The bestiary of the most common (and debunked by science) audiophile myths

[Mnyb]

never heard someone say you can compare two amps with different speakers, that sounds rather extreme haha!

Heard this countless time, AFAIC.

Typically :
I've listened to x amp at a store, it sounds dramatically less musical that y amp (that I tested at home).

Not the same room, many times not even the same speakers, and most importantly, not even the same day... But they call it a valid A/B comparison all the same.

The same way, when you sell an amp on the second hand market, people always want to come to your home for a "listen" (I'm not talking about testing if the unit just works). Nonsense, but a true thing for many audiophiles.

It’s even more common indirectly, some people are attributing a common “house sound” to some electronics that somehow pervades trough every kind of setup and situation imaginable

The perverse things is that some myths can be self fulfilling, this kind of thinking has gone full circle several times and there are actual products designed by “gurus” that thrown away thier engineering education and does things differently because ( insert any dumb thing here / feedback is bad / filter ringing / toobs ). It can be soo bad they actually manage this .

A thing to think about when discussing electronics. Many here including me are just assuming normal,sensible engineering practices . And then products should work in a predictable manner fr is flat noise is low distortion is low, directivity is predictable and ok crossovers makes sense etc .
And we have amirms literal pile of transparent DAC’s that all sounds the same to a human listeners ,he must have sitting somewhere

Not always true with high end stuff, it sometimes a parade of bad choices and yes sometimes manage to “sound different “.

 

[antcollinet]

Arghhhhhh it’s always the fingers that freak me right out

And they are good ones. Especially the little ones at the bottom.

 

[JSmith]

Boxes of dirt... or "grounding boxes";

Ground Boxes | Entreq

Discover the Ultimate Audio Performance with Entreq Ground Boxes The principle behind an Entreq Groundbox is to provide a clean and solid ground point for ...

www.entreq.com

Entreq "signal grounding" Measurements

Hello everyone. As some of you know, I signed up for making some measurements of the Entreq "signal grounding" box. If you don't know what that means, you are not alone :). It is a type of device where you connect it to the ground or negative terminal of your audio signals and it is supposed...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JSmith

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Still, I don’t see nothing wrong in positioning speakers even at 180 degrees for what it matters if one is enjoying them

Absolutely, and if that's someone's preference, then fine. But there's a difference between a standard way to do something and a preference for doing something different. As long as everyone who sets up their speakers in a non standard way is fully aware that they are not experiencing things the way they are supposed to, then all is fine.

 

[DSJR]

• Source/player is the most important and should spent most money (that came from Linn's creator Ivor Tiefenbrun)

WOAH!!!!!

In a *VINYL* system, this is perfectly valid and can easily be demonstrated, unless the cheapest shitiest turntables for a couple of hundred dollars or so have come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years!!! If this hierarchy in a vinyl based system can now be debunked, I'd love to have this demonstrated to me

In a digital based system, the old fashioned 1960s way of spending 50% or more on your speakers can work wonders now $/£100 dacs are so good and the cheap chip amps are also setting standards unheard of in 1980s and maybe 1990s lower cost gear, even if they don't have many inputs and are powered by a huge brick plonked on the floor ...

 

[thewas]

WOAH!!!!!

In a *VINYL* system, this is perfectly valid and can easily be demonstrated, unless the cheapest shitiest turntables for a couple of hundred dollars or so have come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years!!! If this hierarchy in a vinyl based system can now be debunked, I'd love to have this demonstrated to me

I could easily demonstrate it to you by comparing two setups, one with a $150 Hanpin turntable and a $50 cartridge like an AT95 and some good $2000 loudspeakers, vs a $2000 TT setup and some $200 loudspeakers.

Of course I agree though that were the electromechanical transformation are performed (loudspeaker and cartridge) the largest problems and differences occur.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Obsolete doesn't mean not in use.

cf: vinyl

It just means that spatial 'realism' will be so much better achieved, with less fuss than required today, than plain stereo ever could achieve, that the latter will become a niche*. We are very clearly on our way there, technologically.



* I could speculate on the demographic of that niche, but won't

Plainly not true

 

[DSJR]

I could easily demonstrate it to you by comparing two setups, one with a $150 Hanpin turntable and a $50 cartridge like an AT95 and some good $2000 loudspeakers, vs a $2000 TT setup and some $200 loudspeakers.

