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

[LeShog]

With the BACCH SP yes you can

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

I still believe that a good surround system might just be a better design, it seems to achieve a better quality in a simpler way.. Still we aren’t talking about medicines here, we’re talking about a hobbyist’s market, so the assertion that from a technical point of view X is better than Y doesn’t mean that in the future the market will go in X direction, the thing here is much more complex..

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I still believe that a good surround system might just be a better design, it seems to achieve a better quality in a simpler way..

how is it better quality? What’s better than 100% spatial accuracy?

What’s better than the capacity to achieve proximity from inches away to extreme distances in any direction?

What’s better than near universal compatibility with legacy, current and future recordings?

What’s simpler than a single unit plug and play device?

Still we aren’t talking about medicines here, we’re talking about a hobbyist’s market, so the assertion that from a technical point of view X is better than Y doesn’t mean that in the future the market will go in X direction, the thing here is much more complex..

“Predictions are hard. Especially about the future.” Yogi Berra

 

[Blockader]

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?

That's not true.
First of all, stereo almost completely lacks envelopment:

As you can see stereo got the lowest LEV scores(envelopment scores). Toole's book goes all in the details of why stereo sucks. I am at work right now I do not want to into a lot of details.

The result was taken from page 415 from Toole's book.

Stereo can't capture spaciousness correctly too.

In short, stereo rendering significantly reduces spaciousness and envelopment.

 

[LeShog]

how is it better quality? What’s better than 100% spatial accuracy?

What’s better than the capacity to achieve proximity from inches away to extreme distances in any direction?

What’s better than near universal compatibility with legacy, current and future recordings?

What’s simpler than a single unit plug and play device?


“Predictions are hard. Especially about the future.” Yogi Berra

I don’t know, I’d like to try it before speaking, but it seems at least counterintuitive to think that they can achieve perfect spatial fidelity without a perfect spatial mix (and thus without the perfect spatial information). Abra Cadabra, puff! Magic! still I am curious and I like to stand corrected, I learn a lot when this happens, but I am not going to experiment some magic software with my wallet, no thank you, but if I’ll find a room with this thing implemented I’ll surely take a listen

I have an iFi xdsd gryphon which does a similar thing at a more granular level, they call this thing a “technology” and they call it Xspace. It’s just a different tuning, or coloration, in which they pull back some frequencies of the spectrum thus creating bigger soundstage, what a surprise. But it’s nowhere near a real surround mix, the latter being a way more refined tool.

Smart guy this Yogi, I like him

 

[Mr. Widget]

Over 60 posts on audiophile silliness and no one has brought up "break in"???

 

[LeShog]

Over 60 posts on audiophile silliness and no one has brought up "break in"???

yeesss there’s been breaking in, even cables breaking in

 

[MattHooper]

n short, stereo rendering significantly reduces spaciousness and envelopment.

Eh.

As I've mentioned before, I have my 2 channel speakers pulled out close and spread fairly wide and it gives a good sense of envelopment. It doesn't put anything behind me like my surround system does sometimes, but I've played some of the same music concerts through both and the sensation of "being at the club" and hearing through real space to musicians playing was better on the 2 channel. The sense of depth, image localization, almost everything was better. In principle it could be better in surround, but in practice it can be easier in many real world rooms and situations to achieve a coherent soundstage and imaging and tonality with 2 speakers vs a surround system which is more complicated to get right.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

That's not true.

It is true. I have experienced it first hand

First of all, stereo almost completely lacks envelopment:

View attachment 357320
As you can see stereo got the lowest LEV scores(envelopment scores). Toole's book goes all in the details of why stereo sucks. I am at work right now I do not want to into a lot of details.

The result was taken from page 415 from Toole's book.

View attachment 357321

Stereo can't capture spaciousness correctly too.

In short, stereo rendering significantly reduces spaciousness and envelopment.

I’m sorry but none of these tests involved the BACCH SP. Old studies sometimes become dated by new technology. It’s a thing.

Dr. Toole’s book is not a bible. It’s high time some folks on ASR come to grips with that.

