The Audiophile Debate

[71 dB]

That's your opinion Poju, and that's your right, but respect at least my view too, and stop posting all this crap about cheap is better, I get tired of hearing the same old story over and over and over again from you. By now we know what you think.

I didn't say cheap is better. I say at some point moving from cheap to expensive there is a point where you get most bang for the buck.

Cables are among the most stupid things to waste money on. That's just how it is. People who claim to hear differences are victims of snake oil marketing and placebo effect. If I come to your house and switch your pricy cables to coat hangers, are you sure you can tell them apart without KNOWING which one is connected? Yes, that has been tested and it turned out it is not easy to tell coat hangers apart from audiophile cables.

So, are you dear Harry claiming:

1) You have superhuman hearing at your age (you are not a teenager anymore, sorry)
2) You are completely free of Placebo effect (a superhuman again)
3) Cable sellers don't take advantage of the weaknesses of human psychology
4) Only some cable manufacturers know how electricity really works (electric engineers don't)
5) Million dollar studios use somewhat cheap professional cables because they are ignorant.

Yes, this is my opinion. I have an university degree in electric engineering (acoustics and signal processing) If that is useless in forming an opinion about audio, then WHAT is it good for? I have been into audio since 1993 (30th anniversary!) and I have come to these conclusions as teachings of life.

If you are after the best possible sound Harry, I recommend spending your hard earned money primarily on things that matter the most: Acoustic treatment and speakers. Those matter the most. Just be aware that very expensive speakers don't always be the best. a 10.000 € speaker may have better performance than and 100.000 € speaker and a really good 3.000 € speaker may beat a "bad" 10.000 € speaker etc.

Together with acoustics and speakers the placement of speakers and listener in the room is another very important aspect, but practically "free." All it take is some effort to try and figure out the optimal placements. Moving speakers just a couple of inches can change the sound a lot. Speaker "toe in" is also an important aspect of optimising the sound quality. There are people who buy very expensive speakers and put them in rooms with poor acoustics in wrong places and end up with much worse sound quality that people with affordable good speakers in rooms with reasonable acoustics and good placement.

Thanks to matured digital technology everything else matters very little if at all. Higher price tag can however provide better connections/functionality (flexibility), ease of use, better build quality/durability, better design (matter of taste) and of course bragging rights so it is not complete waste of money.

[71 dB]

The claim that it is possible to predict sound by measurements reminds me of the ideas of Cesare Lombroso, who claimed that a person's criminal tendencies could be determined by skeletal and cranial measurements.

It is about what we can predict from the measurements. A certain measurement may tell us the sound is lacking bass, but not anything about how good the soundstage is. Another measurement may tell us how good the soundstage is etc. So, you may not be able to know criminal tendencies from the cranial measurements, but you may know the that the person has Hungarian ancestory.

[Valentino]

Does this mean that the "better" the frequency response, the stronger impression of the music is? Some forty years ago I listened to a Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in an archive recording with Yehudi Menuhin from a primitive wired radio in a cheap hotel room. It seems to have been the strongest impression I ever had of a Mendelssohn concerto, which I never managed to repeat later. Perhaps because I didn't think to take measurements of the radio and the room and make an attempt to recreate them?

Your anecdote reminds me of the first time I heard Prince's Let's Go Crazy. On the radio in a then 10 years old Mazda 1500. I was 19, it was summer and there were girls everywhere.
I surely don't try to replicate  feelings when setting up stereo equipment. First I try to make it perform well objectively. Afterwards I adjust to taste with music.

