Audio Myths Debunked

Thought the following link might produce some topics for discussion

http://signal.ece.utexas.edu/seminars/dsp_seminars/01fall/AudioMyths.pdf

It's a paper from the University of Texas, so I guess we should treat it with due seriousness.

Having listened to some supposed tweaks doing next to nothing today, I might be prepared to go along with the guy.

 

I don't want to go in detail about this paper because I don't know if it's based only on theory or also practical experiences and, when yes, which equipments he heard.
Also I don't know who this guy is, how long and what experiences he has / had at all in the audio field.

But one thing I would like to say is that nobody has to take with due seriosness any paper because it is from a university.
Just like any magazine they are also sponsored for their researches. Just don't think universities get their money only from the State.
It would be very interesting knowing who is behind this paper and that would clearify some statements.

Anyway according to this paper my system must be one of the worst on this world: now I suppose it's true.

 

that qualifies as post graduate work? my god it reads like dialogue from wayne's world. no wonder a degree means nothing these days. as for the actual content, well some of it rings true but all of it sounds like regurgitated engineering lecturer's objectivist dogma. the fundamental thing missing is actually sitting down and listening to a system put together using his recommendations and one where how it sounds is used as the selection criteria. if i were handing out marks for the paper it'd get a c- must try harder.
cheers


julian

 

The man who presented those slides works for Audio Precision, http://audioprecision.com if you want an audio test tool these are probably the best.

(Julian, it helps if you read things first. Could try harder....)

Paul

 

I'm interested in the basis objective or subjective for the comments put forward as "Real Truth" (RT).

Without further explanation or justification the slides, as presented, are meaningless. Ignore.

Next please.

 

I have to admit that his view of hi-fi reality pretty much accords with mine. In the price range in which I work (relatively low), the only real improvement I ever achieved was to replace a bit of equipment with a better bit of equipment, I remain to be convinced about the superiority of vinyl, I like red book CD, I don't believe in exotic cables and power cords, etc. In short, I'm a total Philistine and shouldn't be on this forum, except as Resident Wet Blanket.

 

paul,
i'm not quite sure what you're referring to. i still say that the ideas are presented in a childish and sensationalist way giving the impression that a conclusion was reached without any real experimentation.
if this is the best that someone with a phd can come up with then, sorry, the education system has let him down badly.
cheers


julian

 

Tony has a phrase for people like this : bikerless bikers.

That kind of sums it up for me.

 

Ditto. Not that I expected anyone on here to agree

 

Not so sure, Julian. It looks like your typical Powerpoint-type presentation, with bullet points. Nobody ever tries to put all the gory detail on such presentations, otherwise the audience falls asleep. I frequently have to give talks on patents, to most people, the world's most boring subject. I have to make everything short, sharp and as attention-getting as possible, otherwise I lose the audience, and they don't hear what they ought to hear. I'm sure there'll be a thesis to go with this presentation (even in Texas, admittedly provider of the world's most inept politician, they don't give PhDs away with the cornflakes) and that may be worth reading.

 

Their was little original in it, and the debunking consisted of simple gain say. I've heard six year olds give better reasoned arguments than this so call paper. It looks like its been prepared for a powerpoint seminar to be given to sales reps.

 

Ok, A few of his reasons have some credence, however the rest just seems like some post/grads angst agains his skintiness to justify his ownership of a early Philips cdp, with a smokin' 1980's Rotel power pack 50 wpc special, because his mates old 'valver' wastes his current set up, maybe a case of sour grapes?
Either way, if I would have handed that 'assignement in' in that form my lecturer (apart from the spelling ) would have thrown it out, with the words " Give me proof" plastered across it Wm

 

I agree

Chaps

It was of a rather juvenile standard.

I am surprised they had the nerve to publish it, it really was some dumbed down drivel.

Regards

Mick

 

at last someone else talkin sense about the myths of hifi,i like the term "high end audio mania"

 

P.S. Judging by this:

http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~bevans/students/phd/tom_kite/

I'd say Dr. Kite is no slouch intellectually, and neither is his employer:

http://audioprecision.com/

 

Ah, now I'm sure. The man has never really listened to hi-fi in his life.

I've met many such intellectuals and they are generally such convinced 'objectivists' that the idea of using their ears to hear differences just wouldn't occur to them.

 

Hummm, I wonder, "don't buy very expensive audio" cuz it's no good until you've tested it with 'our' expensive kit cynical, hummm maybe

 

I think some of his point I do have a little sympathy with....I tend to be a bit sceptical about tweaks and cables etc, however yes his arguments and presentation are dreadful...however having said that I do believe good components do make a difference..and in a group testing it has got to be blind....the problem with groups is that of synergy..some might fair better with the partnered components than others....oh..well..you can't win...it just shows in this game that everyone has their own opinion and will defend that to the bitter death...mr audionote his zero feedback triodes, you get the picture...

sounds like lim valve is alive and kicking butts in texas
he STILL can't sell that bloody amp on ebay...

 

An undeniable possibility, I'd say.

 

I think what the guy is getting at is that all improvements that we put down to differing tweaks are simply the result of placebo affects, and because of the marketing they seem real to us. So subjectively hearing a difference does not count, as subconsiously you will hear it anyway due to the advertisements/magazines programming you to do so.

The fact that many are suggesting that the differences are there must surely just show the effectiveness of this marketing strategy. I mean, the pro market hasn't been suckered into any of this has it?

He is merely trying to help some of you who suffer from eternal dissatisfaction with your systems, WM this guy cares!

If you follow his line of thinking, you ends up with a £1500 pair of speakers powered by a SS amp (with loads of switches and tone controls) supplying enough power and using a simple universal disc player as a source. Cables should be long enough to connect up the kit, nothing less will do.

The above kind of describes my AV setup. And there are times when I listen to that and wonder what this hobby really achieves. The tweakerless system does the job, no question.