Audio Critic's Ten Biggest Lies

[mtrycrafts]

Old thread.

SheepStar

New life

 

[mtrycrafts]

Are there qualities that currently can't be measured AND can be heard under blind testing conditions?

No, there isn't.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Wow. That is an interesting article. I do have to comment about the Golden Ears thing and how he says that there is not such thing as a person that can hear sounds that others can't.
.

I think you are not understanding what was said but is right there,
a person that can hear sounds that others can't

This means that one person can hear something that no one else can. By 'others' that would cover just about anyone else out there and that Golden Ear person must be the only one who can.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... I could hear the cd spinning in my car deck while driving at 50km/h.. nobody else in the car could hear that. I could hear people whisper from 30 feet away with a TV on. If I ran a finger lightly on top of my jeans, I could hear it very loudly and clearly. I could hear pebbles grinding on my tires and hitting my car's undercarriage going at highway speeds. When I turned, i could hear every part of the car creak with the stress of the turn. (This isn't a cheapo car either...it was 3 months old and I spent more than $50K).

.

Don't know how to explain these away, but to hear the player spinning with a background noise of a car at such speed and wind noise, most unusual and am very skeptical. But, who knows, you could be it, just need to have further testing and proof

 

[no. 5]

Are there qualities that currently can't be measured AND can be heard under blind testing conditions?

No, there isn't.

As long as they know what to measure.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have been reading the debate and comment on Audio Critic's "Audio's 10 biggest lies" with extreme sceptisism and wonder.

It is good to be skeptical. One must carry that baloney detection kit with them at all times.

However friends, NOT all that I read regarding the "10 lies" holds true either! I have been in this hobby of ours for close to 25 years and anyone insisting that all gear sounds the same has simply either NOT heard different gear, is either with some serious hearing problems or just so much into the "measurments show all" mode of thinking that JUST does or can not Listen!

Well, the men behind TAC, including the tech guy, Dr. David Rich, has conducted plenty of comparisons of components over the many decades. However, they do it under levels matched to a close level, 0.1dB spl, and double blind with statistical analysis.
And, measurements do support what one hears. That is backed up by impressive research at place like the Canadian National Research Center.

I can hardly believe the comments that some people put in this and other forums! I have gone through quite a few amps, pre-amps, receivers, CD player and Turntables (not to say tuners and such) in my life to know that NOT a single piece of these sounded the same to my ears.

But, did you level match your comparisons to 0.1B spl? Conducted all of your comparisons under DBT protocol?
I seriously doubt it. And, at times, not even a PhD gives immunity from bias.

And these differences are not simply due to voicing as the Audio Critic or other similar publications seem to be preaching. There are differences between capacitors, resistors and topologies.

You just don't have the evidence on your side to support you that these make an audible difference.

David Rich and Peter Aczel, 'Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent,' 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053.

There are BIG differences between tubes and transistors and the sound of these is purely based to one's tastes and sensitivities. I have been designing and building speakers as a hobby for close to 20 years and I can tell you that a few simple substitutions to the components used in the crosover (components of the same value but different quality) can make or break am otherwise well designed speaker.

Well now. How do you know that the cap values were so close that it didn't alter anything but its construction did? Speculation only.

There are qualities that can not be measured or explained purely through measurments (yet...) and saying otherwise is just silly.

No, saying what you have is silly without credible evidence, don't you think?

I seriously love reading The Audio Critic but I also read the other publications, with delight (and dismay lots of times) but this is the only way to be well informed on a ceratin subject.

Yes, of course.

YES there is a lot of pseudo science and snake oil in the Hi-End industry and one HAS to use his brain and EARS to see through all the mumbo jumbo that is out there.

Yes, but that brain and ear is subject to bias and easy to fool.

No darn cable is ever worth more than a few dollars but gentlemen there IS a difference between a well designed and executed 12 gauge speaker cable and a 18 gauge electrical patch cord. Any EE worth his name can tell you that and any person with good ears and a decent stero rig can hear the difference.

Well, why do you pick 18ga? Try 16ga vs 12ga or 14ga. Then, you'd have a lot to prove and not much evidence for it. Resistance and inductance is important in speaker cables, period.
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Davis, Fred E., 'Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions,' JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91

Greenhill, Larry 'Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?' Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51.

I know that it can not be resolved in here but my point is: Listen, seriously DO LISTEN and you may at least see part of the truth revealed! ANd although there are some superb values out there I can assure anyone tha wants to LISTEN that no simple chepo receiver can ever compare to a properly built amp. I have gone throught both and I still own both and NO I would could never live with my receiver after having heard what a good (and sensible) gear can do... Have a good one you all!

Yes, one must listen. That is what TAC has done over the decades and more so than what other pubs try to claim.
But, it is one of the senses that can be fooled so easily that one must take precautions if one wants reliable data. No one is immune.