[Spotted Horses]

I don't know if I am one of the people being accused of being an "objectivist." I listen to music, I don't put on an audio file and watch guages monitoring current and frequency response. People who design audio equipment are (hopefully) objectivists. They design their systems using analytic calculations, computer modeling and precise measurements, complemented by listening trials to confirm that their quantitative works is producing the desired result. I can't believe that is happening at Nordost. Their main activity is trying to make the cable look cool, and generating marketing materials that will convince people to pay enormous sums of money for a cable that is functionally indistinguishable from a cable you can buy for $15 on amazon.com

There is a clear reason a pair of headphones could be very expensive. The engineers must design and manufacture a powerful magnet with a tailored magnetic field gradient. They must design and manufacture a voice coil, a wound coil of wire as light as possible which can sustain as large a current as possible. They must design and manufacture a diaphragm which has the highest possible stiffness to weight ratio, which won't flex or exhibit mechanical resonances when driven by the voice coil, distorting the sound. This involves choice of material, thickness, shape, etc. Producing the device requires engineering skill and precisely controlled manufacturing. And after they have done their best with the technical work in design, manufacturing and testing you still have to listen to it, because exactly how it will interact with an individuals ear is somewhat unpredictable. I have several pairs of headphones which I regard as being of high quality, but which have their own subtle sound signature.

A cable is a pair of conducting filaments, or a pair of bundles of conducting filaments. It is entirely passive. An ideal conductor allows current to pass with no resistance. In practice a cable has a small resistance, inductance and capacitance, which means a small potential difference (voltage) is required to drive the current through the cable, which represents signal loss. The goal is to make this loss sufficiently small. This is accomplished by using material with the lowest available resistivity (usually copper) and making the thickness of the wire sufficiently large.

If a cable has a direction indicator, then the manufacturer is perpetrating a fraud. A speaker cable is symmetrical. If you reverse the two ends you have the same object. It is logically impossible for a speaker cable to have a correct signal direction. Even if the cable were asymmetrical, the signal is symmetrical. The current flow alternates in direction and even if the cable were "right" for one direction, it would be "wrong" when the current flow reverses. I read the marketing materials provided by Nordost and it explains how the weird appearance of the cable is needed to defeat pernicious effects that don't actually exist. The only "luxury" required of a cable is gold-plated connectors. The resistance of a cable is typically dominated by the contact resistance at the connector and gold (as the ancients knew) is the metal with the least tendency to oxidize, and surface oxide degrades contact quality. If you are spending large sums of money on speaker cable you are being taken advantage of.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I don't know if I am one of the people being accused of being an "objectivist." I listen to music, I don't put on an audio file and watch guages monitoring current and frequency response. People who design audio equipment are (hopefully) objectivists. They design their systems using analytic calculations, computer modeling and precise measurements, complemented by listening trials to confirm that their quantitative works is producing the desired result. I can't believe that is happening at Nordost. Their main activity is trying to make the cable look cool, and generating marketing materials that will convince people to pay enormous sums of money for a cable that is functionally indistinguishable from a cable you can buy for $15 on amazon.com

There is a clear reason a pair of headphones could be very expensive. The engineers must design and manufacture a powerful magnet with a tailored magnetic field gradient. They must design and manufacture a voice coil, a wound coil of wire as light as possible which can sustain as large a current as possible. They must design and manufacture a diaphragm which has the highest possible stiffness to weight ratio, which won't flex or exhibit mechanical resonances when driven by the voice coil, distorting the sound. This involves choice of material, thickness, shape, etc. Producing the device requires engineering skill and precisely controlled manufacturing. And after they have done their best with the technical work in design, manufacturing and testing you still have to listen to it, because exactly how it will interact with an individuals ear is somewhat unpredictable. I have several pairs of headphones which I regard as being of high quality, but which have their own subtle sound signature.

A cable is a pair of conducting filaments, or a pair of bundles of conducting filaments. It is entirely passive. An ideal conductor allows current to pass with no resistance. In practice a cable has a small resistance, inductance and capacitance, which means a small potential difference (voltage) is required to drive the current through the cable, which represents signal loss. The goal is to make this loss sufficiently small. This is accomplished by using material with the lowest available resistivity (usually copper) and making the thickness of the wire sufficiently large.

