What annoys me today in marketing and media that too often today then talking on hi-fi, science is replaced by bizarre belief structures and marketing fluff, leading to a decades-long stagnation of the audiophile domain. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Hi-fi world is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
Business for Engineers: Marketers Lie article points tout that marketing tells lies — falsehoods — things that serve to convey a false impression. Marketing’s purpose is to determining how the product will be branded, positioned, and sold. It seems that there too many snake oil rubbish products marketed in the name of hifi. It is irritating to watch the stupid people in the world be fooled.
In EEVblog #29 – Audiophile Audiophoolery video David L. Jones (from EEVBlog) cuts loose on the Golden Ear Audiophiles and all their Audiophoolery snake oil rubbish. The information presented in Dave’s unique non-scripted overly enthusiastic style! He’s an enthusiastic chap, but couldn’t agree more with many of the opinions he expressed: Directional cables, thousand dollar IEC power cables, and all that rubbish. Monster Cable gets mostered. Note what he says right at the end: “If you pay ridiculous money for these cable you will hear a difference, but don’t expect your friends to”. If you want to believe, you will.
My points on hifi-nonsense:
One of the tenets of audiophile systems is that they are assembled from components, allegedly so that the user can “choose” the best combination. This is pretty largely a myth. The main advantage of component systems is that the dealer can sell ridiculously expensive cables, hand-knitted by Peruvian virgins and soaked in snake oil, to connect it all up. Say goodbye to the noughties: Yesterday’s hi-fi biz is BUSTED, bro article asks are the days of floorstanders and separates numbered? If traditional two-channel audio does have a future, then it could be as the preserve of high resolution audio. Sony has taken the industry lead in High-Res Audio.
HIFI Cable Humbug and Snake oil etc. blog posting rightly points out that there is too much emphasis placed on spending huge sums of money on HIFI cables. Most of what is written about this subject is complete tripe. HIFI magazines promote myths about the benefits of all sorts of equipment. I am as amazed as the writer that that so called audiophiles and HIFI journalists can be fooled into thinking that very expensive speaker cables etc. improve performance. I generally agree – most of this expensive interconnect cable stuff is just plain overpriced.
I can agree that in analogue interconnect cables there are few cases where better cables can really result in cleaner sound, but usually getting any noticeable difference needs that the one you compare with was very bad yo start with (clearly too thin speaker wires with resistance, interconnect that picks interference etc..) or the equipment in the systems are so that they are overly-sensitive to cable characteristics (generally bad equipment designs can make for example cable capacitance affect 100 times or more than it should). Definitely too much snake oil. Good solid engineering is all that is required (like keep LCR low, Teflon or other good insulation, shielding if required, proper gauge for application and the distance traveled). Geometry is a factor but not in the same sense these yahoos preach and deceive.
In digital interconnect cables story is different than on those analogue interconnect cables. Generally in digital interconnect cables the communication either works, does not work or sometimes work unreliably. The digital cable either gets the bits to the other end or not, it does not magically alter the sound that goes through the cable. You need to have active electronics like digital signal processor to change the tone of the audio signal traveling on the digital cable, cable will just not do that.
But this digital interconnect cables characteristics has not stopped hifi marketers to make very expensive cable products that are marketed with unbelievable claims. Ethernet has come to audio world, so there are hifi Ethernet cables. How about 500 dollar Ethernet cable? That’s ridiculous. And it’s only 1.5 meters. Then how about $10,000 audiophile ethernet cable? Bias your dielectrics with the Dielectric-Bias ethernet cable from AudioQuest: “When insulation is unbiased, it slows down parts of the signal differently, a big problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio.” I see this as complete marketing crap speak. It seems that they’re made for gullible idiots. No professional would EVER waste money on those cables. Audioquest even produces iPhone sync cables in similar price ranges.
HIFI Cable insulators/supports (expensive blocks that keep cables few centimeters off the floor) are a product category I don’t get. They typically claim to offer incredible performance as well as appealing appearance. Conventional cable isolation theory holds that optimal cable performance can be achieved by elevating cables from the floor in an attempt to control vibrations and manage static fields. Typical cable elevators are made from electrically insulating materials such as wood, glass, plastic or ceramics. Most of these products claim superior performance based upon the materials or methods of elevation. I don’t get those claims.
