AVS Forum banner

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?

111K views 3K replies 132 participants last post by  PrimeTime 
#1 ·
Ok, just from my observations, this is what I've seen.


Scientifically speaking, among the scientific side of people who have talked about audio, $50,000 amplifiers are the same as $500 amplifiers, speaker interconnects scientifically cannot explain perceived audible differences, and speakers like the Anat Reference II Professional $107,000 speakers really only use a couple thousand dollars worth of 3rd party components and cabinetry while marking vastly marking up the price and $20,000 speakers doing similar practices. Considering most audio companies are buying massive bulk and saving 50% off msrp, it's even cheaper to build.





Now, I'm really not here to start an argument so no one get mad.


But isn't this sort of like a conspiracy? That if you even dug deeper like a 20/20 or 60 minutes research team, they'd find even more bizarre things?


I mean if you think about it, all the wiring in speakers, audio processors and amplifiers are generic non-expensive wiring so even if you used expensive wiring, this wiring would be a break in the chain.


It's like if you have water pipes and 10 feet of the water pipe is crystal clean piping while 2 feet of the pipe is groggy, disgusting piping means your water is now contaminated.


I mean, many people who buy in to this stuff could buy $40,000 speaker wiring RCAs and battery cable, $50,000 monoblock amplifiers, $15,000 processor, $5,000 CD player and $100,000 speakers and spend $250,000 total.



Many people who feel that audio decoding components, interconnects and processors are very, very similar could spend $75 on interconnects, $1,000 on amplifiers $1,000 on processor/cd player and build similar YG acoustic knock offs with active crossovers for $5,000 or hire someone and spend an extra $1,000.


That'd be $250,000 vs $10,000 for very similar sound.


Factoring in how much companies spend on buying 3rd party audio components and actually cost to build these things even interconnects, it seems pretty crazy.


The cost to building $20,000 wiring can't be any more then a hundred dollars.


Just curious what you guys think like maybe 20/20 or 60 minutes should do an episode on this.








I thought it'd be interesting to add this scientific look at the placebo effect and the power of suggestion proven in several different trials in this multi-page article:

http://socyberty.com/psychology/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect/
 
See less See more
#1,502 ·
I've never been convinced that trying to emulate precisely what the mixing or mastering engineer heard is the proper goal. Thus for me at least, it isn't the best definition of accuracy (not to mention the difficulties with actually trying to achieve it, as Sanjay pointed out).


For an obvious example, I have preferred most recordings expanded by logic7 or alternatives to multiple channels. To me, it sounds better. Acoustic recordings are more convincing recreations of being in a venue, and pure studio constructs are more interesting and engaging. I know this isn't what the engineer heard and I don't care.


I do think there are decent objective measures of accurate for individual components... certainly I would agree with the accepted measures for amps, dacs, etc. And for speakers there are many measures that are undeniable (distortion products, bandwidth...) and others that have a strong correlation with preference (smoothed frequency response, polar response...). For rooms, I think it opens up such that there are extremes that probably should be excluded to match what the vast majority of the population finds acceptable. For things such as intentional surround processing, omni vs dipoles (stark opposites trying to achieve a common goal), etc I think in the end preference is about all we have.
 
#1,503 ·

Quote:
I've never been convinced that trying to emulate precisely what the mixing or mastering engineer heard is the proper goal.
To be a bit more precise, what he "heard" is irrelevant. It's what he decided he wants you to hear that matters, because that's what ends up on the disk, so to speak. And that's the measure of accuracy.
Quote:
I think in the end preference is about all we have.
Amen. The best approach is to buy a technically accurate set of components, and then use room treatments/correction to tune the system to your preferences. (And presumably, your preferences will be heavily influenced by your own perception of what sounds real to you—which is not the same thing as accuracy.)
 
