Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Help Me Understand Audio Lies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help Me Understand Audio Lies

post #1 of 49
1/9/08 at 9:28pm
Thread Starter 
I am sure many of us have read the article by audio critic titled - 10 biggest lies in Audio.

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf

BTW I've tried searching for an old thread - but am having problems locating it. So forgive me for digging up old topics that has been discussed to death.

I've read that article sometime ago(>1yr ago), early on my audio learning journey (still quite a newbie though) - i kinda agreed with what it said then but now I'm not so sure with regards to some of them:

1) Vacuum Tube Lie - Sure tubes have a higher measured distortion figure than SS but tend to be 2nd harmonic over the higher odd harmonics of SS. Since the audibility of harmonic distortion differs for 2nd vs odd harmonic - we find the lower distortion SS more harsh and tubes more warm and musical. If music reproduction is all about fidelity - which is better? Shouldn't we trust our ears more than measuring devices. Not to mention the soft clipping of tubes vs SS.

2) Cable Lie - I'm not arguing about the megabucks wire here but rather the normal thin rat shack wires vs clothes hanger vs a well constructed insulated wire using OFC by a respected manufacturer like Belden. So if measured resistance / capacitance / inductance are the same - they should sound the same? BTW did they even measure this physical quantities on the wires they mentioned?

3) Digital Lie - I don't own a Analog rig but can an average (say $2000 front end) digital rig compete with an analog rig. Is digital inherently better than Analog? I hated the CDs with a passion when I started with them in the early 90s because of their cold clinical sound - it's better now (since all I have now is digital) but better than analog?

4) Burn In Lie - They said that it just takes a few moments for the capacitors to settle in but of course it's been discussed to death that BG caps takes >50hrs to burn in etc And of course my HD595 changed its character when brand new vs burned in over 1 week (left it playing without listening).

What's your opinion of the audio critic gang?

Again - sorry for digging up a new thread.

her shann
Reply
post #2 of 49
1/9/08 at 9:44pm
If it sounds good, it is good. As long as you don't try and forcefully push your opinion/perceptions/findings on others, it's all good.
Reply
post #3 of 49
1/9/08 at 9:47pm
Agreed, everyone's ears are different, some people can tell the explicit differences between cables and some can't.

I have friends that can't tell the difference between iBuds and my SF5's, whereas I can!
Reply
post #4 of 49
1/9/08 at 10:06pm
I was kind of hoping for one to be "the Bose lie".....
Reply
post #5 of 49
1/9/08 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wes.coleman View Post
I was kind of hoping for one to be "the Bose lie".....
I hear that!
Reply
post #6 of 49
1/9/08 at 10:44pm
1) Correctomundo, music is not just to be "analyzed."

2) If u can hear the difference, then it makes difference to u. Simple.

3) Digital is better than analog in the sense that it's fool-proof, u don't have to think about it and it always give u the same thing - consistency. If u pursue sonic quality at ALL COST, and I re-iterate all-cost, then digital is obviously too rigid.

4) No opinion.
Reply
post #7 of 49
1/9/08 at 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hershann View Post
1) Vacuum Tube Lie - Sure tubes have a higher measured distortion figure than SS but tend to be 2nd harmonic over the higher odd harmonics of SS. Since the audibility of harmonic distortion differs for 2nd vs odd harmonic - we find the lower distortion SS more harsh and tubes more warm and musical. If music reproduction is all about fidelity - which is better? Shouldn't we trust our ears more than measuring devices. Not to mention the soft clipping of tubes vs SS.
Yes, you are correct. Aczel is ignoring this, and to do so is wrong. The distribution of distortion products has a much greater effect than the absolute amount of distortion. This is supported by so much academic research it's not even worth arguing about any more, but for recent stuff, I'd point you to Geddes' work on weighted distortion metrics.

The other important aspect to consider is distortion performance at low power output (around 1 watt). Distortion at full power output is next to meaningless, except to ascertain the total amount of power an amp can produce. Again, here tube gear often (though not always) outperforms solid state gear at low power levels.

Quote:
2) Cable Lie - I'm not arguing about the megabucks wire here but rather the normal thin rat shack wires vs clothes hanger vs a well constructed insulated wire using OFC by a respected manufacturer like Belden. So if measured resistance / capacitance / inductance are the same - they should sound the same? BTW did they even measure this physical quantities on the wires they mentioned?
He's basically right here. Even if cable effects are audible (and they definitely are in extreme cases, e.g. a 60 foot run of unbalanced RCA cable), they're *way* over-emphasized in the audiophile community. The biggest part of cable talk is placebo, even if some of it is real.

Quote:
3) Digital Lie - I don't own a Analog rig but can an average (say $2000 front end) digital rig compete with an analog rig. Is digital inherently better than Analog? I hated the CDs with a passion when I started with them in the early 90s because of their cold clinical sound - it's better now (since all I have now is digital) but better than analog?
He's wrong here too. There have been multiple AES papers in the last 15 years pointing out the deficiencies of 44.1kHz/16 bit audio.

