More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t
Discussion
Having invested bits and pieces from time to time, I've found the following equation to be useful:
In that for me, the sound of my music was heavily influenced by my choice of beverage and how comfortable I was (and my system) over the choice of music.
Sometimes you want Don't Fear the Reaper from a knackered car stereo in the sun.
Sometimes Credence via bluetooth in the kitchen.
And very occasionally heavy duty vinyl Pink Floyd over a whisky in the lounge!!
Be HONEST about what you want and need is the best advice to all the sales gimmicks - apple speaker I'm looking at you!
In that for me, the sound of my music was heavily influenced by my choice of beverage and how comfortable I was (and my system) over the choice of music.
Sometimes you want Don't Fear the Reaper from a knackered car stereo in the sun.
Sometimes Credence via bluetooth in the kitchen.
And very occasionally heavy duty vinyl Pink Floyd over a whisky in the lounge!!
Be HONEST about what you want and need is the best advice to all the sales gimmicks - apple speaker I'm looking at you!
"A must for every McIntosh owner
Let everyone who looks at your McIntosh home audio system know where it came from and how it was built with the LB100 Light Box. It proudly displays the “Handcrafted In The USA Since 1949” statement as a badge of honor.
...a distinct and awe inspiring appearance."
$1,500 dollars https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/merchandise/...
Let everyone who looks at your McIntosh home audio system know where it came from and how it was built with the LB100 Light Box. It proudly displays the “Handcrafted In The USA Since 1949” statement as a badge of honor.
...a distinct and awe inspiring appearance."
$1,500 dollars https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/merchandise/...
hyphen said:
"A must for every McIntosh owner
<snip>
How does it weigh so much!<snip>
Dimensions (W x H x D)
17-1/2" (44.45cm) x 6" (15.24cm) x 11-7/16" (29.05cm)
Weight
12 lbs (5.2 kg)
Shipping Weight
27 lbs (12.25 kg)
And the shipping weight more than doubles the item weight?
Anyway, it makes the McIntosh Clock look like an absolute bargain at $1800!!!
Mr2Mike said:
Tony Starks said:
What the hell is the 'noise floor'? I see this all the time on the audiophile stuff, same with sound stage.
It's the level of noise from all contributions e.g. thermal noise, shot noise etc. and limits the the lowest level signal that can be perceived i.e. it determines the bottom of the dynamic range. This isn't a an Audiofool term, it's real.When recording digitally, what used to be called 'in the box' (in the computer), this noise is dramatically reduced because of the advent of 24bit analogue to digital interfaces, which enabled a great improvement over 16bit recorded audio.
Noise floor was much lower in comparison, so there was no real need to record at the very top of the maximum dynamic range at the point where you're about to go into the red and possibly clip; 24 bits means you can have a moderately loud recording with a much quieter noise floor, so any processing which affected the recording's dynamic range or increased it's gain, meant that the noise was much lower in comparison to the audio in the recording, so it was effectively masked.
I've seen cryogenics/cryogenically in this thread several times, all marketing guff.
From Wiki:
In physics, cryogenics is the production and behaviour of materials at very low temperatures. It is not well-defined at what point on the temperature scale refrigeration ends and cryogenics begins, but scientists assume a gas to be cryogenic if it can be liquefied at or below −150 °C (123 K; −238 °F).
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell cryogenics has to do with construction of cables!!
From Wiki:
In physics, cryogenics is the production and behaviour of materials at very low temperatures. It is not well-defined at what point on the temperature scale refrigeration ends and cryogenics begins, but scientists assume a gas to be cryogenic if it can be liquefied at or below −150 °C (123 K; −238 °F).
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell cryogenics has to do with construction of cables!!
TonyRPH said:
And here we go - a record clamp.
$3200 for a machined lump of wood.
not sure what's going on with the quote levels here!----
Where to start...!
