The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 84Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 11:12 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
MadJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I know a lot of you are probably familiar with The Audio Critic's article "The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio". It's been referred to on this forum before. It's a good one! The article can be found here:

theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Sorry I couldn't post a link for it. The forum won't let me yet, as this is only my second post.

Anyways, I was wondering if any of you disagree with anything in the article, and if so what?

I personally disagree with him about vinyl/analog not sounding superior to CDs/digital. Though I'm sure many of you do agree with him.

I've always thought tube amps sounded better than solid state ones, but I could be wrong. I'd have to subject myself to an ABX test to confirm it.

As far as "The Golden Ear Lie", I'm of the understanding that 5% can hear what 95% cannot. Call it a "trained ear", or a "golden ear", or whatever.

What do you AVSers think of the article?
MadJazz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 19,120
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2251 Post(s)
Liked: 2118
Uh-oh... I think a storm is a'brewin'.



If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough – Albert Einstein
Ratman is offline  
post #3 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 01:31 PM
Senior Member
 
percept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

I know a lot of you are probably familiar with The Audio Critic's article "The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio". It's been referred to on this forum before. It's a good one! The article can be found here:

theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Sorry I couldn't post a link for it. The forum won't let me yet, as this is only my second post.

Anyways, I was wondering if any of you disagree with anything in the article, and if so what?

I personally disagree with him about vinyl/analog not sounding superior to CDs/digital. Though I'm sure many of you do agree with him.

I've always thought tube amps sounded better than solid state ones, but I could be wrong. I'd have to subject myself to an ABX test to confirm it.

As far as "The Golden Ear Lie", I'm of the understanding that 5% can hear what 95% cannot. Call it a "trained ear", or a "golden ear", or whatever.

What do you AVSers think of the article?

theres no right or wrong to an opinion.
percept is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,156
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:


I personally disagree with him about vinyl/analog not sounding superior to CDs/digital. Though I'm sure many of you do agree with him.

CD is technically better than vinyl. But you may prefer the sound of vinyl.

Quote:


I've always thought tube amps sounded better than solid state ones, but I could be wrong. I'd have to subject myself to an ABX test to confirm it.

See above. BTW, ABX is not a preference test, so it won't answer your question, but a blind, level-matched A/B comparison will.

Quote:


As far as "The Golden Ear Lie", I'm of the understanding that 5% can hear what 95% cannot. Call it a "trained ear", or a "golden ear", or whatever.

Not quite. 5% think they can hear what 100% cannot. What I call it can't be printed in a family forum.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #5 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 03:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jarrod1937's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

I personally disagree with him about vinyl/analog not sounding superior to CDs/digital. Though I'm sure many of you do agree with him.

As has already been stated, no one can truly disagree with your "opinion" on this matter. But technically speaking, CD's are superior to vinyl in many ways. Furthermore, in my opinion there is no actual analog vs digital argument... but more so analog sources vs. digital sources argument. I say this, because cd's merely hold the information digitally, but in the end, its all converted to analog when outputted to the speakers through a dac... Along with this fact, any analog input that goes into a receiver for pro logic, or any other processing besides straight mono and stereo, goes through a adc that converts it to digital information so that it may be processed. At this point, the analog signal you inputted is the equivalent of the digital signal. Because of this, it all boils down to the nyquist theorem on whether or not the sample rate is high enough to allow the dac's to properly reconstruct the signal into ana analog waveform... and it has been proven that this is the case.
Though i'd like to state, that as someone pointed out to me in a previous discussion, some research has been shown that people prefer audio with frequencies higher than our natural limit of 20 khz. If you consider this, the sample rate of cd's are not enough to reconstruct frequencies too much higher than 20 khz. But, correct me if i am wrong, but i believe lp's have their frequency range shrink with degradation (even if well taken care of), so even lp's, unless brand new, have similar limitations.

Quote:


I've always thought tube amps sounded better than solid state ones, but I could be wrong.

As the article you linked to states, if there is a difference, it is from coloration that has been added to the signal, if any difference at all is heard. If you study some electrical engineering and study how both tubes and transistors work, you would realize there is no magic or anything behind it. They both in the end do the exact same thing, basically they're just switching on and off depending on the input signal.
But, as stated, you may have a "preference" for tube amps, and no one can argue against that.

Quote:


As far as "The Golden Ear Lie", I'm of the understanding that 5% can hear what 95% cannot. Call it a "trained ear", or a "golden ear", or whatever.

