Testing audiophile claims and myths

[GearMe]

That is of course absolutely fair and accurate, however, you must have had a situation somewhere in your own position as a consumer where you have made a purchasing decision based on something other than only strict technical suitability.

Perhaps you bought amplifier A instead of B despite that it cost $250 more simply because it would match the aesthetics of the speakers and would therefore be nicer to own for reasons that have nothing to do with technical performance.

Even if was outside of audio, do you drive a very basic car that is the smallest size that will transport the number of passengers and luggage that you need or do you drive something a nicer simply because it is nice to have and gives you pleasure not just transports you from one place to another. That is not really a lot different to our man using audio files that do nothing except give him more enjoyment for technically intangible reasons. If you drive a nice car that cost $50,000 there are probably folks that shake their head at you because they see it as pointless money, a $5,000 car would achieve technically the same purpose.

If not, perhaps you should let your hair down

I honestly can’t think of anything I’ve ever bought for reasons other than function. ....

Just sayin' you're an uber-rare consumer if this is true across every purchase category!

 

[gregorio]

Starting at around 9:25: “We studied the effects of PCM digital audio on human physiology …

Yep, he’s lying. He did not study the effects of PCM digital audio on human physiology, PCM digital audio is a signal typically at a frequency of 1.4MHz (in the case of CD format) or several hundred MHz in the case of USB or some other asynchronous protocol such as Ethernet. So how can he test the effects of PCM digital audio when no speakers or headphones can actually reproduce anything in that frequency range? The answer is; he doesn’t! In pretty much his next sentence, what he actually describes is testing analogue audio, NOT PCM digital audio (!) and assuming there is actually some audible difference with his “C Wave technology” then the obvious question is what the hell is it doing to the analogue audio that’s different to the actual intended analogue audio?

Just snake oil aimed at those too gullible to realise it and massively hypocritical considering that at just after 3 mins he states that it’s not about electrical appliances and marketing when that is 100% exactly what it is about! Not to mention that near the end of 3 mins he complains about the audiophile industry scamming audiophiles to keep spending on new units/technology yet that’s also exactly what he’s doing/promoting!

TBH, I couldn’t get beyond the first 10 mins or so. EG. “Audio isn’t very scientific …” - Audio was theorised by scientists, then invented in practice by scientists/engineers, developed into commercial products by scientists/engineers and then standardised by scientists/engineers, how could it possibly be any more scientific?! What does he think audio is then, a miracle from god, witchcraft, some alien artifact based on supernatural phenomena? Charlatans like this really make my blood boil!

G

 

[bigshot]

Just sayin' you're an uber-rare consumer if this is true across every purchase category!

I never really thought about it, but maybe I am. I don’t buy things for status and I research stuff before I buy to make sure it works for me. I have collections, but each thing in the collection represents something that relates to the overall collection. There’s always a reason for things I buy.

What sorts of things do “normal” people buy for reasons other than functionality?

 

[Brahmsian]

Yep, he’s lying. He did not study the effects of PCM digital audio on human physiology, PCM digital audio is a signal typically at a frequency of 1.4MHz (in the case of CD format) or several hundred MHz in the case of USB or some other asynchronous protocol such as Ethernet. So how can he test the effects of PCM digital audio when no speakers or headphones can actually reproduce anything in that frequency range? The answer is; he doesn’t! In pretty much his next sentence, what he actually describes is testing analogue audio, NOT PCM digital audio (!) and assuming there is actually some audible difference with his “C Wave technology” then the obvious question is what the hell is it doing to the analogue audio that’s different to the actual intended analogue audio?

Just snake oil aimed at those too gullible to realise it and massively hypocritical considering that at just after 3 mins he states that it’s not about electrical appliances and marketing when that is 100% exactly what it is about! Not to mention that near the end of 3 mins he complains about the audiophile industry scamming audiophiles to keep spending on new units/technology yet that’s also exactly what he’s doing/promoting!

TBH, I couldn’t get beyond the first 10 mins or so. EG. “Audio isn’t very scientific …” - Audio was theorised by scientists, then invented in practice by scientists/engineers, developed into commercial products by scientists/engineers and then standardised by scientists/engineers, how could it possibly be any more scientific?! What does he think audio is then, a miracle from god, witchcraft, some alien artifact based on supernatural phenomena? Charlatans like this really make my blood boil!

G

Levinson is cashing in on something I hear all the time from the SACD/DSD/analog crowd, perhaps originating in the fact that some early CDs really did not sound good. It’s also not the first time I hear the claim that PCM affects people negatively, so it would have been nice to see Archimago address what scientific studies actually say about it. Maybe there are no studies, hence nothing he could have pointed to. But he seems to take the position that it’s too silly to even address, and that’s a mistake when you’re dealing with such a persistent (even if not exactly mainstream) audiophile claim. I think it’s funny that Levinson centers his pitch around organs and what not considering he sells very expensive gear. His target audience consists mainly of older people who might very well be experiencing health issues.