 

[Multicore]

Do golden-eared audiophiles hear the difference between big and little endian PCM?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I don’t know, I’d like to try it before speaking,

I highly recommend you do!

but it seems at least counterintuitive to think that they can achieve perfect spatial fidelity without a perfect spatial mix (and thus without the perfect spatial information). Abra Cadabra, puff! Magic!

You can’t. The spatial cues have to be in the recording. But it is within the capacity of the system to do so

still I am curious and I like to stand corrected, I learn a lot when this happens, but I am not going to experiment some magic software with my wallet, no thank you, but if I’ll find a room with this thing implemented I’ll surely take a listen

Let me know if you are ever in Las Vegas. You are curious and that is an awesome open door

I have an iFi xdsd gryphon which does a similar thing at a more granular level, they call this thing a “technology” and they call it Xspace. It’s just a different tuning, or coloration, in which they pull back some frequencies of the spectrum thus creating bigger soundstage, what a surprise. But it’s nowhere near a real surround mix, the latter being a way more refined tool.

BACCH SP is a different animal

Smart guy this Yogi, I like him

He was a wise man

 

[LeShog]

Do golden-eared audiophiles hear the difference between big and little endian PCM?

I am a big endian, I mean, how could you even define yourself as an audiophile if you decode your PCM from the little end? That just doesn’t make sense at all, also in the big end you have more airiness, that’s where you want to decode first to achieve a better fidelity and not spoil the file.. The basics man, the basics!

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Do golden-eared audiophiles hear the difference between big and little endian PCM?

If they are made aware of it

 

[Dialectic]

That's not true.
First of all, stereo almost completely lacks envelopment:

View attachment 357320
As you can see stereo got the lowest LEV scores(envelopment scores). Toole's book goes all in the details of why stereo sucks. I am at work right now I do not want to into a lot of details.

The result was taken from page 415 from Toole's book.

View attachment 357321

Stereo can't capture spaciousness correctly too.

In short, stereo rendering significantly reduces spaciousness and envelopment.

The people who developed BACCH, and many of us who use it, are aware of the work of Toole et al. on this subject.

Most of that work is irrelevant to two-channel systems running BACCH crosstalk cancellation with head tracking.

 

[Fidji]

how is it better quality? What’s better than 100% spatial accuracy?

What’s better than the capacity to achieve proximity from inches away to extreme distances in any direction?

What’s better than near universal compatibility with legacy, current and future recordings?

What’s simpler than a single unit plug and play device?


“Predictions are hard. Especially about the future.” Yogi Berra

Surround recordings in appropriate quality and stereo - you can not even compare the level of immersion and realism.

But at the end of the day - it,will be Apple and Amazon that decide which format will prevail.

So I would place “we have 2 ears, so 2 channels are enough” up there with cables and directionality of fuses.

 

[Dialectic]

Surround recordings in appropriate quality and stereo - you can not even compare the level of immersion and realism.

But at the end of the day - it,will be Apple and Amazon that decide which format will prevail.

So I would place “we have 2 ears, so 2 channels are enough” up there with cables and directionality of fuses.

You're ignoring BACCH and almost certainly have read none of the literature on it...

 

[Fidji]

You're ignoring BACCH and almost certainly have read none of the literature on it...

I am quite satisfied with my 24 ch multichannel music setup in professionally treated room with latest what DRC has to offer in form Waveforming.

Anyway looking forward, to see BACCH implemented and adopted by mainstream. Strange thing is that none of the big boys acquired them yet, as it obviously has enormous commercial potential.

 

[Dialectic]

I am quite satisfied with my 24 ch multichannel music setup in professionally treated room with latest what DRC has to offer in form Waveforming.

In that case, I can see why you don't want to know about BACCH!

I don't find it worthwhile to engage with the willfully ignorant, so I wish you well.

 

[Audiofire]

Tubes are superior audiophile worthiness, because transistors were made to reduce manufacturing costs, with transistors, you lose analog warmth

 

[Speedskater]

Ground Rods in Planet Earth, improve AC power quality and audio quality.

 

[Emlin]

Directional cables.