Along with green magic markers on CDs and audio bricks is another item called the wire conditioner. The claim is that unused wires do not sound the same as wires that have been used for a period of time. I don’t get this product category. And I don’t believe claims in the line like “Natural Quartz crystals along with proprietary materials cause a molecular restructuring of the media, which reduces stress, and significantly improves its mechanical, acoustic, electric, and optical characteristics.” All sounds like just pure marketing with no real benefits.
CD no evil, hear no evil. But the key thing about the CD was that it represented an obvious leap from earlier recording media that simply weren’t good enough for delivery of post-produced material to the consumer to one that was. Once you have made that leap, there is no requirement to go further. The 16 bits of CD were effectively extended to 18 bits by the development of noise shaping, which allows over 100dB signal to noise ratio. That falls a bit short of the 140dB maximum range of human hearing, but that has never been a real goal. If you improve the digital media, the sound quality limiting problem became the transducers; the headphones and the speakers.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article says that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. I can agree with this. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article makes good points on design, DSPs and the debunking of traditional hi-fi. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Legacy loudspeakers are omni-directional at low frequencies, but as frequency rises, the radiation becomes more directional until at the highest frequencies the sound only emerges directly forwards. Thus to enjoy the full frequency range, the listener has to sit in the so-called sweet spot. As a result legacy loudspeakers with sweet spots need extensive room treatment to soak up the deficient off-axis sound. New tools that can change speaker system designs in the future are omni-directional speakers and DSP-based room correction. It’s a scenario ripe for “disruption”.
Computers have become an integrated part of many audio setups. Back in the day integrated audio solutions in PCs had trouble earning respect. Ode To Sound Blaster: Are Discrete Audio Cards Still Worth the Investment? posting tells that it’s been 25 years since the first Sound Blaster card was introduced (a pretty remarkable feat considering the diminished reliance on discrete audio in PCs) and many enthusiasts still consider a sound card an essential piece to the PC building puzzle. It seems that in general onboard sound is finally “Good Enough”, and has been “Good Enough” for a long time now. For most users it is hard to justify the high price of special sound card on PC anymore. There are still some PCs with bad sound hardware on motherboard and buttload of cheap USB adapters with very poor performance. However, what if you want the best sound possible, the lowest noise possible, and don’t really game or use the various audio enhancements? You just want a plain-vanilla sound card, but with the highest quality audio (products typically made for music makers). You can find some really good USB solutions that will blow on-board audio out of the water for about $100 or so.
Although solid-state technology overwhelmingly dominates today’s world of electronics, vacuum tubes are holding out in two small but vibrant areas. Some people like the sound of tubes. The Cool Sound of Tubes article says that a commercially viable number of people find that they prefer the sound produced by tubed equipment in three areas: musical-instrument (MI) amplifiers (mainly guitar amps), some processing devices used in recording studios, and a small but growing percentage of high-fidelity equipment at the high end of the audiophile market. Keep those filaments lit, Design your own Vacuum Tube Audio Equipment article claims that vacuum tubes do sound better than transistors (before you hate in the comments check out this scholarly article on the topic). The difficulty is cost; tube gear is very expensive because it uses lots of copper, iron, often point-to-point wired by hand, and requires a heavy metal chassis to support all of these parts. With this high cost and relative simplicity of circuitry (compared to modern electronics) comes good justification for building your own gear. Maybe this is one of the last frontiers of do-it-yourself that is actually worth doing.
2,643 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
A long-time pressing analyst shows how marketing shortcuts turned audiophile vinyl into a vague promise instead of a real standard.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/vinyl-collector-exposes-labels-premium-pressings/
Tomi Engdahl says:
The comments hide a dead-simple trick for killing motherboard hiss that has nothing to do with “better DACs.”
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/pc-builder-apple-adapter-expensive-audio-chip/
Tomi Engdahl says:
He argues that even though high-resolution PCM formats like 96kHz or 192kHz are improvements over CD quality, they still lag behind DSD.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/dsd-audio-true-analog-sound-grammy-engineer/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ansuz | Premium Audio Cables and Power SolutionsAudio Group Denmark https://share.google/IOM9YhWSbxRWd5rA2
Tomi Engdahl says:
When AC mains go into audio gear, it gets converted into DC and filtered. Asymmetry, distortion, RF and transients will have zero effect on the quality of the DC output if the supply-regulator and power distribution within the device are well designed… and the kicker is this: If you really needed perfect sine waves for genuinely high end or professional audio gear, then that gear would NOT qualify as “high end”… It would be crap!