As the author states, and i agree, the "golden ear" is probably nothing more than a more experienced person interpreting, what we all hear, a bit better. I've ran into a case where i could clearly hear harsh high frequencies and distortion from some tweeters... yet my dad (who i gave the speakers too) could not. This distortion was around the 8 khz range, and could clearly be heard when watching movies, and i know he was capable of hearing it too, yet he didn't seem too. That is until i played a straight 8k tone, and then he did. Now, i am not stating i have a "golden ear" or anything, but i am stating that i seem to be able to pickout specific points or sections from complex audio better than he is able too.
Our ears, barring any type of impairment, all "hear" the same thing, assuming you're human. But it is how we interpret this information that may vary.
jarrod1937 is offline  
post #6 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 07:03 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
MadJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

Uh-oh... I think a storm is a'brewin'.

Haha, yeah seriously. Talk about opening a can of worms!

I'll first say that I wasn't asking if an opinion is right or wrong. I asked who agrees or disagrees with the opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post

As has already been stated, no one can truly disagree with your "opinion" on this matter. But technically speaking, CD's are superior to vinyl in many ways. Furthermore, in my opinion there is no actual analog vs digital argument... but more so analog sources vs. digital sources argument. I say this, because cd's merely hold the information digitally, but in the end, its all converted to analog when outputted to the speakers through a dac... Along with this fact, any analog input that goes into a receiver for pro logic, or any other processing besides straight mono and stereo, goes through a adc that converts it to digital information so that it may be processed. At this point, the analog signal you inputted is the equivalent of the digital signal. Because of this, it all boils down to the nyquist theorem on whether or not the sample rate is high enough to allow the dac's to properly reconstruct the signal into ana analog waveform... and it has been proven that this is the case.
Though i'd like to state, that as someone pointed out to me in a previous discussion, some research has been shown that people prefer audio with frequencies higher than our natural limit of 20 khz. If you consider this, the sample rate of cd's are not enough to reconstruct frequencies too much higher than 20 khz. But, correct me if i am wrong, but i believe lp's have their frequency range shrink with degradation (even if well taken care of), so even lp's, unless brand new, have similar limitations.

I agree with you completely. My preferance is for vinyl, due to the fact that a digital recording can't capture the entire soundwave, and sounds that transition too quickly for the sample rate, will be distorted. A vinyl record's groove's match the waveform exactly. CDs can't replicate this 100%. The end result is that it sounds better to me. Along the lines of what you said, a brand new vinyl record can output sound that a CD cannot. In that sense, a vinyl record will give a more accurate representation of the original waveform. If one doesn't like the sound of the needle on the record, etc., and prefers the "silence" that CDs offer, then to them a CD sounds better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post

As the article you linked to states, if there is a difference, it is from coloration that has been added to the signal, if any difference at all is heard. If you study some electrical engineering and study how both tubes and transistors work, you would realize there is no magic or anything behind it. They both in the end do the exact same thing, basically they're just switching on and off depending on the input signal.
But, as stated, you may have a "preference" for tube amps, and no one can argue against that.

That's why I said that tube amps have always sounded better to me, but I could be wrong. Meaning I could be wrong in that the tube aspect of it might not have had anything to do with why they sounded better. I just preferred the sound of the tube amps that I heard, compared to the sound of the solid state ones. I would have to hear, let's say a '65 Fender Twin Reverb tube amp, in a double blind test compared to an amp made to equal specifications, but with solid state parts. I haven't heard Fender's line of solid state amps, that they advertise as being able to replicate the Twin Reverb sound. I wasn't really disputing the author on it, as much as stating what my preference has been, and that I could be wrong for having that preference...assuming the author is right. Like if the author is right, I actually don't prefer the sound of tube amps. I've preferred the sound of amps that have happened to have had tubes in them. I hope you can get what I'm saying, and I'm not being confusing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post

As the author states, and i agree, the "golden ear" is probably nothing more than a more experienced person interpreting, what we all hear, a bit better. I've ran into a case where i could clearly hear harsh high frequencies and distortion from some tweeters... yet my dad (who i gave the speakers too) could not. This distortion was around the 8 khz range, and could clearly be heard when watching movies, and i know he was capable of hearing it too, yet he didn't seem too. That is until i played a straight 8k tone, and then he did. Now, i am not stating i have a "golden ear" or anything, but i am stating that i seem to be able to pickout specific points or sections from complex audio better than he is able too.
Our ears, barring any type of impairment, all "hear" the same thing, assuming you're human. But it is how we interpret this information that may vary.

