What if the audio critic is completely right? What would you own? - Page 3

Sadly, my head-fi setup and my hifi before that were bought based on the Audio Critic's 10 being true. Now I know that they are not I have at least stopped upgrading nonsense such as cables and started to spend money were it matters, on the headphones.

 

So long an amp has enough power to properly drive headphones it will work fine. So long as a DAC is properly implemented, it will work fine.

 

If you think about it, many hiif makers claim their aim is to be as faithful to the original recording as possible, so they should all sound the same.

Let's see my rig.... Completely digital, completely solid-state, heavily focused on headphones themselves, no expensive cable/etc. 

 

And I completed my rig before I saw the article as well . 

The closest I've seen has been the Audio-gd HDAMs, of which the Moon I think was supposed to emulate the slightly V-shaped sound signature some tubes seem to produce. Some of their voltage-gain amps had modules with different "sounds" as well. I think Headamp as well had the option of switchable modules (which I've never seen alternatives for) to effect the same thing.

Other than that, some OPAMPs, to my observation, have an effect on the sound similar to what people would describe as coming from tubes (in terms of an altered frequency response) such as the OPA627s or the OPA211.

I'm a pragmatist when it comes to audio gear, and have always been. I have the kind of personality that prizes logic and things that can be proven, so I have always steered clear of typical audiofool nonsense. The list of big lies completely matches my own rules, and IMO, every single person who dips his toe beyond standard consumer electronics and land at the border of the entry-level audiophile realm, must read that article and arm themselves against all the snake oil crap in the audiofool world.

But sadly with us condemned to the Sound Science part of the forum and many other forums very unaccepting of science, we have to watch as so many are suckered.

Welcome!

Everyone is a fool, for something.

Yeah, it's too bad that in spite of knowledge and understanding some people prefer to keep the myths alive.

 

OTOH, all I can say is that if I can't tell Nav's O2 from my GS-1 I'm going to be mighty ticked off.

 

I have to aggree with some (verry little) of the stuff the audio critic says. But that is the best way to lie, just mix some truth in! If he mentions the Nyquist-Shannon theorem again, I might throw up in my mouth! He just seems to me to be a person who likes music, but wants to pull everyone down to his level. His whole "tubes don't sound better than transistors" thing is completely ridiculous on its face. I guess some people can't really discern the difference of one thing or the other. But to say people who have "golden ears" are not being truthful is like saying "all people are born with the exact same brain". You listen with your mind, not your ears. The ears are just a device to transmit the signals to the brain, so that you can interperet them. This guy is just having a fit or an outburst of some sort. Pretty weird. I guess we can all just go and buy some Bose headphones and paint Sennheiser on them and kid ourselves. After reading this I wanted to replace all my copper wire with some iron wires (coat hangers)? Geeze! This guy need some physics and metalurgy classes.

 

I guess the 10 biggest lies are really the 10 biggest lies! He is a tricky sort.

tubes have to be replaced, as often as yearly if left on 24/7 for devices operating at their power limits - well designed SS doesn't have a comparable wear out mechanism - derating, protection from ESD, operating in a dry environment without ionic contamination, many SS transistors, diodes, op amps used in discrete headphone amps can be expected to work for several human lifetimes - NASA and the Military have standards, models of lifetime/failure rates  - you may need to replace Electrolytics at decade(s) intervals

 

 

I do believe some of the Audio Critic points may be overdrawn, insufficiently qualified - but still a model of somber propriety compared to the rhetoric of 90%+ of the Audiophile press promulgating the "Myths"

 

it is always ironic to see attacks on "conventional engineering" understanding of cable effects, digital Audio theoretical underpinnings delivered to my desktop over Mbaud ADSL modem pushing the bits over a few thousand ft of 1/2 century old telephone twisted pair 

 

RedBook is arguably "too close for comfort" to human auditory limits - but large studies still haven't shown it insufficient for Music: Hartley, Nyquist, Shannon, Wiener formulation of Information Theory and its current application to Audio really "works"

Quote:

 

Ah, but then you can sell your GS-1 and spend the money on cake/alcohol/whatever people buy apart from audio equipment. Everybody wins, especially you!
 

 

 

You will be pretty surprised at what placebo does to you, when you get rid of it the results can save thousands of dollars of audio equipment. Many a double blind test has confirmed the "truthfulness" of golden ears just search up and see for yourself. Also it has been proven that tubes do distort sound but it can be pleasing to some, tubes to me are more of a musical instrument than something for sound reproduction. When he meant better, it means more "neutral" or accurate which mind you is a proven fact, your more than welcome to study electrical engineering if you disagree. And on cables,he is busting the myth on AUDIOPHILE cables like you know, the ones that cost $1000 crystal kind.

 

As a student, I don't have much equipment, a NAD AV-716 based tower speaker system which I "inherited" from my father as he left in disuse after I was born but kept it well(it's 18 years old!). 

For myself I only have whatever is in my sig and a samsung home theater system which came with the television which I use for casual listening and movies. 

 

I'm very pragmatic about buying gear due to my extremely tight budget and I pretty much hope that I won't be taken in by this "snake oil" 

 

Quote:

Can you please demonstrate reasons for disagreeing with what was written there without invoking your own highly subjective experiences? The Sennheiser painting thing is also a transparent misrepresentation of his arguments.
 

 

Yea there is a bunch of overpriced bulloney out there, but just because a company will overprice a wire or a tube amp doesn't mean that they are selling snake oil. There are genuine differences in using different transistors even. All transistors are rated differently and will sound completely different, just like tubes. Some transistors impart more noise than others. Even resistors sound different. A metal film resistor will sound completely different than a carbon for instance.  

 

This audio critic seems to be implying that a cheap amp made exclusively with carbon resistors, cheap capacitors, cheap transistors, etc. will sound the same as a great tube amp made with elna silmic caps and vintage carbon resistors, like the ones used in old Marantz amps. I think he went overboard a bit, and I wouldn't take that article too seriously.    

 

 

Are we talking a cheap solid-state amp? Of course they won't sound the same as a great tube amp. The great tube amp has audible distortion.