Tomi Engdahl says:
Are vinyl records hi-fi?
Some vinyl records can sound very good and even “hi-fi” if: The mastering and pressing quality are excellent. The equipment used for playback is high-quality and well-maintained.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Is audiophile vinyl better than digital formats? It depends on personal preference. Some argue that high-resolution digital formats can offer comparable or even better sound quality, but many still prefer the warmth, depth, and analog character of vinyl.
What Is an Audiophile Vinyl? – Twlinch https://share.google/U1Iv4BRrl3ozuC4sU
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ok, digital is perfect. Here’s the thing about it louder sounds better. So the recording engineers compress the original and then raise the level to the point where it sounds like mush. No dynamics just thump.
That’s not inherent to digital that’s just bad practice
The “loudness war” affected lots of 100% analog records back in the ’60s, too.
Yeah but the problem now is they don’t master specifically for vinyl anymore, so most vinyl new releases are using the same digital master.
vinyl records does not have higher quality audio then digital formats. Digital formats are high fidelity, vinyl records are not.
Now, what sounds better to our ears, and how important is 100% fidelity is a different pair of shoes.
even simple 44.1 kHz 16 bit digital files test better than LPs in basically every metric.
Going to comment since nobody else has yet – while digital is conceptually far better, many formats (e.g. mp3) compress and reduce the sound in some manner for various reasons.
Many of the people here enjoy both formats – e.g. streaming for casual listening and often, more dedicated listening to records. Everyone has their own prefetences though.
Digital music is made up of discrete units of data but those units are so small that the human ear/brain system can only detect them in sum. It’s like a TV that has pixels too small to be able to discern them in an image.
How does vinyl have the highest quality audio? : r/turntables https://share.google/udDsS4Ya3hnjNLBCW
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vinyl does not sound better than digital. It’s settled with a double blind controlled MUSHRA-tests : r/audioengineering https://share.google/Z57l65bmlV2FCPTKJ
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vinyl revival – Wikipedia https://share.google/Otsfr6Dn3wbfn3sOj
Tomi Engdahl says:
Human ears can’t reliably tell the difference. Listeners in a Boston Audio Society study scored 49.8% accuracy when comparing hi-res files to CD-quality versions, which is worse than a coin flip across 554 controlled trials.
The “Hi-Res Music” certification badge actually helps this along. Under the RIAA standard, a file only needs to be 48kHz/24-bit to qualify, no matter what the original source actually sounded like.
In certain catalogs, up to 99.8% of “hi-res” files are just upsampled CDs.
“A 1906 cylinder recording, transferred at 48/24, could qualify as Hi-Res Music,”
Tidal also acknowledged that some FLAC files were produced from MQA source files
Roughly speaking, a 16kHz ceiling points to a 128kbps MP3 source, and around 19kHz lines up with 192kbps. A cutoff near 20kHz, meanwhile, usually means 320kbps. Genuine lossless extends to 22kHz without sudden drop-offs.
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/lossless-music-collection-disguised-mp3s-prove/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Noise floor mixers
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Bm2Jwmxkh/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here are 35 Songs That Will Give You Goosebumps Even on Your Cheapest Gear: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/songs-give-goosebumps-cheapest-gear/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=link_in_comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
The world’s largest vinyl plant has been ‘hit or miss’ for over a decade, but it still presses most of your records.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/audiophiles-avoid-worlds-biggest-vinyl-pressing-plant/
Tomi Engdahl says:
We surveyed over 1,000 professional and user reviews to find the speakers that actually deliver, and the ones you should skip.
Here’s what earned the praise, and what flopped despite the hype: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/best-worst-speakers-released-according-reviews-worldwide/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/tests-speakers-sound-less-identical-burn-in/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAOsn-ljbGNrA6yfnGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHh441jWYeKESzf4xsV4K7gIc0mjzjfN3aWV1MZ-KVHjQJScFexkAnPnqNUEz_aem_YhgD13TUEdug7bOfxEhKdA
Maximum amplitude response change from burn-in: 0.09 dB.
