Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 6

Ignorance is bliss. ; )

I don't think most people care what others buy, I know i don't. It is the proselytizing that is objectionable.

Science Man...I love it! I'm writing a movie script as we speak... move over Iron Man...

I was on Canuckaudiomart forums and there was a couple of cable debates going on I contributed to, and it's funny how both threads were shut down once irrefutable evidence to some of the claims were brought forth. The reason from the mods was "well this thread is going nowhere", when in reality you just have to look at the paid advertisers on the site. So I agree with your premise of censorship sometimes being used as a counter measure to science...it's all they've got....

You're right, he started asking about conspiracies, and we're talking amps, but that just happens sometimes. I'm sure the OP has the brainpower to locate the posts relevant to his question.

As for the "super heroes" well, we're not that in the slightest. (Except for Ethan of course ) I think the reason people like myself get involved and bring up these caveats is because we want to help. I don't care how much money someone spends on their system but if they ask how much they should spend and why, well, I'll offer up my opinion.
I find it's always the high end guys that seem to get the most upset, and it is kind of like religion in a way because a "belief" is a hard thing to argue.

I don't think there's a "conspiracy" so much as there are merchants creating or filling a market.
If there's people willing to buy $250,000 speakers... someone will make them. It's not too complicated really.

Question: there is not one AVR that you go and buy today that has been subject to double blind testing to show its transparency to the source. How come it is not a belief that they all are transparent to the source?

Do you not know the answer Amir?

I do.

Please admit that you don't know the answer Amir, and then I will give it to you.

I don't think that there are any audited sales figures for these products. It is quite possible that they are either not selling to speak of, or that they are only sold at massive discounts.

To me the problem is that sellers of high cost audio gear tell their customers they should buy a component for $10,000, which using scientific methods can't be distinguish from a similar component that costs $500. The sellers use sales techniques to convince their customers that they are part of a special club with hearing abilities that exceed those average humans. Since the customer is now part of the special club of super hearing humans, they shouldn't listen to any average hearing human with their scientific methods. Those pesky scientific methods no longer apply once you are part of the special club of super hearing humans. People who are good at sales are masters at human psychology.

Who said anything about AVR's?

But you don't have to "believe" something is transparent to the source, you can simply measure it with instruments that are sensitive well beyond human hearing capabilities and prove it.
Human hearing is a finite beast, there's a limited frequency range you physically hear and only so much signal variation that is possible to hear.
If the equipment input to output signal variation is outside of those capabilities then what is it exactly that is being heard?
Edited by rnrgagne - 8/23/12 at 2:29pm

Of course they sell, they wouldn't be made otherwise.
Defintitely sold the the elite 1%, but that's not that small of a market if you think globally. And of course the buyer will have to get $10,000 speaker cables so they can really sing.....

Not necessarily. A company could make a prototype uber-expensive unit in order to show it off at audio shows and get it reviewed by some drooler at TAS. This burnishes the company's reputation, which helps promote the sale of its more realistic products.

I'm not sure how often this happens. And I suspect many of those products are indeed sold to uber-rich consumers (also drooling). But sales levels could well be in the single digits.

I'm just curious, but since budget vs high end is being tossed about, what does the budget system consist of and what brands would you people point to? I think it's easy to figure out the high end side and see where money can add up quickly given so many options/products, be it on one component or on many, but what is the budget system, electronics only? Also curious, but on the high end side, what product or company would be viewed to have the best engineered gear, regardless as to whether or not the over the top engineering results in audible changes.

Full disclosure, I own expensive speakers (>10k) that are powered by a pre/pro and cheap amp ($400 bucks used on agon), so I'm no exactly on the side that buys into high end of electronics.
Edited by intamin - 8/23/12 at 5:52pm

I did . Was picking as an example of a common product where the question here can be directed. Do we have a belief that they are transparent to each the source? What is the jitter measurement for the latest AVRs on the market? And what is the level for human hearing detection? Answer to the former is that it does not exist from manufacturer or third parties. For the latter, see below.
The ear can be a very complex animal. See how you can hear a 3-d soundstage using two speakers. Or how with some processing we can make the sound come around you even though we still use the same two speakers! (think simulated surround). The linear effects such as large dip in frequency response are indeed easy to quantify and prove audibility. While some argue for ultransonic coverage there, we can wave our hands on that . The problem becomes non-linear distortion. Take 128 Kbps AAC compressed audio. That encoding can have ruler flat frequency response and near zero distortion. Yet it can have a non-linear, data-dependent distortion on transients called pre-echo that can be audible. The system has no distortion in one instance, and large amounts of it just a few milliseconds later. For this reason we never evaluate compressed audio using audio measurement tools. We only use listening tests as the measurements simply do not detect the distortions that are clearly audible. Computer modelling exists for those artifacts but is insufficient (or else we would dispense with listening tests).

