Testing audiophile claims and myths

[Heidegger]

 
Quote:

 You really need to watch my AES Audio Myths video. If you already saw it, watch it again. All of this is answered in more detail and more clearly than I can post here over and over. In particular, see the section about Null Tests starting at 53:39.
 
Quote:

If eveything shows up on the tests, then if I were designing and building an amp or a headphone from scratch, it would be pointless to actually listen to the headphone or amp to see if I liked what I was hearing, since the measurements alone would tell me everything about the sound. I could just introduce my product into the market without anybody actually having listened to the headphone or the amp before the first one sold?

If the goal is high fidelity - accuracy - then measuring alone is sufficient to verify a design. But some people prefer the colored sound of a non-flat response or added distortion. In that case you'd have to listen to see if you find that particular skewed response and added distortion pleasing to you.
 
--Ethan
iiiiiii But
 

As to why people hear a difference with ultra-high sampling rates, you posit comb filtering/room acoustics as the most likely reason, but what about headphones? While you don't mention sacd by name, your video implies that anybody who prefers high resolution media such as sacd are a bit foolish. Yet what about compression? The trend with rbcd production is toward compression, while sacd is about not compressing. As I understand it, compression reduces the dynamics. Maybe one reason why some people prefer sacd is because of this non-compression philosophy. Moreover, recording engineers and owners of record labels have admitted that for the sacd treatment they try to choose what they deem to be their best recordings. That is a not so silly reason to prefer sacd. Yet again some people like EQing and others don't. Several sacd labels eschew EQing when mastering a recording, which is why some people find them a bit flat.
 
"If it weren't for science, we'd all be banging on tree stumps in a dark cave." No, we wouldn't, and weren't. Perhaps you were just trying to be funny, employing hyperbole?
 
"You just need all the data." How do you know you have all the data?
 
"Our hearing is more sensitive to distorions in the treble range. Distortion in that range becomes more objectionable." That explains why I noticed the harshness in the treble before my amp broke in. I found the treble unpleasant.
 
"All transparent amps are the same." Well, not all amps are transparent, and not everyone wants or likes a transparent amp. Moreover, some amps produce audible noise. You seem to be offering a reason here as to why people hear differences between amps and why they might prefer one amp to another.
 
Warm, cold, sterile, analytical, etc., there's a reason why people use those words -- i.e., because they are more human, based as they are on what people actually perceive and feel when they listen to reproduced music.  Moreover, the terms aren't as vague and arbitrary as you make out. There's even a glossary, I think on this forum, that tells you what they mean. "3dB down at 200Hz." Ha! Good luck. Most people just aren't going to describe their listening experience that way (thank God). I would even argue that terms such as "cold and sterile" are much more apt and revealing of the actual listening experience since they include sensations and emotions (which are so much a part of listening to music), even if they lack quantitative definiteness.
 
"We should all strive for the highest fidelity possible." This begs the question, fidelity to what? To natural sound, to live music? Doesn't high resolution music and/or formats such as sacd, dvd-a, and blu-ray offer more accurate fidelity if that is the standard? Do you even listen to these formats? Do you really prefer standard dvd to blu-ray? I used to listen to a lot of opera on dvd, but have found opera on blu-ray to be more satisfactory. Is this just my imagination as well? Blu-ray doesn't sound better?
 
I did appreciate your video. Thanks. I hope to explore your website soon. I must say, from what I heard, I like your art music more than your pop music. Great cello video.
 
Audio reviewers can tell the difference between amps as long as they see the label? Well, I think many of them would disagree. Here is an interesting article that relates not only to that but to why amps sound different:
 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
 
Here is a link to a discussion among audio engineers filmed at the Philoctates Center in New York. It is called "Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters."  Warning, it is more than two hours long, and sacd is only mentioned in the second hour if I remember correctly. But you may find the whole thing interesting (or not).  These are not silly audiophiles, but professionals who all agree that sacd is superior to rbcd.
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5hI98HEi0
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

I intend to measure their effect at some point. Someone helpfully discovered an attachment for iPhones and iPads that turn them into an oscilloscope. This would make it very easy to, say measure the digital output of some of my gear.