System-to-system amplitude variation from manufacturing: approximately 1.04 dB.
One is eleven times larger than the other.
Basically, an end user would likely encounter larger system-to-system amplitude response differences (around 1.04 dB) owing to normal driver variances than would be encountered breaking in raw drivers.
What audiophiles spend 100 hours optimizing barely moves the needle. The variation they never think about dwarfs it.
The MDPI study’s blind listening tests confirmed what the measurements suggested. Trained listeners rated sound consistently regardless of whether speakers had undergone burn-in. They couldn’t hear a difference because there wasn’t one worth hearing.
Sound On Sound’s analysis of 2,500 measured Neumann loudspeakers reveals what premium manufacturing looks like: 100 percent of units matched within +/-0.9 dB, 80 percent within +/-0.35 dB, and half within +/-0.2 dB.
Professional broadcasters typically specify +/-0.5 dB as the acceptable limit for matched pairs. “Not all manufacturers can manage” even that standard, the analysis notes.
Consumer speakers operate under different rules. The industry-standard tolerance is +/-3 dB, six times wider than broadcast requirements. That means a speaker pair rated “50 Hz – 20 kHz (+/-3 dB)” could legally vary by 6 dB total across its frequency range.
Achieving tight tolerances requires measuring and logging every individual drive unit, tweaking crossovers during final testing, and maintaining conformance with a factory reference. That takes time and quality components. It costs money that most consumer buyers won’t pay.
The variation that actually matters to stereo imaging, whether your left and right speakers respond identically, goes unmentioned on spec sheets. Meanwhile, the forums keep debating whether 100 hours of pink noise is enough.
Somewhere, an audiophile is running burn-in tracks through speakers that differ from each other by eleven times the amount burn-in would ever change them.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://youtu.be/svuwOKoORzM?si=HnHC2dX2sI8xC2oL
Tomi Engdahl says:
The most interesting part is not the specs, but how the sound avoids feeling like a typical hybrid.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/first-headphones-planar-plus-mems-drivers/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Yes, they exist! The surprise is not that tape sounds different, but how often it avoided irreversible mistakes.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/cassette-albums-beat-cd-versions/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Closed-Back Headphones Are Detuning Your Hearing, According to Legendary Headphone Engineer: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/closed-back-headphones-detuning-hearing-headphone-engineer/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=link_in_comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
Legendary Tube Amp Designer Says Tube Amps Are Dying And Even He Doesn’t Miss Them: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/07/tube-amp-designer-says-tube-amps-dying/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=link_in_comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
We gathered data from multiple surveys to find the best budget headphones, speakers, DACs, and amplifiers.
Here are the results: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/09/budget-audio-gear-beat-flagships-according-audiophiles/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20241230-audiophile-carrots/
https://hackaday.com/2020/01/06/organic-audio-putting-carrots-as-audio-couplers-to-the-test/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/34650-how-does-the-grounding-boxes-work/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/tests-speakers-sound-less-identical-burn-in/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/pc-builder-apple-adapter-expensive-audio-chip/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://theaudiostandard.net/thread/7778/tesla-coils-noise-reduction-devices
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/flat-measuring-speakers-sound-worse/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/audio-signal-isolation-techniques-analogue-optocouplers.10580/
Tomi Engdahl says:
These are the myths sellers hope you believe so they can charge more.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/vintage-audio-myths-collectors-burned-out/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/best-vinyl-releases-deliver-dynamics-detail/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/02/memes-sum-audiophiles-eternal-cable-debate/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/11/amplifier-damping-factor-marketing-bs/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/11/discontinued-audio-brands-audiophiles-miss-most/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/07/overused-audiophile-test-albums-need-retire/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Interesting video on cutting vinyl at Abbey Road
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc2LA9kC-4U
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/1449756-digital-recording-onto-vinyl-ddl-etc.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’m confused by the feedback thus far.
I think this is because some people are heavily (and emotionally) invested in the concept of “digital as contamination”. They cannot bear the thought of their precious ‘all analog’ setup playing vinyls that have been passed through a ADDA circuit at some stage.
It is particularly galling for them because in the absence of careful record keeping (which nobody gave a rat’s ass about), they cannot be certain simply by listening.