'expanded sound staging' - the device creates additional digital information or analogue signals and increases the panning of instruments and widening of the stereo field? In other words, it achieves something which can only be done electronically/digitally (but of course it doesn't and can't)
'enhanced separation' - of what? instruments? Frequencies? Either way this claim means the device is either boosting the harmonics or attenuating fundamental frequencies of all instruments, voices etc, which means it's either creating new audio information by some sort of analysis and enhancement (which it's very definitely not!) or, if reducing the fundamentals lower frequencies to improve clarity, it's actually removing audio information and therefore degrading sound quality! - either one of those MUST be true if the device offers 'enhanced separation'
'sharpened focus' - removes reverb and unwanted reflections? That's the holy grail which, until recently, was outside of the scope of high end, cutting egde audio processing hardware and software! Or does the idiot writing this crap mean that the device strips away undesirable frequencies which the artist, the mixing engineer, the producer and the mastering guy all agreed sounded exactly as they should?!
'enriched tonal balance' - in other words, imprints a better frequency response onto the music by eliminating the mistakes that the artist, mix engineer, producer and mastering facility made throughout the entire process. yeah, right
Next!
$3200 for a machined lump of wood.
Audiogon said:
blah blah blah blah etc This in turn is feed back through the stylus and is reproduced as expanded sound staging, enhanced separation, sharpened focus and enriched tonal balance of the music....
not sure what's going on with the quote levels here!----
Where to start...!
'expanded sound staging' - the device creates additional digital information or analogue signals and increases the panning of instruments and widening of the stereo field? In other words, it achieves something which can only be done electronically/digitally (but of course it doesn't and can't)
'enhanced separation' - of what? instruments? Frequencies? Either way this claim means the device is either boosting the harmonics or attenuating fundamental frequencies of all instruments, voices etc, which means it's either creating new audio information by some sort of analysis and enhancement (which it's very definitely not!) or, if reducing the fundamentals lower frequencies to improve clarity, it's actually removing audio information and therefore degrading sound quality! - either one of those MUST be true if the device offers 'enhanced separation'
'sharpened focus' - removes reverb and unwanted reflections? That's the holy grail which, until recently, was outside of the scope of high end, cutting egde audio processing hardware and software! Or does the idiot writing this crap mean that the device strips away undesirable frequencies which the artist, the mixing engineer, the producer and the mastering guy all agreed sounded exactly as they should?!
'enriched tonal balance' - in other words, imprints a better frequency response onto the music by eliminating the mistakes that the artist, mix engineer, producer and mastering facility made throughout the entire process. yeah, right
Next!
soupdragon1 said:
I've seen cryogenics/cryogenically in this thread several times, all marketing guff.
From Wiki:
In physics, cryogenics is the production and behaviour of materials at very low temperatures. It is not well-defined at what point on the temperature scale refrigeration ends and cryogenics begins, but scientists assume a gas to be cryogenic if it can be liquefied at or below ?150 °C (123 K; ?238 °F).
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell cryogenics has to do with construction of cables!!
Cryogenics - as above, the crucial bit is that it is the behaviour of materials when they are used at the low temperaturesFrom Wiki:
In physics, cryogenics is the production and behaviour of materials at very low temperatures. It is not well-defined at what point on the temperature scale refrigeration ends and cryogenics begins, but scientists assume a gas to be cryogenic if it can be liquefied at or below ?150 °C (123 K; ?238 °F).
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell cryogenics has to do with construction of cables!!
Cryogenic processing/cryogenic treatment/cryotreatment - method of 'heat' treatment where the material is subjected to cryogenic temperatures for a few hours to impart changes in the microstructure and therefore exhibit some different properties e.g. wear resistance, dimensional stability etc.
It's the latter than is mostly referred to in audiophile circles, the argument being that the microstructure of the material is refined through cryotreatment and this promotes 'better' signals and therefore sound.
There is quite a lot of debate about the mechanisms that cause the changes to the properties/microstructure that can be observed in the material. I'm not sure anyone can explain why it produces a difference in audio quality that people can perceive.
soupdragon1 said:
...I'm still trying to figure out what the hell cryogenics has to do with construction of cables!!