#1,504 ·

Quote:
If it's not applicable to stereo speakers outside an anechoic chamber, then one could wonder why do it at all.
Why wouldn't it be applicable? The speaker behaves identically in both settings. And Floyd/Toole have shown that it is definitely relevant.
 
#1,505 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1470#post_23030064


The problem with fidelity to the signal is that it is somewhat arbitrary.
It is true that fidelity and accuracy are arbitrary.


Very many of us see that not as a problem but instead a very good thing. ;-)
Quote:
If the signal is a swept tone (equal level at all frequencies), there is a good chance that it wouldn't measure as a straight line at the mixing console, let alone be perceived as flat by the recording engineer.

Consoles are generally better than that. A swept tone (equal level at all frequencies) will generally measure flat within a nominal tolerance from a console's input to its output.


Of course the engineer's ears are not immune to the equal loudness curves, but most engineers brains know that and adjust their expectations accordingly.
 
#1,506 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus 

To be a bit more precise, what he "heard" is irrelevant. It's what he decided he wants you to hear that matters, because that's what ends up on the disk, so to speak. And that's the measure of accuracy.

To be more precise, that's your measure of accuracy. And to be fair, I realize its been an often repeated measure for many many years.


I just feel it is a hollow definition. The arguments for why I should want to hear just what the mixing engineer wants me to hear are not entirely convincing. If compromises in how a mix could potentially sound were made such that it would be acceptable on Bose cubes, what is more accurate... the Bose butchered version, or what the mixing or mastering engineer heard before that alteration? If I could restore that sound, why shouldn't I? The obvious problem is that we dont know the sound at various points. We don't know what the original tracking sounded like. Or what the mixing engineer had and liked before making changes for broader playability. Or what he had afterwards before the mastering engineer did the same. I don't know what he original songwriter intended me to hear, or the performers. I dont know what the engineers wished I could hear, only what is on the disc which is presumably the good enough best compromise version. And even then, trying to hear even that in the way they did is a fools errand. On what speakers, in what environment, at what level? Even if I wanted to be accurate to that good enough bar, I couldn't be.


And again, what good argument is there that I should be? I just don't see much in that definition of accuracy worth fretting over, so I don't.
 
#1,507 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23030632


I'm afraid you really don't know what you are talking about. There is one technical definition of accuracy, and it is quite clear. It means that the output signal is identical to the input signal in all relevant parameters. For an amp, that means that the frequencies are identical, and all amplified equally. For a speaker, it means that the sound waves produced are exactly analogous to the electrical signal being fed to them.
A worthy goal, insofar as it goes. But then our listening room EQ's the response to a frequency balance which may or may not resemble what the engineer heard or intended you to hear.


What FR response was the engineer hearing when he mixed/mastered the music?

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html


In the absence of standards for music reproduction, we simply don't know, and "accuracy" becomes a vexed proposition.
 
#1,508 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23030745


A swept tone (equal level at all frequencies) will generally measure flat within a nominal tolerance from a console's input to its output.
I should have been clearer: when I said "at the mixing console", I meant measuring the sound when seated in the engineer's main listening position at the mixing console (not measuring the console itself). My point is illustrated by the graph in RUR's post above: Genelec measured their own loudspeaker model from the main listening position (at the mixing console) in various studios, finding as much as 25dB of variation in the lower frequencies.
 
#1,509 ·
To the objectivist camp - do you feel everything you can hear can be measured or quantified? What if measurements do not confirm your audible findings, do you question the perceived sound you heard or do you question the measurements, or do you just carry on not worrying about it?
 
#1,510 ·
The biggest mistake is believing that just any measurement will show just anything. Measuring the wrong thing won't show anything. Not everyone has the knowledge and skill to do the right measurements either. But if mankind kan detect Higgs, there's definitely nothing regarding propagation of sound in air that can't be measured if mankind would want to. If it needs $1000 or a billion dollars is another matter.
 
