The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio

[Sonnie]

This is a multiple choice poll, however, if you vote that you agree with all or disagree with all, do not vote on the individual questions or your votes will be deleted.

Do you agree... if not, then why not? (This is not an option... it is a requirement as part of the poll!) If you do not agree, then you must post why you do not agree or your vote will be stripped.

This is a public poll... click any vote # to see how members voted. If you see more members listed than number of votes, it is because they voted more than they were supposed to (see above) and/or their vote was stripped because they have not complied with the initial post requirements.

[brucek]

Do you agree... if not, then why not?

Well, I generally agreed with all of them except for the bi-wiring theory..... which said in part:

- biwiring is pure voodoo. If you move one pair of speaker wires to the same terminals where the other pair is connected, absolutely nothing changes electrically. The law of physics that says so is called the superposition principle. In terms of electronics, the superposition theorem states that any number of voltages applied simultaneously to a linear network will result in a current which is the exact sum of the currents that would result if the voltages were applied individually.

True, of course, but it assumes that the bi-wire speaker cables present a zero impedance, and that distortion from one driver will not affect the performance of the other driver.

Superposition only holds true for a linear system. Bi-wiring will only theoretically be a benefit when drivers distort and linearity is no longer maintained.

With sufficient voltage a driver can deviate from ideal linearity so the current in that connection between the low output impedance of the amplifier and the woofer (in this case), will carry harmonic distortion components which can create intermodulation products. In a simple non-bi-wire situation, the tweeter driver terminals will see these distortion components through the speakers low to zero impedance straps (when a single non bi-wire set of cables is used).

The theoretical advantage is now valid if you assume a set of bi-wire speaker cables has some finite impedance (obviously, the longer the cables, the more pronounced the effects will be). When bi-wire cables are used rather than single wires with straps, the distortion components (caused by the woofer driver) will have a lower impedance path to the amplifiers low output impedance sink, rather than travel back and down the tweeters speaker cable.

Yeah, you're right, it's a small advantage and you could argue that the tweeters crossover would help to reduce the problem, but I suppose you could argue that the harmonic and intermodulation products will be at a higher frequency and may pass through to the tweeter driver.

The entire advantage is gained by asking this question. From the perspective of the woofer driver terminals, which is the lower impedance path to the tweeters driver terminals? Is it a set of straps in a non bi-wire situation, or is it the route of a set of bi-wire cables that has a theoretical ideal voltage source (amplifiers low output impedance) in the path?..........

Oh, did I mention that the benefit would be about the same result as attempting to slow your car down by putting your hand out the window? I never said you could hear the benefits of bi-wiring, I just said that the theory is there to not vote yes to the poll question........

brucek

Although I'd have to agree with the "cable lie", I do think he should have mentioned something about the build quality may have an effect on the longevity of the cable. It doesn't take long for a cheapo cable to become worthless after a few twists, bends, etc.


I'm also surprised we haven't heard more objections to the "burn in" myth. I've always been skeptical about it but on the other hand I've also had many people swear by it.

[eugovector]

I believe in Burn-in for mechanical devices, as he states. I'd heard the difference in headphones, using 2 brand new pair, listening to both, burning in for 2 days, and then listening again.

Great thread, great article. I disagree with many of the conclusions but still it was a good read.

Cables: Well, I believe the primary difference is psychological and as such is "real" to a different level for each individual. For instance, if I know which cables are in use and I favor their appearance, they will sound better to me than cables whose appearance I do not like. They could be identical in every way except the color, and it could skew my perception. We should not dismiss the power of the human psyche, it can (and does) create physical reactions.

So do some wires sound better than others? Yes, I believe they do.

Vacuum tubes: I like them better (for my music), they sound better to me. Everyone acknowledges there is a difference between the tube sound and the SS sound. I prefer the tubes for my music and the SS for my films. They both have a place and I'd hate to see either go away. I dont believe one is inherently superior.

Digital: Eh, bad digital sounds bad...bad analog sounds bad. They can both sound bad, or good. I dont think it is as much to do with the medium as it is with the mastering.

Listening Test: I've never put much stock in them. They seek to eliminate the psychological input mentioned above. In real world applications the psychological influence is unavoidable, so eliminating it from a test sort of makes the test unimportant to me. Not invalid, just unimportant.

Bi-wire: Bi-Wiring does no good that I could ever hear. Bi-amping is another story in my experience.

Power conditioners: I wouldnt be without them. I have many. They work for me...even if only psychologically.

CD treatments: Never heard any difference. I thought I did once, but upon further listening...nope.

Golden ears: Barring any physical hearing impairment everyone should be able to hear the same things. The training is where the differences come in. Just as a layman may look at visual art and does not comprehend what is being conveyed while the schooled viewer does...so can the untrained listener miss many of the details in a music reproduction that a practiced listener will pick up on.

OK, my first "real" post....hope I did OK

Mike

[terry j]

nahh, ya did good. A lot of what you say is true, and is certainly true for you and your listening. In fact, I doubt people could quibble with what you said and how you said it.

I think he (and certainly I) take exception to the push in high end audio/video that cables (for example) make an actual audible difference due to it's secret herbs and spices if you will - often violating the laws of physics mind - and often charging outrageous prices into the bargain.

I'm a definite cable skeptic......but I cannot find anything I disagree with in what and how you wrote your response.

[Sonnie]

Hmmm... psychologically speaking... I hope I never spend extra money just so I can psychologically believe there is a real difference when in reality there is no difference. That would make me psycho...

I will be okay as long as others do not try to sell me on snake oil and myths. If someone wants to play-like they hear a difference, I do not have a problem with it.

[superchad]

Mr. Mike wrote:

Great thread, great article. I disagree with many of the conclusions but still it was a good read.

Cables: Well, I believe the primary difference is psychological and as such is "real" to a different level for each individual. For instance, if I know which cables are in use and I favor their appearance, they will sound better to me than cables whose appearance I do not like. They could be identical in every way except the color, and it could skew my perception. We should not dismiss the power of the human psyche, it can (and does) create physical reactions.

So do some wires sound better than others? Yes, I believe they do.

Vacuum tubes: I like them better (for my music), they sound better to me. Everyone acknowledges there is a difference between the tube sound and the SS sound. I prefer the tubes for my music and the SS for my films. They both have a place and I'd hate to see either go away. I dont believe one is inherently superior.

Digital: Eh, bad digital sounds bad...bad analog sounds bad. They can both sound bad, or good. I dont think it is as much to do with the medium as it is with the mastering.

Listening Test: I've never put much stock in them. They seek to eliminate the psychological input mentioned above. In real world applications the psychological influence is unavoidable, so eliminating it from a test sort of makes the test unimportant to me. Not invalid, just unimportant.

Bi-wire: Bi-Wiring does no good that I could ever hear. Bi-amping is another story in my experience.

Power conditioners: I wouldnt be without them. I have many. They work for me...even if only psychologically.

CD treatments: Never heard any difference. I thought I did once, but upon further listening...nope.

Golden ears: Barring any physical hearing impairment everyone should be able to hear the same things. The training is where the differences come in. Just as a layman may look at visual art and does not comprehend what is being conveyed while the schooled viewer does...so can the untrained listener miss many of the details in a music reproduction that a practiced listener will pick up on.

OK, my first "real" post....hope I did OK

Mike

Hey Mike I agree with you almost across the board and my experience mirrors yours but I do think before the loudness wars started Vinyl clearly sounded better but even some of my $30 new albums sound terrible because of balls out levels and compression.
Far too many wires are a joke and scam but there are clearly wires that alter the sound in a desired way (and thats what we are after) I too use tubes for music and also agree with you there, I am on the fence with Bi-Wire as it helped in my dad's system but I have failed to hear anything more times than not, I bi-amp with outboard crossover so I know that works great (second set of speakers I have bi amped...........everything else is spot on Mike, nice post!
Hey Mike whats in your rig? Mine is posted if you care to browse.........cheers

If someone wants to play-like they hear a difference, I do not have a problem

Sonnie, Thanks for the reply.

I suppose my point is that if the belief system of the individual is strong enough, then they are not really playing (literally or figuratively). The changes are very real to them.

There are many things people believe in this world that would not hold up to the scrutiny of a DBT.

Psychology is a real science, as real as lab gear. Both should be considered and weighed accordingly.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

Mike

Superchad,

I'd like to wait a little while before posting my gear. In my experience, I have found the gear often speaks louder than the posts and I want to be known more for what I think before I am tied to what I own.

I can give you a little of my history....

I have been into HT/Audio for over 35 years now and have been through just about every type of gear you can imagine. I have had every video format known to man....including a large CED collection.

I currently have a turntable in use and at the other end of the audio spectrum I use a digital music server. So, extreme analog to extreme digital. I use a tube based pre-amp and digital amplifiers (for my audio system). I run two completely seperate systems for my music and my HT. They do not even share an electrical outlet. I can watch an HD-DVD or a Blu-Ray disc.

I use a front projection system for my movies and I built my own HT speakers. I run seperate IB subwoofers for each system.

I have been on the internet participating in forums since 1997 and have learned many things, one of them being that people are often pre-judged by the equipment they use. I'd like to get to be known for what I know, or do not know before I am known for what I bought. Gimme a few weeks and I will probably list my gear.

And BTW, great stuff you have in your system there. I have personal experience with several of the pieces you are using. It looks like a fantastic space to indulge in the pleasures of film and music. Great job!

Thanks,

Mike

I think he (and certainly I) take exception to the push in high end audio/video that cables (for example) make an actual audible difference due to it's secret herbs and spices if you will - often violating the laws of physics mind - and often charging outrageous prices into the bargain.

I agree, and I just chalk it up to marketing.

I dont believe dog food marketing that says their high dollar brand "tastes better" either, but most importantly I do not try to discourage people from buying that dog food. It is, after all, their money.

An economics professor once told me "There is no such thing as 'overpriced". It either sells, or it does not" This is true for wires as well. The 5000 dollar interconnects are not overpriced if they can sell them. They can't sell them to me but someone selling 6 dollar HDMI cables can't sell those to me either (well, they did once...but never again).

The thing that is discouraging to me is the outrage from the scientific community that seems to become more vociferous as the price of the wire escalates. The "mystic claims" made by 30 dollar interconnects are not objected to nearly as loudly as the same claims made by the purveyors of the 5000 dollar ones.

This leads one to ponder if the true objections are targeting bad science, or price.

Something to think about.

Or not.

Sorry for the lengthy posts, I am big on philosophy.

Mike

[terry j]

Mr. Mike wrote:

I agree, and I just chalk it up to marketing.

I dont believe dog food marketing that says their high dollar brand "tastes better" either, but most importantly I do not try to discourage people from buying that dog food. It is, after all, their money.
Mike

Well, yes, I suppose.

But the real question (and I want you to report back) is can YOU taste the difference?

Hahaha, That is why I don't believe the marketing !

Either they have someone that can talk to dogs or they have a guy that samples the food to determine if it tastes better.

Either way...something is amiss.

Mike

[terry j]

funnily enough, the wife once left my meal on the counter as I was eating later..and yeah it turned out what I thought was my meal (which was actually in the oven) was a can of dog food with leftovers and gravy etc.

So I stuck 'my' meal in the microwave and heated it up, had a few mouthfuls and apologetically said to the wife that it wasn't very good ha ha ha.

She looked in absolute horror at what had happened.

i mean I can chuckle now...the worst part??

The after taste, uggh. stayed for hours too!

[thxgoon]

Mr. Mike wrote:

I'd like to wait a little while before posting my gear. In my experience, I have found the gear often speaks louder than the posts and I want to be known more for what I think before I am tied to what I own.

I think you will find that not to be the case here.

The thing that is discouraging to me is the outrage from the scientific community that seems to become more vociferous as the price of the wire escalates. The "mystic claims" made by 30 dollar interconnects are not objected to nearly as loudly as the same claims made by the purveyors of the 5000 dollar ones.

