Th Audio Critic: An Objective Look at Audio (Hype or not)  

This article has been discussed to death here.

Example: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=123921

That's the most voluminous pile of pompous crap I've read in a while. The author makes sweeping generalizations while offering up proofs (if they can be called such) that don't even scratch the surface of the real issues at hand. There is some truth to some of what he says, but he often takes conclusions way too far and tries to pass them off as undisputed scientific fact. A little knowlegde can be an annoying thing - this guy apparently got hold of a few freshman level college texts and now thinks he has the power to expose talented high-end audio engineers as con artists

(removed "Good article." I don't know enough to comment, really. However, I think the default position to take on any idea is lack of belief. Belief should be earned through solid evidence.)

I WAS RIGHT!!

...don't mind me, I was trying to guess what I would see when I clicked on the link to that article.

Well, I found he made some important points, and I do agree that a lot of stuff in audio verges on snake oil. Ohm/Farad/Henry is really where it's at, but cables can make a difference along with the connectors in these sorts of measurements, and materials do affect this. That said, I see a lot of stuff marketed for thousands of dollars that doesn't make use of anything particularly extraordinary and so you end up paying for flashiness or name recognition. So I do agree with him that cables, along with other tweaks, do have some pretty disingenuous stuff going.

I do agree with him that DBT is a useful and legitimate tool for evaluating whether one can actually hear differences. If you can't hear it in an ABX, it seems reasonable to seriously question whether you're actually gaining anything. I really noticed the value of ABX when testing lossy audio codecs a few years ago. I also agree with him that 'burn in' on solid state amps and cables is pretty ludicrous.

The comment about tubes I found positively absurd, though. It isn't defective to prefer the sound of tubes to solid state. There are even _scientific_ studies about this sort of thing that indicate why people prefer the sound, including that the sort of distortion tubes produce is considered aesthetically pleasing by many, while the distortion introduced by transistors (often even order harmonic) is almost categorically considered unpleasant (often odd order harmonic)...the manner in which it's introduced also has an effect. I tend to prefer solid state amplifiers, but I can certainly understand why people like the tube sound.

The digital comment I agree and disagree with. The products he noted I generally consider pretty absurd, but jitter is something that does matter and it's important to keep it low as it produces that 'harsh', 'unnatural' sound people associate digital audio with. Lessloss' method of reducing jitter is an excellent and almost 'oh duh' approach, and hopefully it will become the standard eventually.

There's being objective, and then there's being pompous and presumtuous. As sceptical I am about a lot of things audiophile, I don't see much use in acting like this fellow. That sort of attitude from some of these guys is probably why I get haranged to no end when I humbly suggest doing ABX tests on cables/interconnects/some other tweak...which sucks.

As much as I'd like to believe that cables and power conditioning are totally falsified, the fact that he claims tubes and vinyl suck really harms my opinion of him. I don't know anything about the scientific or electrical truth, but I can HEAR a difference between analog and digital, and I can certainly hear a huge difference between certain tube and certain solid state amps. And the tube amps I've heard are on the cheap, too. Not to mention his assumption that all records are full of cracks, pops, and background noise shows his total ignorance of new or well-kept vinyl.

Interesting read. I love the quote "tweako audio cultists hate authority" because that can be applied to a great number of people on this board. No matter though, as I still love reading everything you guys have to say.

Regarding his assertions, I would disagree that cable quality makes no difference, but agree that cable burn-in is silly. I do, however, believe that headphone burn-in exists, but only within the first few hours. After that it is all about adjusting to a new sound. I hated the sound that the PA2v2 produced on all of my headphones for a few months, and now I love it. I finally adjusted to quality sound after having listened to so much music on a car system with idiotic EQ settings (SRS WOW, what was I thinking?)

This guy knows he isn't going to sway those whose beliefs are firmly rooted on the other side of the fence, but I can tell that his intentions are aimed at helping out the neophyte audiophiles who are easily susceptible to any and all propaganda in this field. Think about some of the postings you have seen from newbs on this board asking for advice and think about some of the replies. They ask for good headphones to get started, and without fail you get a number of posts saying, "Get a Senn 650 with a Quad2000 Deluxe Super Amp and a Neptune8000 Lightning Interconnect." It's silly, and these people need some protection. How are they ever going to really appreciate the good phones if they don't start smaller?

A word of warning....

I find that the whole objectivist vs subjectivist debate tends to bring out the worst true believers on both sides. Please keep it civil...thanks.

Without stepping on too many toes, I do feel vinyl is a dying media and will only be around for nostalgic purposes. I do agree that the frequency response of an analog is currently greater, but in the long run, vinyl will die as digital gets better and better (especially DAC technology).

I've never seen that article and though I agree with some of his points (at least regarding power cords and somewhat cables) the article is more color commentary about "audiophile" attitude than true application.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. I forgot about it.

The author of that seems to have his Pinnochio nose in the place where it fits best. Maybe he can't hear very well?

As far as i know, the frequency response of vinyl is strongly dependend on at which place of the record a sound is reproduced. At the end of the record, where the relative speed is lowest, the frequency response ends at about 9000 hertz. Anybody here who would buy a HP with that specification and claim it´s state of the art?

I know, that a record doesnt have to sound bad. But to say that analogue is the superior technology is just false. So, point for the author.

The article´s just written in the ame style as in some parts of the "audio"- press. Right, he´s not really what one would call diplomatic. But just right to be counterweight to some of the c*** that you can buy printed to paper. I like it.

Pick up the latest issue of Hi-Fi News and Reviews, there's an interesting test in there of cable break-in. To summarize, a fresh digital cable doesn't carry bits as consistently as a cable that's broken in. The fresh cable introduced more errors and variations in the bitstream than the burned-in cable.

X2
Some examples are true, but they don't make any of his conclusions right.
If things don't fit in his model of the (audio-)world, he concludes they cannot exist....
Sad realy.