Testing audiophile claims and myths

[XTF1]

When I go from listening with a '$500 iem' to the Oriolus Mellianus which are crystal clear and revealing.

So… “less nuanced sound” = “$500 iem” and “strikingly nuanced” = “crystal clear and revealing”.

How should I test this and not conclude it’s an audiophile myth?

 

[Ryokan]

How should I test this

Choose a $500 iem and Listen to them.

 

[XTF1]

Choose a $500 iem and Listen to them.

And I’ll know what “less nuanced sound is”? Just by listening to one IEM, with price as the only criteria?

 

[Ryokan]

And I’ll know what “less nuanced sound is”? Just by listening to one IEM, with price as the only criteria?

You think a $500 iem is going to be as revealing as a $3500 one? (from a respected maker). There would be something wrong.

 

[castleofargh]

Money is not an audio variable and "more nuanced" is a vague subjective interpretation. Making some blanket statement correlating the 2, it just doesn’t look very serious or means much of anything to me.

I tend to check distortions and if everything stays nicely below 1% at 90dB SPL(I might accept more in the subs if I like the rest), then to me it’s almost always a matter of FR and if the IEM is vented or not. Do money and distortion correlate well? Often enough a single dynamic driver is what achieves the lowest disto in IEMs AFAIK(maybe some planar stuff does better but I have a hard time counting those as in ear monitors.
FR and money correlate poorly.
As for vented or not, IDK if there is a solid correlation, but I would also guess a negative.

So most of what significantly impacts my sound impressions, isn’t clearly correlated with money.

 

[solid12345]

That’s a strawman argument and how is that indicative of this being a “science forum”? Musicians do indeed typically care about fidelity although not often about measurements and therefore logically musicians do sometimes have record players, as a good record player/setup is capable of high fidelity. However, as digital is both cheaper and higher fidelity, many/most musicians indeed do not listen to vinyl anymore. The proportion might have increased somewhat in recent years, in line with the fashion/trend for vinyl but this is a strawman argument as a tube amp is not required for vinyl playback.

It should indeed “be a common sense thing with no controversy” that relatively few musicians use outdated, superseded/inferior tube technology, as should not employing strawman arguments in a science discussion forum, but in your case, apparently not!

G

Most musicians are broke, figuratively speaking, of course they won’t have some grand stereo system at home because they’re more focused on session playing and trying to earn scratch hoping maybe one day they’ll get discovered by a label and signed to a deal.

I said the world’s top musicians, the kind of people like Paul here with his low-fidelity setup from the caveman days /s. If you have millions of dollars at your disposal and made your career in music you’re more than likely going to have a lavish home system and more than likely a tube will be found. You’re not going to go to Billy Joel or Elton John’s house and see them listening to music on a $399 Topping amp just because it has za best measurementz.

You can’t get away with declaring vinyl a “high fidelity” medium while decrying tubes, sorry but that is bull. Scientifically speaking the sound is just as distorted as tubes are. A platter disc just can’t hold the same amount of sound data a CD can and is affected by wear and tear from the needle and what cartridge is used, etc. Objectively speaking, a properly scanned digital copy is more 1:1 to the original master tape than a vinyl can ever be. But still measurements only tell half the story, a solid low-jitter digital signal through a quality world-class tube amp will sound more realistic, natural & like the actual music recorded in the studio that day then the finest vinyl player sent through a bargain-bin SS amplifier.

Also how do you define outdated? Solid state technology is 70-80 years old at this point. It’s not like it’s some alien technology like the microprocessor that came to replace the typewriter. It’s just a different way of producing sound much like electric cars are to ICEs for vehicles. It always gets me when people look at electrics as some futuristic tech when the first electric car was produced only 4 years after a gas-powered one. The only thing that matters is the engineering behind it. I’d put a quality tube amp made in the last 10 years up against a typical solid state amp from the 1970s for fidelity-quality any day.

 

[Ryokan]

Money doesn't necessarily get you better sound and nuance is a loose term, but it's a way I describe the jump in quality with what I own.
It can be quite breath taking listening with a new high quality iem and hearing small differences which before were masked by the overall sound. I guess nuance is another word for micro detail?

 

[solid12345]

Money doesn't necessarily get you better sound and nuance is a loose term, but it's a way I describe the jump in quality with what I own.
It can be quite breath taking listening with a new high quality iem and hearing small differences which before were masked by the overall sound. I guess nuance is another word for micro detail?