This leads one to ponder if the true objections are targeting bad science, or price.

Well, both. When you step to a $30 interconnect you'll probably get better connectors and a fat looking cable which will rule out any doubt that your audio is going to suffer on it's way through, even if it does not perform noticably better than the el' cheapo cables that came in the box. And the difference between spending $5 and $30 is not much for this improvement.

When you step to a $5000 cable, you get into cables that do not perform any better even with sophisitcated test equipment. The problem I have, and for I think most, is that behind the scenes of these companies, the engineers and CEO's have to know that they are building a product that they are going to market for having superior performance even though it does not. After all it is just science. They know that what will sell the cable is creative, exaggerated marketing along with its price tag. They know they are making money off of people who just don't know any better. IMO that is wrong.

funnily enough, the wife once left my meal on the counter as I was eating later..and yeah it turned out what I thought was my meal (which was actually in the oven) was a can of dog food with leftovers and gravy etc.

Too funny!!!

Thanks for the response THXGoon.

In my experience, anytime a "discussion" of anything (cables, CD players, turntables...whatever) starts to get into the price of the things being discussed, the debate loses its validity.

Each person has their own threshold for how much they will spend on any given item. Its not my place to tell someone what is "too much". Too much for me may be their starting price point.

I can't tell a cheap bottle of wine from a good one, and I would never spend 400 bucks on a bottle, but I tip my hat to the guy who can tell the difference (or even just thinks he can) and indulges himself in his hobby. If the people enjoy their 5K cables and it adds pleasure for them, then it was money well spent. As long as it isnt my money....

Live life with zeal. Yes?

As usual, just my opinion YMMV

Mike

[superchad]

I understand your point in not posting as I have been atacked elsewhere for having what some forums push as over-priced gear but I dont think this site is that immature, I post my gear because I like to talk about others journey in this hobby and offer "ata boy's" for others efforts so why not share mine.
I knoiw my gear is pretty humble, I also know others think its too much money but we all can share what we have done and the paths we took to get where we are....cheers

Superchad,

Your stuff looks great to me. A very fine set-up. I loved my Phonomena phono stage. When I got my current pre-amp, it had a built in phono stage or I would still be using the Phonomena.

How I got here? Man, if I knew that I would have saved a bundle not buying stuff that didnt work out.

Mike

[superchad]

"How we got here".............I give a big ole' Amen about the bad choices!

[nathangilley]

I agree with all, to an extent (there was a great deal of talk about "science", but the methods as listed were not controlled enough, at least not in the vague description given), except for the portions covering vacuum tubes, bi-wiring, and power conditioners.
There is significant data available on the benefits of vacuum tubes (while they have higher distortion, it is even order distortion = pleasing to ear), although I would NOT go so far as to say it is better than solid-state, just different. Low power tubes are also equally valid, and not as expensive as some would have you believe (they can be built for $100-200 if you are savvy in parts acquisition).
Bi-wiring has so many installation applications that it can’t be considered a performance myth. For example, it may be easier to use two sets of 16 AWG cables than to use a single set of 12 AWG cable for a long cable run. Crossover networks can also come into play, especially if using an aftermarket network. Also, bi-amplifying is completely valid for speaker manufacturers to incorporate, and bi-wiring is just a possibility offered as a result. Increased SNR and available power if used with multiple low power amps does not sound bogus to me.
Power conditioners are over-hyped, but not unnecessary. It all depends on source voltage and the conditioner/stabilizer used. My old apartment had 119~121 V line voltage all the time, and I never felt compelled to use a line conditioner, nor would it have yielded any plausible results. However, at my current house (built circa 1960) the electrical system is sub-par, and my grid’s line voltage varies dramatically throughout the day (114~123 V). I also live near a lot of businesses that run interference-inducing equipment. This caused a lot of minor, but annoying, problems not only with the audio but also the video. All of this was alleviated when I inherited a Monster 3600 (I would never buy one, ridiculously over-priced).

[thxgoon]

Hey Nathan and welcome to the Shack! You bring up some good points there.

