Of Audiophiles and Snake Oil - A story in the making

[BDWoody]

I believe you were only going out for a cup of coffee to kill some time. Why would you audition head phones on a dac that is not the same as the one you have at home. Of course it’s going to sound different, irregardless of what scientific data you would like to reference.

Sound and eyesight are unique to each individual. We assume that each person hears and sees the same thing. They do not.

Why would it, of course, sound different, irrespective of data? What can't be measured?

Who around here claims anyone hears the same way, and what's that got to do with...anything really?

 

[JJB70]

According to the engineers at McIntosh, a quality made tube or Solid State amp can be designed to sound the same.

I think Bob Carver demonstrated over 30 years ago that you can measure any amplifier and replicate its sonic signature. Really, amplifiers shouldn't have a defined signature IMO, the output should be nothing more or less than an amplified input signal.

 

[Jim B]

Why would it, of course, sound different, irrespective of data? What can't be measured?

Who around here claims anyone hears the same way, and what's that got to do with...anything really?

It disputes the data making it inconsequential.

 

[BDWoody]

I remember reading about him basically making slight alterations to one of his amps in order to match the transfer function as measured on a highly regarded Mark Levinson amp, and the simple null test setup they used to verify the results...

None of it is beyond the scope of measureability...

 

[BDWoody]

It disputes the data making it inconsequential.

What data gets disputed and dismissed? I'm still missing something.

You need to dumb it down for me...I'm a little slow to get it sometimes... Can you further explain this?

 

[Phorize]

Just babes in arms compared to the undisputed heavyweight world champions,
https://www.synergisticresearch.com/

Keith

To think that for all of these years I’ve been using ordinary fuses when it was quantum fuses that I needed all along.

 

[ahofer]

My persistent issue with a lot of audiophile claims is that they lack a working theory of causality and are unfalsifiable. If expensive amp X sounds better than cheap amp Y, there has to be something in the design build that accounts for it, yet this is rarely asserted and the cost alone tends to be considered sufficient cause for the better sound. Either the designer did something to make it sound better, in which case I'd like to know what so that I can attempt to reproduce the result, or (s)he didn't, in which case there's no reason to believe X is any better than Y.

Oh, they definitely have working theories of causality. That’s where the fun stuff begins. Try Geoff Kait’s Teleportation Tweak or Teo Audio’s liquid metal quantum mechanics for some really wacky causality theories.

Or visit Audiogon Forum, which is unfortunately overrun by some of the rudest and craziest hucksters I have ever seen (including the two mentioned above).

 

[Jim B]

What data gets disputed and dismissed? I'm still missing something.

You need to dumb it down for me...I'm a little slow to get it sometimes... Can you further explain this?

The OP stated that it sounded the same as his rig at home. He should trust his ears!

“Stating measurements and the threshold of audibility were met with deaf ears (pardon the pun) and that they can hear the improvement as they scale up their devices in the chain. Disagreement with my statement that the DACs + solid-state AMPs goal in a chain is to be as transparent as possible, and not add any colouration. After the threshold of audibility, there is no 'improvement' to be had. I also stated that this excluded tubes in which distortion was preferred and the 'musicality' was intended.”

The op is right. When it comes to data sales people like to “think” that they know when they really don’t. They quote data that is inconsequential, measurable but has no real impact to the human ear.

And of course he’s right about that just because it cost more doesn’t make it necessarily better.

 

[Julf]

Sound and eyesight are unique to each individual. We assume that each person hears and sees the same thing. They do not.

Again an analogy that doesn't work. Yes, we all hear and see differently. Do we tune our TVs for our individual way of seeing? How about photographs? Window glass?

According to the engineers at McIntosh, a quality made tube or Solid State amp can be designed to sound the same.

Yes, they are one of the few companies that use totally unnecessary output transformers in solid state amps - to get them to sound like tube amps (by making output impedance much higher than a solid state design would normally have).

 

[Julf]

He should trust his ears!

This is Audio Science Review. Science tells us very clearly that you can't trust your ears.

 

[MattHooper]

Just babes in arms compared to the undisputed heavyweight world champions,
https://www.synergisticresearch.com/

Keith

Looks like they've expanded their merch: you can buy a dunce cap to go along with your cables!

 

[SIY]

Yes, they are one of the few companies that use totally unnecessary output transformers in solid state amps - to get them to sound like tube amps (by making output impedance much higher than a solid state design would normally have).

Their rationale for the output transformers is optimizing the load match, e.g., less voltage but more current for lower impedance loads, and the opposite for higher impedance loads. The output impedance is actually not bad at all- the ones I've measured ran 0.1-0.2 ohm, which is low enough to not have an unreasonably large effect on the frequency response with a speaker load.

 

[DonH56]

Synergistic Research news from their website:

Synergistic Research showed with Scott Walker Audio at this years RMAF 2019. The system included Magico M2 Loudspeakers, Grphyon Electronics, Berkeley Reference 3 DAC, Acoustic Signature Thunder Turn Table and United Home Audio Reel to Reel. Of course, we used all Synergistic Research Acoustic treatments, including UEF Panels, HFT’s, Black Box, and Atmosphere, the new Galileo SX PowerCell SX, Tranquility Base XL’s and Active Ground Block SE. Lead Designer, Ted Denney was demoing our New UEF performance Elevator Cable Risers throughout the weekend, shocking Audiophiles with the effectiveness of this new product. In a system of this caliber and cost ($250k+ for speakers and electronics), we would typically run Galileo SX speaker and Interconnect cables, however, we decided to run the new Foundation speaker cables ($649) interconnects ($599) and phono cable ($699) to demonstrate that these new affordable cables can compete WAY out of their class.