I agree completely. 95% of people cannot "hear"/identify/distinguish these sounds, but 5% can. For example, 5% can tell the difference between a 128kbps .mp3 and a .wav file. I guess that is what I consider to be a "golden ear". I think I probably misinterpreted what the author said regarding this, in theory, and do actually agree with him on this one.

I guess this leaves my only point of contention with him, the vinyl vs. CD position.

Jarrod, thanks for your responses. I appreciate the way you handled them!
MadJazz is offline  
post #7 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 07:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jarrod1937's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

Haha, yeah seriously.

I'll first say that I wasn't asking if an opinion is right or wrong. I asked who agrees or disagrees with the opinion.



I agree with you completely. My preferance is for vinyl, due to the fact that a digital recording can't capture the entire soundwave, and sounds that transition too quickly for the sample rate, will be distorted. A vinyl record's groove's match the waveform exactly. CDs can't replicate this 100%. The end result is that it sounds better to me. Along the lines of what you said, a brand new vinyl record can output sound that a CD cannot. In that sense, a vinyl record will give a more accurate representation of the original waveform. If one doesn't like the sound of the needle on the record, etc., and prefers the "silence" that CDs offer, then to them a CD sounds better.

I just want to clarify what i meant. The higher frequency you go with vinyl, the finer the grooves. At which point, when you first play the record, these finer grooves are very quickly degraded even when handled with great care, giving you the same "limited" frequency range a cd gives, in essence. So there really is no frequency range advantage for vinyl after the very first few times you play it. You could record very fine grooves, perhaps giving you a crazy high frequency range extension, but the method of playback for the medium limits the long-term practical frequency range. That, and i believe they have an inherent limitation on how low they can play too, again due to the method of playback. When you add this to the fact that the waveform from a cd with a maximum frequency of 20 khz, and a sample rate of 44 khz, you will get a near perfect reproduction of the analog waveform, which actually beats vinyl because of the inherently lower noise floor present in digital audio storage, compared to vinyl which by the laws of physics cannot produce the original waveform 100% perfectly because of the playback method involves friction. This is what you're refering to, in comparison to the cd's "silence." This silence is the cd being able to recreate the original waveform more faithfully than the record.
Digital is a better technology for audio storage, assuming you meet the main criteria of a good enough sample rate. The nuances of the digital to analog conversion have been worked out (aliasing...etc) and what we're left with, is a better storage medium. Some may argue against this, and i welcome that, but most who do don't understand digital themselves (there are no spaces in digital music...etc).
But, i can understand peoples personal preference for coloration and noise. I partially attribute this to nostalgia, but more largely to artist preference. Some music just wouldn't be the same imo if it sounded sterile, where the original essence of the music was partially the noise and coloration from the medium itself. Hence why today, even with crystal clear music, you still have artist purposely mixing in manufactured noise.

P.s. i'll see if i get attacked by any pro-analog people tomorrow as i'm being relatively absolute with my speech
jarrod1937 is offline  
post #8 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 07:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,156
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:


My preferance is for vinyl,

OK, but...

Quote:


due to the fact that a digital recording can't capture the entire soundwave, and sounds that transition too quickly for the sample rate, will be distorted. A vinyl record's groove's match the waveform exactly. CDs can't replicate this 100%.

Every word of this is wrong. Digital can capture the entire soundwave, assuming you're not worried about sounds you can't hear. And an LP's grooves don't come close to matching the waveform, and certainly don't come as close as a CD can. More to the point, digital can capture everything that's on an LP so closely that you couldn't tell them apart.

Quote:


I just preferred the sound of the tube amps that I heard, compared to the sound of the solid state ones. I would have to hear, let's say a '65 Fender Twin Reverb tube amp, in a double blind test compared to an amp made to equal specifications, but with solid state parts.

Fender? You mean guitar amps? Guitar amps are designed to distort; that's the whole point. They're part of the instrument's sound. Home audio amps shouldn't do that; that's why solid state amps are technically better for that purpose.

Quote:


For example, 5% can tell the difference between a 128kbps .mp3 and a .wav file.

Almost anybody can learn to do this. (And a lot of people who think they can do it fail the first time they're put to the test!) Really, you're just making up numbers here.

