The top 10 lies in audio

[jDaMn]

Seeing the Why You Should Never Pay More Than $10 For HDMI Cables thread, I thought it might help some trolls audio enthusiasts to read an article I found recently titled 'Biggest Lies In Audio'. The article is from 2000, but the technical stuff doesn't change, so I'm guessing all this is valid. I can't say I follow all of it, but the article seems better than the usual 'I'm an audiophile, hence' info.

 

1.

A nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable... cables are the biggest scam in consumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publications to the pressures of the cable marketers is truly depressing to behold.

2.

And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applications—don’t you believe it.

3.

Digital sound is vastly inferior to analog... Digital sound, even in the best cases, is hard and edgy. And so on and so forth—all of it, without exception, ignorant drivel or deliberate misrepresentation. Today’s best digital recordings are the best recordings ever made. To be fair, it must be admitted that a state-of the-art analog recording and a state-of-the-art digital recording, at this stage of their respective technologies, will probably be of comparable quality. Even so, the number of Tree-Worshiping Analog Druids is rapidly dwindling in the professional recording world. The digital

way is simply the better way.

4.

The tweako cultists will tell you that ABX tests are completely invalid. Everybody knows that a Krell sounds better than a Pioneer, so if they are indistinguishable from each other in an ABX test, then the ABX method is all wet—that’s their logic.

5.

Negative feedback, in an amplifier or preamplifier, is baaaad. No feedback at all is gooood. So goes this widely invoked untruth.

6.

This widely reiterated piece of B.S. would have you believe that audio electronics, and even cables, will “sound better” after a burn-in period of days or weeks or months (yes, months). Pure garbage. Capacitors will “form” in a matter of seconds after power-on. Bias will stabilize in a matter of minutes (and shouldn’t be all that critical in well-designed equipment, to begin with). There is absolutely no difference in performance between a correctly designed amplifier’s (or preamp’s or CD player’s) firsthour and 1000th-hour performance.

 

As for cables, yecch… We’re dealing with audiophile voodoo here rather than science.

7.

The truth is that biamping makes sense in certain cases, even with a passive crossover, but biwiring is pure voodoo.

8.

The biggest and stupidest lie of them all on the subject of “clean” power is that you need a specially designed high-priced line cord to obtain the best possible sound. Any line cord rated to handle domestic ac voltages and currents will perform like any other. Ultrahigh- end line cords are a fraud. Your audio circuits don’t know, and don’t care, what’s on the ac side of the power transformer. All they’re interested in is the dc voltages they need.

 

Think about it. Does your car care about the hose you filled the tank with?

9.

Just say no to CD treatments, from green markers to spray-ons and rub-ons. The idiophiles who claim to hear the improvement can never, never identify the treated CD blind.

10.

This is the catchall lie that should perhaps go to the head of the list as No. 1 but will also do nicely as a wrap-up.

The Golden Ears want you to believe that their hearing is so keen, so exquisite, that they can hear tiny nuances of reproduced sound too elusive for the rest of us. Absolutely not true.

Good stuff to keep in mind while reading/buying. All the points that I could test, I agree with (some cable, digital, burn in).

[Freelancer]

most of the things go over my head ???? English pls !!!!

 

[jDaMn]

most of the things go over my head ???? English pls !!!!

Umm I was hoping some nice engineer person will weigh in on this article

[Aftrunner]

Hmm I have heard both sides of the Burn argument. People over at avforums swear by it. Havent noticed it yet TBH.

[jDaMn]

Hmm I have heard both sides of the Burn argument. People over at avforums swear by it. Havent noticed it yet TBH.

For a long time I had no idea there was a burn in debate - so many people just seem to accept it.

 

I still don't get into headphone burn in arguments, but now the idea of cables 'giving better signal after 300 hours' just sounds crazy.

[achilles]

hmmm.. i kinda agree with evthn xcpt for the burn-in thing and the cables thing.

[jDaMn]

hmmm.. i kinda agree with evthn xcpt for the burn-in thing and the cables thing.