 

[Ryokan]

Didn't know 'botting' was a thing on some YT reviews, should've guessed.

 

[Ryokan]

PCM digital audio is a signal typically at a frequency of 1.4MHz (in the case of CD format) or several hundred MHz in the case of USB or some other asynchronous protocol such as Ethernet. So how can he test the effects of PCM digital audio when no speakers or headphones can actually reproduce anything in that frequency range? The answer is; he doesn’t! In pretty much his next sentence, what he actually describes is testing analogue audio, NOT PCM digital audio (!) and assuming there is actually some audible difference with his “C Wave technology” then the obvious question is what the hell is it doing to the analogue audio that’s different to the actual intended analogue audio?



G

Why is it so much higher for USB?

 

[Davesrose]

Why is it so much higher for USB?

Data bandwidth. Wifi now has ranges going to 2.4/5/6/7 Ghz for data rates going above 1Gbps and less interference from other devices.

 

[mbphotox]

my guess re the DAC test would be that people were hearing the differences in filters, not the DACs themselves..
since a NOS design allegedly sounds very different from a sharp linear phase filter, some people may prefer one over the other..

several things:
1. older people usually cannot hear above 15kHz (some cap out at 10 kHz even), so they don't stand a chance to hear a difference between filters..

2. headphones probably make it easier to hear those very high frequencies, because they often get absorbed in upholstery, carpets, curtains, etc. (at least it looks that way when I measure my living room system)
this was my EL34 tube amp and there's a -12dB at 20kHz on the measurement: (the B&W 803 supposedly go way beyond 20Khz.. but maybe the tweeters are damaged?! same result, aside from distortion, on both channels and even when fed by the AV-Receiver.. gotta love the in-room bass extension, though )

3. the 20k dollar LINN uses the $20 AK4497 DAC chip.. not saying it's a bad chip.. just that they probably haven't tapped into magic there..

 

[gregorio]

It’s also not the first time I hear the claim that PCM affects people negatively, so it would have been nice to see Archimago address what scientific studies actually say about it. Maybe there are no studies, hence nothing he could have pointed to. But he seems to take the position that it’s too silly to even address …

There are no studies, you cannot scientifically study something that’s impossible. There are no speakers or HPs that can produce those frequencies and of course we never hear PCM audio directly because it ceases to be PCM as soon as it’s converted into a continuous analogue signal by a DAC. It’s a bit like trying to do a study on babies before they’re conceived, there aren’t any! So Archimago was correct in this instance, it is too silly to even address.

Why is it so much higher for USB?

Because USB 2 and higher, along with other asynchronous digital transfer protocols (such as Ethernet) don’t transfer data according to the sample rate of the digital audio data, they transfer it according to the data rate of the protocol. In the case of gigabit Ethernet the signal is at about 600MHz if I remember correctly. The max data rate for USB 2 was 480Mbps, using a signal with a frequency at 240MHz and USB 3 uses a freq of 2.5GHz. So the data is sent at very high rates using a very high frequency signal in short bursts, according to the buffer size of the receiving device.

G

 

[Brahmsian]

There are no studies, you cannot scientifically study something that’s impossible. There are no speakers or HPs that can produce those frequencies and of course we never hear PCM audio directly because it ceases to be PCM as soon as it’s converted into a continuous analogue signal by a DAC. It’s a bit like trying to do a study on babies before they’re conceived, there aren’t any! So Archimago was correct in this instance, it is too silly to even address.

G

Which frequencies? His beef is with PCM in general. As to that, I keep pointing to this study, which purports to have found that inaudible frequencies trigger physiological effects:

Inaudible components of the human infant cry influence haemodynamic responses in the breast region of mothershttps://jps.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12576-019-00729-x​

But the issue being digital audio in general: While it’s true that, by the time we’re listening to it, the digital signal has obviously already been converted back to analog (DAC), I don’t see why you can’t record the same music in both analog and digital and see if playing the analog version back on LP or cassette has a more soothing effect on people that might show up physiologically. In any case, being “too silly to even address” doesn’t keep people from believing it, so, in my opinion, it needed to be addressed, even if only the way you did just now in your response.

 

[GearMe]

I never really thought about it, but maybe I am. I don’t buy things for status and I research stuff before I buy to make sure it works for me. I have collections, but each thing in the collection represents something that relates to the overall collection. There’s always a reason for things I buy.

What sorts of things do “normal” people buy for reasons other than functionality?

'Normal? Hhmmm, ignoring that qualifier, it's safe to say that...

It depends on the tastes of the consumer and their ability to pay for the brands of 'necessities' and 'toys' they desire to own.

You don't have to go too far in western societies to see consumers buying 'necessities' and 'toys' at a variety of pricing levels that are clearly not justified by functionality.

For example, I'm sure many people on this forum own a backpack to carry their laptop, possibly a wallet and other miscellaneous stuff. In this example, I need go no further than my family; my wallet cost $15 and my backpack was $35; my son's were $500 and $3000 respectively.

These widely varying buying approaches are at play across the consumer markets for anything that is sold to us...cars, clothing, watches, food, beverages, audio

Remember these?

When it's all said and done, many people buy on emotion and then justify their purchase with 'logical' reasoning after the fact.
Whatever their reasons (brand loyalty, status, functionality, value, etc.), they're usually just satisfying their individual needs the best way they can at that point in their life.

To my way of thinking, whatever works for them!

 

[bigshot]

Which frequencies? His beef is with PCM in general. As to that, I keep pointing to this study, which purports to have found that inaudible frequencies trigger physiological effects:

Since that study involves sound designed to alarm and irritate to spur mothers to tend to their babies, it’s pretty much irrelevant when it comes to listening to recorded music for pleasure in the home, isn’t it? There’s no indication that inaudible frequencies add anything to the enjoyment of music. That study is as applicable to music listening as saying that inaudible frequencies can have medicinal effect because sonic weapons that broadcast super-audible frequencies at loud volumes can cause people to become nauseous.

As for buying toys… I don’t buy tools as toys. I buy a refrigerator to keep food cold, a TV set to watch movies, and a CD player to listen to music. I want each of those to be able to do a good job. The closest I get to buying toys is art I suppose… but I have criteria there too. I don’t choose art by how expensive it is or what kind of materials it’s made of. I buy it for the way the artist communicates and the skill involved. I can learn from it and be inspired by it. Status isn’t important to me. I’d rather have a really well drawn sketch by an unknown artist than a lousy one by a famous artist. My desire to own something is directly related to the use I can make of it. I’m willing to allow that I’m not typical in that regard.

 

[castleofargh]

Which frequencies? His beef is with PCM in general. As to that, I keep pointing to this study, which purports to have found that inaudible frequencies trigger physiological effects:

Inaudible components of the human infant cry influence haemodynamic responses in the breast region of mothershttps://jps.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12576-019-00729-x​

But the issue being digital audio in general: While it’s true that, by the time we’re listening to it, the digital signal has obviously already been converted back to analog (DAC), I don’t see why you can’t record the same music in both analog and digital and see if playing the analog version back on LP or cassette has a more soothing effect on people that might show up physiologically. In any case, being “too silly to even address” doesn’t keep people from believing it, so, in my opinion, it needed to be addressed, even if only the way you did just now in your response.

Whatever the circumstances, when someone tels you that the fix to PCM is a digital amp, you have to laugh sarcastically.
It’s also super moronic to criticize PCM as, for anything it might do wrong(imagining there is such a thing) , the DAC will modify the signal dramatically so it’s usually not pcm anymore when the conversion occurs.
It’s just stupid as a concept, and the idea that they also have an app to solve everything, that’s the last drop of snake oil that sank the titanic of their legitimacy. The DAC will not accept anything beside a form of PCM(or nowadays maybe dsd), so what could an app possibly do? Repmlace PCM and then output PCM? It’s funny. Not haha funny but funny still.

I also expect some cheap DSP EQ'ing or doing whatever to the sound, just so that the more gullible people can confirm the night and day sound difference and validate their decision to purchase that nonsense.

I already gave you my views on the above paper, which is suspicions because of who contributed to it.

 

[Elegiac]

https://www.shakti-innovations.com/product/shakti-stone/

Placement on automotive CPUs has measurably increased engine horsepower.

Validation of SHAKTI’s benefits comes from a variety of objective tests in both the automotive and audio worlds. Evaluation, using Dyno Jet Research automotive dynamometers have measured increases of approximately three horsepower at the rear wheels of a variety of cars. The horsepower gain is a direct result of SHAKTIs attenuation of EMI in the ECU. This allows the complex network to more accurately perform the analysis modern car computers are called on to do to optimize engine ignition timing and electronic fuel injection.

In addition even more sophisticated tests have been run on the state of the art $100,000 Mustang Dyno. When one On-Line was placed on each of the 8 individual coils of a Chevy Tahoe, it showed a remarkable improvement of almost four tenths of a second in its 0 to 60 time. Changes of this magnitude usually cost several thousand dollars in engine modifications, not the $400 cost for 8 On-Lines.

This parallels resolution improvements in analog and digital audio components when SHAKTI units are placed near power supplies, DAC chips, capacitors and system wiring. Traditional EMI tests were conducted at Compatible Labs in Agoura, California, which verified SHAKTI’s absorption of radiated noise fields. The worldwide use of SHAKTI in consumer and professional applications such as Pink Floyd’s Astoria Studio, is further testament to its benefits.

Aw shizz.

 

[bigshot]

They use it in Pink Floyd’s studio! How long has PF been broken up? That studio must not get much use.