The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio

[sergeauckland]

Rob and Serge,

Do you think there's essentially no difference between, say, a Sony CDPCE500 CD player and, say, the Rega Isis?

Joe

They have rather different facilities, but if you're referring to the sound from playing a standard CD, I would not expect any difference apparant in a blind test level-matched.

I haven't seen any measurements of the Isis, but as the Sony is likely to be transparent, if the Isis doesn't sound the same, then to my mind it can't be transparent, and therefore worse on principle.

S

 

[Brian]

I agree to some extent with the whole idea of balancing the system, but how you do that is where the arguments arise.

Some will swap amps, cables, dacs or whatever in order to attempt to tune the system. But this is incredibly haphazard IMO and often just doesn't work. Tuning a system with a dac change is like changing the car upholstery in the hope that it will go faster.
Nearly all non loudspeaker related system issues, leaving aside the basics of having enough power and not having too much noise etc, come down to issues of tonal presentation.

Too warm, too lean, a bit forward, a bit recessed, perhaps a bit hard, a front row presentation as opposed to middle of the hall etc, etc.
I would always maintain that the best way to tackle such issues is to use a dedicated solution and EQ the system to how you want it to sound.

Here I perhaps disagree with Serge in that I don't think that absolute faithfulness to the source is that important. Faithfulness to your own ideas of what sounds right is what counts.

The real problem is that hi-fi enthusiasts are EQ phobic because they've swallowed the line over the years that any form of tone control is bad.
I hear many systems and some really are quite shockingly bad - a tone control would be the least of the worries!

Yes. I agree. The bit in bold is what I and many others have been saying so I don't see what your problem is.

 

[Mr Underhill]

Cables:
In my system cables sound different. Is this the cable or the connections? I don't care, what I want is what sounds best - for a reasonable cost, so most of my interconnects are currently By Avondale / Mark Grant.
Valves:
I use EAR amps, why? They sound bloody good. I am sure Tim can design using any given technology.
Antidigital:
I now listen to mainly digital. In my experience it is only with the advent of ripping that digital has really stepped up to the plate, at least for those of use without VERY deep pockets.
Listening test: - ABX etc is tosh. The only way to audition is over a long period in a relaxed situation. (left in place - I agree)
Feedback:
No comment,
Burn-in:
I have heard lots of equipments sound change over time. Both from new, and just from being left on. Most recently the TeddyXPS.
Bi-wiring:
No comment - never tried it.
Power conditioner:
Seems to me that this depends on where you live. I've never used it.
CD treatment:
Friends have demonstrated improvements to me. I now rip all my CDs - best improvement of all!
Golden Ears:
Trained ears.

Ultimately it is what I the listener like in MY system.

Think I'll believe my ears rather than what someone tells me.

Above a poster wrote that in HiFi there can only be ONE right sound. I completely disagree:

1. We probably all here things differently.
2. I want MY HiFi to produce things the way I like - don't care it it is 'accurate'.

From experience I know I like my setup better than ANY I have heard in a shop; or in many concert venues.

M

 

[killie99]

I have 3 amps at the momemt, a Yamaha 667, a Meridian 502/557 and a Puresound A30. I don't give a monkey's what the theory says but anyone who can't hear differences between these 3 amps in my room is either deaf or dead (or both) and anyone who wants to can come and listen for themselves.

 

[Pete the Feet]

I quite liked the article, particularly the bit about valve amps, which I aspire to but couldn't afford the running costs.

If speakers could be manufactured that go down 20Hz or less in the size of a shoebox [not my shoes] then that would be something.

You pays your money and choose your preferred kind of distortion.

 

[Robert]

Yes. I agree. The bit in bold is what I and many others have been saying so I don't see what your problem is.

No you don't, and it certainly isn't what you've been saying.

The 'problem' is that the very things that make a system enjoyable to you, and perhaps not to others are:

- Fully understood.
- Driven entirely by science
- Not magic
- Not due to unexplained phenomena

 

[Purité Audio]

Quote,
'It is for this reason that I have found room-correction machines unsatisfying. They correct for (i.e. remove) some of the the effects of the room and so whilst everyday noises, speech etc still sound natural in the room, sounds from a nominally flat loudspeaker no longer sounds natural. '
I can't agree Serge, in my room I suffer from. large bass suck out, my room correction replaces to some extent the missing bass, as a result the sound quality is much improved and more faithful to the original recording.
Keith.

 

[Joe P]

Rob and Serge,

I'd put money on those two being indistinguishable in a blind test, assuming I could check that the response of both were within +/- 1dB limits up to around 15khz - most would be.
So the answer is yes.

They have rather different facilities, but if you're referring to the sound from playing a standard CD, I would not expect any difference apparant in a blind test level-matched.

That would be an interesting needle drop — erm, I mean digit drop — assuming you could borrow an über CD player and could be arsed to upload the files.

I used the Rega Isis as an example, but any expensive CD player* that's received a lot of favourable press and rave user reviews would be interesting to blind test against a well-made but sensibly priced machine from Sony, Technics, Denon or other mass market manufacturer.

