10 audiophile myths busted

[Joe]

Try reading any discussion thread that claims how digital is superior to analog, or vice versa. Lots of 'objectivists' claims being thrown out, usually by people who listen to music with their eyes and their intellect, not with their ears.

I have, for my sins, been on audio forums for 25 years now. From the start, there were two subjects guaranteed to lead to (virtual) punch-ups: a) digital versus vinyl, and b) whether expensive cables are worth the money. On one occasion on a Usenet hifi forum, one bloke in the US was all set to fly across the Atlantic to punch out the lights of someone in Europe who questioned his opinion.

There's a lot to be said for being a fence-sitter, because extreme black/white views, in audio or in life generally, are usually wrong. It's also why I tend not to blab on about the equipment I use; it gives people one less hook on which to hang their opinions,

[Marco]

Electric guitar tone is a matter of personal preference. There's a very wide palette of tones and any guitarist is free to try to create whatever tone they like. Why wouldn't they?
But to extend that same freedom of choice to a hi-fi system would be another thing altogether. To me, it simply wouldn't be hi-fi. Of course, anyone is free to do what they like, and if you want the bass guitar on your recordings to sound fat and bloated even though the bass guitarist who recorded it didn't, you're free to do whatever you want to create that. Just don't call it "high fidelity".

Me neither, simply because *by definition* it isn't! I also agree with everything else you've written.

Some folk like using graphic equalisers, in order to 'make some recordings more listenable', which is fine if that's what you like, but again don't call it hi-fi!

Marco.

[Marco]

I am aware that there are some people who will espouse they will only buy kit that measures well, & would never entertain the thought of buying something like a valve amp that sounds divine but measures badly by comparison.

I know where you're coming from (and largely agree with the rest of your post), but I assure you it's a fallacy that properly designed valve amps measure badly in comparison with SS amps; it simply depends on what you're measuring, and also how you choose to interpret the results

Plus, any valve amp that sounds "devine", for the right reasons [i.e. reproduces voices and instruments in a lifelike and natural way] rather than simply because its euphonic coloration is seductive, will almost certainly also measure well. Mine certainly does!

I've yet to hear a valve amp that measures poorly, sound good - that is 'good', for the right reasons, as outlined above.

Marco.

[Macca]

Enough of this gay banter.

Here's my ten Audiophile busted myths, take them or leave them. You'll probably leave them, Bad move but it's a free country (except it isn't):

1) You can overcome plaebco and expectation bias without listening blind . No you can't unless you are Jesus and have powers. (You're not Jesus).

2) High resolution digital is better. No it is just different mastering or if it is the same master and you still think it is better see 1) above.

3) There are things that matter in audio but we can't measure them yet. No, there really are not. There might be things we rarely measure or don't ever measure but there's no mystery science theatre going on.

4) Some equipment is better at conveying the 'emotion' of the musicians better. No it is probably just technically better and/or better engineered. There's no 'emotion' op amp or resistor you can buy. You'd think the Japanese would have invented it by now but they haven't ( see: Ken Ishiwata). And it's mostly in your mind and your mood at the time of listening anyway.

5) Speaker cable and interconnects can make a big difference. No they can't (see myth 1 above). At best they make a tiny difference.

6) All the really good kit is very expensive for good reasons. No it isn't, although I suppose it depends what you mean by expensive. You can't make anything good on the cheap. But a £10K item of kit is at most just 500 quid worth of parts once the maker, distributor, dealer and HMRC (the VAT) have had their cut. That's scary when you think about it. If you are capable of building your own equipment you are laughing. Wish I was.

7) There are a lot of poor recordings. No there are not unless your collection is mostly tapes of your band recorded in the garage on a Sharp ghetto-blaster. If you find any professional recording, from any era, sounding unlistenable, that's a problem with your system. A good system will always convey the intent of a recording even if it is not a Diana Krall album.
Which neatly brings us to

8) Diana Krall albums are worth listening to. No they are not. I don't think an explanation is necessary. If you don't know what I mean then you probably didn't read this far anyway.

9)A good test for a system is a painstakingly superb recording of a woman singing while a bloke hits a block of wood with a stick. No it isn't, that will sound good on an Amstrad. A good test for a system is 'Thin Lizzy: Live And Dangerous' at generous SPL. When you are next at a show and they are playing the woman/block of wood thing, ask them to put on the Lizzy at volume. See how many will. Obviously let the block of wood thing finish first before you ask.

10) You can't knock it until you have tried it, no matter how wacky it is. Oh yes I can. Cable lifters, crystals, those things that look a bit like lecterns that you stick around the room to 'define the listening space', Peter Belt tweaks, colouring your fuses with a marker pen, special bowls you put on the speakers... there's a million more. See busted myth 1 and read a book on human psychology. Or at least skim-read it.

[walpurgis]

[magiccarpetride]

Enough of this gay banter.

Here's my ten Audiophile busted myths, take them or leave them. You'll probably leave them, Bad move but it's a free country (except it isn't):

1) You can overcome plaebco and expectation bias without listening blind . No you can't unless you are Jesus and have powers. (You're not Jesus).

2) High resolution digital is better. No it is just different mastering or if it is the same master and you still think it is better see 1) above.

3) There are things that matter in audio but we can't measure them yet. No, there really are not. There might be things we rarely measure or don't ever measure but there's no mystery science theatre going on.

4) Some equipment is better at conveying the 'emotion' of the musicians better. No it is probably just technically better and/or better engineered. There's no 'emotion' op amp or resistor you can buy. You'd think the Japanese would have invented it by now but they haven't ( see: Ken Ishiwata). And it's mostly in your mind and your mood at the time of listening anyway.