Dr Slotter said:
...There is quite a lot of debate about the mechanisms that cause the changes to the properties/microstructure that can be observed in the material. I'm not sure anyone can explain why it produces a difference in audio quality that people can perceive.
Wouldn't it be fairly straightforward to do a sensitive resistance test to measure the exact properties between a 'cryo' vs. normal audio cable? Regardless, I bet any difference in a listening test would be so slight to be imperceptible.You could test further by having a reference microphone cable made out of normal cable and 'cryo' cable.
Using a reference mic, record a precise reference sound twice, under lab conditions, once with each cable, into a digital audio workstation through a precisely measured AD interface.
In the DAW, invert the phase of one recording, make sure they're phase aligned.
- The result, when played back simultaneously, will be silence if there is no benefit from the cryo cable.
If there is any resulting/remaining sound, what will be audible will be:
the enhanced sound resulting from the use of cryo cable, or
the cryo cable will have made a poorer recording, and the audio which can be detected will demonstrate the 'extra' audio that it has missed, which was captured by the normal cable.
Although some of this sounds quite technical, there are a decent number of audio facilities around the country, manned by qualified audio engineers who are capable of doing tests like this - but I have no idea if any of these snake oil peddlers have had their claims backed with basic scientific evidence.
And it really, really doesn't matter.
If people with money to burn choose to blow it on a bit of cable, that's fine by me. Just as I've no problem with people making their cars heavier by adding carbon.
And I tell you what, if I could come up with something that rich people would pay thousands for, and I could pack up my current job to do it, and it put more money into my bank account and pensions, I'd be doing it yesterday.
Ever seen that incompetent, slow and clueless driver in the car of your dreams? Not all that different really.
If people with money to burn choose to blow it on a bit of cable, that's fine by me. Just as I've no problem with people making their cars heavier by adding carbon.
And I tell you what, if I could come up with something that rich people would pay thousands for, and I could pack up my current job to do it, and it put more money into my bank account and pensions, I'd be doing it yesterday.
Ever seen that incompetent, slow and clueless driver in the car of your dreams? Not all that different really.
ReverendCounter said:
Wouldn't it be fairly straightforward to do a sensitive resistance test to measure the exact properties between a 'cryo' vs. normal audio cable? Regardless, I bet any difference in a listening test would be so slight to be imperceptible.
You could test further by having a reference microphone cable made out of normal cable and 'cryo' cable.
Using a reference mic, record a precise reference sound twice, under lab conditions, once with each cable, into a digital audio workstation through a precisely measured AD interface.
In the DAW, invert the phase of one recording, make sure they're phase aligned.
- The result, when played back simultaneously, will be silence if there is no benefit from the cryo cable.
If there is any resulting/remaining sound, what will be audible will be:
the enhanced sound resulting from the use of cryo cable, or
the cryo cable will have made a poorer recording, and the audio which can be detected will demonstrate the 'extra' audio that it has missed, which was captured by the normal cable.
Although some of this sounds quite technical, there are a decent number of audio facilities around the country, manned by qualified audio engineers who are capable of doing tests like this - but I have no idea if any of these snake oil peddlers have had their claims backed with basic scientific evidence.
Yep, that's pretty much the sort of thing that you would do. What I was trying to say was that if you did all that and detected/perceived a difference in the cables by whatever metric, I'm not sure anyone can absolutely identify and state what has changed in the material (e.g. microstructure) that produced that difference.You could test further by having a reference microphone cable made out of normal cable and 'cryo' cable.
Using a reference mic, record a precise reference sound twice, under lab conditions, once with each cable, into a digital audio workstation through a precisely measured AD interface.
In the DAW, invert the phase of one recording, make sure they're phase aligned.
- The result, when played back simultaneously, will be silence if there is no benefit from the cryo cable.
If there is any resulting/remaining sound, what will be audible will be:
the enhanced sound resulting from the use of cryo cable, or
the cryo cable will have made a poorer recording, and the audio which can be detected will demonstrate the 'extra' audio that it has missed, which was captured by the normal cable.