I have a Chord Dave and I absolutely hear micro details I just will not hear on a cheaper DAC. Does it mean it’s the best? No. I actually prefer the sound of my TDA1541 R2R DACs for general everyday use, they are less fatiguing and warmer. The Dave is so etched with detail it leers into supernatural territory. I don’t believe money buys quality but I do believe you will find some engineering marvels the more up the chain you’re willing to spend. A good comparison is the car world, a Ferrari is just going to smoke a Ford Mustang. But it also comes with its own pitfalls like not being practical for daily use to run up to the store and buy milk. Also expensive to maintain. Is it worth investing in a Ferrari? as someone who is not a car guy I personally would say no, just like you don’t “need” a DAVE. But I like music so to me a DAVE was a good purchase. You’re paying extraordinary money for extraordinary achievements but you don’t need a Ferrari to enjoy driving just like you don’t need a DAVE to enjoy music.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

I have a Chord Dave and I absolutely hear micro details I just will not hear on a cheaper DAC. Does it mean it’s the best? No. I actually prefer the sound of my TDA1541 R2R DACs for general everyday use, they are less fatiguing and warmer. The Dave is so etched with detail it leers into supernatural territory. I don’t believe money buys quality but I do believe you will find some engineering marvels the more up the chain you’re willing to spend. A good comparison is the car world, a Ferrari is just going to smoke a Ford Mustang. But it also comes with its own pitfalls like not being practical for daily use to run up to the store and buy milk. Also expensive to maintain. Is it worth investing in a Ferrari? as someone who is not a car guy I personally would say no, just like you don’t “need” a DAVE. But I like music so to me a DAVE was a good purchase. You’re paying extraordinary money for extraordinary achievements but you don’t need a Ferrari to enjoy driving just like you don’t need a DAVE to enjoy music.

Could you share an example of a track containing such microdetails and where they occur? And the headphone or speakers used?

 

[1oad3r]

You stated my assertions suggested to you I had little experience of tube amplifiers which is obviously false

Not false at all. That’s what your post strongly suggested to me. Your assertions:

Potentially analogous to say a tube amp producing audible distortion, in such a case, what do you think is deciding/defining those distortion characteristics if not the tube amp? As to why, 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.

Ignorant or intellectually dishonest. When your experience was called into question you pivoted to:

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).

So you weren’t ignorant at all since you could speak to a more nuanced view, you just chose to be intellectually dishonest to continue the often cited “sound science” jibe of audiophiles being suckers for one reason or another.

As to the self promotion diatribe, you can tell me all you like. I’ll take a view based on what you post.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

@1oad3r

Very well said. The level of hatred here toward quality audio gear and the people who like it is truly deranged.

 

[solid12345]

Could you share an example of a track containing such microdetails and where they occur? And the headphone or speakers used?

Fleetwood Mac’s “The Chain” I heard the song a million times but it wasn’t until I got a Chord I heard an F-bomb muttered by Lindsey Buckingham under his breath at the beginning of the song in studio. My headphone is a Grado gs3000x.

Now I know what you will say, people have heard this before on lesser equipment as you will find many posts about it, but how many never heard it until someone else pointed out? “Oh yeah you really can!” and went back to try and catch it. The main point is the DAVE had me hearing things I just normally would never have picked up on or noticed on lesser DACs. I won’t go as far as to claim DAVE is revealing audio data that is non-existent on cheaper equipment, just that it becomes more clear and concise. Like getting a stronger prescription on my contact lenses or glasses, I’m not actually seeing more of the world, it’s not adding extra leaves or berries to a tree, it was all there before. But now I don’t need to strain my eyes to focus on them if that makes sense. My Gustard R26 was 1080p, the DAVE was 4k lol

 

[1oad3r]

I repeat, can you understand that your perception of the sound is or can be a separate thing from the content of the electrical or acoustical signals passing through your equipment chain?

As I like to repeat, the point of "objectivism" in this case is to determine the actual cause of audible phenomena. Technically speaking, bigshot's wording of equipment having no effect on people's perception of music may be a touch extreme to the point of misinterpretation. First, you as any other are obviously "really" perceiving the effects that you hear on your music. The problem is when that "subjectivism" jumps to the conclusion of making an objective claim about the physical properties of the equipment and how it modifies (or doesn't) the electrical or acoustic signals as they make their way from the recording to your ears.