Joe

P.S. I'm not thinking obvious functional differences — e.g., changer vs. single disc.

* As examples — Linn CD12, Naim CDS 555, dCS Puccini, etc.

 

[sergeauckland]

I agree to some extent with the whole idea of balancing the system, but how you do that is where the arguments arise.

Some will swap amps, cables, dacs or whatever in order to attempt to tune the system. But this is incredibly haphazard IMO and often just doesn't work. Tuning a system with a dac change is like changing the car upholstery in the hope that it will go faster.
Nearly all non loudspeaker related system issues, leaving aside the basics of having enough power and not having too much noise etc, come down to issues of tonal presentation.

Too warm, too lean, a bit forward, a bit recessed, perhaps a bit hard, a front row presentation as opposed to middle of the hall etc, etc.
I would always maintain that the best way to tackle such issues is to use a dedicated solution and EQ the system to how you want it to sound.Here I perhaps disagree with Serge in that I don't think that absolute faithfulness to the source is that important. Faithfulness to your own ideas of what sounds right is what counts.

The real problem is that hi-fi enthusiasts are EQ phobic because they've swallowed the line over the years that any form of tone control is bad.
I hear many systems and some really are quite shockingly bad - a tone control would be the least of the worries!

That, or to do what I did and EQ it to be flat. The Meridians weren't at all bad for frequency response, but they could be made flat by some 1/3rd octave EQ.

However, I agree that if one doesn't have the means to correct the 'speakers to be flat, then EQ them to be right to one's ears. The important thing is to have the EQ available.

S.

 

[sergeauckland]

Quote,
'It is for this reason that I have found room-correction machines unsatisfying. They correct for (i.e. remove) some of the the effects of the room and so whilst everyday noises, speech etc still sound natural in the room, sounds from a nominally flat loudspeaker no longer sounds natural. '
I can't agree Serge, in my room I suffer from. large bass suck out, my room correction replaces to some extent the missing bass, as a result the sound quality is much improved and more faithful to the original recording.
Keith.

Bass is a difficult one, and I've applied some correction to the bass end in my room. However, it's all at 80Hz and below, which is sufficiently low that normal speech and most everyday noises aren't affected. What I don't like the effect of is changing the anechoic response at mid and high frequencies to correct for the room's properties to achieve a flat in-room response. That's the part I find unnatural.

S.

 

[Joe P]

Serge,

I haven't seen any measurements of the Isis, but as the Sony is likely to be transparent, if the Isis doesn't sound the same, then to my mind it can't be transparent, and therefore worse on principle.

I have a very cursory understanding of how digital works, but it seems to me that the art in making an excellent CD player or a DAC has to be in the conversion of the digits into an analogue signal, and I think this is where the differences lie.

Here's an example from digital photography to illustrate what I mean.

Most higher-end digital cameras let you shoot in RAW mode. In this mode you get the (raw) data off the CCD or CMOS sensor without any processing. However, with jpegs the camera's software processes the raw data from the sensor before outputting a jpeg.

The interesting thing is that firmware updates to the camera can change the processing algorithm, so the jpegs you got before the update look different from the ones after the update.

Several years ago I bought a Fuji S5 D-SLR. The jpegs the camera initially outputted were OK but nothing special, so I gave up on using the camera's jpegs and instead used the RAW files, so I could fiddle to my heart's content in Photoshop. However, after a particular firmware update the quality of the jpegs improved considerably.

I still shoot in RAW mode 99.9% of the time, as I'm not after photographic accuracy so much as a "look" — but let's not let that cloud the general point I'm trying to make: the jpegs the camera outputted after the firmware update look better, in this case, subjectively more accurate and natural. The digits haven't changed at all, but the output (i.e., the camera's processed jpeg) has in a way that makes the result look more real.

Bringing this back to audio, isn't something analogous happening within a DAC — some are better than others at converting the 1s and 0s into analogue signal?

Joe

 

[Tony L]

Get some better speakers...

Such as? Lets use your speakers (ATC SCM100ASL) as an example: even though they cost more than £12k (admittedly inc power amps) they only cover a range of 35hz to 20 khz +/- 3db, will have well over a percent distortion, plus considerable amounts of phase error etc etc. The reality is that speakers even at this near state of the art / cost no object level are still less perfect than say a typical £150 1970s cassette deck when it comes to measured performance. Speaker technology is simply not very good when viewed against a theoretical ideal, that's all I'm trying to say. One can argue amps are pretty good, but what does that matter when what they are driving doesn't cover the whole audio range, has various very audible forms of distortion, and typically greater than 6db swings in frequency response?

PS I'm not having a go at ATC, quite the reverse, I used them as an example as they are pretty much as good as it gets.

 

[sergeauckland]

Serge,


I have a very cursory understanding of how digital works, but it seems to me that the art in making an excellent CD player or a DAC has to be in the conversion of the digits into an analogue signal, and I think this is where the differences lie.

Here's an example from digital photography to illustrate what I mean.

Most higher-end digital cameras let you shoot in RAW mode. In this mode you get the (raw) data off the CCD or CMOS sensor without any processing. However, with jpegs the camera's software processes the raw data from the sensor before outputting a jpeg file.