Quote:


I think I probably misinterpreted what the author said regarding this, in theory, and do actually agree with him on this one.

Trust me on thisYou don't agree with Peter Aczel about anything.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #9 of 624 Old 01-29-2009, 09:44 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
MadJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post

I just want to clarify what i meant. The higher frequency you go with vinyl, the finer the grooves. At which point, when you first play the record, these finer grooves are very quickly degraded even when handled with great care, giving you the same "limited" frequency range a cd gives, in essence. So there really is no frequency range advantage for vinyl after the very first few times you play it. You could record very fine grooves, perhaps giving you a crazy high frequency range extension, but the method of playback for the medium limits the long-term practical frequency range. That, and i believe they have an inherent limitation on how low they can play too, again due to the method of playback. When you add this to the fact that the waveform from a cd with a maximum frequency of 20 khz, and a sample rate of 44 khz, you will get a near perfect reproduction of the analog waveform, which actually beats vinyl because of the inherently lower noise floor present in digital audio storage, compared to vinyl which by the laws of physics cannot produce the original waveform 100% perfectly because of the playback method involves friction. This is what you're refering to, in comparison to the cd's "silence." This silence is the cd being able to recreate the original waveform more faithfully than the record.
Digital is a better technology for audio storage, assuming you meet the main criteria of a good enough sample rate. The nuances of the digital to analog conversion have been worked out (aliasing...etc) and what we're left with, is a better storage medium. Some may argue against this, and i welcome that, but most who do don't understand digital themselves (there are no spaces in digital music...etc).
But, i can understand peoples personal preference for coloration and noise. I partially attribute this to nostalgia, but more largely to artist preference. Some music just wouldn't be the same imo if it sounded sterile, where the original essence of the music was partially the noise and coloration from the medium itself. Hence why today, even with crystal clear music, you still have artist purposely mixing in manufactured noise.

P.s. i'll see if i get attacked by any pro-analog people tomorrow as i'm being relatively absolute with my speech

You are being pretty absolute in what you're saying, and I have read into this by reliable sources that are also pretty absolute in coming to some slightly different conclusions. I'm no expert on the subject, and am going by what I have learned in 3 college semesters of digital and analog electronics, and some personal study. I'm swayed towards the analog end in certain areas, specifically in this particular debate, based on what I was taught and agree with. I'm not gonna claim to be 100% right. I just lean in this direction. I'd be interested in hearing what some of the pro-analog people have to contribute to this discussion.
MadJazz is offline  
post #10 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 05:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jarrod1937's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

You are being pretty absolute in what you're saying, and I have read into this by reliable sources that are also pretty absolute in coming to some slightly different conclusions. I'm no expert on the subject, and am going by what I have learned in 3 college semesters of digital and analog electronics, and some personal study. I'm swayed towards the analog end in certain areas, specifically in this particular debate, based on what I was taught and agree with. I'm not gonna claim to be 100% right. I just lean in this direction. I'd be interested in hearing what some of the pro-analog people have to contribute to this discussion.

Well, instead of putting us "digital" people on the spot, instead why don't you explain why vinyl is better than the cd? I've already refuted a few of your points.
There are some rather good analog storage mediums, like some you will find in studios. I just find the argument of vinyl vs cd to not be a good comparison.
jarrod1937 is offline  
post #11 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 06:55 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 19,120
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2251 Post(s)
Liked: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

Haha, yeah seriously. Talk about opening a can of worms!

I'll first say that I wasn't asking if an opinion is right or wrong. I asked who agrees or disagrees with the opinion.

An opinion really can't be right or wrong. That's why it's an opinion. I neither agree nor disagree with the opinion(s) in reference... but that's just my opinion. Am I wrong?



If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough – Albert Einstein
Ratman is offline  
post #12 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 09:54 AM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post

As the author states, and i agree, the "golden ear" is probably nothing more than a more experienced person interpreting, what we all hear, a bit better. I've ran into a case where i could clearly hear harsh high frequencies and distortion from some tweeters... yet my dad (who i gave the speakers too) could not. This distortion was around the 8 khz range, and could clearly be heard when watching movies, and i know he was capable of hearing it too, yet he didn't seem too. That is until i played a straight 8k tone, and then he did. Now, i am not stating i have a "golden ear" or anything, but i am stating that i seem to be able to pickout specific points or sections from complex audio better than he is able too.