5) Speaker cable and interconnects can make a big difference. No they can't (see myth 1 above). At best they make a tiny difference.

6) All the really good kit is very expensive for good reasons. No it isn't, although I suppose it depends what you mean by expensive. You can't make anything good on the cheap. But a £10K item of kit is at most just 500 quid worth of parts once the maker, distributor, dealer and HMRC (the VAT) have had their cut. That's scary when you think about it. If you are capable of building your own equipment you are laughing. Wish I was.

7) There are a lot of poor recordings. No there are not unless your collection is mostly tapes of your band recorded in the garage on a Sharp ghetto-blaster. If you find any professional recording, from any era, sounding unlistenable, that's a problem with your system. A good system will always convey the intent of a recording even if it is not a Diana Krall album.
Which neatly brings us to

8) Diana Krall albums are worth listening to. No they are not. I don't think an explanation is necessary. If you don't know what I mean then you probably didn't read this far anyway.

9)A good test for a system is a painstakingly superb recording of a woman singing while a bloke hits a block of wood with a stick. No it isn't, that will sound good on an Amstrad. A good test for a system is 'Thin Lizzy: Live And Dangerous' at generous SPL. When you are next at a show and they are playing the woman/block of wood thing, ask them to put on the Lizzy at volume. See how many will. Obviously let the block of wood thing finish first before you ask.

10) You can't knock it until you have tried it, no matter how wacky it is. Oh yes I can. Cable lifters, crystals, those things that look a bit like lecterns that you stick around the room to 'define the listening space', Peter Belt tweaks, colouring your fuses with a marker pen, special bowls you put on the speakers... there's a million more. See busted myth 1 and read a book on human psychology. Or at least skim-read it.

Number 8 is NOT an audiophile myth. Everyone knows that those albums are pure drivel.

I'd replace your Number 8 myth with the myth that there is no difference in various pressings of an LP. The differences in various pressings could be enormous.

Another myth busted

[Joe]

Enough of this gay banter.

Here's my ten Audiophile busted myths, take them or leave them. You'll probably leave them, Bad move but it's a free country (except it isn't):

1) You can overcome plaebco and expectation bias without listening blind . No you can't unless you are Jesus and have powers. (You're not Jesus).

It's great when people claim that they could 'easily' tell the difference between, for example, mains cables, if blind-tested, but then suddenly get all coy when put on the spot, and start saying that they would find blind-testing 'stressful'. Pah! My father did five years convoy duty in the North Atlantic during WW2, and had three ships he was on torpedeod by U-Boats. That was stressful.

[Joe]

I always get Diana Krall mixed up with Alison Krauss. Not that I've ever listened to either of them. One of them is/was married to Elvis Costello, whose father went to my school. Now that's what I call an extremely tentative link to a famous person.

[Bigman80]

Enough of this gay banter.

Here's my ten Audiophile busted myths, take them or leave them. You'll probably leave them, Bad move but it's a free country (except it isn't):

1) You can overcome plaebco and expectation bias without listening blind . No you can't unless you are Jesus and have powers. (You're not Jesus).

2) High resolution digital is better. No it is just different mastering or if it is the same master and you still think it is better see 1) above.

3) There are things that matter in audio but we can't measure them yet. No, there really are not. There might be things we rarely measure or don't ever measure but there's no mystery science theatre going on.

4) Some equipment is better at conveying the 'emotion' of the musicians better. No it is probably just technically better and/or better engineered. There's no 'emotion' op amp or resistor you can buy. You'd think the Japanese would have invented it by now but they haven't ( see: Ken Ishiwata). And it's mostly in your mind and your mood at the time of listening anyway.

5) Speaker cable and interconnects can make a big difference. No they can't (see myth 1 above). At best they make a tiny difference.

6) All the really good kit is very expensive for good reasons. No it isn't, although I suppose it depends what you mean by expensive. You can't make anything good on the cheap. But a £10K item of kit is at most just 500 quid worth of parts once the maker, distributor, dealer and HMRC (the VAT) have had their cut. That's scary when you think about it. If you are capable of building your own equipment you are laughing. Wish I was.

7) There are a lot of poor recordings. No there are not unless your collection is mostly tapes of your band recorded in the garage on a Sharp ghetto-blaster. If you find any professional recording, from any era, sounding unlistenable, that's a problem with your system. A good system will always convey the intent of a recording even if it is not a Diana Krall album.
Which neatly brings us to

8) Diana Krall albums are worth listening to. No they are not. I don't think an explanation is necessary. If you don't know what I mean then you probably didn't read this far anyway.

9)A good test for a system is a painstakingly superb recording of a woman singing while a bloke hits a block of wood with a stick. No it isn't, that will sound good on an Amstrad. A good test for a system is 'Thin Lizzy: Live And Dangerous' at generous SPL. When you are next at a show and they are playing the woman/block of wood thing, ask them to put on the Lizzy at volume. See how many will. Obviously let the block of wood thing finish first before you ask.

10) You can't knock it until you have tried it, no matter how wacky it is. Oh yes I can. Cable lifters, crystals, those things that look a bit like lecterns that you stick around the room to 'define the listening space', Peter Belt tweaks, colouring your fuses with a marker pen, special bowls you put on the speakers... there's a million more. See busted myth 1 and read a book on human psychology. Or at least skim-read it.

Lmao, great list Macca. I obviously disagree with the Cable one

[walpurgis]

You can distinguish between Hi-Fi components without blind testing and identify when something sounds better. If not, nobody would end up with a system worth a damn!