Our current audio measurement techniques are quite ancient and deficient. Take THD for amplifiers. It is a sum power of the distortion harmonics. But the ear does not hear each harmonic distortion component equally. The ones closer to the tone may be less audible and at any rate, audibility varies based on the source frequency itself. Earl Geddes has a great paper that on this that is worth a read: http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm.

Complicating matters is that there are some really strange things gone on here. I just wrote an article for the 20th anniversary issue of Widescreen Review magazine (comes out next month). In there I show how there are acoustic distortions that look really bad in a measurement, yet human perceive them as positive and desirable. Taking them away make things worse, not better! How do we quantify these? How do we continue to trust our gut where our gut is misleading us this way?

Personally I have no better wish than to determine these limits and take out the human from the equation altogether . To that end, I have a set of criteria that I use to establish transparency. But try as I have, I can't convince many of the vocal members here of them. They like far lower thresholds. Take CD audio at 16 bits. I say we should have a system that actually resolves 16 bits of dynamic range. They say no, that should not be the goal. They say that we don't need that because X, Y or Z reason. That's where they lose me because it is not expensive at all to achieve such comfortable targets. I don't get why I should settle for 13 bits of resolution where I can mathematically demonstrate it to exceed threshold of audibility. And again, can achieve that with very low cost. Why advocate how bad can we make the system before someone complains?

Anyway, back to my question to you, it is clear we all have beliefs here. The argument therefore is not that one side has beliefs and the other not. It is all beliefs. How well-researched and thought the beliefs are is the question.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. A budget system is anything that fits your budget.

If you're asking what's the minimum you need to spend for legitimately high fidelity electronics, I'd say about $100 for a stereo receiver (Sherwood 4105), less than that for a DVD player (any major brand will do), which will play CDs.

I'd argue the brain is the complex animal, the ear is just a mechanism. The brain interprets the eardrums vibrations using what I think of as sort of a "fuzzy logic", and it's is all done in the subconscious mind. It's how we can instantly tell where a sound came from in a room and how we can recognize a voice etc. It's probably how we can create sound-fields out of one or two channels of audio even if there isn't any signal processing, we have our own Dolby Logic between our ears.

So with all that going on in the subconscious, there's no way our belief system can't affect our audio perceptions. And I guess you're right, that has to apply on both sides of the argument.
(It's probably why our systems sound better after a glass of wine, and not so much before our first cup of coffee in the morning.)

As to the audibility of distortion or signal variation, well most of what you wrote is above my pay grade, but my "practical mind" says that we're talking minutia and not lifting veils off systems as the rhetoric often goes, and that more money doesn't automatically equate to either.

I think the point is that we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking "if it costs more then it must be better". Always let your ears be the judge and guide you on directions you want to take.

For example, a while back I travelled quite a distance to demo various Dynaudio speakers at a dealer in a neighbouring city. Having never heard any speakers of this brand before I auditioned quite a few of their models over a wide price range. However the set I preferred the sound of most was their most cheapest entry-level model. DM 2/6 2-ways. To me they had a nicer balance between bass, mid-range, and treble. Vocals sounded very real and natural on them to me. I felt their expensive higher end models that cost two or three times the amount (and was quite in my budget range to buy anyhow, so cost wasn't a factor) sounded too analytical. Even though those more expensive speakers were technically better speakers, I just preferred the sound of the DM 2/6's instead and took those home with me. Sorry (shrug)

Then funnelly enough the other day I was reading a speaker review and came across this comment from the reviewer... "The Focus 260 is an incredibly communicative loudspeaker. What’s more, it seems to have a better tonal balance than most Dynaudios I’ve heard over my entire career regardless of price - except perhaps for the DM 2/6." (here, fourth paragraph)

So perhaps my gut impression wasn't that far off after all.


Many would agree that spending most of your budget on the speakers is a good way to go. Just be careful that all that subtle but relentless audio marketing machine doesn't get you thinking "perhaps I'm not getting the most out of my speakers unless I spend 5 or 10k on amps?" Don't let fancy boutique names and high pricetags and slick marketing make you automatically equate that with quality sound.

Another example... compare this cheap mass-market brand Blu-ray player against a 8k fancy pants brand Blu-ray player. Price and fancy brand name on the front panel doesn't mean quality. It's more about status symbol/bragging rights. Don't get sucked in.
Edited by kiwi2 - 8/24/12 at 5:20am

There's absolutely a difference between $100 set of speakers that came from a white van and $1500-2k speakers made by a highly reputable company (Polk, JBL of old, B &W, etc). There's a 1,000,000x difference between them in fidelity, life span, and general "pretty" factor.

HOWEVER,

I've heard $40,000 speakers, $100,000 speakers, "million dollar rooms" and such. I would venture and be so bold as to say, that while some $40k speakers do sound better than a set of B&W's, but not by $36,000 worth. I've also heard $100,000 speakers that sound like absolute garbage, but the people who buy them aren't buying for the sound, they're buying the status of saying "I have a $100k set of speakers". Much like those with Ferrari's, Rolls Royce, etc.