You're entitled to your opinion, but have you tested this for yourself or are you relying on internet opinion?

 

I posted this in the other thread.. when in doubt, follow the money:

 

There was a 1 Million $ prize offered to one of these 'premium' cable manufacturers if listeners could tell the 'premium' cables from cheap cables. The company accepted at first, then refused to go through with the test. These were for $7250 (for only 12 feet!) cables vs. ordinary cables.

 

EDIT if you are into audio, please read the entire article.

[apextwin]

I can assure you that IEMs,Headphones etc do sound more refined after an initial period of Burn In .. You can try it with cheap a*s headphones/IEMS too incase you want to check it out yourself.

 

Secondly the cables are the medium of transport between one of the following

Source(Cd player etc)

Amps/Dac

Headphones/IEMs

 

Now its a bsaic fact that if the medium(cables) does not propogate the sound properly the sound output at the consumer end wouldnt be that great(i.e. even if a cable induces a slight amount of noise or distorts the sound signature of the source then the Amplifier wouldnt be able to rectify it ,thats not its job).

so i am really not sure y this article is bashing up cables too.

[achilles]

You're entitled to your opinion, but have you tested this for yourself or are you relying on internet opinion?

 

I posted this in the other thread.. when in doubt, follow the money:

 

There was a 1 Million $ prize offered to one of these 'premium' cable manufacturers if listeners could tell the 'premium' cables from cheap cables. The company accepted at first, then refused to go through with the test. These were for $7250 (for only 12 feet!) cables vs. ordinary cables.

 

EDIT if you are into audio, please read the entire article.

 

mm.. im not an expert..or an audiophile in any sense. just that when i was installing the system in my car i noticed quite a bit of diff when better cables were put.

 

funnily enough.. i dint notice ny difference when he was trying to upsell the bigger amp to me

[jDaMn]

I can assure you that IEMs,Headphones etc do sound more refined after an initial period of Burn In .. You can try it with cheap a*s headphones/IEMS too incase you want to check it out yourself.

 

Now its a bsaic fact that if the medium(cables) does not propogate the sound properly the sound output at the consumer end wouldnt be that great(i.e. even if a cable induces a slight amount of noise or distorts the sound signature of the source then the Amplifier wouldnt be able to rectify it ,thats not its job).

so i am really not sure y this article is bashing up cables too.

Actually, as I mentioned in the OP, I have tried this. I ordered a new Soundmagic PL-11 and tried to tell it apart from my older pair keeping everything else the same. I couldn't. This is hardly conclusive proof, as it is just one person with one brand etc etc.

 

The way most people go about it (try and remember what the phones sounded like when brand new) is just too unreliable.

 

That said, again, you are welcome to your opinion - I don't want this to turn into another burn in debate

 

Why do you believe that cables do not carry the signal properly? What is the 'basic fact'?

[apextwin]

Very Easy to point out that PL-11 didnt make a sound difference ..

Here is what it depends on:

Sound Source - The Music Player + Format

I am dead sure on headphone/IEM u can notice the difference between the FLAC and normal 192Kbps(or less) .. that being said i tested FLAC unamped output on my Cowon D2 via PL-30 for the same song before burn in (out of the box) and after 50 Hrs of burn in .. The sound stage was different ,the mids were a little more bit clear(below par as its a bassy headphone nonetheless) ..

 

From what i can comprehend as you start investing more and more into this audio hoopla , these little things start to matter a lot more than before ..

 

Anyways Audio is very subjective much like video so To each his own i say ..

 

 

EDIT : superfrag is here

(bty head over to Erodov to knw how recabling makes a diff in Triple.fi 10)

[jDaMn]

Very Easy to point out that PL-11 didnt make a sound difference ..

 

From what i can comprehend as you start investing more and more into this audio hoopla , these little things start to matter a lot more than before ..

