Biggest myths in audio that tick you off/General things in audio that tick you off. - Page 30

Yeah Axiom scares me.

Magazines serve their advertisers. Sometimes, depending on the size of the ad, the industry benefits.

True, but in what other types of magazines is it so difficult to distinguish the ads from the articles?

Car magazines, bike magazines, etc

Perhaps. I don't spend much time looking at those, admittedly, but in the few times I've looked through car magazines, I've seen lots of face-offs/shootouts, where they take several cars in a certain price range, then present measurements and write-ups, and finally they will rank the cars in order of the editors preference. I never see that in audio magazines.

I hate that myth too, that people should be afraid of Axiom.

Classe Monos?

No one in my home smokes, and my gear sees only light use. An example representative of the mileage on my gear is my Sony VPL-VW50 purchased in April of 2007 with 750 hours on the original lamp. The audio side of my theater may have seen 50% more use over the same period. However, I haven't had a single component all that time. I've had 1 receiver, 3 processors, amps and source components. I think I've been through 4 pairs of speakers. I know that is probably on the low side of average usage, but certainly not by an order of magnitude, or even half.

I propose that a majority of enthusiasts switch out components often, they take care of the gear they have, and about 2 in 10 of American males smoke. I disagree this is a myth.

Wow that's some expensive gear.

I completely agree. Especially about the part of switching out components often. I fondly call this endeavor "Chasing Unicorns". Which I partake in sometimes too much!

If you have ever seen the inside of a piece of electronics from a house of a smoker, you will be happy to buy things from a smoke free environment.

Myth: That RCA outputs from a CD player sound much better than digital... while using bass management on the receiver to send the bass to a sub.

People geT their systems and turn up every thing to max. Wow,this sounds great

"Coaxial and Optical Sound Different Bro"

"foobar sounds better than iTunes"

Umm, sorry, but that's no myth.

Actually I have seen quite a few face offs in audio mags. Sound & Vision recently compared budget receivers and hifi choice mag always has group reviews that put speakers, amps, etc. through a thorough comparison. A lot of mags use to do face offs even blind test groups, this was a regular thing many years ago in htmagazine. But people complained about all the face offs and didnt like the fact that these editors were picking a winner and on the appearence devaluing other brands by in essence picking a loser as well as winner. Most mags have gotten away from these face offs as part of a regular feature, but there are still quite a few that do face offs in almost every issue and hifi choice is one of those magazines.

How so? I'm curious since nearly my entire CD collection is ripped in ALAC lol

I got a Legacy center channel once that was used in a smoker's house with a pet dog. Ohh I was glad I was able to resell it...

So iTunes is better than foobar2000 because your collection is in ALAC? Okey dokey.

I would presume you've done a comparison since you've listed this as a myth. Let's hear about it.

You should tell him about Foobar + Asio4All to enlighten him a bit... Then again why ruin someone's time consuming collecting effort. Ignorance = Bliss.

If you read what was written at the link, you will note that I didn't make any such claim. What happened was I heard a difference between two presentations of the same recording under blind conditions. Yes, it turned out that the LP had been "demagnetized" in between the 2 presentations. So, there are 2 facts involved: a) I heard a difference and b) the LP was "demagnetized"; but there are at least 3 possible explanations for my having heard a difference, only one of which involved the "demagnetization."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Wow you got a chip on your shoulder ? I was just asking how its better. Didn't say itunes was better now did I?

Either way you still didn't explain why its better lol. If its a reasonable explanation I'm willing to to change

You know what I apologize if my last post was a bit offensive. Just not in a good mood today (little sleep and lots of work).

Nethawk / veda, what I meant in my original posts was that my entire collection is in itunes and it would've be a shame if you proved foobar was better! (For me since id have to try to switch over to it). So once again I apologize if you took it the wrong way. I do look forward to hearing why foobar is better.

Btw it wasn't me he listed it as a myth hah

Interesting quote from Foobar2000's FAQ


When I was researching using my computer as music source, it seemed the sound quality had to do with how the computer handled the music once it left the player; is it sending it out unaltered or is some kind of processing being applied?). It was my understanding that most computers perform some kind of processing, which can reduce AQ, to the signal unless you use a driver like Asio4All or Kernel Streaming that bypasses processing by Windows, etc.

So it seems there are AQ differences, but it may not be due to the player.

Could waspi have anything to do with it
?

I believe WASPI bypasses processing like the others I mentioned, so using it may also result in better AQ.

So if the windows volume has no effect on volume when I change it am I doing it "right"?

My favorite crazy expensive hdmi cables that supposedly give you better sound and picture.

My guess would be yes, but I'm an amateur when it comes to computer audio. Check out this link an AudioCircle. It has alot of great info on computer audio.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=91971.0

Sorry for taking this thread off track. I'll stop posting about this here.