Although some of this sounds quite technical, there are a decent number of audio facilities around the country, manned by qualified audio engineers who are capable of doing tests like this - but I have no idea if any of these snake oil peddlers have had their claims backed with basic scientific evidence.
There are electronics engineers who have stated on various hifi forums that there's no way that certain cables can make a difference, and that improving the mains cables can make a difference. I'm not one for getting involved with the arguments, but there have been occasions when one or two of these experts has been lucky enough to hear a comparison and, although there's no way they can explain it, they've acknowledged a difference.
I've heard plenty of systems over the last twenty years, and it's still the room that has the greatest influence. I'd hate to be trying to fine tune a horrible room with thousands of pounds of interconnect!
I've heard plenty of systems over the last twenty years, and it's still the room that has the greatest influence. I'd hate to be trying to fine tune a horrible room with thousands of pounds of interconnect!
Dr Slotter said:
What I was trying to say was that if you did all that and detected/perceived a difference in the cables by whatever metric, I'm not sure anyone can absolutely identify and state what has changed in the material (e.g. microstructure) that produced that difference.
In some cases it seems it could be a placebo effect. I accept that some accessories do improve the listening experience and also the accuracy of results when audio needs to be closely assessed instead as well as enjoyed.There must also be a cumulative effect which leads to an identifiable improvement in the listening experience - however the amount you need to spend in order to experience a 5% increase in enjoyment from music - retorical question, but is it really worthwhile, or would it be better spent going to see bands play who take their audio seriously?
Think I'd prefer a packed gig calendar myself!
Tony1963 said:
I've heard plenty of systems over the last twenty years, and it's still the room that has the greatest influence. I'd hate to be trying to fine tune a horrible room with thousands of pounds of interconnect!
Glad you brought up rooms - it was a revelation to me when I realised/learned that the dimensions making up a room had a direct correlation to wavelengths of certain notes on certain instrument groups and their ranges. Acoustic treatment should be the first thing on the list but it's generally not shiny so gets overlooked! ReverendCounter said:
Tony1963 said:
I've heard plenty of systems over the last twenty years, and it's still the room that has the greatest influence. I'd hate to be trying to fine tune a horrible room with thousands of pounds of interconnect!
Glad you brought up rooms - it was a revelation to me when I realised/learned that the dimensions making up a room had a direct correlation to wavelengths of certain notes on certain instrument groups and their ranges. Acoustic treatment should be the first thing on the list but it's generally not shiny so gets overlooked! I bought last month's WhatHiFi because reasons.
They had a review of a pair of speakers that cost £61,500.
Now, these are active speakers and they receive a signal from exactly 2 sources: wired, or wireless via a PC running custom software and a WiFi dongle, or their own WiFi box at an additional £10,250 for the entry level model (!).
Of course, the reviewers reckon that they could tell the difference between wired or wireless and that they preferred the "lively and open" wireless method even though it lost a "touch of focus and subtlety".
As the speakers sound different purely on the basis of the signal transport method, we can infer that at least one of them is lossy. Of those, logic suggests it would be the wireless method that would be lossy as it must be either digitally sampled or be on an analogue waveform (aka radio). And yet this is the method the reviewers claim to prefer.
The mind boggles.
They had a review of a pair of speakers that cost £61,500.
Now, these are active speakers and they receive a signal from exactly 2 sources: wired, or wireless via a PC running custom software and a WiFi dongle, or their own WiFi box at an additional £10,250 for the entry level model (!).
Of course, the reviewers reckon that they could tell the difference between wired or wireless and that they preferred the "lively and open" wireless method even though it lost a "touch of focus and subtlety".
As the speakers sound different purely on the basis of the signal transport method, we can infer that at least one of them is lossy. Of those, logic suggests it would be the wireless method that would be lossy as it must be either digitally sampled or be on an analogue waveform (aka radio). And yet this is the method the reviewers claim to prefer.
The mind boggles.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff