View Full Version : Hi-Fi Fallacies - Debunking The Bunkum and Myths About Hi-Fi
The Grand Wazoo
19-04-2009, 23:01
Well, if we're looking for stuff to go in a library, I think we should make an effort to inform folk about those commonly held 'truths' that we know are total bunkum.
There's a lot of crap taken as read about hi-fi & I for one, think it's about time that some of this was dispelled.
So folks, come on & let's see a great heap of postings about:
a) 'Powerful' speakers
b) Watts per channel = quality
b.i) Cost = quality
c) 'Pure perfect sound forever'
.........and while we're at it(!)
d) chopping music up into a million little pieces, chucking most of them away & gluing the remainder back together sounds just the same as it did before you started
e) Your friend and mine Ivor invented the suspended belt drive TT
f) What about stuff like Linn tonearm mounting is actually Audio Technica tonearm mounting?
Bitter, moi????
No, I just like to see the truth maintained.
Any offers guys?
daveyboy
21-04-2009, 00:05
I think that the word myths is not accurate, there is clearly some truth in the matter. For instance clearly AAC is better than mp3 and yet the difference between lossless and AAC is if anything very difficult to pick up. Now when I say this I am obviously talking about the highest bitrates. However a lossless file is almost 5 times bigger than a lossless file. So this idea that if parts of the data are compressed it automatically results in a an obvious audible difference is the nonsense part.
Another distortion offered on the other side of things is that a low bitrate mp3 is equal to a lossless file but again there are some truths. For instance a piece of classical music sample has been encoded in both lossless and 128kbs and for that it isn't as obvious to distinguish the difference as it is when playing for instance a rock or rap song presumably because the transients are much more apparent.
Now regarding amps and power this doesn't seem like such a difficult or complex subject, the less watts per channel offered by the amp the quicker clipping begins and the quicker it distorts. Now hi fi purists will of course rave about valve amps but a low wattage valve can not be driven too hard or all of the frequencies will strain. Of course other aspects of the circuitry will play a part but it is easier to drive a NAD for instance that it is to drive a low wattage valve amp.
The Grand Wazoo
21-04-2009, 08:52
When you say:
I think that the word myths is not accurate, there is clearly some truth in the matter. For instance clearly AAC is better than mp3 and yet the difference between lossless and AAC is if anything very difficult to pick up. Now when I say this I am obviously talking about the highest bitrates. However a lossless file is almost 5 times bigger than a lossless file. So this idea that if parts of the data are compressed it automatically results in a an obvious audible difference is the nonsense part.
Are you referring to:
d) chopping music up into a million little pieces, chucking most of them away & gluing the remainder back together sounds just the same as it did before you started
???????????
If so, you misunderstand me. What I'm referring to is digital recordings - any digital recording. You appear to be comparing digital recordings to digital recordings.
I'm talking about the act of taking an analogue entity (music) & making into a digital one. Bitrates are bitrates - No matter how high they are, you're still chucking some of the music out. Whether you think you can hear the difference or not, is pretty much a different argument altogether.
Viva infinite resolution!
HiFi and audio is such a personal and subjective thing it's difficult to separate the bunkum and snake oil from objective fact.
Remember that some of our most prized vintage audio posessions were designed by measurement freaks with a balanced objective and subjective view - i.e. in my clumsy language, they designed a technically competent product first and then subjectively tweaked the inevitable compromises to get a balanced performance.
The Grand Wazoo
21-04-2009, 10:16
HiFi and audio is such a personal and subjective thing it's difficult to separate the bunkum and snake oil from objective fact.
That rather depends on what bunkum you choose to debunk.
I think all of the examples I mentioned in the original post are both frequently mooted but demonstrably incorrect.
I'm not suggesting that anyone would dare to make definitive statements on the worth of one product over another ('A Linn Basik cartridge is better than a Koetsu Black', anyone.......?) but some things are commonly held by the average person to be true which are plainly not.
What about 'big speakers are better than small speakers' - has anyone ever heard that one?
....
...Now regarding amps and power this doesn't seem like such a difficult or complex subject, the less watts per channel offered by the amp the quicker clipping begins and the quicker it distorts. Now hi fi purists will of course rave about valve amps but a low wattage valve can not be driven too hard or all of the frequencies will strain. Of course other aspects of the circuitry will play a part but it is easier to drive a NAD for instance that it is to drive a low wattage valve amp.
Hmmmmm...depends on what the amp is driving and what the size of the room is...if you had heard Steve's (SPS) 1watt flea driving hugely sensitive Lowther Horns you'd have a very different opinion...:eyebrows:
daveyboy
21-04-2009, 13:10
Oh I see my mistake, however all modern day music is recorded on the computer anyway. Which of course debunks a silly argument put forward that music ripped to a computer can not possibly sound as good when put through an external dac as a cd player is able to offer.
Maybe for all mainstream stuff that's true but not all 'modern' recordings are made on a computer ;) there are still a few recording engineers that use 1/4" tape from time to time....
http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/index1.html
http://www.greenroomproductions.biz/
Tony used to be a neighbour of mine ...a long time ago!
daveyboy
21-04-2009, 14:41
I am shocked that it's not done on computer lol
What about 'big speakers are better than small speakers' - has anyone ever heard that one?
I think I mis-understood the tone of your first post (my fault in interpretation).
I always remember the above statement as being "GOOD big speakers are better than GOOD small ones..." - something I usually agreed with when demonsrating speakers to people. Less good biggies always caused frustration IMO.
The Grand Wazoo
21-04-2009, 16:35
I think I mis-understood the tone of your first post (my fault in interpretation).
I always remember the above statement as being "GOOD big speakers are better than GOOD small ones..." - something I usually agreed with when demonsrating speakers to people. Less good biggies always caused frustration IMO.
Ah, yes, and what new audio casualty doesn't aspire to a pair of floorstanders, when a decent stand mount of the same price would do a far better job - but people are influenced by the look. In my experience crap quality big bass drivers whomping about all over the place are always less preferable than a smaller well controlled unit!
Spectral Morn
21-04-2009, 17:40
Oh I see my mistake, however all modern day music is recorded on the computer anyway. Which of course debunks a silly argument put forward that music ripped to a computer can not possibly sound as good when put through an external dac as a cd player is able to offer.
Bit of a sweeping statement that.... A lot of modern music is recorded via a computer and Pro Tools is a bloody disaster for quality IMHO. I noticed a down turn in sound quality when this software became commonly used ... Lets record in different parts of the world and not even play together....fire it through a bloody broad band modem...fabulous...convenience over quality strikes again. How is this HI-FI ? Though if High fidelity means faithful to the original and the original is shite well shite in and shite out.
There are still quite a few who uses Analogue over digital but sadly even their efforts are stuffed when the old loudness strikes....compress the dynamics...:steam:
Sadly many audiophile labels don't produce enough real music....:(
Are big speakers better than small...it depends on how well they are made/designed as it does with small ones too. It is easier to make a small speaker less resonant and using a simple X over/or none and two (not one as I have yet to hear such that sounds right to my ears) drive units certainly makes things good. But and I used to use small mini monitor type speakers all the time up until, say 7 years ago but there is no doubt in my mind that full range designs are better assuming the room is right and allows them room to breathe....otherwise they are not better.
Small speakers can image better but not always....
The problem with small speakers is...well the laws of physics. Its about moving air and bigger is better and more easy to do, as the load on the amplifier is easier. As I said in another thread its about energizing/moving air in a room and bigger does that more effortlessly than small. However the speaker must be right for the room size and have a suitable amp driving it.
HOW ABOUT ....ALL VALVE AMPLIFIERS ARE SOFT AND WARM and COLOURED...... I SAY CRAP TO THAT, NOT TRUE IMHO.
Regards D S D L :)
Mike Reed
21-04-2009, 19:43
Big speakers ARE better than small
PROVIDING you are comparing quality with quality. Having always been a big speaker man (though owning many small and medium ones too), there are advantages.
There is NO WAY you can generate the sense of scale from a small box that a large speaker is CAPABLE of.
Imaging (without the sense of scale ) is more pronounced in small speakers, but I believe that well-designed NARROW large speakers can image as well. However, the sheer expansiveness of large speakers when incorporating good imaging creates that 'wall of sound' presentation. (Spectres of the past!)
Horses for courses, though. Large speakers in small rooms cannot perform optimally, whereas small speakers in a large rooms not only sound lost, but require oodles of power, with concomitant potential to distort) to make them sing.
I have avoided the mention of the bass equation as taken for granted.
The Grand Wazoo
21-04-2009, 19:49
In my experience crap quality big bass drivers whomping about all over the place are always less preferable than a smaller well controlled unit!
I prefer big speakers too (mine are huge & weigh 63 kg a piece), but many people go down the route of big speakers when their budget will allow them to match the quality that a well chosen smaller pair might achieve.
Steve Toy
21-04-2009, 19:50
Phase coherent large speakers will image very well. Bass extension done well enhances the upper frequencies and increases the soundstage volume.
Sadly many audiophile labels don't produce enough real music....:(
Regards D S D L :)
Or good music!!!
The Grand Wazoo
22-04-2009, 17:48
Oh I see my mistake, however all modern day music is recorded on the computer anyway. Which of course debunks a silly argument put forward that music ripped to a computer can not possibly sound as good when put through an external dac as a cd player is able to offer.
So all CD transports are a waste of money are they?
I beg to differ - have you heard what a well built transport can do?
The Grand Wazoo
08-03-2010, 00:21
Here's a thing that's been annoying the hell out of me for quite some time: I keep hearing about 'Class D' amplifiers. When I read on, or enquire further, I'm informed that a class D amplifier is a digital amplifier.
Well, forgive me, but I could have sworn that Class D was something else entirely!
Small speakers have come along way in the last 10 years and big speakers are useing smaller drivers for a more accurate midrange and are faster and need less global feedback to controle.A well made speaker dosent have to take over the room to fill it.
I think Peter Snell and Peter Q. of Audio Note UK have proven the point pretty well.
Big dives need not be slow Look at Macos 15" lockwoods Big dives give a sense of scale I not head any other way The main reason smaller drivers are being used is lifestyle not performance
A common fallacy regarding sources (dacs, CDPs etc) : A source with 126dB S/N is quieter than another with 100dB.
I mean: if someone knows a recorded material with 100dB transients, please inform me... :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.