are very expensive compared to audio, but have built in EQ and often reclocking. If we used something like that for digital audio, there would be no problems.


This brings me on your bad spdif cable. I really would like to know how this can happen. But first we have to establish that indeed this cable creates audible artifacts. Would it be possible for you to post two files, one with the bad, and one with a good cable to allow for some abxing?
Good idea! Gotta figure out how to do that. Just guessing that the weak laser signal is creating bad jitter at the reciever, and that may not be detectable in a digital to digital recording. Suppose I'd need to pass it to a DAC and record its analog output. Will see what I can do. :up:
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
When I listen seriously, I listen to the music that is being played and how it is being played. I'm not mainly concerned with any "illusions of being there" with audio (or video) reproduction.
Frank has already addressed your question, but I'll chime in, too.
I certainly understand and respect your point. The "Being There" thing is very difficult to achieve. Doubly difficult in a domestic size listening room. Earl Geddes would probably say it's impossible, I'd say "damn near impossible." But it doesn't stop me trying.

What are the benefits? Just speaking personally I think it's very cool. :cool:
Maybe it's the next best thing we can do to the Star Trek transporter. Change the recording and you are off to another space, a different room, even a different time. It's like hopping around the world while seated in your arm chair. I love it.

What does that have to do with the music? In some ways, nothing. It's a different thing. For me it's an Audio experience, not a Musical one. I can enjoy the acoustic travels in their own right. That said, it does add to my enjoyment of the music. When it sounds like you are really in the space that the music was played in, it sure adds to the pleasure. But I dig acoustics, I listen for them wherever I am. Good, bad or just weird, I enjoy how the local environment shapes the sound.
 
John, you will have to do something about that bullseye, tattooed on your forehead ...

It's the arrogance and vacuous suggestions to improve sound that have no basis in science that put that bulls eye there. If I wanted to waste my time I'm sure I could find 100s of examples on this on this web site, but no one who is not already aware of this will read it, so why bother.
 
You know guys, I too can laugh along with you about apparently 'phony' claims and additions to hi fi equipment. My opinion, however, is to keep an open mind, and not form a solid opinion without seriously trying it first. That is the difference between me and some of you.
Of course, the possibility of making a totally fake tweek and advertising it as revolutionary is possible, but it is not universal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.