 

(bty head over to Erodov to knw how recabling makes a diff in Triple.fi 10

Hmm interesting, that is how most people explain burn in. In my personal experience, even listening at different times, different places leads to a different experience. On top of this, trying to remember what my phones sounded like 50-100-300 hours ago

 

Still, if you are satisfied with that methodology.. but why exactly does the PL11 not 'make a sound difference'? I can't go and buy a second pair of headphones that cost 20-30 times as much as the PL11.

 

As for Erodov, who is providing that info? How reliable are they? Keep in mind that the full article actually provides technical backing for the points that I have put up in a few lines.

[Superfrag]

The cable burning in and all is definitely a myth.

 

However, if Analog cables are not shielded, electronic interference will show up in your sound.

 

1) The 1st point he's making is not with cheap cables, but its with decent $30-$60 cables and $2000 cables. Not $5 cheapo's and $50's. Keep in mind what he is comparing.

 

2) Vacuum tubes aren't superior to transistors. They provide a different kind of sound. I have a vacuum tube amp right now, and had a solid state amp earlier, and the difference is extremely clear. SS amp's are more crisp, and with certain headphones that have an emphasis on treble can sound shrill. Tube amp's however normally tames the highs, makes the sound more smooth and the mids are more lush. Also, depending on the amp, the soundstage can be superior.

 

3) Again, I kinda agree. Analog (vinyl) may sound better but is extremely inconvenient, and if the vinyl is scratched or has dirt, there will be clicks and pops. Not to mention the main source of our audio is either your PMP or a Computer. And CD quality Audio sounds as good. Haven't heard vinyl, only read about it.

 

4) Nothing to add.

 

5) Agree

 

6) Somewhat Agree. Tubes require 10 minutes or so to warm up cause of their design. However Solid State amp's burn in is not that prominent as headphone burn in.

 

7) Not a builder, so no idea.

 

8) Again, this guy is comparing extremely expensive power cables that are sold such as this one : http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/Audiophile-cables ( go to the site and see the prices. What utter BS. If I meet that guy I will laugh at him ) to a decent hospital grade cable which is less than $100 depending on length.

 

9) and 10) are obvious.

[CarbonCore]

WTF I came here to see argument about how DTS is better than AC3 or how TrueHD is not necessary, or how those surround sound headphones are not really true surround sound etc. Apparently, technical lies do change over a decade.

[Superfrag]

Haha.. well surround sound 5.1 headphones are one of the worst things they have come up with. I've made the mistake of buying one long time back, (turtle beach one) will never get one again.( but the turtle beach was pretty decent actually. the 5.1 part was bogus though )

[Superfrag]

Also, one more thing, high end IEM's that are armature based and not dynamic driver(triple.fi and ck10 are examples) based do not need burn in.

[jDaMn]

1) The 1st point he's making is not with cheap cables, but its with decent $30-$60 cables and $2000 cables. Not $5 cheapo's and $50's. Keep in mind what he is comparing.

 

2) Vacuum tubes aren't superior to transistors. They provide a different kind of sound.

 

3) Again, I kinda agree. Analog (vinyl) may sound better but is extremely inconvenient,

This post^ will help some people who did not read the full article.. just a couple to things to add:

 

1. I'll repeat it for anyone else reading, they are talking about decent cables vs 'premium' cables. They mention that a cable should meet basic requirements, especially for insulation.

 

2. Something new - the article says that tube amps are actually intentionally made to provide a 'warmer' signature so as to differentiate them from SS. It also says that the same effect could be achieved with SS.

 

BTW do you use DVD Audio? I'm looking for some here to check if there is any difference vs CD.

 

CC - yes, those surround sound headphones are no good compared to a good surround speaker set up

unfortunately I had to sell my speakers and move to headphones

[achilles]

somewhere nunni just dropped a tear

[Superfrag]

DVD Audio recorded at the same bitrate won't be better than CDA. If its recorded at a higher bitrate or if the recording has less noise then it might sound better.

CDA is the most common though.

[achilles]

also the decent cables vs very high end omazobadobaGAWD cables makes sense. i was comparing on the basis of ordinary twisted pair.