[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mr Winer's company sells acoustic treatment material, his message is simple, spend all the money on room acoustics and less on gear (watch his other videos). He also gets a lot of publicity for his business by being this heroic figure who's out to save audiophiles from snake-oil salesmen.

Ethan Winer is a moron who has said many stupid things. He is inexperienced and not worthy of a discussion.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mr Winer's company sells acoustic treatment material, his message is simple, spend all the money on room acoustics and less on gear (watch his other videos). He also gets a lot of publicity for his business by being this heroic figure who's out to save audiophiles from snake-oil salesmen. Once again, its all business. trust your own ears and stay rational.

I believe there's rules against libel here, is there not? You don't know his motives, and insinuating such is disconcerting. I doubt that two hours was just on acoustic treatment, as maybe two minutes of the video of the hour given was tops (and those were fleeting mentions).

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack Ethan Winer is a moron who has said many stupid things. He is inexperienced and not worthy of a discussion.

. . . and who are you again? I'm sorry, I just don't see your credentials on the subject anywhere. I'm sure you've got plenty of material evidence to disprove the points brought up in this video correct?

 

[demoNMaCHiN3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ethan Winer is a moron who has said many stupid things. He is inexperienced and not worthy of a discussion.

30+ yrs of audio engineering experience is considered to be "inexperienced"? Explain what he has said is stupid.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mr Winer's company sells acoustic treatment material, his message is simple, spend all the money on room acoustics and less on gear (watch his other videos). He also gets a lot of publicity for his business by being this heroic figure who's out to save audiophiles from snake-oil salesmen. Once again, its all business. trust your own ears and stay rational.

He may have a business interest, but it does not follow that a business interest means that magical cables actually do anything.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif . . . and who are you again? I'm sorry, I just don't see your credentials on the subject anywhere. I'm sure you've got plenty of material evidence to disprove the points brought up in this video correct?

I'm sorry but I'm just so frustrated by this idiot's self-serving comments that don't hold water. This is an argument by an "appeal to authority" because someone is on a panel. That doesn't make it right.

I've worked in the studio as well. Many recording professionals do not understand the value of better cables and other tweaks, so there's no special expertise of pro engineers with high end audio. In fact often pro audio processing is often the opposite of quality, open sounding recordings.

 

[TwoTrack]

Here are two examples of his bad information:

Dispelling Popular Audio Myths

Quote:

Myth: Even though people cannot hear frequencies above 20 KHz, it is important that audio equipment be able to reproduce higher frequencies to maintain clarity. Fact: There is no evidence that a frequency response beyond what humans can hear is audible or useful. It is true that good amplifier designs generally have a frequency response well beyond the limits of hearing, and the lack of an extended response can be a give-away that the amplifier is deficient in some other areas. If for no other reason, though there certainly are other reasons, an amplifier's effective cut-off frequency - the point at which its output has dropped by 3 dB - must be high enough that the response loss at 20 KHz is still well under 1 dB.

Reality:

1. Upper frequencies impact audible music via harmonic overtones.
2. Wider HF can be recorded with high resolution digital.
3. Supertweeters and high bandwidth speakers do sound better.

Another mistake:

Quote:

Myth: Using audiophile speaker cables improves the sound, compared to an equally heavy gauge of normal electrical wire. Fact: The most important feature speaker wire can possess is low resistance at audio frequencies. The makers of expensive audiophile speaker cable claim their products are better because they have a frequency capability that extends into the MHz range. But there is no evidence that wire capable of carrying frequencies many times higher than what it will actually carry is useful or worth the extra money. Some of these cables are made up of many separate strands that are individually insulated - this arrangement is called Litz wire - to combat "skin effect." Skin effect is the propensity of current to flow on only the outer surface of a wire at high frequencies. Since the inner portion of the wire carries less current, the wire's overall effective resistance is greater at the very high frequencies. But skin effect occurs in substantial amounts only at frequencies many times higher than what humans can hear. The only truly negative effects you could attribute to speaker cable are too high a resistance (which affects an amplifier's damping factor), and high frequency losses due to cable inductance and capacitance. But you would need a long cable length before the reactive components (inductance and capacitance) affect anything within the audio range. Damping factor is the ability of an amplifier to absorb voltage fed back to it from the speaker. When you send a tone to a standard magnetic loudspeaker and then stop that tone, inertia causes the cone to continue vibrating. And as it vibrates a voltage is generated. The amplifier's output circuit attempts to halt that vibration by presenting a low impedance load - ideally, zero Ohms (a short circuit). So, while low-resistance wiring is clearly important, nearly any sufficiently heavy wire will suffice for a speaker cable in the lengths used by most recording studios. Heavy gauge zip cord is ideal for runs of twenty feet or less, and it's readily available in #14 and even thicker gauges.

Reality:

1, High end cables do make an audible difference.
2. Capacitance, Inductance, and Resistance all make a difference.
3. Wire geometry makes a difference.

 

[TwoTrack]

Here's another one:

Quote:

Myth: Replacing the resistors and capacitors in preamps and power amps with higher quality units can improve the sound of a system. Fact: Unless your capacitors are defective (they allow DC current to pass through them), or have changed their value over time due to heat and other environmental factors, you are not likely to improve anything by replacing them. The same goes for replacement metal film resistors. It's true that metal film resistors have lower noise than other types, but that makes a difference only in certain critical circuits, such as the input stage of a high-gain mike preamp. It's also true that different types of capacitors are more or less suitable for different types of circuits. But if you think the designers of your amplifier or mixer are too stupid to have used appropriate components in the first place, why would the rest of the design be good enough to warrant the cost of improved parts? In fairness, extremely old gear often employs carbon composition resistors, and replacing them can make a difference in many audio circuits. But anything manufactured in the past 20 years or so will use carbon film resistors and decent capacitors. If a mixer or mike preamp is already audibly "transparent" and its specs show nearly unmeasurable distortion with a frequency response flat from DC to light, how can it possibly be made better? Bear in mind that a distortion figure of 0.01 percent means that all of the distortion components, added together, are 80 dB below the level of the original signal! Indeed, the single best way to maintain transparency is to minimize the number of devices in the audio path.

Absolute rubbish. Anyone who has heard C-J gear with and without Teflon capacitors understands there is a significant sonic upgrade with Teflon caps.

Better parts matter. Better design matters.

 

[anetode]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mr Winer's company sells acoustic treatment material, his message is simple, spend all the money on room acoustics and less on gear (watch his other videos). He also gets a lot of publicity for his business by being this heroic figure who's out to save audiophiles from snake-oil salesmen. Once again, its all business. trust your own ears and stay rational.

It's certainly good to keep this in mind when examining what he has to say, but at least he didn't pimp the room treatments in the video. His business does however explain the preoccupation with comb-filtering.

Room treatments for regular living rooms/bedrooms is pretty close to the snake-oil market. Most hi-fi speakers are designed to work in live rooms and depend on reflections to even out response. Studios and performance spaces are a different matter though, and I think they're the target market for Winer's wares.

edit: TwoTrack, it's a conspiracy, the recording engineers are hiding the alchemy behind special capacitors and cables to boost their agenda. Completely unlike yourself.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode /img/forum/go_quote.gif Room treatments for regular living rooms/bedrooms is pretty close to the snake-oil market. Most hi-fi speakers are designed to work in live rooms and depend on reflections to even out response. Studios and performance spaces are a different matter though, and I think they're the target market for Winer's wares.

Actually this is not right. Room treatments are important for home as well. On this Ethan is right. The room has a big impact.

 

[anetode]

The room has a huge impact, so much so that a couple of panels are unlikely to mitigate it. Especially when they can't achieve uniform attenuation across the frequency range.

 

[wnmnkh]

God, such rubbish Youtube it is.... I had to downloaded the whole thing using Realplayer.

Will post thought after watching all of this clip...

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many recording professionals do not understand the value of better cables and other tweaks, so there's no special expertise of pro engineers with high end audio. In fact often pro audio processing is often the opposite of quality, open sounding recordings.

I'm sorry, but can you prove the value of "better cables" and the vague "other tweaks"? Also, can you correlate it to minimum cost? Thanks.

Quote:

Reality: 1. Upper frequencies impact audible music via harmonic overtones.

I'd love it if you could cite where overtones above 20khz are audible in an actual recognized and published study.

Quote:

2. Wider HF can be recorded with high resolution digital.

You're going to have to explain the "wider" part. If by that you mean higher bandwidth . . . sure, but what use does that have for the average human ear?

Quote:

3. Supertweeters and high bandwidth speakers do sound better.

Wow, this is extremely subjective and not supportable in ANY fashion. I'm inclined to say that, based on the crossover point (above 22Khz or so) one would be unable to hear it. You're completely free to cite examples of people being able to hear it though.

Quote:

Reality: 1, High end cables do make an audible difference.

That's funny, we don't have material evidence to prove this. Considering I asked for material evidence I'm sure you're going to provide it to us yes?

Quote:

2. Capacitance, Inductance, and Resistance all make a difference.

To varying degrees, yes. I think he highlighted the importance of resistance did he not? The question is, how will it impact the audible range, and even more importantly who can hear it (and at what point)?

Ears are unreliable instruments -- good measuring equipment is not.

Quote:

3. Wire geometry makes a difference.

It can make a difference under extreme circumstances -- ones usually out of the audible range. You're free once again to provide material evidence for this claim.

Quote:

Absolute rubbish. Anyone who has heard C-J gear with and without Teflon capacitors understands there is a significant sonic upgrade with Teflon caps.

Anyone that has "heard"? Once again, ears, brains, etc . . . all unreliable. Unless you're talking the unmentionable testing method or material evidence you have no proof.

Quote:

Better parts matter. Better design matters.

Yes . . . but audiophile tweaks usually don't constitute that unless it's already overkill (which can actually hurt the design depending on what it is). Better design matters, sure . . . when did you become a better designer than those building the equipment exactly? I'm just saying, what's you're credentials for "fixing" their designs?


Once again, I expect material evidence for all of these claims you're making. The burden of proof is upon you, especially when you go out of the way to drag other professionals through the mud by calling them "moron" and "inexperienced". If you hide behind "it's subjective" then you've done nothing more than prove Ethan's point and libel him (not to mention that doesn't really work, since you labeled them a "reality" (aka a fact), and for that to be the case it must be able to be proven).

Quote:

Originally Posted by anetode The room has a huge impact, so much so that a couple of panels are unlikely to mitigate it. Especially when they can't achieve uniform attenuation across the frequency range.

Anything that changes reflections will have a large impact, not to mention absorb it. Given a "couple" panels won't fix a room . . . that's why many rooms that seriously consider acoustics have much more than a "couple"

 

[MadMan007]

This thread is sooo going to be beaten back down in to Sound Science, heh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mesasone /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure some of the Head-Fi sponsors would appreciate that. I am allowed to say that?

First rule in grown-up land: follow the money.

 

[aimlink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMan007 /img/forum/go_quote.gif First rule in grown-up land: follow the money.

In F1, the inexperienced teams typically remain at the back because they're in search of the magic pill in development that will put them significantly forward. OTOH, the very experienced ones will tell you that it's about the additive effect of many small improvements combined.

My point is that on the one hand, you may wish to prove that factor A makes a sonic improvement, so you isolate it for the sake of experimentation and throw it out since subjects can't reliably detect it in a particular situation. Not to mention that Factor A may come in different flavours.

You do the same with 10 other factors. In frustration you throw them out claiming they have no effect.

However, what about the additive effect, either simply or synergistically??

IMO, trust your ears!!! You've got to trust something in the end. It's your pocket too and your money. Winer types come and go. Some legitimate with genuine truths to impart, but so many others with misguided arguments etc. These latter ones may well do it deliberately for personal gain, but others may well be just.... misguided. His video does give food for thought but I will still insist that my SRX Cryo cable made a positive difference to my K702's. I couldn't genuinely say this about the Cardas and my HD650's. However, I still used the Cardas because of the possibility of an additive effect. Your system sounds overall better, but if you break it down and test each component, they aren't that much better than cheaper alternatives.

 

[Currawong]

What I always want to ask these types of people who rant on about how it's all a placebo or whatever is: How do they know, if people are easily fooled, that they are not fooling themselves with their beliefs?

I do recall as a child convincing myself that each alternate click of the turn indicator in the car had a different tone, so I don't disagree with their basic premise.