Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Davesrose]

Lol called me did you?

I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread. Someone lit the bat signal in here.

If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby.

You can make up all the fake "science" but read the title of thread, go ahead and test something son. I'll prepare your answer for you.

"EVERYBODY HAS TO PROVE EVERYTHING TO ME ONLY AND I DONT HAVE TO PROVE NOTHING TO NOBODY SNAKE OIL SCIENCE WINRAR"

I've had issues with Gregorio trying to speak from authority on issues I have more experience with (especially video standards). He also sometimes infers a lot while he's mis-representing with his own random outline schematic in a reply. I do take him at face value that he is a sound engineer in Europe and has experience with multi-thousand dollar rigs. Just a heads up that he's talking about the home audio foolery that says you need to spend lots of money for some cable that measures just as well if it's a few bucks.

 

[bigshot]

Many of the regulars in sound science know what they’re talking about, but that doesn’t stop them from arguing with other people who know what they’re talking about.

All that knowledge and experience, but we spend most of the time answering blatant trolls…

 

[Davesrose]

Many of the regulars in sound science know what they’re talking about, but that doesn’t stop them from arguing with other people who know what they’re talking about.

All that knowledge and experience, but we spend most of the time answering blatant trolls…

Is this directed towards me? So the most I do contribute is with the video standards of movie codecs..and bit rate with imaging. Went with Gregorio's thread of 16 bit audio while he also invoked how it relates to image quality. I have tried to provide real world examples of how he initially didn't understand dynamic range with imagery (he only understood 8-bit color space). It's not about initial bit depth of 24 or 32 bits, but floating bit of actual dynamic range.

Anyway, that is my area..I'm just trying to say that while I have had issues with Gregorio, his responses here are to be considered...and he's an engineer instead of justifying a $100 cable (while he's used to multi thousand dollar systems).

 

[71 dB]

If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby.

Don't be silly. Expensive audio cables are a niche market for those who are into high-end. Most people whose hobby is audio are not part of this niche market. There are ery different ways and styles of doing audio and for many 100 euros cables are insanely expensive including me. It not that we don't have the money. It's about spending the money were it counts more.

In high-end circles science isn't the deciding factor. Instead placebo effect, feelings and wicket mental images is the justification and snake oil sellers are there to take advantage of that.

 

[bigshot]

Is this directed towards me?

no. General note

 

[Dogmatrix]

Lol called me did you?

I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread. Someone lit the bat signal in here.

If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby.

You can make up all the fake "science" but read the title of thread, go ahead and test something son. I'll prepare your answer for you.

"EVERYBODY HAS TO PROVE EVERYTHING TO ME ONLY AND I DONT HAVE TO PROVE NOTHING TO NOBODY SNAKE OIL SCIENCE WINRAR"

I recently came across an excellent book I think you would benefit from

• Good Arguments​

• What the Art of Debating Can Teach Us About Listening Better and Disagreeing Well
• By Bo Soe

 

[gregorio]

I see you're too scared to post outside of this hater's thread.

Then you must be blind. I’ve posted to numerous threads and not only in this subforum. Furthermore, “yes” this is a “hater’s thread”, a thread for those who hate the marketing lies which lead to audio myths. Who is not a hater of marketing lies, apart of course from marketers themselves, their shills and some of those suckered by those lies? Which are you?

If 100 euros is expensive for you, you picked the wrong hobby.

I did not say €100 is too expensive for me. I’ve probably spent near €1m on audio equipment in the last 30 years and €10k+ on cables. €100 is obviously expensive when a €10 cable has practically identical or better performance and build quality.

You can make up all the fake "science"

What fake science have I made up? You mean the “fake science” I quoted from Wikipedia and other sources? Provide examples of the fake science I’ve supposedly made up or you’re the one making up nonsense.

but read the title of thread, go ahead and test something son.

As I’ve already stated, I have objectively tested cables, numerous times and have quoted reliable sources based on testing. To avoid being a complete hypocrite, it’s your turn to objectively “test something son” and/or provide reliable objective evidence based on testing. You repeatedly refuse to avoid being a complete hypocrite though!!

I'll prepare your answer for you. "EVERYBODY HAS TO PROVE EVERYTHING TO ME ONLY AND I DONT HAVE TO PROVE NOTHING TO NOBODY SNAKE OIL SCIENCE WINRAR"

Of course, that’s science/logic 101! You’ve made the claim of Skin Effect in audio/power cables affecting audible frequencies, therefore YOU have to provide reliable evidence and I have to prove nothing, this is basic science and logic 101. Are you really saying that you don’t even know the basics of science/logic?

However, given the thread title, I have already provided proof/reliable evidence of what frequencies Skin Effect actually affect.

G

 

[71 dB]

I’ve probably spent near €1m on audio equipment in the last 30 years and €10k+ on cables.

G

Wow! I have hardly spent 1 % of that in the last 30 years, but then again I am the "bang for the buck" guy. I tend to use stuff as long as they work and instead of just buying the most expensive stuff on the market, I set a reasonable bar for performance and try to achieve that bar as cheaply as possible. In the 21st century good sound should be affordable, even cheap. That's the point of digital audio etc. So, you have spent more on cables alone than I have spent on audio gear in all! Then again, I am not a millionaire, so I couldn't spent much more than I do.

 

[bigshot]

He’s talking about wiring studios.

 

[71 dB]

He’s talking about wiring studios.

gregorio? In that case it depends on whose studios he is wiring. If it is his own studio, then obviously he has to pay for the cables himself. In studio cabling I believe it is actually the high-quality connectors in the ends of the cables that cost the most rather than the cable in between.

 

[gregorio]

I've had issues with Gregorio trying to speak from authority on issues I have more experience with (especially video standards).

Do you have any examples of where I tried to speak from authority about video standards? As far as I recall, I’ve never done so.

Went with Gregorio's thread of 16 bit audio while he also invoked how it relates to image quality. I have tried to provide real world examples of how he initially didn't understand dynamic range with imagery (he only understood 8-bit color space).

What I stated was: “It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality.” - Which as far as the average consumer in 2009 was concerned, was a perfectly valid analogy. I wasn’t claiming or even implying any authority on image or video standards.

I do take him at face value that he is a sound engineer in Europe and has experience with multi-thousand dollar rigs.

I have some experience of multi-thousand dollar rigs but they were consumer rigs. At work, virtually all the experience I have is with multi-hundred thousand and multi-million dollar rigs.

Wow! I have hardly spent 1 % of that in the last 30 years, but then again I am the "bang for the buck" guy.

I’m a “bang for the buck guy” as well, the difference is that I need a different “bang”. A fair proportion of that €1m was on acoustic construction/treatment. Then there’s also mics, control surfaces/mixing desks, etc, and in the past, time-coded DAT and multi-track DAT machines. And, since I started nearly 30 years ago, I’ve had 3 studios.

So, you have spent more on cables alone than I have spent on audio gear in all!

Some of my cables are expensive. 50m of 24x3 or 16x3 multi-core is quite expensive and so are some of the special purpose cables.

Then again, I am not a millionaire, so I couldn't spent much more than I do.

I’m not a millionaire either. Although I’ve earned substantially more than €1m over the last 30 odd years.

In studio cabling I believe it is actually the high-quality connectors in the ends of the cables that cost the most rather than the cable in between.

Sometimes but not usually. As per commercial studios, I generally use Neutrik connectors which are about €4-5 each, although I probably use over 100 of them. Also, my studio has a machine room, so I have relatively few cables less than about 10 meters in length.

G

 

[bigshot]

This is kind of funny. We have this wonderful communication medium, and everyone talks to themselves!

 

[Davesrose]

What I stated was: “It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality.” - Which as far as the average consumer in 2009 was concerned, was a perfectly valid analogy. I wasn’t claiming or even implying any authority on image or video standards.

Oh, back to being confused again: I gave you more credit. You compared 8 bit per channel (24 bit images) to total 8 bit RGB images (a comparison that was up to 1990s). 24bit RGB is 8bit per channel: 256 shades of contrast and now also known as standard dynamic range. Digital cameras have had "raw" sensor files that store 12bit, 14bit, 16bit per channel dynamic range. What 4K has brought to cinema and home media is a distribution that delivers 10bit (HDR10 1024 shades of contrast) or 12bit (Dolby Vision: 4096) high dynamic range in their compressed video codecs.

 

[gregorio]

You compared 8 bit per channel (24 bit images) to total 8 bit RGB images (a comparison that was up to 1990s).

No I didn’t. The only reference to images in that post is the quote I gave above, which made no reference to colour channels and was not intended to. The post was obviously about audio and the simple analogy to low bit rate images would have made sense to consumers, who were well acquainted with such images due to the low resolution of phone cameras at that time.

A simple analogy is all it was, it was obviously not a technical expose of how bit depth is actually employed in digital images, just what was widely accepted by consumers at that time. This is why it was valid as an analogy, regardless of it’s technical accuracy.

G

 

[Davesrose]

No I didn’t. The only reference to images in that post is the quote I gave above, which made no reference to colour channels and was not intended to. The post was obviously about audio and the simple analogy to low bit rate images would have made sense to consumers, who were well acquainted with such images due to the low resolution of phone cameras at that time.

A simple analogy is all it was, it was obviously not a technical expose of how bit depth is actually employed in digital images, just what was widely accepted by consumers at that time. This is why it was valid as an analogy, regardless of it’s technical accuracy.

G

No, we spent many pages of you misunderstanding 24 bit images in regard to human vision and dynamic range. A concept every photographer in 2009 knew about. Anyway, we don’t have to stay off topic. Refer back to my previous post about what dynamic range is in relation to imaging.