10 audiophile myths busted

[George47]

I'd say this is completely wrong. The science in hi-fi is complicated, no less so than cars. Not really sure how you've got to that conclusion?

I agree but we are talking about some of the most aggressive objectivists. They use the basic measurements of THD, FR and noise. Those measurements are easy to measure and allows people to get into competitions on the best numbers. In fact, many companies play that game to show that this years model is better than last years. So if you are an aggressive objectivist then any amp with adequate values of those three items gives you a perfect amplifier and they say all those amps sound the same. But that is NOT what is heard.

However, hifi is more complex and those measurements are not of much use with modern SS amps. Go on a forum and say you use a valve amplifier and THD, noise and FR are quoted as reasons that they should not sound very good. If you say that the valve amplifer actually sounds better then the accusation is you like distortion and noise.

[Macca]

I don't get what you mean... I thought you liked the Sony CDP/DAC and Techy (including my amps), so why could the Tannoys "do with different sources and amps"?

Also, I'd don't think you'd ever get any pair of tall floor-standing speakers to sound like big dual-concentrics, no matter what was happening upstream.


.

I was suggesting you can get pretty much any speaker to sound vintage by selection of the source and amps - and possibly cabling too. Your Tannoys don't sound vintage but stick, say, an original Quad 33/303 in front of them and you could get at least some of the way there. Likewise with speakers with modern voicing.

[Macca]

I agree but we are talking about some of the most aggressive objectivists. They use the basic measurements of THD, FR and noise. Those measurements are easy to measure and allows people to get into competitions on the best numbers. In fact, many companies play that game to show that this years model is better than last years. So if you are an aggressive objectivist then any amp with adequate values of those three items gives you a perfect amplifier and they say all those amps sound the same. But that is NOT what is heard.

However, hifi is more complex and those measurements are not of much use with modern SS amps. Go on a forum and say you use a valve amplifier and THD, noise and FR are quoted as reasons that they should not sound very good. If you say that the valve amplifer actually sounds better then the accusation is you like distortion and noise.

True but you only get that argument from rookie objectivists. Anyone whose been around the block knows it isn't that simple.

[Marco]

I was suggesting you can get pretty much any speaker to sound vintage by selection of the source and amps - and possibly cabling too. Your Tannoys don't sound vintage but stick, say, an original Quad 33/303 in front of them and you could get at least some of the way there.

Ok, I see what you're getting at now. However, that would simply be them [the Tannoys] being honest.

The point I was making earlier (I think to Sherwood, Geoff) is that vintage speakers don't *automatically* have to sound warm and coloured, and if you think differently, you've obviously never heard a good pair.

Marco.

[magiccarpetride]

On the topic of accuracy (very good topic, thanks for bringing it to the forefront): if I go and do a blood test, I'm very keen on being assured that the lab uses the best possible instruments to measure the parameters in my blood that my doctor is interested in. Basically, I want perfect accuracy in those measurements. Why? Because hey, it's my health we're talking about, I don't want to be misdiagnosed or mistreated.

If I sit down to listen to some music reproduction, I really don't care about that medical-level accuracy. But I do care about accuracy. So what accuracy are we talking about here? It's the accuracy in approximating how I'd like things to sound. Pay attention, the emphasis is on I!

I am the paying customer who wants to be delighted. I have certain biases, certain expectations. How did I get to those biases and expectations? That's nobody's business. Somehow, through my formative years, my education, my exposure to various musical events yadda yadda yadda I formed this particular musical palette. And I want my palette to be fed and satisfied.

I absolutely don't care about how did the performance actually sound in the recording studio. I also don't care about how did mixing and mastering engineers hear the recorded music as they were preparing it to be mass produced. All I care about is whether the sound I'll be hearing coming from the speakers will satisfy me.

So I want THAT level of accuracy! Of course, it is 100% subjective, and I am spending a lot of time and a lot of money chasing after that particular accuracy. But only I know in my mind what type of accuracy that is. No one else has a way of knowing.

It's similar to chasing after that ever elusive electric guitar tone. We buy different electric guitars, different amps, different stomp boxes and pedals, keep changing guitar strings, pickups, tweaking the fretboards, frets, amp speakers, etc. Each and every guitar player worth his salt knows exactly in their head what kind of a sound they're after, now the real challenge is the chase -- go get 'em!

