Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 113

post #1681 of 1990
12/9/12 at 6:05am
And : "The DAC in the avr is optimized for multichannel use i.e. dts, etc. I don't expect it to do stereo extremely well. From my similar dealings I found the amps/source signature the same on analogue and hdmi. However, I did notice a bit more bottom end via the analogues. It wasn't really day and night. Could be the snake oil in the interconnects. As Hi-amphibian said we don't know how much is going digital. However, when I tried a much higher end cd player on the analogues it was a day and night difference".
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #1682 of 1990
12/9/12 at 9:23am

Wow. That makes zero sense. 

Reply
post #1683 of 1990
12/9/12 at 9:49am
What chimpanzee said those quotes?
Reply
post #1684 of 1990
12/9/12 at 10:09am
It's our local AV forum. Just click on the link and read the posts ... at your peril.. ; - ) Every now and then we get an audiofool. If you are up to the challenge why not sign up and set these people straight?
Edited by Yahzi - 12/9/12 at 10:21am
Reply
post #1685 of 1990
12/9/12 at 11:00am
If they want to e set straight, they can venture into the sound science lion's den.
Reply
post #1686 of 1990
12/9/12 at 11:15am
Not going to happen I'm afraid. It would be funny if someone from the inside could take them apart, one myth at a time.
Reply
post #1687 of 1990
12/9/12 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahzi View Post

Not going to happen I'm afraid. It would be funny if someone from the inside could take them apart, one myth at a time.

 

In my experience, they find ways to dismiss such interventions. Until they start to seek out and think critically for themselves it's an uphill battle to fight fiction with fact. 

 

That's not to say that it is not still valuable to put facts out there. It is. But to expect a tiger to change its stripes just because an outside came in and proved them wrong, is unreasonable. 

Reply
post #1688 of 1990
12/9/12 at 1:15pm
"On AVRs this remains a tricky topic as many dont actually have analogue inputs that remain analogue..." Does this make any sense? Doesn't to me.
Reply
post #1689 of 1990
12/9/12 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahzi View Post

"On AVRs this remains a tricky topic as many dont actually have analogue inputs that remain analogue..." Does this make any sense? Doesn't to me.

 

 

It suggests that some analog input signals are then digitized internally by an ADC possibly for digital signal processing (Dolby, THX). 

Reply
post #1690 of 1990
12/9/12 at 5:14pm
I would like to broach the one major audiophile myth that I agree with. I have been questioned about it before, and seldom have a not intangible, visceral, or nostalgic answer. Why do I love records so much more than digital media? And why do I prefer CDs to even flac files? I feel like a hypocrite, but nothing is going to change my mind!
Reply
post #1691 of 1990
12/9/12 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootsit View Post

I would like to broach the one major audiophile myth that I agree with. I have been questioned about it before, and seldom have a not intangible, visceral, or nostalgic answer. Why do I love records so much more than digital media? And why do I prefer CDs to even flac files? I feel like a hypocrite, but nothing is going to change my mind!

Handling the media is priming you to listen, and there may be favorable associations with past experiences? I'm no psychologist.
Reply
post #1692 of 1990
12/9/12 at 5:37pm
makes sense.
Reply
post #1693 of 1990
12/10/12 at 5:20am
Guys, take a look at this cable "test" from the forums.
 
"Another week, another test.

One perticilurly good recording, with elements or bass, mids and airy highs.

3 Suspects

(a) Van Den hul Silver TC
(b) Kimber KCAG
(c) The R4.95 RCA

as reference. Siltech SQ88

Please note that even at 1500 euro for most expensive one here, this is NOT high end cable - more medium level.

Two victims, one audiophile the other never been exposed to high end hifi and a videophile.

I played same song with each of the cable, asked each person to say

1) DID they hear a difference ?
2) Which sounded best and worst

I repeated the test 15 times, swapping cables at random, twice not swapping

I didnr have KPGM to verify the results BUT this is what I found

I had (c) in the test 5 times:

The RCA (c) was identified 5/5 times AND but only 4/5 times considered the worst by both listeners.

I had (b) in the system 7 times and (c) 3 times
 
(a) and (b) was felt almost to close to call BUT even with that slight difference

(a) was picked by BOTH people 5/7 times  to be the best and nicest sounding (b) 2 times and the rest undecided..

The BAD news ?

The RCA sounded too good to be in there! It should have been bad bad  :Ooooooh:

Comparing the VanDen Hul with a Siltech SQ88 (1500 euro) made almost no difference... no conclusive decision could be made if the sound changed or not.... to all the listeners it "sounded the same"

That concludes my experiment on interconnects. I am happy I COULD hear differences. I COULD 100% identify the RCA  :clap:

But DAMMIT I should not have bought the expensive Siltechs  :nutter: Albeit at 75% discount. If I paid the full R20k I would have been pulling my hair out.

Now for speaker cables  :sweat:"
 
Reply
post #1694 of 1990
12/10/12 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahzi View Post


One perticilurly good recording, with elements or bass, mids and airy highs.

Which recording, what was the entire playback chain?

 

 

Quote:

I had (c) in the test 5 times:

[...]


I had (b) in the system 7 times and (c) 3 times

So what is it, 5 or 3 times? What about a?

 

 

Quote:
The RCA (c) was identified 5/5 times AND but only 4/5 times considered the worst by both listeners.

5/5 still has a 3.1% probability of guessing and 4/5 of 18.8%.

 

You should have done (at least) 10 trials per cable and identified the cable 9 times.

 

 

Quote:
That concludes my experiment on interconnects. I am happy I COULD hear differences. I COULD 100% identify the RCA  :clap:

Not really. wink.gif

Reply
post #1695 of 1990
12/10/12 at 7:32am
Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor View Post

 

You should have done (at least) 10 trials per cable and identified the cable 9 times.

 

It is a quote from another forum, the test was not done by Yahzi.

 

It is not always easy to make a test like this fully blind, by the way, there are often subconscious cues that allow the listeners to find out what cable is being used.


Edited by stv014 - 12/10/12 at 8:43am
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths