Testing audiophile claims and myths

[71 dB]

I asked Geoff how he mixed the Beatles, eagerly awaiting some godlike objective approach that I could imitate. His response?

"I just push up the faders and try to make it sound as good as I can."

I don't want to be disrespectful, but the Beatles and other popular music of that era sounds like it was mixed with that kind of philosophy. Mixing has gone a very long way from those days and not the least thanks to the technological tools we have today compared to half a century ago when faders were almost all there was to work with.

 

[71 dB]

I often think about that with vinyls. It’s objectively such a bad medium, that I nearly choke anytime someone argues it’s superior to CD. But of all the things it does poorly, the subjective result can often be nice and even aleviate other perceptual issues. And of course there is a strong added value of ritual and nostalgia that has to play a role too.

Dave Hurwitz re-opened this can of worms on Youtube recently followed by response videos by some vinyl enthusiasts.

 

[1oad3r]

Then perhaps you need to re-evaluate what statements “suggest to you”!

There’s zero evidence to support that. Your statement was very clear, unambiguous and either ignorant of facts or intellectually dishonest - you confirm which below…

I know and accept why “these tube amps can bring joy to music listeners”. Some actually like the lower fidelity that adding excessive distortion results in, due to the additional euphonic distortion tube amps can add. Others just buy them for the pretty lights and marketing, which can affect the listeners’ perception (via cognitive biases).

That’s correct. There are other elements too of course, but harmonic distortion is a significant reason. Bravo, a far more nuanced perspective. Although that’s quite a pivot from your earlier position

as far as I can tell it’s mainly because audiophiles have been suckered by marketing BS, are therefore willing to spend a considerable premium on such poor fidelity equipment and with such profit margins, manufacturers will obviously continue to create such inferior, outdated products.

So wasn’t ignorance then.

 

[2leftears]

Dave Hurwitz re-opened this can of worms on Youtube recently followed by response videos by some vinyl enthusiasts.

Talking common sense on YouTube is bound to ruffle the feathers of some people.

The comment section is even worse; the AI moderation bots have made any vaguely grown-up debate nigh impossible. You can't entrust moderation without recourse to a system that sucks at semantics, if it understands it at all. Especially the inability to even refer to external information sources (without links, links are outright forbidden) has turned the platform into a collection of (mis)information bubbles. The whole comment section now happens at the level of understanding of a 12-year-old, but ironically rife with more aggression than ever.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

I don't want to be disrespectful, but the Beatles and other popular music of that era sounds like it was mixed with that kind of philosophy. Mixing has gone a very long way from those days and not the least thanks to the technological tools we have today compared to half a century ago when faders were almost all there was to work with.

Yes, tech has advanced.

But the essential evaluation of how good a mix is has not.

Sure there are new tools to look into and tweak the technical aspects of a recording. But at the end of the day the criterion that overwhelms all others is that the mix subjectively sounds as awesome as possible.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

We all have different gear, rooms, hearing, music, taste, and of course we should listen to music however we please.
But Floyd Toole seemed to suggest that what most people prefer is clean flat sound. It better be when you consider it was someone’s job to prepare the album so most people would enjoy it more. If the playback preference didn’t tend to point at the sound engineer’s choice of sound, we would need to seriously reconsider that part of their job.
So at large it just makes sense to me to aim for fidelity as a way to achieve enjoyable audio. And yet, that comes with serious problems like audio’s circle of confusion, or headphones and their consequences.
So I don’t find it surprising when someone goes with his own solution. It is most likely not the most enjoyable he could get, but he might not know or have the means to achieve what’s best for him.

I often think about that with vinyls. It’s objectively such a bad medium, that I nearly choke anytime someone argues it’s superior to CD. But of all the things it does poorly, the subjective result can often be nice and even aleviate other perceptual issues. And of course there is a strong added value of ritual and nostalgia that has to play a role too.

What a great post. So many good points. Brings the theoretical very much into the realm of reality.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Talking common sense on YouTube is bound to ruffle the feathers of some people.

The comment section is even worse; the AI moderation bots have made any vaguely grown-up debate nigh impossible. You can't entrust moderation without recourse to a system that sucks at semantics, if it understands it at all. Especially the inability to even refer to external information sources (without links, links are outright forbidden) has turned the platform into a collection of (mis)information bubbles. The whole comment section now happens at the level of understanding of a 12-year-old, but ironically rife with more aggression than ever.

Every form of recording and reproduction, digital or analog, does a substantially flawed job of capturing sound. It's just bad in its own different way.

However, any form can also be enjoyed.

 

[bigshot]

The truth about LPs is that there is such a thing as “good enough”. I have tens of thousands of records, and no, they don’t match the fidelity of CDs. But a lot of LPs present the music well… maybe not perfect, but enough for an evening of pleasurable music listening. You would think that this would make audiophiles realize that the specification of CDs are well into the range of overkill, but instead they try to argue the absurd position that LPs sound better than CDs. Give them a clear observation about sound and they’ll turn it upside down.

