The top 10 lies in audio

[Ne0]

^^ AX PROs are available in India ? Where ....

[kunallkw]

beech

 

But I am looking for new headphones to replace my current ones. Might give AXPRO a try, where's the demo centre?

 

Ankit's residence , his are the only ones alive in Mumbai

[jDaMn]

The basic school/college kid level knowledge bit that any kind of digital waveform approximation of an analog waveform is only an approximation and can never be an exact true representation of it.

Again, please read the article. For all practical purposes, what you have put down is not true. To check anything, you need to test it. Every test has a maximum level up to which it can differentiate between the two signals.

 

If your test is more demanding, you could simply up the sampling rate/pack more information into the digital signal so that it approximates the analog so closely that the test cannot tell the two apart. If the test is made better, the digital signal can also be made better. It's of no practical use to say that but if we went far enough, we can always differentiate the two. As the article is concerned with audio, it sticks to what is useful from our point to view.

 

Here are the scientific facts any second-year E.E. student can verify for you: Digital audio is bulletproof in a way analog audio never was and never can be. The 0’s and 1’s are inherently incapable of being distorted in the signal path, unlike an analog waveform. Even a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, the lowest used in today’s high-fidelity applications, more than adequately resolves all audio frequencies. It will not cause any loss of information in the audio range—not an iota, not a scintilla.

This can't be refuted unless there is evidence human ears can pick up frequencies outside of what can be reproduced off a CD.

[Shantz]

Again, please read the article. For all practical purposes, what you have put down is not true. To check anything, you need to test it. Every test has a maximum level up to which it can differentiate between the two signals.

 

If your test is more demanding, you could simply up the sampling rate/pack more information into the digital signal so that it approximates the analog so closely that the test cannot tell the two apart. If the test is made better, the digital signal can also be made better. It's of no practical use to say that but if we went far enough, we can always differentiate the two. As the article is concerned with audio, it sticks to what is useful from our point to view.

This can't be refuted unless there is evidence human ears can pick up frequencies outside of what can be reproduced off a CD.

lol, I didn't refute it at all.. What I did refute is the generalization that digital sound is better than analog sound. Whatever you have mentioned above, I already accepted:

Scientifically that can never be true..Why it comes out better though in many cases is that digital sound suffers less deterioration (or can be made up for with it).

[jDaMn]

lol, I didn't refute it at all.. What I did refute is the generalization that digital sound is better than analog sound. Whatever you have mentioned above, I already accepted:

I know - but included a full reply for other people to follow it. The article itself mostly says that people who claim that digital sound is harder/inherently worse as compared to analog are wrong.

 

You sound like an engineer.. any input on the other points

[Shantz]

I know - but included a full reply for other people to follow it. The article itself mostly says that people who claim that digital sound is harder/inherently worse as compared to analog are wrong.

 

You sound like an engineer.. any input on the other points

I agree with most of his points (except burn in, bi-wiring and cd treatment because i dont have any idea about those) but I also have two points of criticism:

1. He overdoes all of this in his zeal to disprove something he doesn't believe. A straightened out hanger with scraped ends can never match a good cable. And car-fuelhose analogy for clean power, really?

 

2. He doesn't cite any references to prove/back up what he is talking about. So it ends up like an article written by "a person from the other camp". If one side is saying it is this way because "I told you so" and "everyone knows that xyz...", he is doing the same thing...

[jDaMn]

I agree with most of his points (except burn in, bi-wiring and cd treatment because i dont have any idea about those) but I also have two points of criticism:

1. He overdoes all of this in his zeal to disprove something he doesn't believe. A straightened out hanger with scraped ends can never match a good cable. And car-fuelhose analogy for clean power, really?

 

2. He doesn't cite any references to prove/back up what he is talking about. So it ends up like an article written by "a person from the other camp". If one side is saying it is this way because "I told you so" and "everyone knows that xyz...", he is doing the same thing...

Definitely a valid point about references, unless these guys are complete experts.. As this is an old magazine, I'm going through back issues to check their general approach. Till now it's quite interesting.. they follow a much more rigorous and objective approach as compared to the stuff I generally find.

 

Apparently Head-Fi also has a thread on this here. It's not much help, people are still just hopelessly divided on most issues.

 

But for a straightened hanger, go here. Someone actually decided to test the damn thing - don't know how believable this is though. I'm going to test this as soon as I can figure out how to

 

As for the fuel hose analogy, it is correct - the author is saying that the audio circuit can't see the AC that comes in from the mains. It only 'sees' the DC it gets from its on board source.

 

CD treatment says that if you put some 'special' treatments on your CDs, the sound quality improves

[dabba]

speakers need a burn in for sure... amps to a small extent....

 

and yes it does take months for the speaker burn in and yes there is a difference in the sound

 

cables... low quality n medium/high there is a difference.... dunno abt the super expensive vs high end though.... most ppl wont be able to tell the difference i suppose