If a cable has a direction indicator, then the manufacturer is perpetrating a fraud. A speaker cable is symmetrical. If you reverse the two ends you have the same object. It is logically impossible for a speaker cable to have a correct signal direction. Even if the cable were asymmetrical, the signal is symmetrical. The current flow alternates in direction and even if the cable were "right" for one direction, it would be "wrong" when the current flow reverses. I read the marketing materials provided by Nordost and it explains how the weird appearance of the cable is needed to defeat pernicious effects that don't actually exist. The only "luxury" required of a cable is gold-plated connectors. The resistance of a cable is typically dominated by the contact resistance at the connector and gold (as the ancients knew) is the metal with the least tendency to oxidize, and surface oxide degrades contact quality. If you are spending large sums of money on speaker cable you are being taken advantage of.

As for me, all I can tell you is that when I was auditioning components and figuring out what would work for me, I went in really skeptical as far as things like interconnects and speaker cables went.  I focused my probably imperfect listening skills using the same CDs and pieces of music, components, listening spots, etc. (and was allowed to listen on my own too)...and to be fair and give credit to the person who was helping me (and he did ask a lot of questions and also gave me a lot of info--for example in terms of changes in radio signals and what I liked listening to--as in compression, I believe is the term, of radio signal.  As in would it be worth it for me to spend more money in terms of buying a high-end tuner if the signals were so compressed in terms of bandwidth?).  And I passed on that tuner.  He also did mention (and we talked about) the differences in sound that one could hear (components, cables, etc.) and that it was also a matter of preference. 

Just my thoughts.

Best,

PD

[drogulus]

     I stopped being an audiophile when I gave up listening to money and prestige.

[DavidW]

@DavidW  A friend of mine several years ago mentioned that she was looking for a CD player for her home for her and her partner to use.  I suggested a then-existent Tivoli player (which I had looked at once upon a time) which I thought would suit their needs and there was one in a local shop and it was what I thought was a reasonable $600.  I knew that they weren't big music junkies and wouldn't want to be spending a ton of money on different components.  She was like:  "That's a lot of money!".  She'll spend $200 on a pair of shoes.  My thinking was that it's getting hard to find some sort of all-in-one CD player (particularly one that is any good).  I have no idea what Bose are going for these days or a basic Cambridge Audio, but I suspect that they are more.  Tivoli also had a good reputation and I figured that it would last reasonably well for them.  Oh, well.  I tried.  And if anyone else here has any suggestions, I'll happily pass them along. 

PD

PD, if they had an external dac then a dedicated cd player might not make sense.  Using a cheap dvd player as a transport would still produce inaudible jitter.  Steve Guttenberg who reviews very expensive gear himself uses an Oppo blu-ray player.  I have a dedicated cd player, partly to handle scratched discs, but mostly out of nostalgia.  But most people don't buy cd players anymore and have not for the past twenty years or so.

[DavidW]

Is this really the "level of performance" to want? Sad. The comments that follow are even more brutal than Amir's tear down of them. 

FR for headphones need to be taken with an enormous grain of salt.  They are usually based on taking an average preference as a standard since no standard exists.  There is a wide variety of ear shapes, but also the average person liking more bass doesn't make it an objective fact that the T1s are bass lite. 

I personally find that the Harman target doesn't fit my own ears at all.  And if it was a good predictor of SQ then the akg k361 should certainly sound better than the really off beyer dt1990s but they absolutely do not.

Another problem I have with these FR graphs is that they are effectively lies due to octave smoothing.  It is the narrow resonance curves that really give a headphone its sound characteristic which is exactly what the plots wipe out.

An fr plot can give you a vague sense of the sound profile, but that is it.  You have to listen with your own ears.

This is in stark contrast to speakers which should be designed to measure flat (at least before room response is taken into account).

[Pohjolas Daughter]

PD, if they had an external dac then a dedicated cd player might not make sense.  Using a cheap dvd player as a transport would still produce inaudible jitter.  Steve Guttenberg who reviews very expensive gear himself uses an Oppo blu-ray player.  I have a dedicated cd player, partly to handle scratched discs, but mostly out of nostalgia.  But most people don't buy cd players anymore and have not for the past twenty years or so.

I perhaps did not explain myself the best.  I think that they were looking for an all in one unit in "think boom box but better"...the Tivoli unit was an all-in-one unit including speakers...maybe also a tuner?  I forget.  Perhaps I should try and educate them a bit better.