#1,511 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23031056


To the objectivist camp - do you feel everything you can hear can be measured or quantified? What if measurements do not confirm your audible findings, do you question the perceived sound you heard or do you question the measurements, or do you just carry on not worrying about it?

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 
#1,512 ·
I was not intentionally trying to cause discord amongst objectivists. In fact I am a closet objectivist myself. I just wanted to know that *if* your audible experience was contradicted by the measurements would you feel compelled to ignore your audible experience in favour of the measurement, reserve judgment, or just remain skeptical? I would think the latter option would be smart move as it is an intellectually honest position to hold, in my opinion. Just wanted to know what others had to say.


Markus, please do not throw "Wiki" attacks on me. I am in an emotionally fragile state so please refrain from doing so.
 
#1,513 ·

Quote:
To be more precise, that's your measure of accuracy. And to be fair, I realize its been an often repeated measure for many many years.


I just feel it is a hollow definition. The arguments for why I should want to hear just what the mixing engineer wants me to hear are not entirely convincing.
Of fer crissakes, It's a Definition, Not a Commandment! And the accuracy of a piece of electronics gear has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what anyone in a recording studio heard or intended. All it says is that whatever's on the disk, good or bad, is (more or less) exactly what you will get coming out of each speaker—to be mucked around with by your room, of course.
Quote:
If compromises in how a mix could potentially sound were made such that it would be acceptable on Bose cubes, what is more accurate... the Bose butchered version, or what the mixing or mastering engineer heard before that alteration? If I could restore that sound, why shouldn't I? The obvious problem is that we dont know the sound at various points. We don't know what the original tracking sounded like. Or what the mixing engineer had and liked before making changes for broader playability. Or what he had afterwards before the mastering engineer did the same. I don't know what he original songwriter intended me to hear, or the performers. I dont know what the engineers wished I could hear, only what is on the disc which is presumably the good enough best compromise version.
None of this matters. What is on the disk is what whoever had final say wanted to be on the disk, period. And you as a consumer have two choices: You can try to reproduce it in your listening room through accurate components in a well-treated room. Or you can change it, any way you like. It's your friggin' choice.
Quote:
I just don't see much in that definition of accuracy worth fretting over, so I don't.
Do you think Floyd and Toole are wrong? How would you explain their finding that listeners generally prefer sound through technically accurate speakers?
 
#1,515 ·

Quote:
A worthy goal, insofar as it goes. But then our listening room EQ's the response to a frequency balance which may or may not resemble what the engineer heard or intended you to hear.
That's absolutely true, but it has nothing to do with the technical definition of accuracy. And differences between recording studios is irrelevant too. If every studio in the world had exactly the same equipment and layout, you would still not be able to perfectly reproduce what that engineer heard, because your listening room doesn't. All you can do is accept the disk as given, and alter the sound as much as you want.


Now, I would and have argued that the best way to accomplish any alteration is to assemble the most technically accurate system you can, and then use equalization and other tools to accomplish the changes. That makes far more sense than locking yourself into a single, distorted reproduction. If you are going to lock yourself into a single "sound," Toole & Olive's research suggests that your best bet would be to assemble a technically accurate system, anyway, because that's what you're most likely to prefer.
 
#1,516 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus 

Of fer crissakes, It's a Definition, Not a Commandment!
Well, the word has a definition or definitions but its the application to a very specific situation that causes problems. I'm with you on applying the definition to all of the gear involved. But to assemble all of that gear within a room to create a complete system, and think you can still apply the same definition... well, I either disagree with your definition or its usefulness. Take your pick.
Quote:
All it says is that whatever's on the disk, good or bad, is (more or less) exactly what you will get coming out of each speaker—to be mucked around with by your room, of course.
I'm with you pretty much. Buy that little caveat at the end... man what a whopper!
Quote:
None of this matters. What is on the disk is what whoever had final say wanted to be on the disk, period. And you as a consumer have two choices: You can try to reproduce it in your listening room through accurate components in a well-treated room. Or you can change it, any way you like. It's your friggin' choice.
Let's adopt your definition of accuracy as the goal. I should place a big horizontal reflective surface between me and the speakers? Sit more nearfield than I have in the past? Should I find out where each disc was recorded and emulate the environment for each? If by accurate you mean trying to match what the engineer heard, its an absurd proposition. You don't do that nor does anyone else here.