I'm certainly not avoiding tests. If anything, I'd say you give the impression here that you are so firm in your beliefs that you totally dismiss even any science that might contradict them.

I have been accused of that before. So for the record again, if evidence is produced, for example that cables do inherantly make a difference to sound quality, that also shows the existing evidence is wrong, I will buy an expensive cable and recommend others to do the same.
 
For a while I did think that there was evidence of a contradiction of the science. What Hifi have been doing monthly blind testing for a couple of years now, some of those tests are in the original post on this thread and were high lighted that they did contradict other tests, as people could make out a difference. But, there was a flaw. The argument has taken place on the What Hifi forum, not here and it was that WHF and in particular its editor in chief Clare Newsome was misrepresenting the testing as ABX and indeed as a test. In fact all that was happening was that three forum members sat and listened and gave their thoughts on what they could hear. That is not a test and it is certainly not ABX. Expectation and peer pressure would have had a major influence on what their 'results' were. (That has now been high lighted in the original post).
 
I have also joined other forums just to ask questions about reported ABX tests, such as Hifi Wigwam. I should have made that clearer and I can see why you think that I 'am so firm in my beliefs that I dismiss even any science that condradicts them'. I promise you that I do look at evidence as it is found, I review the evidence I have and if there are contradictions I try and find out why.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

My new amp sounds different than my old one, my Cardas cable sounds different than the stock Sennheiser cable, my BCL sounds different now than it did when I first turned it on, and SACD and DVD-As are preferable to RBCD. Something is not showing up on the tests, and I want to find out what that is. I asked a question of Ethan, and he gave me a link to his video, which is well made, worth watching, and informative, even if I disagree with his conclusions, so my question wasn't asked in vain. Never try to shame someone for asking questions.
 
In the video, Ethan claims what so many do:  people cannot hear the difference between high and low resolution sound. But the studies I have seen on that question have been mixed. In any case, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that high resolution picks up more information than low resolution and is a more faithful representation of the actual sound. Even if you can't consciously hear it, you might very well feel it, and, in any case, I rather have something closer to the original. Of course, those who have listened to a wide range of both rbcd and sacd feel that sacds sound better. If people really can't hear the difference between low res and high res, then maybe it's just that the sacd recordings were recorded and engineered with more care, or by better technicians, or using better equipment, or maybe they are better miced, or maybe the record label chose their best recordings to show off on sacd. In the end, I don't care why they sound better, only that they do.
 
Similarly, there are a wide variety of amps out there and they all don't sound alike. The designers can tune them to achieve a certain sound. Even Ethan just admitted that, so I don't see why the claim is made on this thread that there are no differences between hi-fi products.

The reason why the various parts of your hifi sound so different is because you can see them and you know what you are listening to. Add in the other senses to hearing and we know how different hifi sounds different. I have been to various auditions for new hifi over the years and know I was able to hear clear differneces between CDPs, amps, speakers.
 
The whole point of this thread was to show that when using hearing alone to differentiate between different hifi all the big differences claimed either reduce significantly or disappear completely. So, many hifi makers and reviewers, who make out that the sound difference is inherant in the product are wrong. That is where the myth comes in.
 
I am not trying to shame you in asking questions, I was joining others pointing out you keep on asking the same question after you have been given the answer.
 
With regards to amps, they can sound different as there are ABX tests where they have been correctly identified, as well as the ones where they have not. But what ABX testing has shown is that give an amp an even frequency response and level the volume, they will sound the same. That is interesting to know, particularly if you have two amps with a level frequency response and decent volume control, but wildly different prices and you are on a budget or do not want to waste money.
 
Here is another thread I started on positive blind tests
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
 
There are none with cables, so I conclude cables make no difference whatsoever. There are some for CDPs and amps, so I conclude they can make a difference. Not in the thread are blind tests of codecs which repeatedly show passed ABX testing, so I conclude they make even more of a difference. Lastly are speakers, which are the easiest to identify in testing. So I conclude speakers have the biggest inherant influence on sound of all hifi products.
 