This is true. Some people simply don't know what "bad" or "good" sound entails--it's all an issue of experience. When someone says "I don't have a golden ear", what that really tells me is "I've never heard good audio."
jpjibberjabber is offline  
post #13 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 10:04 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
MadJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarrod1937 View Post

Well, instead of putting us "digital" people on the spot, instead why don't you explain why vinyl is better than the cd? I've already refuted a few of your points.
There are some rather good analog storage mediums, like some you will find in studios. I just find the argument of vinyl vs cd to not be a good comparison.

My intention was never to put you "digital" people on the spot. I've already offered all I care to, as far as why I think vinyl is better than CD. You claim to have refuted it, and I told you that I disagree. So that's that. I don't see the point in reiterating what I've already stated, or adding to it, when you just don't believe it anyways. So, like I said, I'm interested in hearing what some of the other pro-analog people have to say about it. Sorry if you wanted a long drawn out war!
MadJazz is offline  
post #14 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 10:36 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 19,120
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2251 Post(s)
Liked: 2118
I like vinyl. CD's sound good too. I haven't lost any sleep comparing the two or being overly critical. Trying to convince/sway others is a waste of time and enjoyment.

And... Fender Twin Reverb amps (especially pre-CBS) can't be surpassed IMHO.



If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough – Albert Einstein
Ratman is offline  
post #15 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 11:01 AM
 
duvetyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:


A vinyl record's groove's match the waveform exactly.

I stopped reading after this.
Do some research, posting your opinion as fact doesn't help your case....it makes you look uninformed.
duvetyne is offline  
post #16 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 11:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Will-san's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have been thinking a lot about this of late. I occasionally get a big case of upgrade-itus and start doing lots of research on ways to upgrade my system. I am not "Audiophile" (whatever that is) but I do like good sound. A few days ago I was poking around the Internets and I came across this review of a power cable. It is one of the most insane things I have ever read.

I recently upgraded my receiver so I could get the new lossless blu-ray codecs. I am not sure if I can hear the difference. I think I can, but I also want to and I sure that makes a difference. But an article like that makes me mistrust the whole industry. There is simply no way a power cord could make that kind of difference. the emperor is clearly buck freaking nakkid. But now my confidence is shaken. Now that I know that there is no Santa Clause, I have to wonder about the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

But it can't all be fiction... some of it is science. I recently added a Sub EQ. and it made a huge difference. So my goal is to find the line. To make decisions based on what I can test for my self on my system in my room. I can't tell the difference between an MP3 and the CD it was ripped from in my car, but at home it is pretty easy to tell.

And of course my ears get worse every year. I remember in my high school science class we did some testing and I had the best hearing in the class I could hare 21Khz. recently Some friends and I were talking about Masquito Ringtones and I can barely hear 16k.

Anyway I like this list. Mainly because it adds some perspective to this hobby. If you prefer Vinyl to CD that's cool. Tube amps... go for it. But just remember if you run a HiFi store and you call yourself an expert and you try to sell me a $1500 power cord all your credibility is gone, and so is my business.
dareelest1 likes this.

"I was just reading here on my internet that Tofu is made from little baby seals". - Strong Bad
Will-san is offline  
post #17 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 02:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Bob Lee (QSC)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Costa Mesa, California
Posts: 1,863
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

due to the fact that a digital recording can't capture the entire soundwave, and sounds that transition too quickly for the sample rate, will be distorted. A vinyl record's groove's match the waveform exactly. CDs can't replicate this 100%.

You need to learn what is and isn't fact about digital and vinyl recording media. You base much on fallacy and falsehood instead of fact.

But it's a great article.
dareelest1 likes this.

Bob Lee
Technical Communications Developer
QSC Audio Products, LLC
Costa Mesa, Calif.

Fellow, Audio Engineering Society
Bob Lee (QSC) is offline  
post #18 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 05:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MauneyM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central Alabama
Posts: 2,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

And... Fender Twin Reverb amps (especially pre-CBS) can't be surpassed IMHO.

Sorry, but a pre CBS Super Reverb will smoke a Twin.....IMHO. Either is a completely different animal from anything solid-state.

Frankly, though, I'd put the Bogner XTC101b up against almost anything made, in any era. YMMV....
MauneyM is offline  
post #19 of 624 Old 01-30-2009, 05:39 PM
 
JBLsound4645's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I don't dislike it I mean I hate it when some cocky kid dressed up in suit say I use the same speaker at home and you know he's full of crap and you just want to turn around and kick him in the bollocks and walk out the store for lying to you.