Bottom line, I think your definition works for individual components. For system design, no. You need a reference and there is none.
 
#1,517 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23032130


If by accurate you mean trying to match what the engineer heard, its an absurd proposition. You don't do that nor does anyone else here.

Exactly. Even the people here that are going on about "faithful reproduction of the CD" are only kidding themselves.


I would love to see a photo of mcnarus's room to see the layout and what type of speakers he has etc.


What you say, mcnarus?
 
#1,518 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23031886


I just wanted to know that *if* your audible experience was contradicted by the measurements would you feel compelled to ignore your audible experience in favour of the measurement, reserve judgment, or just remain skeptical? I would think the latter option would be smart move as it is an intellectually honest position to hold, in my opinion. Just wanted to know what others had to say.
If we are the first ones to notice such phenomena then yes. Sound reproduction technology has been around for over 100 years and digital format went public over 30 years ago. Do you think this technology is still in its infancy?
 
#1,519 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23032252


Exactly. Even the people here that are going on about "faithful reproduction of the CD" are only kidding themselves.
CD allows the distribution of music files to consumers with a great accuracy to its mastered version, unlike tape and vinyl. Audio cables, DACs and pre/amplifiers all do such excellent job at that even at low price now. Sadly for some listeners, that shrinks the number of topics to talk about.


I've asked you this before but didn't see any answer so let me ask you again, do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is?
Quote:
I would love to see a photo of mcnarus's room to see the layout and what type of speakers he has etc.


What you say, mcnarus?
Why do you care to know what someone has in his room?
 
#1,520 ·

Quote:
Well, the word has a definition or definitions but its the application to a very specific situation that causes problems. I'm with you on applying the definition to all of the gear involved. But to assemble all of that gear within a room to create a complete system, and think you can still apply the same definition... well, I either disagree with your definition or its usefulness.
First of all, it's not MY definition. It's an engineering definition (which applies to electronics far beyond audio, btw). And no, you don't get to disagree with it, any more than you get to say that what comes out of a cow's udder isn't milk. But that doesn't mean you have to like cow's milk. (Nor does it bar you from adulterating it with chocolate sauce!)


When Toole and Olive say that people prefer accurate speakers, they mean speakers that are accurate in this technical sense. That point seemed to be eluding some people earlier, which is why I chimed in here.


Rooms are an interesting complication, as just about everyone has noted. As a simple matter, the term accuracy means the same thing here. Imagine a room treated to minimize frequency response changes, comb filtering, and whatever else at the listening position. That could be called an accurate room. And it might very well not be what you want. But whatever you do want, you'll probably be able to get closer to it if you start with a system of components that is as accurate as possible.
Quote:
If by accurate you mean trying to match what the engineer heard, its an absurd proposition.
What could possibly make you think that's what I mean?????
Quote:
Bottom line, I think your definition works for individual components. For system design, no.
The accuracy of a system is a function of the accuracy of its individual components. If you want to think of the room as a component of the system (which it is, of course), then it is certainly the most challenging component you have. But the case for accuracy is really a case for accuracy of the system exclusive of the room. Once you get to the room, as others have said, you are making decisions about preference, and you're doing it without any real reference. Which is saying what some others seem to be saying, I think.
 
#1,521 ·
Howdy fellas- good topic.


Perhaps the term accuracy should be redefined, not in layman's terms but in general. That is to say, a set of test methodologies that first define/explain what was tested. Then what the testing revealed and if the goals were achieved. In a given room. (very important) Granted this gets very complicated, but look at THX standards for example. Generally speaking they work pretty well- yes they are very general, but the accuracy of the test methodology is contained with in the details of the THX goal from the onset. There fore mission accomplished. Right?