Hi fi is no different. It's all about accuracy, but not some lame ass scientific accuracy -- accuracy in how seductively close you can make the system approximate the sound you have in your head. I want to hear that special quality in the cymbals that may or may not be how cymbals actually sound out there in wilderness. I don't care, I'm chasing after that quality in the comfort of my home. Who cares if, once I nail it, it sounds unrealistic? It sounds super real to me, and it's taking me to the audio nirvana.

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Alex,

Good thread



Lol... We are in full agreement! It's also one of the worst of my bête noire. Consider though, that those you're referring to are doing it simply to appease their own sensibilities, and thus make themselves feel better, not necessarily because they think that you're completely wrong...

The fact is [and experience bears this out], many objectivists can't handle (subjective) opinions being expressed in audio that defy their 'scientific teaching', or what logic 'established wisdom' apparently dictates, so far better simply to pooh-pooh it, than entertain the notion that what's being stated might be right, and that conversely what science (physics) apparently states is true, might be wrong - or more likely in many of these instances, not telling the whole story!

We've been here before. It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Essentially, many objectivists can't handle the mental discomfort of considering that their scientific belief system is fallible, and with it, exposing to scrutiny, and possibly proving as fallacy, what they've always automatically accepted as fact, so worry not, it's THEIR problem, not yours!!

Marco.

That's a great diagnosis, Marco! I just want to point out that it would incorrect to call those objectivists 'scientifically-minded'. I am a scientist by education and training, and the first thing you learn in your scientific training is that in order to be a good scientist, you need to be perfectly comfortable with publicly admitting that you don't know. Basically, scientists are people who start from the basic premise that they don't know anything, then formulate some hypotheses and then devise a plan on how to gather the data that will either prove or disprove those hypotheses. Either way, a scientist is fully satisfied. The only time scientists are alarmed is when they come across someone who claims that they know, truly know something. Such a person always gets labeled as 'charlatan' by the scientific community.

[Marco]

"Full range" or single driver loudspeakers are a prime example. The frequency response is seriously curtailed at both ends of the spectrum and sometimes, due to some eccentric cabinet design, there are weird effects going on in the midrange. They could hardly be described as accurate. That doesn't mean they can't be pleasant to listen to or have no merit whatsoever, just that they can't be considered accurate.

I don't necessarily disagree, but if you re-read the text I was referring to, from Geoff (Sherwood), which you also quoted:

However, even within this "elite" forum, there are those who advocate and praise equipment that is clearly not accurate, and that they like this equipment precisely because it is not accurate.

...I'm not sure that 'full range', single-driver speakers, are a good example of what the members of this "elite forum" use. Indeed, I can't think of anyone who has them

I doubt that was what Geoff was referring to.

Marco.

[Marco]

Interesting topic. I wonder if part of it is the basic science used is quite easy to learn and then people can quote numbers to each other. So a few measurements and you are away. Therefore, if your hifi does not measure as having ultra-low distortion it must add distortion and is not as good as mine that has ultra-low distortion. The fact you have ultra- low distortion because of enormous feedback (which has destroyed the dynamics) is irrelevant because the distortion is very low. I can now Lord it over you as there is a measurement that proves it. But why is it done in audio? For cars the science is complicated and measurements describing a car involves lots of measurements and understanding.

For audio, some believe the original Williamson measurements from Wireless World of the 50s apply and SQ=FR+Noise+ Distortion. It is easy. Good numbers = accurate hifi. Problem is that some of the better measuring audio sounds flat, undynamic and a little boring.

We seem to be stuck with a few measurements that do not describe sound quality that well. Nearly all SS amps meet these simple requirements but SS amps do not sound the same. So some brave souls actually use the audio for its main purpose, playing music. Wow, that is brave. Run to the solace of the measurements quick and attack all others who do not do this. It is of interest to manufacturers for QA purposes but users? I doubt measurements actually help at all and I am 97.3 sure of that.

Haha - that's *so* true, George! Tell me, with that type of outlook, how did you survive for so long on the Wam, with SERGE?

Marco.

[struth]

I don't necessarily disagree, but if you re-read the text I was referring to, from Geoff (Sherwood), which you also quoted:



...I'm not sure that 'full range', single-driver speakers, are a good example of what the members of this "elite forum" use. Indeed, I can't think of anyone who has them

I doubt that was what Geoff was referring to.

Marco.

think there are a few.

[Sherwood]

think there are a few.

Indeed, I never mentioned full-range single-driver units, nor were they what I had in mind.

Geoff