What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Fëanor]

Science provides the tools to be immune to misinformation. A scientific mind is able to be critical and detect contradictions in what is being said. For me this is very clear because I happen to be an intuitive introvert (only about 1 % of people are like that). For extroverted sensors this doesn't seem to be clear at all and I don't know what to do about it...

Utilitarian audio has undoubtedly arrive. Here's Kal Rubinson's 'Stereophile' review of the . Buckeye Purifi Eigentakt 1ET9040BA monoblocks

Functional parameters such as power rating might pertain but sound quality can be taken for granted.

Audiophilia still permits a fondness for certain types of distortion, (say a certain amount of 2nd/3rd order harmonics), and also equipment esthetics and brand prestige.  But if acoustic accuracy is your goal, it's available for cheap.

[drogulus]

Let's not beat around the bush. People who like tube amps like the distortion. Unlike solid state amps, there is a gradual onset of distortion as they are driven harder. It's the same reason Jimmy Page used a Marshall stack.

     Tubes are supposed to perform almost identically when driven within their operating range. A good example of this principle comes from Ashdown, which makes a 15 watt bass amp using a pair of EL84s.

     Whatt!?! These are the tubes the Vox empire was based on. With cathode biasing and no negative feed back they produce the filthiest, loveliest harmonics in the Western world. Here's the important part, though. Dynaco didn't just produce the ST70 with EL34s, it also produced the ST35 with the little guys.



     Here's the ridiculous bass amp w/little guy power.

[71 dB]

I was given this advice on another online discussion board:

Just state it in terms of yourself and leave them out of it... "I would never waste a penny buying X because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up." That way, you're attacking the point, not the person. When you say "You're wasting your money, you don't know how this works..." you stray into making it personal. You can offer evidence and information until the cows come home if you follow this little advice.

So, following this advice I should say I would never spent money on audiophile data cables because there is no scientific evidence for any benefits while cheap default data cables have always served me well. Hmm... ...perhaps this works, but it certainly takes A LOT OF getting used to expressing things this way.

[AnotherSpin]

I was given this advice on another online discussion board:

Just state it in terms of yourself and leave them out of it... "I would never waste a penny buying X because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up." That way, you're attacking the point, not the person. When you say "You're wasting your money, you don't know how this works..." you stray into making it personal. You can offer evidence and information until the cows come home if you follow this little advice.

So, following this advice I should say I would never spent money on audiophile data cables because there is no scientific evidence for any benefits while cheap default data cables have always served me well. Hmm... ...perhaps this works, but it certainly takes A LOT OF getting used to expressing things this way.

Someone might quite confidently insist they'd never waste money on a large house - after all, there's no scientific evidence that sleeping, eating, or answering nature's call is any different in a single-room dwelling measuring 2 by 3 metres. And they'd be absolutely right, of course: for them, it isn't.

[71 dB]

Someone might quite confidently insist they'd never waste money on a large house - after all, there's no scientific evidence that sleeping, eating, or answering nature's call is any different in a single-room dwelling measuring 2 by 3 metres. And they'd be absolutely right, of course: for them, it isn't.

I'm pretty sure science shows living in a larger house can improve one's quality of life.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736414/

[AnotherSpin]

I'm pretty sure science shows living in a larger house can improve one's quality of life.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736414/

That's the beauty of science: with just a bit of careful looking, you can always find the opposite as well. No doubt, science will obligingly suggest that the lifestyle choices so often linked to modest living, such as healthy eating, regular exercise, frugal spending, delayed gratification and all that, contribute significantly to life satisfaction. Very convenient, I'd say.

[Florestan]

I'm pretty sure science shows living in a larger house can improve one's quality of life.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736414/

This stands to reason by itself, no scientific study needed: a spacious room, with plenty of sunlight and air intake is obviously more healthy, likeable and inspiriting than a dungeon. 

[StudioGuy]

That's the beauty of science: with just a bit of careful looking, you can always find the opposite as well.

Sure, you can find anything on the internet that's the opposite of the facts/science. Flat earthers, anti-vaxers, even those who will argue 1x0=1. But within "the beauty of science" you will not always find the opposite. You won't find the opposite of Shannon's Sampling Theorem, Maxwell's Laws, the Telegrapher's Equations or the other scientific principles upon which audio recording and reproduction rely.
It's up to you if you don't like science but if you're listening to the reproduction of audio recordings, then you have no choice because; analogue audio, digital audio, ADCs, DACs, electronic amps, mics, speakers, etc., do not exist in nature, they are not mined and do not grow on trees, they are ALL products of (applied) science.