I also inherited a Monster 3600. About the only thing it did for me is give me a ground isolation circuit for cable. Pretty minor for the cost of those things. It is cool to watch the amp meter climb during loud scenes though!

[ringbearer3791]

I agreed with pretty much everything given the caveats presented except for the antidigital lie. I agree that I certainly can't tell the difference between the 2 given good/equivalent recording conditions. His claim though that there isn't a difference I can't quite get behind. I am an electrical engineer and am quite famililiar with the Nyquist theorem as digital sampling is something I do for work. The difference between analog and digital though is that while analog is a continuous spectrum of volumes and frequencies, digital is by definition a discrete set. Therefore it is possible (and in actuality nearly inevitable) that nearly identical frequencies and nearly identical volume levels will in fact be recorded as exactly identical in a digital environment. That said, I agree that even at 44.1 KHz the differences are likely indistinguishable and so it's probably a difference that doesn't make a difference.

[lcaillo]

The "lies," just like the opinion of any who take a hard line on one side or another of a generalization like they represent, are inevitalbly inadequate to decide any specific comparison that they attempt to inform. The fact is that most of them begin with some small grain of truth which gets taken out of context to create some monster (pun definitely intended). The real answer is "it depends" in each case, and any particular one of them is less interesting to me than a fact based exploration of a specific situation. The lesson that they should leave us with is that we can always find better ways to study these matters and that we should not make assumptions based upon either "conventional wisdom" nor the belief that we understand all of the variables involved in the perceived performance of the products and systems that we build and use.

[DIGIT]

Interesting poll! However, there are some holes in the Agree/Disagree option in that it's not always a matter of Y/N, B/W, etc... In a broad, general sense I find myself agreeing with all the points but, I could also argue for disagreement on at least half of them. I opted to disagree with TWO: no.2 (tubes) and no. 10 (Golden Ears).

Again, while I don't totally disagree with the writer's point I have to say TUBES are sometimes a better choice. The writer calls the sound of a tube a "a coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal corrupted tastes" - such a broad statement is also a bit egocentric. First of all, taste is subjective therefore we can argue at infinitum without going anywhere. In being so absolute in the arguing against tubes he then, elevates himself to the same 'Golden ear' pedestal he himself despise. Which brings me to the other disagreement I have...Golden Ears

My ears are my work, that's how I make a living. Whereas we are all born with more or less the same apparatus, there is a HUGE difference in the way people hear things. You can have the same speaker components placed in different cavities and they will sound hugely different. We are pretty much the same.

In addition to that, there is a vast area dealing with neurological issues which we are just starting to tap into, at a research level. The brain!

Aside from having different levels of emotion and/or at least, different triggers, your brain also adapts your senses to whatever the current situation requires. You play music softly, the brain adjusts your hearing accordingly. If you very gradually increase the volume, over time, your brain will make relative adjustment so that you'll never noticed you doubled the DB level in the room, and viceversa.

Then, as he mentioned, there is training but, he didn't mention it enough. Even if everything else were equal, and it's not, training is vital to being able to hear 'more than the average' person.

I can play a UNFINISHED mix of a score I wrote to my wife or my friends (even those who are professional instrumentalists) and none of them ever ear anything except what the average person would ear: "it sounds great!", they say. I ear a totally different thing and when I point each section out to them, they all invariably say "ah, you are right. I didn't hear that...or, I didn't catch that".

So, there is a huge difference in the way people hear things, both in nature and because of training. That is not to say that one can claim some sort of super-natural Golden Ear (or goose for that matter) and base all their findings on that claim.

Overall, I agree with his general assertions: it's good that all these (sometime nonsensical voodoos) are exposed...! Though, my audiophiles friends will no doubt disagree with all of it...I mean, try and tell someone who just spent 8K (!) in speaker wire that $100.00 would have been MORE than enough

[acommonsoul]

I believe that bi wiring is worthless in almost every situation. Bi wiring is suppose to improve audio quality by eliminating any electronic interference that could still exists. It splits the highs and mids on most speakers and is essentially just a waste of an extra set of speaker wire...I have tried it with dozens of speakers...in different setups and have never heard a quality difference