The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio

[bob atherton]

IMO and I was there from the start, the Subjective thing caused immense bitterness and is at the heart of most rows on Forums now.

Ash

I would have thought that subjective opinions are the most important ones.

There must be umpteen speaker cables out there and they all sound a bit different. They might all 'read' the same for all I know, but that has little relevance IMHO. Same with amps; I would want to know how many inputs it has, the size of the case, maybe even how many watts, but how it sounds has to be the most important thing?

Speakers that are all 88db at one meter. Do they all sound the same?

 

[AndrewR]

...but I like to make sure the BBC's time pips are accurate!

S.

Heh heh, well if you've measured 0.000000000001% T.H.D. then I am sure the pips sound accurate too

Andrew

 

[Joe P]

Serge,

Whilst I agree that subjectivism alone didn't do in for audio, it certainly started the rot. When scribblers like Paul Messenger started writing about stuff from a totally subjective point of view, with no regard or seeming knowledge of the engineering and technology, they made complete fools of themselves.

Yes, but a reviewer without a competent understanding of audio engineering and technology and subjectivism killing audio are two separate things.

The reality is that the mass market buyer never read highly subjective reviews nor highly objective ones.

At about the same time, the whole Linn nonsense took off, where even the presence of a telephone in the room was supposed to ruin the sound, where Dealers refused to sell a customer something if they didn't have or were also buying the complementary bits. Where Dealers were refused a product if they also sold certain others, where Dealers were trained not to do comparative demonstrations of loudspeakers and so on.

This was a largely UK-based phenomenon. In North America, Linn's presence in the market was and is at most trivial, yet we have lots of foo over here, too.

If you want to lay blame somewhere, I'd argue Bose is at fault. It's overpriced, underperforming kit, yet the average punter seems to think Bose is the pinnacle of hi-fi, thanks to their ads that appear just about everywhere except in hi-fi magazines.

Looking at various show reports, I don't see any move towards sensible products, just more high-priced bling and outrageous designs. It's no wonder to me that "normal" people just don't think of HiFi these days.

I'm with you here -- there's way too much poorly designed blingy crap out there. But normal people are unaware of this segment of the market. It's basically fringe kit for the fringy.

Joe

 

[sergeauckland]

I would have thought that subjective opinions are the most important ones.
There must be umpteen speaker cables out there and they all sound a bit different. They might all 'read' the same for all I know, but that has little relevance IMHO. Same with amps; I would want to know how many inputs it has, the size of the case, maybe even how many watts, but how it sounds has to be the most important thing?

Speakers that are all 88db at one meter. Do they all sound the same?

No, because we all hear things differently, we all have different tastes, so reading one reviewer's opinion tells me nohing about what it will sound like to me.

With a decent set of measurements, I can tell whether the device in question is doing a good job, whether it will suit my application. With loudspeakers, seeing an anechoic frequency response plot will tell me whether I'm likely to find the loudspeaker bright, dull, coloured and so on. Seeing a pair-matching plot will tell me whether the pair are likely to image correctly.

This will allow me to understand if it's a loudspeaker I want to listen to, or one I would prefer to ignore. All of this will come from the measured information, not from some reviewer's opinion.

S.

 

[positive_energy]

But that has nothing to do with equipment to replay music where your measurements are to tell you how much the recorded information is being distorted. Hence distortion measurements

The equipment you replay the music on is just another part of the chain, and subject to the same constraints and compromises. That is where the art comes in. You can measure hi-fi all day long but that will not, on its own, get you great sounding kit that connects you with the music and its emotional content.

If it were all science then there would be a simple formula by now that everyone could copy and that would be the end of it.

The fact that there are so many choices out there, and differing opinions is proof that there is a lot more going on.

 

[Ashley James]

I would have thought that subjective opinions are the most important ones.

There must be umpteen speaker cables out there and they all sound a bit different. They might all 'read' the same for all I know, but that has little relevance IMHO. Same with amps; I would want to know how many inputs it has, the size of the case, maybe even how many watts, but how it sounds has to be the most important thing?

Speakers that are all 88db at one meter. Do they all sound the same?

Subjective opinions certainly aren't worth a toss if they can hear differences between speaker cables. There Peter Azcel absolutely right.

I think you subjectives too readily forget that all the arguments you put forward were invented by cynically commercial vendors dreaming up ways to con money out of enthusiasts who only bought new gear about once every ten years.

Ash

 

[spxy]

badly written article with many half truths and straw men.

eg the clothes wire for a cable... yeh right

saying that I don't believe in magic...

also why do all cable rants focus on the electrical properties of the wire, its actually the electrical properties of the entire cable that are important, this includes the joints and connectors as well as the wire.

Having said that ,it doesn't mean expensive cables are "better" it just means well made cables are better then poorly made ones.

 

[Joe P]

Baz,

I've never been one for 'fads' or 'fashion' although I did fancy that Omega of Patrick’s... so I'm not totally immune...

Me neither, man.

As you may have gathered, I'm rather stuck in the period between 1966 and 1969, apart from the occasional foray into 1998, man.

Joe

 

[positive_energy]

Subjective opinions certainly aren't worth a toss if they can hear differences between speaker cables. There Peter Azcel absolutely right.

I think you subjectives too readily forget that all the arguments you put forward were invented by cynically commercial vendors dreaming up ways to con money out of enthusiasts who only bought new gear about once every ten years.

Ash

There is nothing objective about musical enjoyment when it comes down to listening to it. It is all subjective from the choice of music to the choice of equipment, to how much you are prepared to spend.

I would rate it thus:

1) Subjective
2) Peer pressure


"Objective" doesn't exist.