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heidegger /img/forum/go_quote.gif
My new amp sounds different than my old one, my Cardas cable sounds different than the stock Sennheiser cable, my BCL sounds different now than it did when I first turned it on, and SACD and DVD-As are preferable to RBCD. Something is not showing up on the tests, and I want to find out what that is.

 
In all likelihood what is "different" is only your perception. If the differences are real, then they can be measured. Power amps can sound different, though they don't usually unless they're either poorly designed or driven too hard. Wires do not sound different unless one or both are incompetent, which is rare except with specialty boutique junk. If you want to find out what's really going on, you need to do the research yourself rather than tell people who know a lot more than you that they're wrong. I don't know a nicer way to say this.

 
Quote:

I asked a question of Ethan, and he gave me a link to his video, which is well made, worth watching, and informative, even if I disagree with his conclusions

 
How can you possibly disagree with my conclusions? What is your better explanation? If you have no better explanation, perhaps it's time to reconsider your opinions. What specifically do you think is incorrect in my video? Better, what do you think is correct, and why?
 
Quote:

it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that high resolution picks up more information than low resolution and is a more faithful representation of the actual sound.

 
So are you arguing for 128 bits at a 12 MHz sample rate? At some point capturing frequencies higher than anyone can hear, with a noise floor lower than what the microphones pick up, is a waste of disk space and bandwidth. You need to do your own tests to find the point of diminishing returns. This is simple to do with a decent microphone and basic / free audio editing software. If you are not willing to do this, I'm not willing to keep explaining my conclusions based on tests that I actually have done many times.
 
Quote:

Even if you can't consciously hear it, you might very well feel it

 
Now you are bordering on belief in magic.
 
Quote:

there are a wide variety of amps out there and they all don't sound alike. The designers can tune them to achieve a certain sound. Even Ethan just admitted that, so I don't see why the claim is made on this thread that there are no differences between hi-fi products.

 
I didn't "admit" anything. I explained that some gear is colored and some people like that coloration. Nobody claims that all gear sounds the same. In my opinion all gear should sound the same, unless it's intended to add specific color for creative purposes such as in a recording studio. But consumer playback gear should aim for accuracy, not color.
 
--Ethan
 

 

[ffdpmaggot]

Ethan - I mostly agree except for your last point, there are, in fact, amplifiers that do sound different due to limitations with creating a quality component with a given a price point, or given hardware limitations of the time. I have a few old amplifiers that definitely sound like crap, i plug my headphones directly into my laptop, the sounds okay, i plug them into the amp, treble gets veiled and generally sounds off, bass gets a bit muddier, mids get darker. Maybe this was supposed to be a deliberate coloration, but even when i adjusted the treble / bass balance, the treble, no matter how loud it was, sound veiled and lacked texture. I dont know what happens with better amps.

 

[b0ck3n]

Does running headphones in balanced mode make an audible difference? If so then why? I haven't been able to find the answer on my own, besides ofcourse the standard audiophile gospel.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Does running headphones in balanced mode make an audible difference? If so then why? I haven't been able to find the answer on my own, besides ofcourse the standard audiophile gospel.

This is an explanation of the technical, electrical differences - knowledgeable amp designer Nelson Pass comments on in it the thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/148709-bridged-vs-conventional-amps.html

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Does running headphones in balanced mode make an audible difference? If so then why? I haven't been able to find the answer on my own, besides ofcourse the standard audiophile gospel.

 
If there is an ABX test of such out there I cannot find it. Without such, all else is speculation.
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

 You really need to watch my AES Audio Myths video. If you already saw it, watch it again. All of this is answered in more detail and more clearly than I can post here over and over. In particular, see the section about Null Tests starting at 53:39.
 
Quote:

If eveything shows up on the tests, then if I were designing and building an amp or a headphone from scratch, it would be pointless to actually listen to the headphone or amp to see if I liked what I was hearing, since the measurements alone would tell me everything about the sound. I could just introduce my product into the market without anybody actually having listened to the headphone or the amp before the first one sold?

If the goal is high fidelity - accuracy - then measuring alone is sufficient to verify a design. But some people prefer the colored sound of a non-flat response or added distortion. In that case you'd have to listen to see if you find that particular skewed response and added distortion pleasing to you.
 
--Ethan
iiiiiii But
 

Not sure how you would measure timbre and get a completely meaningful value. Instrumental separation is how well the instruments are well not smudged together, but each have their own unique voice. Basically my point is that there is a whole lot going on and one cannot reproduce what one hears with measurements and them make any sense if it all. I'm a professional engineer and we love to measure things, but I think this is one area that can't be fully quantified. Ultimately, you just have to listen.

 

[Heidegger]

Quote:

 
Quote:

I asked a question of Ethan, and he gave me a link to his video, which is well made, worth watching, and informative, even if I disagree with his conclusions

 
1. How can you possibly disagree with my conclusions? What is your better explanation? If you have no better explanation, perhaps it's time to reconsider your opinions. What specifically do you think is incorrect in my video? Better, what do you think is correct, and why?
 
Quote:

it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that high resolution picks up more information than low resolution and is a more faithful representation of the actual sound.

 
2. So are you arguing for 128 bits at a 12 MHz sample rate? At some point capturing frequencies higher than anyone can hear, with a noise floor lower than what the microphones pick up, is a waste of disk space and bandwidth. You need to do your own tests to find the point of diminishing returns. This is simple to do with a decent microphone and basic / free audio editing software. If you are not willing to do this, I'm not willing to keep explaining my conclusions based on tests that I actually have done many times.
 
Quote:

Even if you can't consciously hear it, you might very well feel it

 
3. Now you are bordering on belief in magic.
 
Quote:

there are a wide variety of amps out there and they all don't sound alike. The designers can tune them to achieve a certain sound. Even Ethan just admitted that, so I don't see why the claim is made on this thread that there are no differences between hi-fi products.

 
4. I didn't "admit" anything. I explained that some gear is colored and some people like that coloration. Nobody claims that all gear sounds the same. In my opinion all gear should sound the same, unless it's intended to add specific color for creative purposes such as in a recording studio. But consumer playback gear should aim for accuracy, not color.
 
--Ethan
 

1. I wish you had responded to the post I actually addressed to you, placed directly after the post you responded to. There, I mentioned a few issues I had with statements you made in the video.
 
2. No, because with PCM there is a point where you hit diminishing returns. 24/96 is better than 16/41, but 192kHz is not better than 96kHz with today's technology. 192kHz is apparently plagued by all sorts of problems. See:
 
http://www.soundstage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126:96khz-vs-192khz&catid=57:reader-feedback&Itemid=24
 
However, with DSD, you can theoretically go much, much higher.
 
3. Here's a story you may find interesting and which you can hear for yourself if you follow the youtube link I provided ("Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters"):
 
"Geoff Emerick recorded a lot of Beatles material. He was working in his studio at the Neve desk (named after English electronics engineer Rupert Neve). It's a very famous desk. Emerick had an issue with one of the channels and he kept calling technicians in, and people kept coming in and saying there's nothing there. But Emerick kept saying that he was hearing something, and everybody said no, it's impossible, we've looked at it and don't hear anything. Neve came in and looked at it and they analyzed it with some other piece of equipment that hadn't been brought in. What Emerick was sensing, he wasn't hearing it, he was sensing something in one channel that was up around 58,000 cycles. He didn't hear it, but he felt it, his body felt it. It's a perfect example of how human beings perceive sound. We don't always hear it, but we feel it. [Red Book] CDs stop us from feeling it...SACD, with a much higher sampling rate, is completely different. With SACD, we can feel things." -- Craig Street, Record Producer (produced projects for Norah Jones, K. D. Lang, Cassandra Wilson, Chris Whitley, John Legend, Gypsy Kings, among others).
 