In some cases this is true.

I've heard this many times at Richer Sounds UK and thou they provide a wonderful offer on products that is cheap as biscuits. it's the bull*****iing young kiddies that I don't respect even on forums I just don't want to know them because there full of it!

Richer Sounds UK
http://www.richersounds.com/home.php
JBLsound4645 is offline  
post #20 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 05:03 AM
Member
 
Rthoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

An opinion really can't be right or wrong. That's why it's an opinion. I neither agree nor disagree with the opinion(s) in reference... but that's just my opinion. Am I wrong?

I was once told that an opinion was like an arm pit, or A** hole, we all have them and they all stink!

Now I usually find that people who are very knowledgeable seem to back their opinion up with facts, or change their opinion to match the facts they are given. For example mathematics, physics, or other kind of physical facts that are not up to dispute. I also find regardless of which side of an argument you take the more thought out and researched you opinion is the better chance you have of making your point of view even if you are not knowledgeable of some of the facts. This will at least show that you did some due diligence and did not just pull something stinky, or smelly out of your A-hole.

Taking something from Usenet I would suggest that people use selective reading, or a kill file for those who's opinions seem to be the stinkiest of all. But in regards to your solution I just choose, or not choose to read a posters remark. As they say ignorance is bliss, that fact that I don't respond doesn't mean I support or not support their claim, all it means is I did not think it worthy of a response.
Rthoreau is offline  
post #21 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 06:55 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 19,120
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2251 Post(s)
Liked: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rthoreau View Post

... all it means is I did not think it worthy of a response.

In your opinion.



If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough – Albert Einstein
Ratman is offline  
post #22 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 07:11 AM
Senior Member
 
cybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 245
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


Our ears, barring any type of impairment, all "hear" the same thing, assuming you're human. But it is how we interpret this information that may vary.

When you say 'hear,' do you mean that if two people are present in the same room, they are [mostly] subjected to the same sonic activity?

If so, I can agree.



However (and correct me if I'm wrong,) doesn't the human ear have for lack of a better term, a 'response curve' the same way any vibrating diaphram (read: speaker, transducer, microphone) might?

We do each have uniquely shaped ears and ear canals.

If you're suggesting that by being subjected to the same sonic activity that two people (or even two ears for that matter!) are feeding identical .. 'signals' to their brain, and that any difference is psychological then I'd have to strongly disagree.

It seems to me that everyone has /different/ ears.


That being said, how about some extremism:

Should a person q-tip before they listen for truest response from their ears? Is there a standardized haircut or head shape for a flat response? Do my glasses cause reflections? Should I blow my nose first? Wear a silk tie in a Windsor for improved imaging?

In-ear response, I believe, is infinitely variable. On some days my speakers sound fantastic to me, on others I'm unimpressed.

Pardon me while I debate with myself and others

To reel it back in, I generally lump people who speak of tubes and vinyl into the 'elitist' category, because they seem to project that they posess some rare and valuable listening skill that enables them to appreciate it more than the next guy.

It's two things, I suppose. The psysiological difference in ears, and plain old human tendancy to exhibit preference.

Maybe the guy with Bass +6 and 'Loudness' turned on, or is listening to vinyl via tube really /is/ hearing his most desireable response in his own ears. You can't knock him for that because it's not scientifically flat *outside* his head.
dareelest1 likes this.
cybe is offline  
post #23 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 09:41 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
MadJazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by duvetyne View Post

I stopped reading after this.
Do some research, posting your opinion as fact doesn't help your case....it makes you look uninformed.

Like I said before, I studied 3 semesters of electronics in college. I'm basing my opinion on what I learned, specifically regarding vinyl's advantages over the CD, in my 3rd semester. Here's an article that I used in my own personal research:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Whether or not what I learned, and what the article claims, is correct...is debatable. I've done research. And I'm definitely not uninformed. Possibly misinformed. I'll at least give you that.
MadJazz is offline  
post #24 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 10:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jarrod1937's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

Like I said before, I studied 3 semesters of electronics in college. I'm basing my opinion on what I learned, specifically regarding vinyl's advantages over the CD, in my 3rd semester. Here's an article that I used in my own personal research:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Whether or not what I learned, and what the article claims, is correct...is debatable. I've done research. And I'm definitely not uninformed. Possibly misinformed. I'll at least give you that.