 

[Joe P]

Serge,

What is completely beyond me is buying a $5000 mechanical watch that keeps worse time than a $15 Casio. That is then totally jewelry and the tool element doesn't figure much

Fashion, pride of ownership and investment potential all play a part in why people buy a Rolex or other expensive mechanical watch, but you might find it interesting that my $250 mechanical Seiko is accurate to within 5 seconds a week, which isn't much worse than a quartz watch.

Granted, if you have a watch that locks onto the national time signal then you're obviously interested in levels of accuracy even a Quartz watch only hints at.

Joe

 

[AndrewR]

At about the same time, the whole Linn nonsense took off, where even the presence of a telephone in the room was supposed to ruin the sound

Well, you wouldn't be surprised to learn that I subscribe to that "tosh". This includes piezo-electric sounders AND balloons and space-hoppers.

Yep, balloons and space hoppers (my daughter is three) have to go in the under-stairs cupboard when I have a serious listening session. Reason being that the sound bounces off the compliant surface and messes the subjective enjoyment.

Looking at various show reports, I don't see any move towards sensible products, just more high-priced bling and outrageous designs. It's no wonder to me that "normal" people just don't think of HiFi these days.

True to a point. Thankfully we still see Rega, Creek and NAD producing well priced products. DACs, providing the input signal is of suitable quality, are pretty competitive nowadays - outperforming £2k-3k CD Players of yesteryear.

Andrew

 

[Basil]

Baz,


Me neither, man.

As you may have gathered, I'm rather stuck in the period between 1966 and 1969, apart from the occasional foray into 1998, man.

Joe

We reach, brother!

OT,

Regarding the Coen Bros...can you perhaps explain 'Intolerable Cruelty'???

Bought a couple of box sets with everthing from 'Blood simple' (superb!) to 'A Serious Man' (also superb!)

My faves are 'Raising Arizona' - 'Fargo' - 'Barton Fink' and of course the Big L...

 

[sergeauckland]

The equipment you replay the music on is just another part of the chain, and subject to the same constraints and compromises. That is where the art comes in. You can measure hi-fi all day long but that will not, on its own, get you great sounding kit that connects you with the music and its emotional content.

If it were all science then there would be a simple formula by now that everyone could copy and that would be the end of it.

The fact that there are so many choices out there, and differing opinions is proof that there is a lot more going on.

Yes it will. By measuring kit, one can make sure it's transparent, and that guarantees that the kit will transfer the recording the way it was made. Then, it's up to the music to convey the emotion, ot the kit, the kit is just the transmission medium.

It is all science, and there is a simple formula. That so many choose not to do it the logically sensible way seems to me perverse. People seem to want to create a sound with all this non-transparent kit rather than to reproduce a sound.

All this is proof that so many have been persuaded that Hifi should be chosen to create a sound they find pleasant rather than reproduce accurately what's on the recording. If it does that, then it can't be HiFi, is's being used as a musical instrument, not a reproducer.

S.

 

[Mescalito]

Well, you wouldn't be surprised to learn that I subscribe to that "tosh". This includes piezo-electric sounders AND balloons and space-hoppers.

Yep, balloons and space hoppers (my daughter is three) have to go in the under-stairs cupboard when I have a serious listening session. Reason being that the sound bounces off the compliant surface and messes the subjective enjoyment.



True to a point. Thankfully we still see Rega, Creek and NAD producing well priced products. DACs, providing the input signal is of suitable quality, are pretty competitive nowadays - outperforming £2k-3k CD Players of yesteryear.

Andrew

Oh my giddy aunt.......

Using the same reasoning, you will have to banish yourself to the cupboard under the stairs. The sound surely bounces off your compliant surfaces as well.

Chris

Chris

 

[AndrewR]

With loudspeakers, seeing an anechoic frequency response plot will tell me whether I'm likely to find the loudspeaker bright, dull, coloured and so on.
S.

Nah, it will tell if your loudspeakers sound good in an anechoic chamber

Your room is probably the most important influencing factor of your entire system (except for recording quality) and the loudspeaker choice needs match appropriately to its environment.

Andrew

 

[positive_energy]

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the dumb pipe analogy.

Great hi-fi is made by people with great taste in audio.

I mean come on. What hi-fi manufacturer produces equipment without even listening to it first?

 

[AndrewR]

Oh my giddy aunt.......

Using the same reasoning, you will have to banish yourself to the cupboard under the stairs. The sound surely bounces off your compliant surfaces as well.

Chris

Chris

Thankfully not in the same way as a balloon.

Andrew (not floating yet!)

 

[Joe P]

Baz,

Regarding the Coen Bros...can you perhaps explain 'Intolerable Cruelty'???

I saw Intolerable Cruelty but didn't think it was anything special. I like the Coen brothers' quirky films -- such as Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou? -- much more.

Basically, if a film or TV show has Vulcans, Buffy, black humour or satire I will like it. Intolerable Cruelty failed on all four counts.

Joe

 

[AndrewR]

It is all science, and there is a simple formula. That so many choose not to do it the logically sensible way seems to me perverse. People seem to want to create a sound with all this non-transparent kit rather than to reproduce a sound.

Interesting, some questions:

1. Which combination of measurements and thresholds would indicate the performance has moved from being transparent to non-transparent?
2. What do you measure to prove a doubling of temporal accuracy?
3. Do manufacturers publish this information?
4. Did you use this information to form your purchasing decision?

Andrew

 

[Basil]

Baz,


I saw Intolerable Cruelty but didn't think it was anything special. I like the Coen brothers' quirky films -- such as Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou? -- much more.

Basically, if a film or TV show has Vulcans, Buffy, black humour or satire I will like it. Intolerable Cruelty failed on all four counts.

Joe

Oh good, not just me then...

Did this:

Make it to the great white north?