4. Admit vs. explain? The fact is that you agree that not all amps sound alike. If they don't all sound alike, then why do you say things like, "Audio critics can hear differences among amps only as long as they are looking at the label." If there are differences, as you admited -- or explained -- then why wouldn't they be able to hear differences among different amps?
 
5. In response to your call that I defer to people who know more about audio than I do, I can tell you that I have. Not all professionals agree with you. Again, if you watch the youtube video I linked to above, you can hear a panel of experts tell you that you are wrong. The panel includes Greg Calabi, managing partner and mastering engineer at Sterling Sound in NYC. He has mastered the music of John Lennon, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen, The Ramones, Talking Heads, Patti Smith, Paul Simon, James Taylor, U2, Norah Jones, Bad Brains, The Beastie Boys, John Mayer, Emmylou Harris, et. al. He has mastered more than 6,500 albums. Do you want to claim that he doesn't know anything about audio? Well, watch the video and hear him pontificate against rbcd and praise the virtues of sacd.
 
Another member of the panel who praises the superiority of sacd and high resolution in general over mere cd resolution is recording/mixing engineer Kevin Killen. He has handled the music of Peter Gabriel, Elvis Costello, Kate Bush, Jewel, Bon Jovi, U2, Bryan Ferry, Lorenna McKennit, Duncan Sheik, Shakira, Sugarland.
 
Another panel member is Steve Berkowitz, Senior Vice President of Sony Music's legacy recordings. He's in charge of rereleasing classic recordings at Columbia records. he has worked with Bob Dylan, Tony Bennett, Leonard Cohen, Earth Wind and Fire, Michael Jackson, Miles Davis, Branford Marsalis, Fishbone, John Mellencamp, Jeff Buckley, Ministry, The Cars, et. al. I suggest you watch the video. It's two and a half hours long, but these experts totally contradict what you say about high resolution.
 
In short, just as you ask me to give way to the knowledge of people who know more about audio than I do, let me similarly request that you give way, or at least consider, the knowledge of those who may know more about audio than you. All the professionals in that particular panel work mostly with pop, rock, and jazz, but if you prefer to appeal to professionals working with classical music, I can also appeal to a number of highly knowledgeable audio professionals in that area who would totally contradict your assertions. Many classical music recording engineers vehemently argue the virtues of sacd and high resolution sound in general as opposed to standard cd resolution.
 
"Deep Listening: Why Audio Quality Matters" can be seen both on youtube and the philoctetes center website:
 
http://philoctetes.org/past_programs/deep_listening_why_audio_quality_matters
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY5hI98HEi0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

[forsberg]

Watched the entire AES Audio Myths video. Great job. I think all head-fi'ers should give this a watch before wasting hundreds of dollars on perception.

 

[forsberg]

You know, Heidegger, I was reading the last few pages and wonder why you tried so hard to back up your claims, then I clicked on your profile and saw this:

Cable Inventory - Cardas, AudioQuest

I think that says it all right there. Good night!

 

[b0ck3n]

Ok so what I can gather from that thread, and go easy on me here as I know absolutely jack of electric engineering, is that a balanced (bridged) design can put out twice the power (over-simplified perhaps). It also reduces distortion (really?). What I'm questioning is the need for balanced operation when driving headphones - they certainly don't require the kind of power mentioned in the thread where balanced mode becomes beneficial (400W and upwards). I'm also questioning whether the difference in distortion, if truly there is one, can be picked up on by the human ear.
 
When audiophiles tout balanced operation in an amp they're not talking about power efficiency or reduced distortion levels, but mainly a larger "soundstage" or "sound field". Very few seem to use a balanced source with their balanced amps, but then some claim that makes an even bigger difference. HeadRoom offers balanced re-cabling and balanced amplifiers, and just as an example here's how they describe the changes heard when the Beyerdynamic Tesla T1 is driven balanced: "In balanced-drive, the musical detail resolution becomes even more liquid, seamless and textural with an added touch of bottom-end heft."