Anyone who thinks all recording mediums are substantially flawed hasn’t lived through an era when all recording mediums actually were substantially flawed.

 

[71 dB]

You would think that this would make audiophiles realize that the specification of CDs are well into the range of overkill, but instead they try to argue the absurd position that LPs sound better than CDs.

There are reasons for this.

First of all, what does "better sound" mean? I am pretty sure people don't interpret the term the same way. For a sound engineer "better sound" means most likely the same as "more accurate/faithful/transparent sound." For a vinyl enthusiast "better sound" means sound that for whatever reason is perceived as more pleasant/engaging.

Secondly, a lot of audiophiles lack proper understanding of the theoretical, mathematical, technical and physical aspects of audio or they have a grasp on only some areas. This easily leads to false conclusions as to why they perceive sound as they do. In my opinion the main mistake vinyl enthusiast typically make is to assume that the more pleasing sound they experience with vinyl is due to greater faithfulness of the signal compared to digital formats. Their theory is that the analog process is capable of reconstructing the original signal more precisely than digital formats and this is why the the sound is more pleasant to them. This of course is a false theory. CD is way superior compared to vinyl when it comes to accuracy of the original sound. Also, the pleasantness of vinyl people experience is born from the inaccuracies if vinyl: Vinyl seems to be very good at distorting the signal in pleasant ways. We can learn from it what sound pleasant and apply the knowledge on digital side.

Thirdly, many CD releases are simply bad! Early CD masters had often harsh sound and when those issues where sorted out, loudness wars started to ruin things. However, these things have nothing to do with the full potential of CD format.

Vinyl (and other analog formats) tend to make recordings sound the same as the same kind of distortions are added to everything. This probably contributes to certain cosiness effect. Digital format mean more variation in the sound between different recordings.

 

[1oad3r]

There are reasons for this.

First of all, what does "better sound" mean? I am pretty sure people don't interpret the term the same way. For a sound engineer "better sound" means most likely the same as "more accurate/faithful/transparent sound." For a vinyl enthusiast "better sound" means sound that for whatever reason is perceived as more pleasant/engaging.

Secondly, a lot of audiophiles lack proper understanding of the theoretical, mathematical, technical and physical aspects of audio or they have a grasp on only some areas. This easily leads to false conclusions as to why they perceive sound as they do. In my opinion the main mistake vinyl enthusiast typically make is to assume that the more pleasing sound they experience with vinyl is due to greater faithfulness of the signal compared to digital formats. Their theory is that the analog process is capable of reconstructing the original signal more precisely than digital formats and this is why the the sound is more pleasant to them. This of course is a false theory. CD is way superior compared to vinyl when it comes to accuracy of the original sound. Also, the pleasantness of vinyl people experience is born from the inaccuracies if vinyl: Vinyl seems to be very good at distorting the signal in pleasant ways. We can learn from it what sound pleasant and apply the knowledge on digital side.

Thirdly, many CD releases are simply bad! Early CD masters had often harsh sound and when those issues where sorted out, loudness wars started to ruin things. However, these things have nothing to do with the full potential of CD format.

Vinyl (and other analog formats) tend to make recordings sound the same as the same kind of distortions are added to everything. This probably contributes to certain cosiness effect. Digital format mean more variation in the sound between different recordings.

Well said.

As has been suggested, music is a deeply personal and subjective experience, evoking emotions and providing pleasure. If a certain playback setup (cd, vinyl, stream, tube, ss whatever) makes the music more enjoyable or emotionally impactful for the listener, then that setup has fulfilled its purpose.

Anyone placing tight restrictions on what said system should sound like should be promptly ignored - they are wholly irrelevant.

 

[bigshot]

Music is emotional. Equipment is just electronics. It just works. It doesn’t create emotions.

 

[2leftears]

Music is emotional. Equipment is just electronics. It just works. It doesn’t create emotions.

It certainly creates emotions when it doesn't work...

 

[bigshot]

That’s for sure! “#%&@#%*!!!!”

 

[1oad3r]

Music is emotional. Equipment is just electronics. It just works. It doesn’t create emotions.

Wow, really? Seems like another really ignorant comment. Isn’t this a “science” forum?

While music itself is the primary source of emotional content, the equipment used to reproduce the music is far from “just electronics”. The quality and characteristics of playback equipment can play a significant role in shaping how music is perceived (clarity & detail, soundstage, level of immersion, tonal balance etc) and, therefore, how it affects the listener emotionally. The two are connected, obviously.

Unless you hear everything the same of course….

 

[MrHaelscheir]

Wow, really? Seems like another really ignorant comment. Isn’t this a “science” forum?

While music itself is the primary source of emotional content, the equipment used to reproduce the music is far from “just electronics”. The quality and characteristics of playback equipment can play a significant role in shaping how music is perceived (clarity & detail, soundstage, level of immersion, tonal balance etc) and, therefore, how it affects the listener emotionally. The two are connected, obviously.

Unless you hear everything the same of course….

Firstly, do you understand that the sound as is perceived is a separate thing from the electrical or acoustic signal making up the recording as it passes through your system?