Even though i am usually a fan of howstuffworks, there are some inaccuracies within that article.
The same rate, takes samples of the analog waveform. The analog waveform has varying wavelengths for each frequency. Having a 44 khz sample rate, according to the proven nyquist shannon theorem, is enough to accurately capture a maximum of 22 khz audio frequency and waveform (though, this varies a bit because of oversampling and such). This information is then stored in an encoded form on a cd. When the cd is played back, this encoded data is read, translated back to the samples, and run through a dac (digital to analog converter), which takes these samples, and outputs a smooth, accurate analog waveform that is the equivalent of the original sampled waveform. This signal is then treated the same as if you inputted an analog signal and run through an amplifier and then outputted to your speakers.
So, assuming you have a large enough sample rate, for a cd its 44 khz, you can recreate an analog waveform accurately up to the frequency given by the theorem, in cd's case it can accurately reproduce frequencies up to 20 khz (the other 2 khz is used as part of the oversampling as far as my understanding goes).
To quote the article "Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate."
Is a misunderstanding of the facts. No sound transitions "too quickly", you don't need to worry how long of a period over time the sound exist, that is completely irrelevant. All you need to worry about is the maximum frequency you're trying to capture... given that human being only hear up to 20 khz, cd's accurately capture all the frequencies we're able to hear.
There are other inaccuracies in the article, but i don't think i need to mention them.
jarrod1937 is offline  
post #25 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 11:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,156
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 154 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:


Like I said before, I studied 3 semesters of electronics in college. I'm basing my opinion on what I learned, specifically regarding vinyl's advantages over the CD, in my 3rd semester. Here's an article that I used in my own personal research:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Whether or not what I learned, and what the article claims, is correct...is debatable. I've done research. And I'm definitely not uninformed. Possibly misinformed. I'll at least give you that.

Yes, you seem to be misinformed. And that article is pure fiction. Whenever you see a discussion of digital sound that includes a diagram with a "stair-step" waveform, assume it's full of s**t. You won't be disappointed.

The relevant question is, which is closer to the waveform of the master recording: the waveform coming off your turntable, or the waveform coming out of your CD player? The answer is the CD player, and it's not even close. It's not just that digital reproduction is very, very accurate. The claim that a record groove "mirrors" the waveform is absurd; it's merely a physical approximation. And digital reproduction is a much better approximation.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't great-sounding LPs and crummy-sounding CDs out there, or that there aren't other factors that make LPs appealing to listen to. But for accuracy and resolution, digital media win hands down.
dareelest1 likes this.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #26 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 01:58 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,420
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

I know a lot of you are probably familiar with The Audio Critic's article "The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio". It's been referred to on this forum before. It's a good one! The article can be found here:

theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Sorry I couldn't post a link for it. The forum won't let me yet, as this is only my second post.

Anyways, I was wondering if any of you disagree with anything in the article, and if so what?

What is to object to, except maybe priorities?

I would say that the digital player jitter lie is far more prevalent than the disc treatment lie.

Quote:
I personally disagree with him about vinyl/analog not sounding superior to CDs/digital. Though I'm sure many of you do agree with him.

I've seen this argued to death. In the end the LP bigots like what they like and believe what they believe, no matter how irrational their fear of digital can be proven to be.

Quote:
I've always thought tube amps sounded better than solid state ones, but I could be wrong. I'd have to subject myself to an ABX test to confirm it.

ABX tests say that good tube amps and good SS amps are sonically indistinguishable. An examination of street prices show that good tubed amps are fightfully expensive to buy and mainatain, and the mediocre ones don't save you any money. The really bad ones (SETs) may even cost more.

Quote:
As far as "The Golden Ear Lie", I'm of the understanding that 5% can hear what 95% cannot. Call it a "trained ear", or a "golden ear", or whatever.

Listener training is very significant, but most self-professed golden ears are no better trained than average.

Some golden ears are positively hysterical about maintaining their self-image. This is a lever that is often used by salesmen to extract cash for overpriced garbage.

One outstanding example of this kind of hysteria that I've personally witnessed invovled Fremer from Stereophile. I would have been physically intimidated if I wasn't so much bigger than he. :-(

Quote:
What do you AVSers think of the article?

