The 10 biggest lies in audio - Page 3

I think he's spot on for the cabling lie. Can a multi-thousand dollar cable really sound that much better (or any different at all) from a well shielded good old regular copper one? 

Placebo can be and usually always is a bitch in the Audio world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribestros 

How does your example in any way relate to vinyl/digital?  It's a fact, for humans to hear audio, it has to be made into an analog signal.  Why not just cut out the middle man (digital) and then get the audio pure as the artist intended?  Many artists still record and have their original masters in analog...even electronic musicians.

I explained why: because with digital we know that that same sound file will remain inaltered for a full millenium if nothing destroys it completely. It won't deteriorate, it will either exist bit-perfectly or not at all, period. Now it is true nothing will be better recorded for being passed through digital, like you said it's a middle man, but we can make sure the difference created by that middle man in the chain is completely inaudible, and we have succeeded, since with CD quality people can't tell it apart from any analog recording in objective terms (that is, of course a 50 year-old record will have some deterioration that will distinguish it from the digital, but that can hardly be considered "better", and in fact makes it worse).

My example was to show you that saying something "was never meant to be" isn't valid, especially with technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LizardKing1 

I explained why: because with digital we know that that same sound file will remain inaltered for a full millenium if nothing destroys it completely. It won't deteriorate, it will either exist bit-perfectly or not at all, period. Now it is true nothing will be better recorded for being passed through digital, like you said it's a middle man, but we can make sure the difference created by that middle man in the chain is completely inaudible, and we have succeeded, since with CD quality people can't tell it apart from any analog recording in objective terms (that is, of course a 50 year-old record will have some deterioration that will distinguish it from the digital, but that can hardly be considered "better", and in fact makes it worse).

 

My example was to show you that saying something "was never meant to be" isn't valid, especially with technology.

The only digital recording in my opinion that sounds as good as vinyl is 24 bit.  It's subjective, so going out on these "VINYL IS NOT AS GOOD AS DIGITAL, LP IS OBSOLETE" or "VINYL IS THE BEST THING EVER OMG" arguments is stupid.

If the analog form was incorruptible, then that would be "what was intended."  Unfortunately, every form of the medium is subject to degradation over time. 

The digital format is objectively more true to the original recording which seems to have been your point in a previous post.  Whether or not you like vinyl's sound more is subjective.

Vinyl does have a couple advantages:  Many vinyl recordings have better mastering than their more modern counterparts (which is not an inherent advantage to the medium) and there are many older more obscure recordings which have never been committed to newer forms of media.  Prices on people selling off whole vinyl collections can also be ridiculously low if you know where to look.

"Synergy" seems to me to be a relationship between an amp's voltage vs. the headphone's resistance.  Pretty much every dynamic headphone has an impedance curve, where it has a different impedance at different frequencies, and that is going to mean a different output wattage.  A "weaker" amp than the headphone's engineer expects will result in less response at frequencies of greater resistance, and a "stronger" amp will likely result in a bump at these frequencies.  Take, for example, the HD800.  Their impedance varies between 300 and >600, and they're notoriously difficult to pair with an amp. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribestros 

How does your example in any way relate to vinyl/digital?  It's a fact, for humans to hear audio, it has to be made into an analog signal.  Why not just cut out the middle man (digital) and then get the audio pure as the artist intended?  Many artists still record and have their original masters in analog...even electronic musicians.

 

If you're comparing CD's to vinyl records, keep in mind that a record needs a phono input on the amp which essentially ends up being a massive amount of hardware EQ.  Of course, on the CD side, there's no accounting for strange choices when it comes to mastering.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radio_head 

If the analog form was incorruptible, then that would be "what was intended."  Unfortunately, every form of the medium is subject to degradation over time. 

 

The digital format is objectively more true to the original recording which seems to have been your point in a previous post.  Whether or not you like vinyl's sound more is subjective.

 

Vinyl does have a couple advantages:  Many vinyl recordings have better mastering than their more modern counterparts (which is not an inherent advantage to the medium) and there are many older more obscure recordings which have never been committed to newer forms of media.  Prices on people selling off whole vinyl collections can also be ridiculously low if you know where to look.