People who like tube amps like the distortion. Unlike solid state amps, there is a gradual onset of distortion as they are driven harder. It's the same reason Jimmy Page used a Marshall stack.

Not exactly. If you have a recording of Jimmy Page, or of pretty much any other electric guitarist in the last 60 years or more, then it already contains all the distortion he desired. Electric guitarists (and the engineers) are very particular about the characteristics and amount of the distortion they apply. So the question is about "people who like" even more distortion, overlaying the distortion crafted by the musicians and engineers with more distortion of a different character.

[Spotted Horses]

Not exactly. If you have a recording of Jimmy Page, or of pretty much any other electric guitarist in the last 60 years or more, then it already contains all the distortion he desired. Electric guitarists (and the engineers) are very particular about the characteristics and amount of the distortion they apply. So the question is about "people who like" even more distortion, overlaying the distortion crafted by the musicians and engineers with more distortion of a different character.

That's what I was hinting at. Jimmy Page's Marshall Stack used overdriven tubes to add harmonics to the raw signal from the electric guitar, which is pretty close to an unadorned sine wave. The amp is part of the instrument.

But why do we need the "warmth" of tubes when listening to a classical recording? Doesn't the Stradivarius violin, the Bosendorfer Piano, the oboe, clarinet, etc, already contain a wealth of harmonics. Isn't is sufficient to reproduces the microphone signal without additional coloration?

[Florestan]

analogue audio, digital audio, ADCs, DACs, electronic amps, mics, speakers, etc., do not exist in nature, they are not mined and do not grow on trees, they are ALL products of (applied) science.

Amen, brother!

[StudioGuy]

Doesn't the Stradivarius violin, the Bosendorfer Piano, the oboe, clarinet, etc, already contain a wealth of harmonics. Isn't is sufficient to reproduces the microphone signal without additional coloration?

To answer your first question; yes they do. The second isn't quite so clear cut though. Typically there will be some mics relatively close to some of the instruments, quite commonly actually inside a grand piano for example. Assuming the mic is accurate, it will pick up a lot of sounds and higher harmonics that would never reach the audience, due to loss of level with distance and air damping. You may have noticed that acoustic instruments can sound quite different from just a few feet away to how they sound from further away in a concert hall. In some/many cases it is therefore necessary to colour (EQ) the mic signal/s.

However, this doesn't invalidate your main point, because we would be using EQ to reduce those higher harmonics, not adding even more. And of course, this is not an issue for the consumer, only the engineers (and producer/musicians/conductor).

[AnotherSpin]

Sure, you can find anything on the internet that's the opposite of the facts/science. Flat earthers, anti-vaxers, even those who will argue 1x0=1. But within "the beauty of science" you will not always find the opposite. You won't find the opposite of Shannon's Sampling Theorem, Maxwell's Laws, the Telegrapher's Equations or the other scientific principles upon which audio recording and reproduction rely.
It's up to you if you don't like science but if you're listening to the reproduction of audio recordings, then you have no choice because; analogue audio, digital audio, ADCs, DACs, electronic amps, mics, speakers, etc., do not exist in nature, they are not mined and do not grow on trees, they are ALL products of (applied) science. [...]

I do like science - very useful for practical things, much like a hammer is great for banging in nails. But just as you wouldn't ask a hammer to explain the meaning of life, science can't quite tell us why digital cables sound different.

[Florestan]

I do like science - very useful for practical things, much like a hammer is great for banging in nails. But just as you wouldn't ask a hammer to explain the meaning of life, science can't quite tell us why digital cables sound different.

That's because science has long since established that digital cables sound the same. 

[foxandpeng]

Sonos continues to the music conduit of choice in the new house. Still pondering a shift to BOSE, but it seems to be mostly doing the job for now...

[71 dB]

Science can't quite tell us why digital cables sound different.

First we need to separate the concepts of physical sound (caused by pressure variations in air) and sound as experienced by a listener. If you measure digital cables, you'll find out they work or they don't work. That's it. There are bit error ot there aren't any. There is no "sound". The digital cable doesn't know if the bits represent a picture, text, sound or something else like public key in encryption. So, does digital change pictures? Use pink cable and the internet looks pinkish? Of course not. That's why it is SILLY to assume digital cables have a "sound."