Also, some big companies get onto this bandwagon too. Anyone else remember the $500 Denon ethernet cable? How about the $21,000 3m speaker wire with "72 volt dielectric bias"?

A fool and his money are soon parted. Some just have more than others. Most of us here all have "upgradeitis" and have spent thousands of dollars over the years, and continue to do so every so often, as i'm sure those living in NYC penthouses with $100,000 speakers that really never get turned on, but impress the $10k a night hooker (yay movie reference!) just by being there.

Amplifiers are a similar beast. What makes a Mark Levinson that much better than a McIntosh? Or even an Emotiva? Most of the stuff inside is snake oil in a sense. Physics still beats marketing. A giant transformer, a big set of ripple caps, a big power draw internally, a large power output, but at the end of the day, the difference between the top 0.5% who can (and want) a Mark Levinson product will buy them, even though the Emotiva would suffice, and could buy a truck of them for the same cost.

It's more of a status than anything, no conspiracy. Just people with money.

Assuming amirm wrote it.

Is this the same Dr Earl Geddes who believes 50 Hz should be considered "full range"?

I understand this. My point was that in every one of these threads people mention systems that can sound great for little to no money when compared to the super $ systems. I just wanted to put a name on that system. On other end of the spectrum, which company would be viewed as having the best engineered stuff, when it comes to specs, regardless of whether or not there are audible improvements?

One of the keys to a great sounding system is a great sounding room. Those generally don't happen by lucky accident. You can't buy them in a store in a box, and they don't have brand names or model numbers.

Wouldn't we all.

I guess Halcro power amps have the best specs around, this week.

If you are looking for a seat in a numbers game, you may have come to the wrong place.

Got a online quote where he actually said that?

The usage of scientifically obsolete language such as "The ear can be a very complex animal." trips this post up in the eyes of any knowledgeable reader.

As others have pointed out, the ear is a relatively simple mechanism. The inscrutable complexity is in the brain. But even large swaths of that have become understood in the past decade.

I think it may be to the advantage of a retailer to make human perception be far more inscrutable and personal than it actually is. It feeds inner longings to be unique and thereby superior despite our failings.

"Only you, Mr. Smith can appreciate the superiority of this XYZ Corp Frammis-enhanced widget. Your ears are totally unique to you!"

No, not a direct quote but I recall his speakers are claimed to be "full range" or are capable of handling "full range" with a -3dB 50 Hz extension. I also recall he considers ULF to be between 25-50 Hz and I don't think he believes deep bass below 25 Hz has any merit in the home. Still, the man knows a great deal about subwoofer positioning, that much cannot be ignored.

You'll find some of his comments in this thread : http://www.avsforum.com/t/1124011/are-three-inexpensive-subs-better-than-one-expensive-sub-dr-earl-geddes-approach/2010

"Frammis" LOL. When I saw that, for some reason it reminded me of Mad Magazine. So I googled it, and sure enough, I found the following quote on a site called "Classical Blather".

That was about 3 years ago. Earl's understandings, like those of all of us who are intellectually active in this game, tend to morph over time. I understand that he is planning to sell a sub.

On this page of Earl's, there is a link about half way down, titled "Polar Data Program", which displays frequency response data of his speakers. Unfortunately, it requires Internet Explorer. The data below 200 Hz is apparently taken from Thiele/Small parameter measurements rather than acoustic measurements. Anyway, you'll see that, e.g. the Abbey is 6 dB down at about 70-80 Hz. It's meant to be used in connection with a sub.

I think I know where the "capable of handling full range" thing comes from. In his multi-sub technique, he advocates that no high-pass filtering be used for the mains, to maximize the number of sources in the bass region. He has stated that his mains are capable of handling a full range signal, that is, they will not be damaged by large signals at low frequencies, unlike mains that use a vented box without a high-pass filter might be.

I don't know how well known it is that equalizing speakers below system resonance and/or -3 dB point can cause no difficulties provided that the driver has enough Xmax for the frequencies and SPLs that you are interested in.

One of the most dynamic subwoofer setups I know of uses some very long stroke drivers in enclosures that are just large enough to hold them. This pushes the system resonance up to the 50 Hz range. Massive power and equalization is used to obtain flat response and lots of SPL down to well below 20 Hz. It all works!

Therefore, if anybody is advocating equalizing speakers with the right drivers and appropriate needs this way, I would see no problems because I've heard it work.

I agree, this technique can work, especially with a bit of help from low-frequency room gain. It's what I'll be doing for an upcoming DIY sub project.

In Earl's specific case, he specifically advocates to not EQ the mains, only the subs. This page has two nifty articles by Earl about the multi-sub technique, just in case you haven't seen them.