Very much on target, as far as it goes.
arnyk is offline  
post #27 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 02:05 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,420
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJazz View Post

Like I said before, I studied 3 semesters of electronics in college. I'm basing my opinion on what I learned, specifically regarding vinyl's advantages over the CD, in my 3rd semester. Here's an article that I used in my own personal research:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Whether or not what I learned, and what the article claims, is correct...is debatable.

There's no debate among knowlegable people, the article is just plain wrong.

The howstuffworks article even looks familiar to me. It reminds me of an article on the same topic was posted on Wikipedia, and quickly edited into shape by people who know their stuff.

I seem to recall that other howstuffworks articles also resemble Wikipedia articles. Maybe the howstuffworks people cribbed a copy of Wikipedia, but since they don't have such a good review process, they got stuck with this turkey.


Quote:
I've done research. And I'm definitely not uninformed. Possibly misinformed. I'll at least give you that.

I can't believe that you made it trough 3 semesters of electronics without learning enough to detect the obvious flaws in this article.

Perhaps your 3 semesters of electronics were under James Boyk at Caltech? Just for the record, Boyk is a far better musican than audio technologist.
arnyk is offline  
post #28 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 02:19 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,420
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadbury8 View Post

i read as far as vacuume tubes and gave up as its just an opinion.

"Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens
but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!)
digital components like CD and DVD players."

why not? they serve the same function as is stated later.

Only if you have a very narrow definition of function. In the larger sense, the modern technological world as we know it would be impossible if all we had was tubes.

Quote:
"What's wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. There's nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper incisors (that Mideastern grin); it's just
that modern dentistry offers more attractive options."

Gold for teeth are a lot more practical than tubes for audio or digital logic or just about anything. AFAIK gold teeth bite as well and last about as long as their modern, more economical, more natural-looking alternatives. Tubes miss
that mark by maybe 5 orders of magnitude.

Quote:
"Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability."

True.

Quote:
I'm sorry but i dont buy into the better.

You have to have a very narrow view of better to not see the fantastic advantage of SS over tubes, even in just pure audio circuits.

Quote:
if anything its the same.

In what alternative universe? You need to go to a computer museum and look at what a vacuum tube computer was, and how your digital wristwatch has how orders of magnitude more times processing power, not to mention your cell phone.

I lived through the days of tubes. I remember when every hardware store and drug store had a tube checker, and used them many times. I watched TV on tubed TV sets, which were wretched, especially when they added color. And I listened through tubed preamps, power amps, and tuners.

If you go through the archives of rock for some of the long-term stars like say Eri Clapton, you can hear the difference in clarity that happened when SS consoles and recorders came into widespread use, early in their career.

Quote:
greater reliablility? thats a maybe.

It is a for sure. I still have an operational Dyna ST-120 from the mid 70s that meets specs on the bench and has never had even one part replaced. The only way to keep a tube amp in that sort of condition involves new outputs every 6 months to a year, except for wildly overbuilt and highly expensive amps like McIntosh. The McIntosh would stretch that out to a few years.

Quote:
lower cost sure. I dont think china is turning out billions of tubes at this time.

Actually, China is one of the largest, if not the largest source of new tubes and new tubed equipment.

Quote:
at this point i just stopped reading.

Closed mind, anybody? :-(
arnyk is offline  
post #29 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 02:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lcaillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 3,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Closed mind, anybody? :-(

What else would you expect to find in this kind of thread on this kind of forum, Arny? Most posts on these threads are just a vehicle for someone to justify their own opinions, not really discuss things with an open mind, regardless of which side of the debate they fall.

Yes, calibration is important...every user should be calibrated.

Need electronics repair? A great place to start looking for a shop in your area: http://www.tvrepairpros.com/
lcaillo is offline  
post #30 of 624 Old 01-31-2009, 02:37 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,420
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcaillo View Post

What else would you expect to find in this kind of thread on this kind of forum, Arny? Most posts on these threads are just a vehicle for someone to justify their own opinions, not really discuss things with an open mind, regardless of which side of the debate they fall.


Sure there are things for which only opinions exist, such as who is the prettiest girl in this room full of pretty girls?

There's also the slight matter of things which we call facts but are actually hypothesis for which substantional amounts of relevant and critically-tested support exists. You know, hypothesis like water seeks its own level, arsenic is poisonous to humans in large quantities, and the earth is a round ball, and not a flat plane.

So no, not everything is pure unsupported opinion, no matter what they taught you in art appreciation class. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off