The sound experienced by the listener can change based on phychological factors. There is placebo effect. There is expectation bias. If the listener expect a certain cable to sound better, his/her brain will interpret the sound that way. Science has studied these things. The differences are in our head, not in the cables. We know this by measuring the cables and seeing none of them have bit errors. We know this by conducting proper double blind listening test to eliminate placebo/expectation bias.

Just because you haven't personally read the scientific studies done in the field doesn't mean they don't exist.

[AnotherSpin]

First we need to separate the concepts of physical sound (caused by pressure variations in air) and sound as experienced by a listener. If you measure digital cables, you'll find out they work or they don't work. That's it. There are bit error ot there aren't any. There is no "sound". The digital cable doesn't know if the bits represent a picture, text, sound or something else like public key in encryption. So, does digital change pictures? Use pink cable and the internet looks pinkish? Of course not. That's why it is SILLY to assume digital cables have a "sound."

The sound experienced by the listener can change based on phychological factors. There is placebo effect. There is expectation bias. If the listener expect a certain cable to sound better, his/her brain will interpret the sound that way. Science has studied these things. The differences are in our head, not in the cables. We know this by measuring the cables and seeing none of them have bit errors. We know this by conducting proper double blind listening test to eliminate placebo/expectation bias.

Just because you haven't personally read the scientific studies done in the field doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just because you haven't had the chance to hear the difference doesn't mean it isn't there.

Thanks for the post, a rather charming example of how the mind invents reasons, ever so plausible to itself, for dismissing the undeniable.

[AnotherSpin]

First we need to separate the concepts of physical sound (caused by pressure variations in air) and sound as experienced by a listener. If you measure digital cables, you'll find out they work or they don't work. That's it. There are bit error ot there aren't any. There is no "sound". The digital cable doesn't know if the bits represent a picture, text, sound or something else like public key in encryption. So, does digital change pictures? Use pink cable and the internet looks pinkish? Of course not. That's why it is SILLY to assume digital cables have a "sound."

The sound experienced by the listener can change based on phychological factors. There is placebo effect. There is expectation bias. If the listener expect a certain cable to sound better, his/her brain will interpret the sound that way. Science has studied these things. The differences are in our head, not in the cables. We know this by measuring the cables and seeing none of them have bit errors. We know this by conducting proper double blind listening test to eliminate placebo/expectation bias.

Just because you haven't personally read the scientific studies done in the field doesn't mean they don't exist.

Alright, I'm in the mood to give a fuller reply. Here you go.

I do see what you're saying. The idea that digital is all ones and zeroes, it either works or it doesn't, sounds wonderfully neat, doesn't it? Very reassuring. But in practice, things tend to be a bit messier.

You see, even if a digital cable isn't dropping bits, there's still the matter of how the signal arrives. Jitter, interference, impedance, shielding, conductor material, all these things can affect timing. And timing, especially in audio, can have a real impact on how things sound once the signal gets turned back into music.

Now, I'm well aware of placebo and expectation bias. Those are real and worth taking seriously. But when you hear consistent differences between cables, time after time, system after system, it becomes rather difficult to chalk it all up to imagination.

Your internet analogy, pink cable makes pink web pages, is clever but perhaps not quite on point. We're not looking at sound. We're listening to it. And sound involves a long chain from electrons to air to eardrums to brain. Digital is just one link in that chain, not the whole thing.

Of course, not everyone hears these differences. Fair enough. Not everyone has fine sound equipment at their disposal to be able to hear the difference. But to say they don't exist simply because they don't show up in basic measurements feels a bit like wishful thinking dressed up as science. Plenty of things were once dismissed as nonsense until we developed the tools to measure them properly.

So perhaps, it's worth entertaining the idea that what some of us are clearly hearing might actually exist, even if the current theory hasn't yet been informed by anything as inconvenient as real-world experience.

[71 dB]

Alright, I'm in the mood to give a fuller reply. Here you go.

I do see what you're saying. The idea that digital is all ones and zeroes, it either works or it doesn't, sounds wonderfully neat, doesn't it? Very reassuring. But in practice, things tend to be a bit messier.

Yeah, messier. I know. As a person with a university degree in electric engineering I should know, right?

You see, even if a digital cable isn't dropping bits, there's still the matter of how the signal arrives. Jitter, interference, impedance, shielding, conductor material, all these things can affect timing. And timing, especially in audio, can have a real impact on how things sound once the signal gets turned back into music.

Jitter doesn't matter AT ALL in data cables, because the data arrives in packages that are buffered. Interference doesn't matter AT ALL in digital cables as long as bit errors do not happen. Impedance doesn't matter AT ALL assuming there are no bit errors etc.

