Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 116

Here in America we squeeze the fruit in the store to see if it's ripe.

 

Reminds me of the story where the little boy tested each and every match before buying. LOL.

When my sister was a kid she'd sample every candy in a Sees Candy box to find the chocolate covered cherry. A box full of candies with tiny bites out of them isn't appetizing.

my mom taught me to stick a finger in the bottom of the candies

For what it's worth a friend in london was always on about how awesome his hi-fi sounded, and how he could hear huge differences, especially after connecting his new £400 each interconnects between his cd player, dac and amp.

We were at his home one evening watching a movie and he popped out to get some wine and collect the take aways. While he was out we swapped the cables, with his wife in agreement, for throw away ones that come with standard audio kit ( thin plastic cables with the red and white plugs ).

When he returned we ate, enjoyed some wine and finished watching the movie. Then he fired up the hi-fi and spent the next hour playing disc after disc to let us hear all the extra detail e.t.c and explained to us how glorious it was to his ears.

Then, mid song, my friend handed him his cables. I won't repeat what he said here.

He sold the cables on ebay shortly after

I'm not saying all kit sounds identical, I'm just saying that there are many people out their who fool themselves into believing they can hear a difference, when in practice they clearly cannot.
Edited by Finguz - 12/14/12 at 5:27am

That could even work on something that does make a difference to an average person.

 

I've listened to my headphones for an hour straight before realizing I had Dolby Headphone on, which does make a clear and distinct difference. Although that was with songs I hadn't listened to before on those headphones but still you'd think I would have noticed the additional reverb and such; I did notice the imaging was really good but attributed it to my headphones and the songs themselves.

 

Funny story. Plus, likely got you in good with his wife. :)

Maybe she is a friend of "The Audiophile's Wife".

 

http://www.theaudiophileswife.com/2011/08/its-not-that-heavy.html
 

Hehehe indeed, she was fed up with him spending so much on hi-fi kit and thought it was a marvellous idea!

I must say though, he had an awesome system and we were all very jealous

Class
Edited by Finguz - 12/14/12 at 11:47am

Okay, this isn't so much a myth, but do you guys agree or disagree with this claim :

 

 

No, because I don't think it has much to do with source components or amps.

The "illusion's" problem areas are rooms, mics and speakers.

An argument I've heard over the years is that measurements can't accurately describe speaker timbre, or that science can't explain it yet. My question is, what measurement can give an idea of speaker timbre? I assumed it was frequency response related.

Thoughts?

This is what I heard from one site :

 

"Frequency response , efficiency etc is quantifiable by science but a speakers timbre? You can plot a speakers frequency response on a graph but that will not describe a speakers timbre.

Every component in the signal path , no matter how pricy the item was and how pricy the components used to build it were, adds coloration. The good components add "nice" coloration and others not so nice , case in point is the overtones/harmonics Valves add that give delectable richness to an audio performance."

Timbre is defined as a mixture of the fundamental tone, overtones, noise and the envelope. You can measure all these things. You can also play a musical note through a speaker and compare it to the real thing.

 

I agree that every component adds coloration (not necessarily audible coloration, but measurable). What I strongly disagree with is that good components add "nice" coloration. Good components add very little coloration, bad components add much regardless if it's (theoretically) "nice" or not.