The interesting thing is that firmware updates to the camera can change the processing algorithm, so the jpegs you got before the update look different from the ones after the update.

Several years ago I bought a Fuji S5 D-SLR. The jpegs the camera initially outputted were OK but nothing special, so I gave up on using the camera's jpegs and instead used the RAW files, so I could fiddle to my heart's content in Photoshop. However, after a particular firmware update the quality of the jpegs improved considerably.

I still shoot in RAW mode 99.9% of the time, as I'm not after photographic accuracy so much as a "look" — but let's not let that cloud the general point I'm trying to make: the jpegs the camera outputted after the firmware update look better, in this case, subjectively more accurate and natural. The digits haven't changed at all, but the output (i.e., the camera's processed jpeg) has in a way that makes the result look more real.

Bringing this back to audio, isn't something analogous happening within a DAC — some are better than others at converting the 1s and 0s into analogue signal?

Joe

Possibly, but when even the most basic CD player is sufficiently good to be transparent, how can that be improved on? If a more expensive player has lower distortion, or a flatter frequncy response or whatever, it won't sound any better as the cheap one is already good enough. Where some of the expensive players differ from the cheaper ones is that they have a slight lift in the HF response, or give a higher output than the norm, so they sound better in comparative demos. If that is the case, and a CD player sounds better than one that's transparent, then my view is that the expensive player is wrong, the cheap player is saying the right thing, the expensive one is putting a pleasnat gloss over things.

Now that's not always the case, and some expensive players are also transparent, and some of them might even be better made, but if sound quality only is the criterion, then as long as the player is transparent, and almost anything is these days, then what is the benefit of an expensive player? What is the benefit of a valve output stage? What is the benefit of hewn-from-the-solid casework? Is a CD player a tool or an object of desire? If the latter, then anything goes.

S.

 

[Blzebub]

Such as? Lets use your speakers (ATC SCM100ASL) as an example: even though they cost more than £12k (admittedly inc power amps) they only cover a range of 35hz to 20 khz +/- 3db, will have well over a percent distortion, plus considerable amounts of phase error etc etc. The reality is that speakers even at this near state of the art / cost no object level are still less perfect than say a typical £150 1970s cassette deck when it comes to measured performance. Speaker technology is simply not very good when viewed against a theoretical ideal, that's all I'm trying to say. One can argue amps are pretty good, but what does that matter when what they are driving doesn't cover the whole audio range, has various very audible forms of distortion, and typically greater than 6db swings in frequency response?

Well, it's not for me to advise you, but the ATCs are more than adequate, IMO, as are Quad electrostatics. The point is: can you hear the distortion? Perhaps I am lucky in that I can't.

 

[Joe P]

Serge,

I'm not talking about fancy casework or the joys of owning components weighing at least 50 pounds that inflate the price for reasons unrelated to fidelity.

My contention is that basic CD players are not sufficiently good to be transparent.

Joe

 

[Automation_engr]

So, this is all a compromise. The playback and the recording processes are always changing and improving and that is a good thing. If cost was not object I'd have Eric Clapton come play in my living room, in front of my RS7 speakers.

I've been dreaming about a marriage between Harbeth and Tannoy...

 

[Tony L]

The point is: can you hear the distortion? Perhaps I am lucky in that I can't.

Yes, that's the whole problem - sadly I seem very capable when it comes to spotting crossover issues / phase error / reflex ports etc. I always seem able to hear these things!

 

[sergeauckland]

Well, it's not for me to advise you, but the ATCs are more than adequate, IMO, as are Quad electrostatics. The point is: can you hear the distortion? Perhaps I am lucky in that I can't.

At mid and high frequencies, loudspeaker distortions are now comparable with amplifier distortions, well under 1%, and in many cases around 0.1% at levels up to 90dBSPL. At low frequencies, the distortion is usually higher, up to perhaps 2-3% on decently large 'speakers, but can be as low as 1%. As this distortion is at LF where the ear is a lot less sensitive, and due to the nature of the programme material at LF, LF distortion is less of an issue than the bare numbers might suggest. Note that even 3% distortion isn't necessarily a problem, as all professional tape recorders like Studer, Ampex etc set their peak level to be the 3% distrortion point. That means that most recordings made up until digital recorders became the norm, and even today where analogue tape is used for effect, peak level distortion was 3%. Nobody complains of old recordings sounding distorted. Pickup cartridges have several percent distortion at HF, and distortion isn't particularly a problem with LP playback.

So whilst of course I accept that loudspeakers are more technically flawed than electronics, the audible effect is not as severe as one might think. What I find disturbing is that whilst many modern loudspeakers are getting much closer to transparency on distortion and frequency response errors and coloration, there are still many particularly expensive loudspeakers that have wide frequency response anomalies, poor pair matching and high colorations.

Price seems to be no indicator of quality.

S.

 

[louballoo]

.........................

Price seems to be no indicator of quality.

S.

I hope the newbies are paying attention.

Louballoo

 

[Joe P]

Lou,

The newbies are listing to mp3s through cheap white earbuds or docks with tweeters where woofers ought to be.

Joe