Even if there was jitter, modern digital technology has manages to push jitter so low it is several orders of magnitude below audible.

Now, I'm well aware of placebo and expectation bias. Those are real and worth taking seriously. But when you hear consistent differences between cables, time after time, system after system, it becomes rather difficult to chalk it all up to imagination.

Some cables such as speaker cables do have a potential impact on sound quality. You may also overestimate how systematic and persistent these differences are.

Your internet analogy, pink cable makes pink web pages, is clever but perhaps not quite on point. We're not looking at sound. We're listening to it. And sound involves a long chain from electrons to air to eardrums to brain. Digital is just one link in that chain, not the whole thing.

If there are no bit errors, only the jitter of the last buffer stage (DAC) matters. You can't change the jitter of the last buffer stage of your chain by changing data cables. Also, the this jitter of the last buffer stage should have inaudibly low jitter in the 21st century.

Of course, not everyone hears these differences. Fair enough. Not everyone has fine sound equipment at their disposal to be able to hear the difference. But to say they don't exist simply because they don't show up in basic measurements feels a bit like wishful thinking dressed up as science. Plenty of things were once dismissed as nonsense until we developed the tools to measure them properly.

I have pretty good analytic hearing, but I know there are people who have better hearing. What I say is not completely based on what I can hear. It incorporates my knowledge and what science has found out in listening tests.

Jitter comes up in measurements. There is no difficulty in measuring it. However, we can't hear it if it is low enough. That is actually a GOOD thing, because otherwise we could NEVER get audibly rid of jitter. Jitter was a problem* in the 80's when digital technology was new. Nowadays we don't need to worry about much at all.

*It was used in audio marketing by making it an even bigger problem that it actually was. Digital audio hasn't got much problems (the beauty of it!) so how do you make your product look better? By inventing problems and claiming to have solved them!

So perhaps, it's worth entertaining the idea that what some of us are clearly hearing might actually exist, even if the current theory hasn't yet been informed by anything as inconvenient as real-world experience.

Loudspeakers sound different from each other. Headphones sound different from each other. NOS DACs sound different from normal DACS. Listening rooms have different acoustic properties. Such differences are real and show up reliably even in proper double blind listening tests. However, many other claimed differences somehow vanish in listening tests.

Did you know that I have conducted scientific listening tests myself? I have also taken part in listening tests. The thing is if there are some actual differences like jitter in internet data cables, science would have certainly found those out in listening test for sure.

[StudioGuy]

I do like science - very useful for practical things, much like a hammer is great for banging in nails. But just as you wouldn't ask a hammer to explain the meaning of life, science can't quite tell us why digital cables sound different.

Sorry but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You state that science is very useful for practical things but apparently not for the practical thing of transferring digital data, despite the fact that science invented digital data, the transfer of it and digital cables, all according to the theorems and laws you quoted. Science cannot tell us why digital cables sound different for the same reason it cannot tell us why some unicorns are blue or why some mermaids are blonde, because they don't exist.

I do see what you're saying. The idea that digital is all ones and zeroes, it either works or it doesn't, sounds wonderfully neat, doesn't it? Very reassuring. But in practice, things tend to be a bit messier.

I see, so what you're saying is that you don't understand the basic principle of digital data. The fundamental principle is that it's binary, there are only two states and therefore it is literally impossible for "things to be a bit messier". There is either a zero or a one, that's it, there cannot also be a messy zero and a messy one (or anything else) because that would require 4 states and only two exist, "messier" cannot exist. That's the whole point of digital, that's why it was invented to supersede analogue (which has an almost infinite number of states and therefore can be "messier").

You see, even if a digital cable isn't dropping bits, there's still the matter of how the signal arrives. Jitter, interference, impedance, shielding, conductor material, all these things can affect timing. And timing, especially in audio, can have a real impact on how things sound once the signal gets turned back into music.

If "a digital cable isn't dropping bits" then there cannot still be "the matter of how the signal arrives", because how the signal arrives dictates whether bits will be dropped. Using your own analogy; if a hammer hits a nail in perfectly, then how the hammer arrived at the nail must have been accurate enough otherwise the nail would not be hammered in perfectly. Likewise, none of "all these things can affect timing" otherwise there would be dropped bits.

Now, I'm well aware of placebo and expectation bias. Those are real and worth taking seriously. But when you hear consistent differences between cables, time after time, system after system, it becomes rather difficult to chalk it all up to imagination.

