Debunking Audio Myths

I agree.

Additional barriers are that many in the Objectivist camp believe that the game is over. To them it seems that perfection was achieved with the last zero added before the numbers after the decimal point.

The game's not over. If I thought it was, I'd leave hi-fi to the Chinese and do something sensible for a living.

Subjectivists on the other hand are over-prone to the vagueries of the human nervous system and to good salesmanship. It's too easy for an enthusiastic, authorititive figure to convince others that what they're hearing is good, bad, better or worse - and this is often done in all sincerity. We all need specially treated closed-cell expanded polyethylene giblets (blue) to hold our cables and support our CD players, whatever system, room and floor we're using.

We don't - although if anyone wants any I can supply.

 

There's an implicit claim that the cable does something other than act as a cable, this 'justifies' (illuminates?) its price premium over a product that is merely a cable.

Say you design and assemble some unfathomable concoction of tubes, hand woven by Fijean virgins capacitors and magic lacquer into a phono stage. If you were to make 10 and use an Audio Precision to test them would you expect it to find one which was faulty? Or with an out of tolerance tube or capacitor? If so then I think their marketing slogan is justified (illuminated) even in the subjective world.

You were challenging this statement,

So I'm interested to know what characteristic of a CD player that doesn't show up as noise or distortion is possible, let alone plausible.

Do you engineer equipment to add to its input? To modify and transform rather than reproduce. It's the implication from most 'subjectivism', and it's the antithesis of 'hifi'. There would be no arguments at all if subjectivists were illuminated about their aims, and about what they want from a music reproducing/creating system.

Paul

 

Hi,

Not more so than there is an implicit claim in Audio Precsions very existence that the measurements taken with it actually relate reliably to audio quality or therefor "good sound".

BUT, I don't need an AP one for that, a basic 'scope and tone generator plus a short listening session does not reveal (especially if there are interchannel differences).

In this case I choose to measure whatever I choose to by whatever methode, with no claim of relevance BTW, merely to ensure that what I make works as I intend it to work.

It is not justified by any view, unless backed up by proof beyond reasonable doubt, or at least no more so than Advertisments for $ 30,000 speakercables.

Again, I do not have to anything. The burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubts, is on the individual making such extraordinary claims. And I will suggest that most if not all evidence so far posited fails to address all reasonable doubts, so case not prooven.

Absolutely!

Among other other things I engineer passive preamplifiers, active preamplifiers and power amplifiers to have gain. I guess that qualifies as "adding" to the input.

More seriously, I find that not all possible types of audible issues are adressed by traditional measurements and that more often as not (in the traditional engineering axiom that to gain one thing we invariably sacrifice another) if the traditional measurements are good but various non-traditional ones are not the subjective sound quality suffers.

Slew induced distortion, jitter, noisefloor modulation and poor overload recovery behaviour are still not uncommon in gear that otherwise measures "well" and are not reliably qualified by common measurements.

Often making THD overall higher, but with lower levels in higher order components and overall a simpler spectrum leads to audibly (under blind conditions!) better sound. Often speakers are well to distorted and too romm dependent to reavel difference4s, but a pair of good ESL Headphones tend to be more revealing.

Ciao T

 

Bizarre. One entity sells equipment claimed to measure THD, one sells cables claimed to sound good. One claim can be verified the other cannot.

Unfortunately there are no reasonable doubts. All doubts seem to vanish when you cannot see what you're listening to. What you have doubts about seems to operate other than aurally, so looking at the signal quality is never going to be productive.

I'm intrigued by the passive 'preamplifier' with gain. But gain cannot be considered 'adding'.

They could be seen by an Audio Precision and fall into the catchall categories of 'distortion and noise'.

Given that all real equipment must generate distortion and noise I'd like every part of the system to be designed to minimise the audible impact of the inevitable degradations.

Paul

 

Folks,

I'll save myself any further discussions, I think this has dragged on long enough and illustrated the issues and approaches.

No matter what argument is being advanced, no matter how solid and scientific any criticism is presented, the back talk from psedo objectivists is always the same, without proof being advanced beyond academic authority (which is not proof, but mere religiousness - the Authority remains this book, that book, this paper), without any new arguments, a merely fanatical, religious repeating of their tenents of faith.

No argument, no discussion is possible in the face os such unmovable believe, so I guess we are not having one.

Monty Python Fans will by now have recognised the "Argument" Skit:

From:

The Argument Sketch
From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"

Originally transcribed by Dan Kay ([email protected])

Fixed up and Added "Complaint" and "Being Hit On The Head lessons" Aug/ 87 by Tak Ariga ([email protected])

The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
A= Arguer (John Cleese)

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause)

A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.

Pause

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.

short pause

M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Ciao T

 

You have advanced no argument.

FWIW you are clearly the man behind the desk.

Paul