I mean if someone truly has celiac disease, and you secretly slip them some gluten, they will break out in a rash or something like that, If you secretly slip some “digital” into a “Purist’s” audio signal path, nothing will happen.
IMO, if you understand that many of the Hot Takes on these kinds of topics are coming from a “religious” perspective Eye-roll smiley , it will go a long way towards clearing up your confusion.
https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/1449756-digital-recording-onto-vinyl-ddl-etc.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hydrogenaudio.org/index.php/topic,123446.0.html?PHPSESSID=esnm8qh9v8vpvolugokp1gulg8u
Topic: Digital Delay: The little dirty secret of vinyl mastering (including AAA records
That sounds more like the ‘loudness button’ for vinyl.
Well actually, it is very much the opposite.
You can increase volume up to a certain point for vinyl. If you go higher, the record might start to skip because the stylus flies out of the groove because of the potentially large swings. This has always been that way.
However, the maximum length of audio depends on the width of the groove. The width of the groove depends the volume: higher volume means wider groove. If you want a longer groove, you must place the grooves closer together, and you must reduce the volume.
This digital delay line (or a special reel-to-reel machine with 2 heads 2 seconds apart) allows the cutting lathe to adjust the groove width dynamically based on the volume that is coming 2 seconds later. To fit a relatively long piece of audio on one side with a fixed groove width, you had to lower the peak volume of the audio. That is possible with overall volume adjustment or using a compressor/limiter. With adjustable groove width, that is not necessary. So, if anything, this removed the need for a limiter/compressor or improved the signal-to-noise ratio in certain scenarios.
The audio is digitized and then converted back to analog just before that signal being cut into a vinyl master. Sure, if the sampling rate and bit depth are high enough and the conversion is done properly, no problem. But for people rejecting the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem (for example, people thinking of the output of an ideal DAC as a staircase signal) this is a deal-breaker of course.
Put very simply: in order to get as much audio on a side of vinyl as possible, the cutter must know the audio 2 seconds ‘early’. So, it needs a feed of the audio at some point, and a feed of the audio 2 seconds ahead of that point.
With the ahead feed, it can adjust the groove spacing, to make sure grooves don’t overlap. Without this, space would be wasted on silent sections.
This seems very simple, having two feeds of the same audio, delayed by 2 seconds. Turns out that is wasn’t back then. It was possible to get a reel-to-reel machine with 2 playback heads and a lot of wheels to guide the tape for those 2 seconds. See for example this deck, a modified Studer A80
As you can see, this gets complicated really fast.
So instead of doing this, a device known as a digital delay line was introduced in the mastering process as soon as the technology was ready. The only thing it does is digitize the audio, store it in memory for 2 seconds, and than convert it back to analog again.
Now the cutting lathe can be fed with 2 signals. The first signal is directly from the reel-to-reel machine, which is only used to adjust the groove spacing. The second signal is delayed two seconds, with the digital delay line, and is used to actually cut in the master.
it needs a feed of the audio at some point, and a feed of the audio 2 seconds ahead of that point.
Actually 60/33⅓︎ = 1.8 seconds for a 33⅓︎ RPM LP.
The use of digital delay lines was not as common as you think it might be – the bigger mastering studios could all afford to have a real preview-head playback deck on hand. Though occasionally there might still be a need to cut from a digital delay… say, an album master is provided as 14” 30 IPS reels due to album length and your primary preview machine will only accept a 10.5” reel… whoops!
Of course, anyone caring enough to do a vinyl release from tape in the first place knows much better now. I don’t know of any studio still using a DDL in their tape-based mastering chain within the last decade, and anyone with half a brain in their head would just transfer to digital first if it was between that or a DDL. It’s not 1991 anymore.
Tomi Engdahl says:
You thought vinyl escaped the loudness war? The truth is far worse.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/04/loudness-war-invaded-vinyl-destroyed-special/
Tomi Engdahl says:
It’s easy to assume that compact discs (CDs) have become relics in the age of music streaming. But CDs are far from obsolete. They continue to hold a special place in the hearts of music lovers worldwide, and for good reason.
Here are 15 reasons why CDs still make sense even in the era of streaming: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/why-cds-still-rule-streaming/
Tomi Engdahl says:
These ’upgrades’ shouldn’t matter, but audiophiles swear they do.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/12/hi-fi-snake-oil-tweaks-work-audiophiles/