I'm not sure how you can rationally come to this conclusion. I presume you've heard stereo audio and the effect of sound seeming to come from between the left and right speakers. There's only two options for this, either your brain ("imagination") is creating this illusion or magical, invisible speakers pop into existence and actually produce sound between the left and right speakers. Do you consistently hear (perceive)  the stereo effect/illusion,"time after time, system after system"? If so and it's therefore "rather difficult to chalk it all up to imagination" then you must be claiming the only other option, that magical, invisible speakers do indeed pop into existence every time you perceive the stereo effect. Surely you're not actually claiming that are you?

But to say they don't exist simply because they don't show up in basic measurements feels a bit like wishful thinking dressed up as science. ...
So perhaps, it's worth entertaining the idea that what some of us are clearly hearing might actually exist, even if the current theory hasn't yet been informed by anything as inconvenient as real-world experience.

Sorry, but none of that makes any sense I'm afraid. Digital audio is itself a basic measurement (series of measurements) so if it doesn't "show up" in measurements then it cannot be recorded or reproduced and obviously cannot exist. Therefore, it's obviously not worth entertaining "the idea that what some of us are clearly hearing might actually exist", when it doesn't actually exist. Is it also your contention that we should entertain the idea that the stereo illusion is caused by magical, invisible speakers, rather than only entertaining the proven facts/reasons of how it works, because we invented it? Lastly, your assertion that "current theory hasn't yet been informed by anything as inconvenient as real world experience" is I'm afraid just a blatant untruth. In fact the exact opposite is the case, we have an entire scientific field specifically dedicated to nothing other than the "real world experience" (human perception) of sound, going back over a century and a half. Not to mention, that Ethernet, DACs, amps, etc., do not have any "real world experience" or "human perception".

I don't mean to be rude or insulting but you don't seem to have a reasonable understanding of what digital audio is, why it was invented or how it works, you appear to be contradicting yourself and posting some clearly false assertions. Again, none of this is intended in any way to be insulting, I'm sure you're probably a very nice/good guy with a lot of valid, useful knowledge in other areas of audio and music, and being misinformed about this particular area does not detract from that.

[AnotherSpin]

Yeah, messier. I know. As a person with a university degree in electric engineering I should know, right?

Jitter doesn't matter AT ALL in data cables, because the data arrives in packages that are buffered. Interference doesn't matter AT ALL in digital cables as long as bit errors do not happen. Impedance doesn't matter AT ALL assuming there are no bit errors etc.

Even if there was jitter, modern digital technology has manages to push jitter so low it is several orders of magnitude below audible.

Some cables such as speaker cables do have a potential impact on sound quality. You may also overestimate how systematic and persistent these differences are.

If there are no bit errors, only the jitter of the last buffer stage (DAC) matters. You can't change the jitter of the last buffer stage of your chain by changing data cables. Also, the this jitter of the last buffer stage should have inaudibly low jitter in the 21st century.

I have pretty good analytic hearing, but I know there are people who have better hearing. What I say is not completely based on what I can hear. It incorporates my knowledge and what science has found out in listening tests.

Jitter comes up in measurements. There is no difficulty in measuring it. However, we can't hear it if it is low enough. That is actually a GOOD thing, because otherwise we could NEVER get audibly rid of jitter. Jitter was a problem* in the 80's when digital technology was new. Nowadays we don't need to worry about much at all.

*It was used in audio marketing by making it an even bigger problem that it actually was. Digital audio hasn't got much problems (the beauty of it!) so how do you make your product look better? By inventing problems and claiming to have solved them!

Loudspeakers sound different from each other. Headphones sound different from each other. NOS DACs sound different from normal DACS. Listening rooms have different acoustic properties. Such differences are real and show up reliably even in proper double blind listening tests. However, many other claimed differences somehow vanish in listening tests.

Did you know that I have conducted scientific listening tests myself? I have also taken part in listening tests. The thing is if there are some actual differences like jitter in internet data cables, science would have certainly found those out in listening test for sure.

Frankly, even my previous post was probably a bit much. I've no particular desire to plunge into a debate. In my current home setup, I happen to be using several digital cables. Over time I've tried basic no-name generics of several types, as well as offerings from a few rather reputable brands.

They all influence the sound differently, quite audibly so, in fact, each with its own signature. On that basis, I've formed a view about what sort of sound, and in which part of the chain, brings me closer to what I'm after.

So whenever I hear claims that all cables are the same, I can't help but smile and move on. They simply don't align with my own direct experience. If, in your case, they all sound identical, then that's perfectly lovely. Do carry on.