Perhaps that simple cheapo receiver is not properly built or designed? Or, you are operating outside of its design parameters?
By the way, which amp is properly built?

 

[Bloodstriker]

Don't know how to explain these away, but to hear the player spinning with a background noise of a car at such speed and wind noise, most unusual and am very skeptical. But, who knows, you could be it, just need to have further testing and proof

Yeah, it scared me at first and I didn't know what the sound was. I turned the volume of the CD all the way down, but it was still on, so the disc was spinning. This was just about half a year ago, so I remember it vividly. The one thing I that was driving me nuts was that I wasn't able to selectively ignore those sounds.

I don't think testing would do much, since I can't hear it anymore. It was just for about two weeks.

Hmm.. gonig back to the spray that makes cds sound better. I had a discussion about this with someone just now and they believe that a cd player does not read the cd accurately, and the spray facilitates in that. I say it's bunk, and here's my argument. Please let me know if this makes sense or not.

An audio CD stores data the same way a data CD does. We could fill a CD with data consiting of ASCII text. That means if any of the pits were misread, a 0 would become a 1. That would in turn change a letter from say an "A" to "B." If all the letters can be reproduced properly, then we can conclude that the cd has been read without any errors.

There is not such thing as a poor quality of the read simply because of nature of binary data. It's either a 1 or 0. simple as that. No such thing as 1.5.

From my understanding, the only thing that would make adifference in the sound quality of a CD player is the DAC (on the digital side), and any components that handle a non-digital signal (output, connectors, etc).

Is my logic correct?

 

[MDS]

There is not such thing as a poor quality of the read simply because of nature of binary data. It's either a 1 or 0. simple as that. No such thing as 1.5.

Is my logic correct?

Yes, but it is not that simple.

The pits and lands do encode the ones and zeros but they have to be accurately read. The laser focuses on the disc and the pits and lands reflect that light differently. It is possible that a pit is identified as a land and vice-versa but it is exteremely rare unless the drive cannot maintain the correct rotational velocity or there are extreme scratches on the disc that destroy many blocks of data (making error correction near impossible).

Many people are of the opinion that 'it's just zeros and ones' and it either gets there perfectly or not all. That's what happens in practice but is not entirely accurate - many things could go wrong.

My standard example to explain this stuff in non-technical terms is this:
Say you and a friend agree to talk to each other using morse code and flashlights (morse code is binary after all - there are only two states: dot and dash). You agree that a pulse of light of 1 second is dash and a pulse of light of .5 seconds is a dot. [Ignore the fact that the example is contrived because a human couldn't accurately determine .5 seconds vs 1 second of light].

Now, due to some circumstance - say your hands are shaking, an object is temporarily in the path, etc - and the receiver thinks it saw a pulse of .75 seconds. How should the receiver interpret it? Was that a dash (1) that was too short or was it supposed to be a dot (0) but it was too long? He hasto make a decision (which is what error correction does) and if the guess is wrong your message is interpreted differently than what you intended.

 

[Sheep]

Did they ever release any follow up articles like that one?

SheepStar

 

[Bloodstriker]

My standard example to explain this stuff in non-technical terms is this:
Say you and a friend agree to talk to each other using morse code and flashlights (morse code is binary after all - there are only two states: dot and dash). You agree that a pulse of light of 1 second is dash and a pulse of light of .5 seconds is a dot. [Ignore the fact that the example is contrived because a human couldn't accurately determine .5 seconds vs 1 second of light].

Now, due to some circumstance - say your hands are shaking, an object is temporarily in the path, etc - and the receiver thinks it saw a pulse of .75 seconds. How should the receiver interpret it? Was that a dash (1) that was too short or was it supposed to be a dot (0) but it was too long? He hasto make a decision (which is what error correction does) and if the guess is wrong your message is interpreted differently than what you intended.

Thanks for your reply. I'm learning a lot today!

Now I understand how a laser can have a reading error, but wouldn't the checksum make sure that the data was interpretted correctly? i.e. the reciever saying "that didn't make sense, say it again" until either the message was delivered and it made sense (i.e. equaling the checksum) or it results in corrupted data (i.e. I don't understand, but keep going) and it skips that part?

Just trying to understand what's going on here!

 

[MDS]

The data on a CD is not in linear order. It is interleaved (CIRC - Cross Interleaved Reed-Solomon Code) and also encoded using EFM (eight to fourteen modulation, every 8 bits is actuallly 14). In most cases the error correction will be successful but not always.

Horizontal scratches around the disc generally pose no problem due to the CIRC coding but vertical scratches from the center of the disc towards the outside edge destroy many blocks that go together. Some players will try to interpolate what the data should have been and others will mute it if it cannot determine the correct data.