Funny thing is, and as previously mentioned, does it sound good in the listening room or application? Not always.


I totally agree concerning "sound", with the previously mentioned- the recording is the beginning and the end of what can - could, or ever be considered accurate from the recording engineer's personal taste and perspectives, this is unavoidable.


For example, two identical systems played in different rooms yield totally different responses, and as also previously mentioned- this is usually a good thing.


It is very simple for me, I try to understand what the laws of present physics tell me I can/can not do, and go from there- this is our limitation people, and like it, or not, you have no choice but to deal with it.


There are few oddities in the audio world which have debunked many audio myths, and one of such is in the car audio world, big speakers in small spaces can sound very, very good- when done correctly.


Balance, timbre, tonality, and pace- all of which are subjective, when these perceptions match the listeners approval- then it is accurate to the perceiver and nothing more matters. Which I think is great (50% of the time), freedom of choice- isn't that cool.
 
#1,522 ·

Quote:
The accuracy of a system is a function of the accuracy of its individual components. If you want to think of the room as a component of the system (which it is, of course), then it is certainly the most challenging component you have. But the case for accuracy is really a case for accuracy of the system exclusive of the room.
This is completely incorrect, and I think you know why.
 
#1,523 ·

Quote:
CD allows the distribution of music files to consumers with a great accuracy to its mastered version, unlike tape and vinyl. Audio cables, DACs and pre/amplifiers all do such excellent job at that even at low price now. Sadly for some listeners, that shrinks the number of topics to talk about.
Might I ask where you got this "factual" information from?


Ironically, much of audio is still recorded on tape and then transfered to disc. Ask yourself why this is. And no I do not want to get into the A vrs. D topic- why? The previous sentence explains this.


Edit: I just couldnt resist, carry yourself down to a good high-end audio shop, listen to a record on a good tube set up, then a good Solid state set up and then listen to a cd of the same recording on both of the same set up's, let your ears decide for you, not what you think you know to be better. I am willing to bet analog wins the day.
 
#1,524 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23032416


I've asked you this before but didn't see any answer so let me ask you again, do you know what the main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment is?

The main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment...???


Enlighten us then.


Quote:
Why do you care to know what someone has in his room?

It would be interesting to see what practical measures result from someone that believes in "faithful reproduction of the CD". Also someone that said speakers should reproduce the signal as what was sent to them. My understanding is that very few speakers would be able to do this as their drivers all contain mass to some degree or suffer from driver compression and air resistance or they produce a back wave into the room. I am curious as to what particular speakers someone would purchase with this in mind.


Also it would be nice to see and compare markus767's room who also believes in "faithful reproduction of the CD". It would be interesting to see if two different people that have the same goal have ended up with a similar room setup... or alternatively ended up with quite different rooms and equipment.
 
#1,525 ·

Quote:
I am curious as to what particular speakers someone would purchase with this in mind.


The only ones that come to my mind kiwi are maggies- and from 100hz and up nothing beats a maggie (3.x or 20.x series, with the 1.6/7's dragging up the rear) Even the Wilsons can not match a maggie for transparentcy- when a maggie is set up correctly (with subs even) to my ears it can not be beaten- no matter the price.


To my ears- audio truth.
 
#1,526 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2  /t/1425262/are-audio-companies-all-involved-in-a-huge-conspiracy/1500#post_23032886


The main criteria for judging the quality of sound reproducing equipment...???


Enlighten us then.
I will but I want to make sure I know where you are coming from so let me ask you another question before I do. Are you asking because you don't know?
Quote:
It would be interesting to see what practical measures result from someone that believes in "faithful reproduction of the CD".
Then why not just ask for measurements? Asking someone to show their room is a very nosy question unless you are very close to him.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top