PD

[DavidW]

I perhaps did not explain myself the best.  I think that they were looking for an all in one unit in "think boom box but better"...the Tivoli unit was an all-in-one unit including speakers...maybe also a tuner?  I forget.  Perhaps I should try and educate them a bit better.

PD

Oh okay I misread you before.

[Spotted Horses]

As for me, all I can tell you is that when I was auditioning components and figuring out what would work for me, I went in really skeptical as far as things like interconnects and speaker cables went.  I focused my probably imperfect listening skills using the same CDs and pieces of music, components, listening spots, etc. (and was allowed to listen on my own too)...and to be fair and give credit to the person who was helping me (and he did ask a lot of questions and also gave me a lot of info--for example in terms of changes in radio signals and what I liked listening to--as in compression, I believe is the term, of radio signal.  As in would it be worth it for me to spend more money in terms of buying a high-end tuner if the signals were so compressed in terms of bandwidth?).  And I passed on that tuner.  He also did mention (and we talked about) the differences in sound that one could hear (components, cables, etc.) and that it was also a matter of preference. 

Just my thoughts.

Best,

PD

Sounds like a sensible approach.

It's complicated because the ears are not microphones and the brain is not a tape recorder. What is presented to our consciousness as "sound" or "music" has already been processed by subsystems of our brain that we are not aware of. Even and A/B comparison is dicey, because of the tendency to find the louder one is superior, or one with stronger base/treble emphasis. What sounds better in an A/B test may become fatiguing in long listening. I let long term listening pleasure be the ultimate guide, and gravitate towards brands which reputation and my experience tell me are characterized by engineering integrity.

[AnotherSpin]

[..] So, you may not be able to know criminal tendencies from the cranial measurements, but you may know the that the person has Hungarian ancestory.

Did I understand you correctly - Hungarians can be distinguished by the shape of their skulls?

[AnotherSpin]

A false analogy.  The internet is rife with these.

No more false than the claim that you can predict sound quality from measurements.

More, you've admitted to appreciating the sound of your T1 headphones, which happen to have poor measurements as was shown above. Either you did not see those measurements, or you ignored them. Any way you confirmed that measurements are not important to judge the sound favourably.

[Todd]

No more false than the claim that you can predict sound quality from measurements.

More, you've admitted to appreciating the sound of your T1 headphones, which happen to have poor measurements as was shown above. Either you did not see those measurements, or you ignored them. Any way you confirmed that measurements are not important to judge the sound favourably.

All incorrect.  First, phrenology is pseudoscience and cannot be compared to real science.  Second, I did see the measurements of the T1 (the T1/1 and T1/3 actually, both of which I own) prior to listening and buying, and the Audezes, Focals, Audio Technicas and other headphones I purchased as well.  The same applies to most other gear I purchased as well.  The measurements are what made me seek the gear out, and the measurements did, in fact, predict the sound.  Third, I contend that audiophiles live in a fantasyland where measurements do not dictate sound and where they claim they hear things that do not exist or that they cannot hear.  It's entirely possible to enjoy grossly distorted sound - the continued existence of turntables and tubes demonstrates that conclusively.  Measurements are real, they are objective, and they do predict sound.  And a lot of audiophile gear is pure snake oil.  It's really quite simple.

[AnotherSpin]

All incorrect.  First, phrenology is pseudoscience and cannot be compared to real science.  Second, I did see the measurements of the T1 (the T1/1 and T1/3 actually, both of which I own) prior to listening and buying, and the Audezes, Focals, Audio Technicas and other headphones I purchased as well.  The same applies to most other gear I purchased as well.  The measurements are what made me seek the gear out, and the measurements did, in fact, predict the sound.  Third, I contend that audiophiles live in a fantasyland where measurements do not dictate sound and where they claim they hear things that do not exist or that they cannot hear.  It's entirely possible to enjoy grossly distorted sound - the continued existence of turntables and tubes demonstrates that conclusively.  Measurements are real, they are objective, and they do predict sound.  And a lot of audiophile gear is pure snake oil.  It's really quite simple.