 
Quote:

This is an explanation of the technical, electrical differences - knowledgeable amp designer Nelson Pass comments on in it the thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/148709-bridged-vs-conventional-amps.html

 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Ok so what I can gather from that thread, and go easy on me here as I know absolutely jack of electric engineering, is that a balanced (bridged) design can put out twice the power (over-simplified perhaps). It also reduces distortion (really?). What I'm questioning is the need for balanced operation when driving headphones - they certainly don't require the kind of power mentioned in the thread where balanced mode becomes beneficial (400W and upwards). I'm also questioning whether the difference in distortion, if truly there is one, can be picked up on by the human ear.
 
When audiophiles tout balanced operation in an amp they're not talking about power efficiency or reduced distortion levels, but mainly a larger "soundstage" or "sound field". Very few seem to use a balanced source with their balanced amps, but then some claim that makes an even bigger difference. HeadRoom offers balanced re-cabling and balanced amplifiers, and just as an example here's how they describe the changes heard when the Beyerdynamic Tesla T1 is driven balanced: "In balanced-drive, the musical detail resolution becomes even more liquid, seamless and textural with an added touch of bottom-end heft."
 

Yes, it is twice the power of the same amplifier in single-ended mode.  But it's not necessarily difficult to build a different amp with the same power, so that's why the power advantages are rather dubious.
 
I do wonder, however, if the portable balanced amplifiers are perhaps the easiest/most efficient way to put out the large 1 W plus output that the most powerful ones are capable of.  I mean, the iBasso PB1 gets more than 20 hours of battery life on high gain (about 24 V peak-peak) driving my HD 600, and it's tiny.
 
The difference in distortion actually comes down to two things - in a speaker amp, you're running at low impedances already, and when you bridge an amplifier you halve the effective impedance of the load that the output devices "see".  That actually causes an increase in distortion (why you'll see amplifiers quote increased distortion when bridged), but in an amplifier designed to be used solely as a bridged/balanced amplifier, that probably isn't so much of a problem.
 
The main thing, however, is very real and quantifiable - even order harmonic distortion products cancel out to the degree that the positive and negative halves of the amplifier are matching.  Usually it is reduced to a very low level, but it does nothing to reduce odd order harmonic distortion.  You may remember that tube amps generally produce quite a bit of even order harmonic distortion, and that it is considered far less offensive (or even desirable) to have even order harmonic distortion (especially the second product) than odd order harmonic distortion.  Anyway, the level of harmonic distortion in modern amplifiers is very low to begin with, more or less inaudible.  So the actual value of the even order harmonic distortion cancellation is rather dubious.
 
Also, to confuse you even more, most headphone cables themselves are already balanced.  If your cable has both lines for both sides running all the way to the plug, it already provides common-mode noise rejection.  There's no benefit to be had to run a balanced amplifier if that's your goal, and even so, such noise rejection is rather meaningless for anything but very low level turntable signals.  Headphone cables, speaker cables, and line-level signals generally have little to no issue with noise unless you're running them right along a power line or perhaps right in the vicinity of a powerful radio transmitter.
 
 
So to me, yes, the claims here for improvements in balanced operation seem to be little more than the typical fare you see in certain sub-forums...  And I say that as an owner of both push-pull and single-ended headphone amplifiers.

 

[EthanWiner]

Quote:

I mostly agree except for your last point, there are, in fact, amplifiers that do sound different due to limitations with creating a quality component with a given a price point, or given hardware limitations of the time. I have a few old amplifiers that definitely sound like crap, i plug my headphones directly into my laptop, the sounds okay, i plug them into the amp, treble gets veiled and generally sounds off, bass gets a bit muddier, mids get darker. Maybe this was supposed to be a deliberate coloration, but even when i adjusted the treble / bass balance, the treble, no matter how loud it was, sound veiled and lacked texture. I dont know what happens with better amps.

Sure. Again, no one says that all audio gear sounds the same. Some gear really is crap, though over the past 10-20 years even cheap stuff is mostly excellent. For me it's about claims that amps (or whatever) can sound different, but that difference cannot be measured. This is just wrong.
 
--Ethan