Of course I agree though that were the electromechanical transformation are performed (loudspeaker and cartridge) the largest problems and differences occur.

That's not what I was saying. If the $2000 speakers were good well set up examples, the turntable differences would or should be obvious, the speakers not in the slightest showing their full potential, or at least as much as vinyl could offer! The lightweight construction, often sh***y rubbery feet, attached cheap plastic lid and often poor siting of the $200 deck should also dilute any spacial or reverb effects from the record being played as well as smudging up the mid-bass region if lid is in place and often raised when playing. I did these dems enough in my time but must admit to not having tried the cheap AT decks so well liked internationally, let alone the Dual one sold off at a UK supermarket chain (Lidl) for ninety quid (Techmoan on Youtube did a user review of it and the main weakness I remember was the AT3600L cartridge it had (easily upgraded with a stylus change - AT91R or Thakker DN251E).

Thing is, a set of modern Wharfedale Diamonds (12.1, whatever the sweet spot of the range is according to @Karl-Heinz Fink ) should be good enough too to reproduce the difference, so maybe $500 on speakers and amp should be sufficient.

I should add that I never went to the extremes some dealers did - Linn LP12/Basik LVV with supplied cartridge, with NAD 3020 amp and original Diamonds or AR18S... The 'fruitiness' of the then LP12 'tone' and the NAD's weighty sound from the phono stage eq, kind of balanced the bass-light speakers

I used to get frustrated in my early retirement that I couldn't sit people down and demonstrate these things any more. Maybe that also works against the ASR vibe for many, but UK rooms are so often brick and plaster bass boxes and these things used to make one heck of a difference. maybe in a larger timber-frame kind of build, the bass issues either aren't there, or less noticeable.

Actually, this is the thing as regards so much of the audiophile foo described in this thread - shout it loud enough and you'll get accepting followers not willing to test the hypotheses but who continue to shout it around the subjectivist forums.

Anyway, that's how I experienced it. Maybe an old-hat argument now...

 

[sergeauckland]

That's not what I was saying. If the $2000 speakers were good well set up examples, the turntable differences would or should be obvious, the speakers not in the slightest showing their full potential, or at least as much as vinyl could offer! The lightweight construction, often sh***y rubbery feet, attached cheap plastic lid and often poor siting of the $200 deck should also dilute any spacial or reverb effects from the record being played as well as smudging up the mid-bass region if lid is in place and often raised when playing. I did these dems enough in my time but must admit to not having tried the cheap AT decks so well liked internationally, let alone the Dual one sold off at a UK supermarket chain (Lidl) for ninety quid (Techmoan on Youtube did a user review of it and the main weakness I remember was the AT3600L cartridge it had (easily upgraded with a stylus change - AT91R or Thakker DN251E).

Thing is, a set of modern Wharfedale Diamonds (12.1, whatever the sweet spot of the range is according to @Karl-Heinz Fink ) should be good enough too to reproduce the difference, so maybe $500 on speakers and amp should be sufficient.

I should add that I never went to the extremes some dealers did - Linn LP12/Basik LVV with supplied cartridge, with NAD 3020 amp and original Diamonds or AR18S... The 'fruitiness' of the then LP12 'tone' and the NAD's weighty sound from the phono stage eq, kind of balanced the bass-light speakers

I used to get frustrated in my early retirement that I couldn't sit people down and demonstrate these things any more. Maybe that also works against the ASR vibe for many, but UK rooms are so often brick and plaster bass boxes and these things used to make one heck of a difference. maybe in a larger timber-frame kind of build, the bass issues either aren't there, or less noticeable.

Actually, this is the thing as regards so much of the audiophile foo described in this thread - shout it loud enough and you'll get accepting followers not willing to test the hypotheses but who continue to shout it around the subjectivist forums.

Anyway, that's how I experienced it. Maybe an old-hat argument now...

I will point to my biggest disappointment in Hifi. I 'upgraded' a Connoisseur BD1 to a Linn LP12 (using the same arm and cartridge) and found no improvement whatsoever.
In fact, at least the BD1 could play 45s!

S.

 

[thewas]

That's not what I was saying. If the $2000 speakers were good well set up examples, the turntable differences would or should be obvious, the speakers not in the slightest showing their full potential, or at least as much as vinyl could offer!

But the Linn argument was to spent most of the money on the source which as I showed before isn't expedient.