Not exactly the take-away I would have... Or maybe I would find some $5~$10 cables that also compete "way out of their class"...

 

[Hypnotoad]

I love the bait these companies throw out to catch people with money to spend: "Our products can turn a good system into a great system!".

 

[digicidal]

Not exactly the take-away I would have... Or maybe I would find some $5~$10 cables that also compete "way out of their class"...

Yep. That would be my take-away... either that or the more succinct: "Your crap is way overpriced even as affordable versions".

Although to be fair, anyone that has $250K+ for speakers and electronics, would probably pay a few thousand for cables just because they look nicer. I'd certainly expect them to be going in a dedicated room that likely has $60K+ in furniture - so why not some cable-jewelry too? As long as you don't think it sounds better I'm all for it - I know I love my DIY jewelry cables... and compared to my components they were similar in price. Of course, in my case it's $50 worth of materials connected to a ~$6000 setup... but that's the same as ~$2100 cables connected to a $250K system. Anyway, my "pretty" cables sound every bit as good as $3 lamp cord or $10K Synergistics for that matter.

 

[Robin L]

I've been trusting my ears a lot more since I got more serious with my guitar. People who get deep into audio subjectivity tend to not spend enough time in the presence of the real thing. In fact, if one would invest more in live music [I'm not talking about pre-distorted head banging, whatever one's aesthetic, hearing damage is hearing damage] one would rationally come to the conclusion that "you can't get there from here", and invest more energy in more useful pursuits.

 

[digicidal]

I've been trusting my ears a lot more since I got more serious with my guitar. People who get deep into audio subjectivity tend to not spend enough time in the presence of the real thing. In fact, if one would invest more in live music [I'm not talking about pre-distorted head banging, whatever one's aesthetic, hearing damage is hearing damage] one would rationally come to the conclusion that "you can't get there from here", and invest more energy in more useful pursuits.

Well, I tend to think of them as completely different things. Live instruments will always have more "going on" acoustically than a pair of speakers reproducing a recorded signal is capable of producing in my room.

However, I personally don't actually like live performances (never have) - I actually prefer a well mastered recording in most ways. If nothing else, it allows me to enjoy the sound of overdriven amps and screaming vocals - at comfortable levels which don't damage my hearing at all. I've played piano for most of my life and absolutely hate the instrument... I will accept it, if part of a really great jazz ensemble or orchestra... but only on occasion.

 

[Robin L]

Well, I tend to think of them as completely different things. Live instruments will always have more "going on" acoustically than a pair of speakers reproducing a recorded signal is capable of producing in my room.

However, I personally don't actually like live performances (never have) - I actually prefer a well mastered recording in most ways. If nothing else, it allows me to enjoy the sound of overdriven amps and screaming vocals - at comfortable levels which don't damage my hearing at all. I've played piano for most of my life and absolutely hate the instrument... I will accept it, if part of a really great jazz ensemble or orchestra... but only on occasion.

I understand not liking being an observer at a concert. I've been a recording engineer, it can get deadly boring. Being a participant is much more engaging. And a Martin in my lap has more than enough going on in my room. I worked with a guy whose previous employment was as a piano tuner, developed tinnitus from that. Never spent enough time around the piano to develop hearing problems. But two hours of Neil Young? There goes the sound of the flyback transformer.

 

[digicidal]

I understand not liking being an observer at a concert. I've been a recording engineer, it can get deadly boring. Being a participant is much more engaging.

Naturally, by definition this is true. However it's not necessarily more relaxing, possible to do while working on other things, etc. A small amount of my time listening to music is spent focusing on the sound and composition entirely... most of it is simply a lifestyle improvement. It's the same with so many hobbies - for me participation is more for visual art, and observation is more for aural art - it's just preference (some likely gender-defined). I can paint or work (coding, interface design, etc.) while listening to music and (IMO at least) produce better results than if it's silent. Don't know if that's due to engaging more of both hemispheres or simply reducing the distractions and replacing with a more constant signal. All I know is it works for me.

I don't think there really is such a thing as "useful pursuits" objectively speaking at least - one person's waste of time is someone else's raison d'être. Someone else's horribly-distorted-noises-from-hell is likely what I'd call "sweet sonic perfection". Human beings are strange creatures.

 

[Robin L]

Naturally, by definition this is true. However it's not necessarily more relaxing, possible to do while working on other things, etc. A small amount of my time listening to music is spent focusing on the sound and composition entirely... most of it is simply a lifestyle improvement. It's the same with so many hobbies - for me participation is more for visual art, and observation is more for aural art - it's just preference (some likely gender-defined). I can paint or work (coding, interface design, etc.) while listening to music and (IMO at least) produce better results than if it's silent. Don't know if that's due to engaging more of both hemispheres or simply reducing the distractions and replacing with a more constant signal. All I know is it works for me.

I don't think there really is such a thing as "useful pursuits" objectively speaking at least - one person's waste of time is someone else's raison d'être. Someone else's horribly-distorted-noises-from-hell is likely what I'd call "sweet sonic perfection". Human beings are strange creatures.

I likes me some horribly distorted noises myself from time to time. I also paint and know what you mean. My point, at least for myself, is that obsessively pursuing the "absolute sound" via recordings is a losing game.