The problem with measurements is that each of them offer only one angle to assessing component quality and ignore a significant number of others.

In Lombroso's time, many people thought he was right, and his ideas were quite influential. Time has passed, and now many people think differently. So with all so-called scientific knowledge, it doesn't stand the test of time. What seems immutable today will seem ridiculous tomorrow. Your faith in science is comical, it's time to grow up.

[Todd]

The problem with measurements is that each of them offer only one angle to assessing component quality and ignore a significant number of others.

This requires clarification.  Multiple measurements are typically used to assess every piece of gear.  As mentioned before, measurements do predict sound quality.  That is a fact.  Also a fact, human hearing is limited.  Another fact, marketing and advertising are known to work very well.

In Lombroso's time, many people thought he was right, and his ideas were quite influential. Time has passed, and now many people think differently. So with all so-called scientific knowledge, it doesn't stand the test of time. What seems immutable today will seem ridiculous tomorrow.

It is odd to see someone stick so doggedly with a false analogy.  If you insist on relying on false analogies, consider upgrading.  The one you've selected doesn't work.

Your faith in science is comical, it's time to grow up.

The things one can read online.

[AnotherSpin]

This requires clarification.  Multiple measurements are typically used to assess every piece of gear.  As mentioned before, measurements do predict sound quality.  That is a fact.  Also a fact, human hearing is limited.  Another fact, marketing and advertising are known to work very well.


It is odd to see someone stick so doggedly with a false analogy.  If you insist on relying on false analogies, consider upgrading.  The one you've selected doesn't work.


The things one can read online.

1. Yes, you can use two or three kinds of measurements. Each of them shows one thing, separately. But human perception is holistic, we hear everything at once and see if it suits us or not. Your story with the T1 headphones illustrates this most obviously. Some particular measurement was bad, and yet your holistic perception told you that the sound was almost perfect for you. This is why a person's integrated perception is always better than any measurement. Your perception is perfect for you, and it may be useless for someone else, and any single measurement does not necessarily correspond to the specific perception of an individual person (you could call this the T1 principle).

2. This is not just an analogy, but an illustration that any "scientific" knowledge can not only be frivolous, but also comes and goes.

3. Much can be read online.

[AnotherSpin]

I don't fit into either camp.  I use measurements as a starting point, but then turn to subjective impressions to narrow it down and I value both.  I usually find that the best gear works well on both sides.

I see the following. You pay attention to measurements, and that's fine, we are all conditioned by external influences. But then you make decisions based on your own impression. And that's beautiful, a clear sign of maturity.

It's very important to stop trusting what you read or hear from others. We've all made mistakes making decisions dictated by others.

Trust in yourself. At the end of the day, that's all that matters, the rest is a faint shadow. Tale told by an idiot. The weak read measurements, the strong listen to their selves.

[71 dB]

Did I understand you correctly - Hungarians can be distinguished by the shape of their skulls?

Frankly I don't even care, because it was only an analogue, a bad one I guess... ...dealing with subjectivist audiophiles drives me crazy.

[71 dB]

The problem with measurements is that each of them offer only one angle to assessing component quality and ignore a significant number of others.

In Lombroso's time, many people thought he was right, and his ideas were quite influential. Time has passed, and now many people think differently. So with all so-called scientific knowledge, it doesn't stand the test of time. What seems immutable today will seem ridiculous tomorrow. Your faith in science is comical, it's time to grow up.

You sound like someone who knows nothing about science and what it is! It is amazing how scientifically illiterate people are! Science represents the best available knowledge and aims to make it better with time. When you say science doesn't stand the test of time, it means science improves in time. It is about finding holes in our knowledge and understanding and trying to fill them. Not everything is known. That's why scientists keep working to know more.

Measurent from one angle is better than no measurements at all. We can make measurements from multiple angle and have a good understanding of the thing measured. Also, how the measurements are interpreted is important and may require skills and experience. You want a doctor to look at your X-ray rather than a taxi driver, don't you?