I think your entire post is great, but that part in bold needs to be highlighted: vinyl-days mastering was on average better than it is today. That does not make vinyl superior to CD, it means the people who mastered vinyl were less concerned with compression since it was kind of impossible and so the end product was better.

Also I wouldn't say it can get deteriorated... destroyed. Deteriorated, at least to me, sounds like just worse quality, and from what I know a digital file either works flawlessly or it doesn't at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribestros 

The only digital recording in my opinion that sounds as good as vinyl is 24 bit.  It's subjective, so going out on these "VINYL IS NOT AS GOOD AS DIGITAL, LP IS OBSOLETE" or "VINYL IS THE BEST THING EVER OMG" arguments is stupid.

Digital is more accurate, and there is no doubt about it.....

I collect vinyl myself not after its flawless and high fidelity reproduction that they will never have, but for the art itself and the very special warm and open sound it emits. 

The DACs we have today have surpassed the resolution and dynamics abilities of most cartridges for a very very cheap price and great longevity. 

However, don't worry, vinyl is not going anywhere, it will exist for us music lovers.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jono454 

hahah winning..audio idiot. I might not be as educated in audio but i can definitely notice the changes in my headphones over an extended period of time with burn in.

Same, as well with op-amps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lejaz 

What about the concept of amp/headphone synergy? Does it have much validity or is it mostly hype? I just read a thread where someone wasn't totally satisfied with the akg k701 headphone and he was recommended to try a good tube amp....or even a different ss amp, rather than just getting a different headphone. Is it true that some headphones sound significantly different on two different decent quality amps? I'm not talking about trying to run a 600 ohm headphone off a cheap portable amp....but rather  any decent ss or tube amp with ample power. Is this another myth? or is there some truth there?

This phenomena is very much true. Kinda like hooking up certain IEMs to certain DAPs. One example would be my newly acquired IE80s with my Studio V. They pair amazingly well together. But when I use the Studio with my FX700s it is a marriage made in hell. Too much clarity and detail paring these 2 together make for a very irritating music experience. But if I pair the FX700 with my Hifiman 601 its a match made in heaven as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allforheather 

Digital is more accurate, and there is no doubt about it.....

I collect vinyl myself not after its flawless and high fidelity reproduction that they will never have, but for the art itself and the very special warm and open sound it emits. 

The DACs we have today have surpassed the resolution and dynamics abilities of most cartridges for a very very cheap price and great longevity. 

However, don't worry, vinyl is not going anywhere, it will exist for us music lovers.  

The only thing about digital is the artificial sound it brings. Certain devices exhibit this flaw much more IMO and do not please me at all. I don't consider the artifacts from converting digital back to analog to be accurate either.

That article also proves one universal truth. Ignorance is bliss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribestros 

Why not just cut out the middle man (digital) and then get the audio pure as the artist intended?

There is always a middle man, unless you listen live. The audio has to be recorded in some format, be it analog or digital. With digital, better quality can be achieved for the same price, with the added benefit of no quality degradation over time, and it is also more convenient in many ways. It is true that many digital recordings sound bad, but this is not necessarily due to the limitations of the format, as others have explained already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodvibes 

That article also proves one universal truth. Ignorance is bliss.

More so ignorance is downright dangerous. The human race never learns and seems always doomed to repeat itself...

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch 

Digital doesn't have to sound artificial, it's just that 16/44 resolution isn't high enough usually, so you end up having to upsample and fill in missing information, and run into all sorts of issues. Analog doesn't have those problems, though it does have a whole host of other problems equally... um... problematic. But there's very little difference between good 24/192 recordings and good analog especially on a truly high-end system. Now that we have a lot more storage capacity and a lot more bandwidth, dealing with 24/96 and higher quality files will become less and less of a hassle, and there will be less and less of a case for analog, at least quality-wise.

You are right that digital doesn't have to sound artificial but depending on the source which plays it back it can definitly make it much worse; (revealing) T51 is a good example of that. And I 100% agree on the higher resolution files. Definitely a worthy improvement in general. But you also want a very revealing set of cans and equipment to drive those cans, to take advantage of the sound.