Topic: Audio-pseudoscience

[stickman]

There is a segment of audiophiles that simply want the bragging rights that go along with having the most expensive system going.  These people are actively looking for things to spend their money on simply for the sake of pushing up the "value" of their systems.    
  Then a sort of "emporers new clothes" effect sets in.  They are so delighted with their purchase that of course they hear a difference, whether one exists or not.  If nobody else can hear a difference, thats great too; it shows what superior hearing they have!

  It's sort of a "perfect storm" for snake oil salesmen.  The mark WANTS to believe, so little sales pitch is required.

[Kerry Maxwell]

I have been wading through a lot of audio-phool stuff lately, as I was researching a speaker purchase (bought a pair of Rega R1s). The one thing I kept reading about was speaker/ component *break-in*. It would seem a straight forward thing to measure if speakers/ components actually *sound* different after x amount of hours, or if this is a matter of the brain adjusting over time. I have certainly convinced myself that my stereo and guitar amplifiers sound *different* after initial *break-in*, but I've always assumed it was mostly my brain that was *breaking-in*.

Typical of the "don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts" audio-phools is this quote:

Yes, Virginia, cables do make a difference. While that statement might send objectivists into a frenzy, in my opinion, cables do have a profound influence on the sound of an audio system and can be the difference between merely good and state-of-the-art sound reproduction. No, I can't prove these assertions mathematically, nor can I devise measurements to obtain physical evidence for all of the differences I hear. Instead, I choose to let my ears, rather than an oscilloscope trace, be my guide to a level of musical satisfaction that, sadly, many objectivists will never know.

Ignoring the defiant cries of the flat-earthers, several bright cable designers (XLO's Roger Skoff and AudioQuest's Bill Low spring to mind) have dedicated themselves to the search for a cable that can pass a musical signal unaltered.

Objectivist?
Kerry M

[Jonny_eh]

Even if you can hear a difference, does it matter? Is it worth spending the extra $$ on the equipment/media to provide it?

As stated earlier, to most, it's having the 'best' (thanks P&T) that matters, even if the difference is super tiny.

[jason]

have certainly convinced myself that my stereo and guitar amplifiers sound *different* after initial *break-in*, but I've always assumed it was mostly my brain that was *breaking-in*.

Sounds like a fairly safe assumption!

No, I can't prove these assertions mathematically, nor can I devise measurements to obtain physical evidence for all of the differences I hear. Instead, I choose to let my ears, rather than an oscilloscope trace, be my guide to a level of musical satisfaction that, sadly, many objectivists will never know.

So he admits it's all in his head (presumably he's a "subjectivist"), and then scoffs at those that don't suffer from his particular delusion?

If the emitted sound is physically indistinguishable regardless of cable used, then (as you pointed out) what does that leave except what's between his oh-so-sensitive ears?

Ignoring the defiant cries of the flat-earthers, several bright cable designers ... have dedicated themselves to the search for a cable that can pass a musical signal unaltered.

In other words, these designers smell a very real business opportunity to scam stupidly large amounts of money out of self-professed audiophiles. Stone soup, anyone?

[Kerry Maxwell]

If the emitted sound is physically indistinguishable regardless of cable used, then (as you pointed out) what does that leave except what's between his oh-so-sensitive ears?

What's particularly ironic is the whole basis for *stereo* is itself an illusion, yet the obvious extension of this idea seems to never occur to the audio *true beleiver*. One of my hobbies is to build primitive effects boxes for my guitar. I have learned the hard way that it is easy to convince yourself that, say two different capacitor types are making an audible difference in the sound, when you take the box apart, solder in the new part, and reassemble it. But when you put the same two parts on a switch so you can instantly A/B them, the difference often disappears.

Kerry M

[The Thing]

I have done a lot of studio production and I have always found CD's to be inferior in sound quality to vinyl records and now DVD-Audio.  It's only noticeable to me using the exact same masters on the same equipment.  I've never tried to A/B it blind.  

It's similar to when we recorded with 8-bit and 16-bit systems.  There are guys who recorded amazing songs on 8-bit.  The same producer with the same outboard gear will get a better sound from 24-bit+ equipment.

On the superior cabling and better circuits in stomp boxes etc, my experience is the superior quality makes the biggest difference in durability.  Stereo cabling rarely moves.  Equipment for live music is constantly abused.  There are exeptions but in general the higher quality equipment can take more abuse and not fail.  Anecdotal only.

[jason]

I have done a lot of studio production and I have always found CD's to be inferior in sound quality to vinyl records and now DVD-Audio.  It's only noticeable to me using the exact same masters on the same equipment.  I've never tried to A/B it blind.

If you ever have the opportunity, the result from such a blinded test would be fascinating. Of course, it would also be interesting to compare the actual sound waves from each source, to see if there was a physical difference. If they're identical, and yet your blinded test still shows that you can differentiate... well, presumably there's some aspect to the sound that isn't properly being measured.

[IRON MAN]

If you ever have the opportunity, the result from such a blinded test would be fascinating. Of course, it would also be interesting to compare the actual sound waves from each source, to see if there was a physical difference. If they're identical, and yet your blinded test still shows that you can differentiate... well, presumably there's some aspect to the sound that isn't properly being measured.

And of course the opposite is even more telling, if the soundwaves are measurably different, but the blinded test reveals that difference cannot be detected by humans.



There is obviously a point of resolution at which a digital sine wave is indistinguishable from its analogue, by human ears, and that will come long before it cannot be measured by machine.

I find it a plausible possibility that some poople might be able to tell the difference, since the general market is only driven to provide sufficient quality for most people.  But still, considering you just add one bit and you double the quality, it seems increasingly unlikely that this kind of thing is a problem.  At any rate a double-blind test is the only real way to sort out the men from the boys.

A good test might be to record a vinyl record onto CD and play them back blind.

[Kerry Maxwell]

Of course the real fun is with the really wacky *audiophile* claims:

The $485 Dollar Wooden Knob

The $200 Coaster

It just floors me that in all the drivel about these kooky claims, that the basic *common sense* of a double, or even  single blind A/B comparison never seems to even occur to these people. Especially since only a casual examination of the claims reveals physics defying behavior.

Well, I'm often accused of being a tweaky audiophile myself, and insist on schlepping heavy tube amps around.

Kerry M