Now, looking at your second paragraph, it could be interpreted as either your belief that (1) the equipment is "literally" affecting the listener's perception and emotions by some yet to be discovered mechanism, else that (2) it is doing so through some yet to be understood modification of the electrical or acoustical signals, else that (3) perceptual awareness or knowledge of the equipment being used is inducing a psychological response affecting your perception, sometimes called "placebo" or "perceptual/expectation bias". I like to think that most "subjectivists" who argue here either believe one of the first two or conflate the three into one causal connection between gear and perception. The objectivist stance is that since we cannot measure audible differences between the gear to which is being ascribed astronomical sonic qualities, then the third possibility must be the case where the equipment is indeed through your extrasonic perception (e.g. visual or abstract) of it affecting your perception of the music through a psychological mechanism rather than actual effects on the electrical or acoustical signal; to me, bigshot's wordings can appear to additionally discount the third mechanism, which I don't think they mean.

Amps and DACs or cables and fuses and whatever objectively cannot induce emotions or inject those into electrical or acoustical signals, but semantically, it could be accepted that they are extrasonically inducing those effect on your music perception and emotions. Given that, it is highly disingenuous to call someone's hearing in-experienced, damaged, or impaired due to their happening to at this time not be as susceptible to perceptual influence by extrasonic factors. Say, I auditioned the Sennheiser HE-1 and Stax SR-X9000 and I found that I preferred my EQed Meze Elite, or the nice silver cables I bought for 4.4 mm terminations and looks have no audible or measurable differences to me, or I auditioned a few more expensive amps and DACs yet none of these brought my perception any closer to the live classical concert hall sound I am now much more intimate with, yet measuring my personal HRTF and using DSP to simulate neutral speakers in an anechoic chamber really did mind drastically improved imaging in a manner backed by sound localization science, does that mean I have "serious hearing issues"?

To repeat from a previous post:

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.

And then also:

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.

So to be clear, I believe equipment can play a significant role in how it affects the listener emotionally. We all have listening preferences. Ideally, you’ll have a listening setup that aligns to those preferences, such that you can enjoy music to its fullest extent.

My main desktop system is a tube amp and an r2r dac. I would suggest this combination would detract from someone’s overall emotional connection to music if their listening preference was, by comparison, a more analytical, precise, neutral sound often but not always associated with delta-sigma based DAC’s and solid state amps.

 

[MrHaelscheir]

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.

Which could be rephrased as: marketing or knowledge regarding how a piece of gear was implemented along with other perceptual stimuli and the social influence of others' beliefs can psychologically induce perceived differences or enhancements that are not electrically detectible with a null test. Do you believe the equipment is actually modifying the electrical signal or relaying it more truthfully, or are you accepting that human hearing can be fickle enough that all kinds of psychological factors also independent of price or other can warp one's perception and enjoyment of music? If the latter, then you are at least not at odds with my interpretation of objectivism. What I can't stand for is claiming these perceptual effects to be innate and expected to be heard by others or forcing an Emperor's New Clothes effect and conformity, and that if they don't hear those differences, their hearing is somehow inferior.

@solid12345 As usual, folks could claim that your acquisition of the DAVE caused you to "listen harder" without realizing it, or maybe a difference in DAC output voltage influenced one's usual listening level. Was the F-bomb clearer or "unveiled", or was it brought further forward? If the latter, I personally wouldn't want my gear to artificially induce a dynamic compression to raise details.

 

[solid12345]

@solid12345 As usual, folks could claim that your acquisition of the DAVE caused you to "listen harder" without realizing it, or maybe a difference in DAC output voltage influenced one's usual listening level.

My point is the strength of it is I don’t need to listen harder, it made listening lazier. I don’t need to sit back and concentrate on finding those small details I just hear them naturally while doing my own thing, multitasking on my iPad while munching on some chips, whatever.

Marketing & prestige mean nothing to me as my audio system is a very private thing I don’t show off to just anyone, hell I’ve never told my own parents about something like the DAVE because they’d freak out at me spending this kind of money on amps and headphones and I’d still get a lecture even as a grown man about controlling my spending. I don’t host parties or keep up with the Joneses so it’s not a vanity thing to own it either which is a common criticism against us audiofools for why we buy this stuff. In other words I’m not blinding myself with prestige. If I wanted to really be prestigious i’d buy something new made in the current year versus the DAVE which is almost a decade old that I bought gently used for half the price.