 

[LeShog]

But the Linn argument was to spent most of the money on the source which as I showed before isn't expedient.

regardless of money what I read is that the source is going to affect audio quality more so than speakers. That is very counterintuitive and can (probably) easily be debunked. Put good speakers with a crappy source and then a good source with crappy speakers, which one is going to sound better? Never made such an experiment, but I am ready to bet on the good speakers, seems like a safe bet to me.

 

[thewas]

regardless of money what I read is that the source is going to affect audio quality more so than speakers. That is very counterintuitive and can (probably) easily be debunked. Put good speakers with a crappy source and then a good source with crappy speakers, which one is going to sound better? Never made such an experiment, but I am ready to bet on the good speakers, seems like a safe bet to me.

As in such in-series chains the loss is multiplicative the biggest total gain is usually achieved when someone mimimizes the loss on the lowest value part of the chain which is usually the loudspeaker and room acoustics.

 

[Mnyb]

It's also how Linn defined source , it was the table itself not pickup or arm , because that was what they manufactured back in the day what a surprise ...

 

[Emlin]

regardless of money what I read is that the source is going to affect audio quality more so than speakers. That is very counterintuitive and can (probably) easily be debunked. Put good speakers with a crappy source and then a good source with crappy speakers, which one is going to sound better? Never made such an experiment, but I am ready to bet on the good speakers, seems like a safe bet to me.

But if you pair a Linn turntable with small speakers you won't be able to hear the rumble.

 

[Mnyb]

A confusing factor can be that there where really bad TT's back then , hilariously bad . But over some arbitrary level others could build a decent TT's too for a not so grandiose sum as Linn ? Don't you think ? There where many TT's brands Thorens Lenco Dual etc and Technics etc

 

[mhardy6647]

And they are good ones. Especially the little ones at the bottom.

The true test of AI, I suppose, might be Anne Boleyn's fingers.

https://medium.com/adams-notebook/anne-boleyns-sixth-finger-d72be68e68b4

 

[krabapple]

Plainly not true

You might want to talk to JJ about that.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

You might want to talk to JJ about that.

He can’t talk about it. People involved in developing proprietary technologies can’t talk about some things.

But I don’t need to talk to anyone. Your assertion that “two-channel, stereo, which will surely be obsolete within a few decades.” Is demonstrably false.

With two channel stereo we can achieve 100% spatial accuracy with the right recording.

We can achieve spatial proximity in any direction from inches away to extreme distances with some existing 2 channel commercial recordings.

We can achieve remarkable spatial impact with the vast majority of legacy stereo recordings.

And we can even decode existing and future multi channel recordings and play them back with remarkable perceptual accuracy over just two channels.

What exactly is going to make all that obsolete in the near future?

 

[LeShog]

He can’t talk about it. People involved in developing proprietary technologies can’t talk about some things.

But I don’t need to talk to anyone. Your assertion that “two-channel, stereo, which will surely be obsolete within a few decades.” Is demonstrably false.

With two channel stereo we can achieve 100% spatial accuracy with the right recording.

We can achieve spatial proximity in any direction from inches away to extreme distances with some existing 2 channel commercial recordings.

We can achieve remarkable spatial impact with the vast majority of legacy stereo recordings.

And we can even decode existing and future multi channel recordings and play them back with remarkable perceptual accuracy over just two channels.

What exactly is going to make all that obsolete in the near future?

you can play dolby atmos on a stereo system?

I don’t know about speakers, but with headphones the improvement with surround mixes is a big leap forward. Headphones have the problem that stereo imaging is all distorted. Not so much anymore with surround. You also get way deeper soundstage, is a stereo system capable of reproducing the illusion of sound coming from big distances-way bigger than your room-?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

you can play dolby atmos on a stereo system?

With the BACCH SP yes you can

I don’t know about speakers, but with headphones the improvement with surround mixes is a big leap forward. Headphones have the problem that stereo imaging is all distorted. Not so much anymore with surround. You also get way deeper soundstage, is a stereo system capable of reproducing the illusion of sound coming from big distances-way bigger than your room-?

Yes with the BACCH SP

It may not be for everyone. As of now it is a single user at a time system and to work it’s best you ideally want minimum room interaction with the speakers.

But yes it does all those things. And for someone to assert the myth that it’s not possible on a thread about debunked myths is a bit ironic and irresponsible