10 audiophile myths busted

[Pharos]

In general I agree with your post 161 Martin, and it is mostly compliant with an objectivist standpoint IMO.

But although I mostly hold those views, they are in a 'draft' folder, because noting is that fixed to me and I mustn't rule out subjectivist views out of hand; it is important to remain open to new views which maybe truths.

My Hi-Fi friend has given me several Dianna Krall discs, and I have never 'got' them.

[RobbieGong]

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.

7 - Depends on your definition of poor. True high fidelity does not make even poor recordings sound great.

A well sorted system should play back to you what was recorded ie: as close too then.

At the end of the day that is what our set ups are doing, playing back to us recorded music.

Some recordings are not great or well balanced, some are thin, bass light and so on, that's a reality and if thats the case then that is what your system should play back - surely

Fortunately most recordings are pretty good and we hear that for the best part of it all

[RMutt]

I love The Smiths and Morrissey. Is it a myth that people on hifi forums all love Dire Straits, Steely Dan, Yello and Pink Floyd?

[Marco]

1) You can minimise these effects by not carrying out ABX tests with 12 sec samples but by listening for much longer time periods and getting the real measure of the item and then trying the other component. Doing blind tests is an awful way to test components and I have not seen any statistically significant data that shows SS amp sound different. But they are.

Indeed, although it's only "awful" in the sense of considering the results obtained as conclusive, which they aren't, simply because like every other test that involves the human brain and hearing, it's fallible! The likelihood is, whenever you try and *force* yourself to hear a difference, because you're under pressure to do so, in the way of ABX testing or similar, you run the risk of obtaining a false result, as most people don't respond well to being tested in that way.

Subtle differences in sound between components, which generally is what you're testing for, if they exist, are more likely to be revealed naturally, over time, by listening to the component(s) concerned with a variety of familiar recordings, in a relaxed environment, than via any 'quick fire' ABX testing.

Therefore, by all means undertake such tests, with whatever components you like, and use it as ONE valid means of determining differences, but the best way of obtaining meaningful results, is as you've said, by listening for much longer time periods and getting the real measure of the item, and then trying the other component.

Of course, like ABX testing, that process is also fallible, for a variety of obvious reasons (NO test is perfect), but at least you've applied some reasonable judgement criteria, in order to determine the existence of any differences. Therefore, I'd contend that some form of objective *and* subjective testing (as outlined) is required, to get a proper handle on what's happening, not just 10 minutes spent getting jiggy with a blindfold!

Marco.

[RobbieGong]

I love The Smiths and Morrissey. Is it a myth that people on hifi forums all love Dire Straits, Steely Dan, Yello and Pink Floyd?

ha ha, not sure about all, but indeed I'm aware that a heck of a lot (myself included) do like the Dan a lot which makes you wonder why so many of us audio nuts do whilst at the same time having very differing musical tastes otherwise

Are the Dan a bit like Bob Marley then, as in everybody or most people tend to like them to at least a fair extent ?

Maybe it's something to do with the connection of melody, musicality and groove of which those two are definately of 'that'

[Joe]

I love The Smiths and Morrissey. Is it a myth that people on hifi forums all love Dire Straits, Steely Dan, Yello and Pink Floyd?

Like The Smith, Steely Dan and Syd Barrett-era Pink Floyd. Don't like Dire Straits, don't know Yello.

[mikmas]

Is it a myth that people on hifi forums all love Dire Straits, Steely Dan, Yello and Pink Floyd?

Yes ... is that another one busted?

[Pigmy Pony]

Yello are a Swiss Duo whose best known track is 'The Race', which I guarantee you will have heard.

I think Steely Dan have a large following among audiophiles, probably because the quality of the musicianship is only equalled by their production values, while I feel that Bob Marley songs have an irresistible groove which the production allows to shine through.

Only my opinion of course, but I am a bit biased.

[magiccarpetride]

Audiophile myth #5: People buy expensive hi fi in order to listen to music.

Wrong! That's like saying people buy expensive cars in order to drive themselves from A to B. There is so many reasons more important than transport that make people spend a lot of money on cars. If getting from A to B was the primary reason, everybody would be driving some shitty economy clunker.

Aesthetics, social prestige, etc. all determine how much money is someone going to blow on buying an automobile. People like to drive a head-turner vehicle.

Same motivation applies to hi fi. Aesthetics, wanting to impress our friends, wanting to have a head-turner hi fi in the comfort of our luxurious home, to tell the world that 'we have arrived' and are living the 'charmed life'.

Music can be enjoyed on pretty much ANY system. If the music is good, the quality of audio components won't matter. I have, on more than one occasion, been driven to tears while driving and listening to some divine music on my shitty dinky car speakers, while the music playback was being drowned by the noisy car and the nosy traffic.

[magiccarpetride]

Indeed, although it's only "awful" in the sense of considering the results obtained as conclusive, which they aren't, simply because like every other test that involves the human brain and hearing, it's fallible! The likelihood is, whenever you try and *force* yourself to hear a difference, because you're under pressure to do so, in the way of ABX testing or similar, you run the risk of obtaining a false result, as most people don't respond well to being tested in that way.

Subtle differences in sound between components, which generally is what you're testing for, if they exist, are more likely to be revealed naturally, over time, by listening to the component(s) concerned with a variety of familiar recordings, in a relaxed environment, than via any 'quick fire' ABX testing.

Therefore, by all means undertake such tests, with whatever components you like, and use it as ONE valid means of determining differences, but the best way of obtaining meaningful results, is as you've said, by listening for much longer time periods and getting the real measure of the item, and then trying the other component.

Of course, like ABX testing, that process is also fallible, for a variety of obvious reasons (NO test is perfect), but at least you've applied some reasonable judgement criteria, in order to determine the existence of any differences. Therefore, I'd contend that some form of objective *and* subjective testing (as outlined) is required, to get a proper handle on what's happening, not just 10 minutes spent getting jiggy with a blindfold!

Marco.

I agree. Doing pointed tests (i.e. focused short bursts of listening in order to try and hear differences between two configurations) is akin to doing short focused looks into one of those jumbled images that look chaotic, but the aim is to see what image is hidden in that chaotic mess. You'll only be able to really see the 'hidden image' emerge if you relax your gaze, take your sweet time, and not try too hard.

To me, the same approach works when trying to determine whether a change in my configuration results in the changed sound quality. Intense listening simply doesn't work, as you're straining your ears and in the process just hearing your own blood pumping through your ears.

Instead, I relax, grab a glass of wine/beer, sit back, and let the sound flow. Slowly but surely, those at first imperceptible 'images' start emerging. Or, if those hidden characteristics fail to emerge after a relaxed session, then I know that the change was for naught, and the purchase is to be returned for a refund.