The mechanical aspects of the player could pose problems too if it cannot maintain the correct rotational velocity to read at the rate required (1.2 - 1.4 m/s) or the laser's focus area is too wide or too narrow.

In practice, that stuff rarely happens though.

 

[Rickster71]

I agree with you mtrycrafts, on all, except the Topological Analysis.
I used to do physical PCB design/layout.
When the Electrical Engineer had an EMI problem; I'd end up spending many a late night moving components and, or path work to resolve it.
So lets say for test purposes, after each tweak, we made a small model run of each board reiteration, they would all sound a bit different.
So even with levels matched to a close level, 0.1dB spl.
Different brands of amplification will sound, well... different.
All with vastly different topologies, engineers, designers, and schedules.
Did the Denon IEEE add more or less ground plane than the Krell IEEE?
Who knows where they were in the design process, when their deadline came up and they 'had' to go to production.
IMHO
Rick

 

[Hi-Fi ve]

the super-sensitive hearing went away after about 2 weeks. Maybe I need to get my ears cleaned again.

Perhaps your aural sense is adjusting to change.

 

[zhimbo]

Perhaps your aural sense is adjusting to change.

Yep - it's probably habituation. The high frequencies have been re-adjusted on the neural equalizer.

 

[Bloodstriker]

Thanks again, MDS - that's a ton of info.

 

[Hi-Fi ve]

Under properly controlled BLIND testing conditions.

If you can still hear it, it's probably real. If you can't, it probably isn't.

But according to them (the believers) if you can't , the test is flawed. "The concept of double blind test is flawed." as they like to put it.

 

[Tomorrow]

But according to them (the believers) if you can't , the test is flawed. "The concept of double blind test is flawed." as they like to put it.

This is a great old thread!

Just a quick, niche comment on the science of audio vs. 'listening', or objectivists vs. subjectivists as I understand the matter.

With regard to audio perception double blind testing, the valid statistical studies use standard protocol procedures for experimental design, testing, and mathematical analysis. Please note that measuring significance or non-significance of perceived events (such as loudspeaker listening/preference) always includes statistical manipulations or deviations from some mean.

To the subjectivists...yes, we all do hear slightly differently, but tendencies and abilities are analyzed for statistical significance within the population. To deny the science of audio or to suggest that preference equates to truth seems rationally unwise.

 

[Geno]

The only thing I think is wrong is the "Power Conditioner Lie". I've heard power conditioners make a very audible improvement in the sound. Now this isn't something like "smoother highs, chocolately mids" but rather took noise out of the speaker line. A simple A/B test with the system plugged into the conditioner and straight into the wall yielded very different results. Without the conditioner in place, there was a very audible white noise and hum coming through the speakers. With it in, there was nearly silence.

I think that any system should be on a quality power conditioner. These will not only keep noise out, but add another line of protection from line surges.

I've been dealing with this sort of thing for over 20 years in the medical imaging business. If we have a noise problem, we analyze the AC waveform on an oscilloscope, determine the amplitude and nature of the noise, and install a suitable device to eliminate it. In a nutshell, if your AC power is relatively clean, you don't need to do anything. Buying an expensive line conditioner if your power is OK is like having heart bypass surgery if you don't have heart disease.
I love articles like the one cited here - it validates the common sense that seems to me missing in the high-end world.

 

[mtrycrafts]

But according to them (the believers) if you can't , the test is flawed. "The concept of double blind test is flawed." as they like to put it.

If they didn't have that argument, they would have to change their belief engine and that is hard for many

 

[mtrycrafts]

I agree with you mtrycrafts, on all, except the Topological Analysis.
I used to do physical PCB design/layout.
When the Electrical Engineer had an EMI problem; I'd end up spending many a late night moving components and, or path work to resolve it.
So lets say for test purposes, after each tweak, we made a small model run of each board reiteration, they would all sound a bit different.
So even with levels matched to a close level, 0.1dB spl.
Different brands of amplification will sound, well... different.
All with vastly different topologies, engineers, designers, and schedules.
Did the Denon IEEE add more or less ground plane than the Krell IEEE?
Who knows where they were in the design process, when their deadline came up and they 'had' to go to production.
IMHO
Rick

I think you are interpreting that 'topologial' incorrectly how the author uses it.
It is not the way the trace is on the board that would pick up EMI which could show up in the specs but the different design stiles, types of active elements such as bipolar or JFET, MOSFET, etc.
Testing has not supported one better or worse than the other when frequency response is flat enough, noise and distortion is below known threshold of detection (this is known) high input impedance, low output impedance that was mentioned, operated withing design limits.
If this wasn't the case, DBT would show this and the winning design would be copied by all. After all, they are not speakers and need to be transparent; that is the goal. Only the high end, some at least tries the 'euphonic' road.