Quote:
4) Burn In Lie - They said that it just takes a few moments for the capacitors to settle in but of course it's been discussed to death that BG caps takes >50hrs to burn in etc And of course my HD595 changed its character when brand new vs burned in over 1 week (left it playing without listening).
Yeah, he's wrong here too, but only with respect to electrolytic caps, and primarily ones in the signal path.
Reply
post #8 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:02pm
Having just said:
Quote:
If u can hear the difference, then it makes difference to u
then it's silly to say this:
Quote:
If u pursue sonic quality at ALL COST, and I re-iterate all-cost, then digital is obviously too rigid.
Quality in this hobby is qualitative and subjective. Some ppl might like the sound of something with no bass response, or bumped up treble.
Reply
post #9 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:17pm
can i just say for the record that i'm ****ing tired of people going on and on with the "well, if it sounds good to you, that's what matters" ****; well no ****ing ****! we all know that; you don't have to say it over and ****ing over; thanks to wodgy for some ACTUAL useful info rather than just the same old "use your ears" stuff



and btw: whatever sounds good to you, that's what matters
Reply
post #10 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:17pm
Quote:
Yes, you are correct. Aczel is ignoring this, and to do so is wrong. The distribution of distortion products has a much greater effect than the absolute amount of distortion. This is supported by so much academic research it's not even worth arguing about any more, but for recent stuff, I'd point you to Geddes' work on weighted distortion metrics.

The other important aspect to consider is distortion performance at low power output (around 1 watt). Distortion at full power output is next to meaningless, except to ascertain the total amount of power an amp can produce. Again, here tube gear often (though not always) outperforms solid state gear at low power levels.
That is correct, but don't forget that you can get that same exact ditribution of harmnics in SS as well, just that is not so inherent to the solid state, and you need to work a little bit around that, I have heard, and we all have heard some SS amplifiers that sometimes the audiophiles call "with tubey sound" that is precisily that a distortion that is pleasant to the human hear, the same way tubes are, IIRC, second high, third low, or whatever it should be....etc...

Quote:
He's basically right here. Even if cable effects are audible (and they definitely are in extreme cases, e.g. a 60 foot run of unbalanced RCA cable), they're *way* over-emphasized in the audiophile community. The biggest part of cable talk is placebo, even if some of it is real.
Agree here 1000%....period...IMO cables make very little differences that are amplified by the listeners brain....

Quote:
He's wrong here too. There have been multiple AES papers in the last 15 years pointing out the deficiencies of 44.1kHz/16 bit audio.
Here well that IMO is debatable as well, what is good for the goose is for gander, we have also 100's of papers pointing out the limitations of analog....errr....well the vinyl, that was the media he took as an example. He, same as I do, consider the master analog tapes as the best example of the analog world, but then the best digital is not a CD, but a digital master tape as well...he was mainly making reference to the vinyl, and IMO vinyl is analog, but the worst representative media of the analog world, and unfiortunatelly the one mainly all audiophiles take as an example of analog, that is IMO BS, tons of limitations, tons...

Quote:
Yeah, he's wrong here too, but only with respect to electrolytic caps, and primarily ones in the signal path.
Here IMO and in my short experience he is right, a cap that takes more than half hour to settle is defective, and personally I will not use it...period...all the caps I have heard (if they are "heard" as they should be outside the signal path) sound the same after 5 minutes of 100 hours, that is IMO, and as he said another voodoo...same as any other electronic part, except tubes and some SS parts that require certain temperature to work properly....about drivers, well electromechanical and mechanical devices do change with use their performance, simply they are too stiff from the box, but the differences are as well amplified by the listeners brains...

Just my two cetns,

And sorry wodgy to take your post but it contained all the topics I was going to post on ...
Reply
post #11 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wodgy View Post
Yes, you are correct. Aczel is ignoring this, and to do so is wrong. The distribution of distortion products has a much greater effect than the absolute amount of distortion. This is supported by so much academic research it's not even worth arguing about any more, but for recent stuff, I'd point you to Geddes' work on weighted distortion metrics.

The other important aspect to consider is distortion performance at low power output (around 1 watt). Distortion at full power output is next to meaningless, except to ascertain the total amount of power an amp can produce. Again, here tube gear often (though not always) outperforms solid state gear at low power levels.



He's basically right here. Even if cable effects are audible (and they definitely are in extreme cases, e.g. a 60 foot run of unbalanced RCA cable), they're *way* over-emphasized in the audiophile community. The biggest part of cable talk is placebo, even if some of it is real.



He's wrong here too. There have been multiple AES papers in the last 15 years pointing out the deficiencies of 44.1kHz/16 bit audio.



Yeah, he's wrong here too, but only with respect to electrolytic caps, and primarily ones in the signal path.

Yes - thanks for reminding that most amps' distortion rises as output power increases. The First Watt counts! (that's why I'm building a DIY First Watt F4 designed by Nelson Pass)

I feel better using the Monoprice RCA cables now - I still think it's better than the cheapo RCA bundled in by the manufacturer of consumer electronics?

her shann
Reply
post #12 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rincewind View Post
Having just said... then it's silly to say this:
No... because the two items are different.

First item is tube vs solid state, both are still in the analog domain.

Second item is analog vs digital, now HERE, there is a DEFINITE delineation and different domains... and worthy to say so.
Reply
post #13 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:46pm
I have the Jesus answer.

A 3D graph of sonic-quality vs cost vs time-spent. In said graph you are able to tell how much more enjoyment gain by how much$ extra plus time-spent (DIYer, yeah, am talking to u).
Reply
post #14 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:54pm
That is my favorite audio article, ever. Nothing speaks more truth.
Reply
post #15 of 49
1/9/08 at 11:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hershann View Post
I feel better using the Monoprice RCA cables now - I still think it's better than the cheapo RCA bundled in by the manufacturer of consumer electronics?

her shann
Of course, those cheapo RCA's that are bundled dont have any shielding whatsoever. My old cables were picking up radio stations until I got some decent shielded ones.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Help Me Understand Audio Lies