Audio trends and snake oil

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 domainScience 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.

 

 

1,219 Comments

  1. Tomi Engdahl says:

    > In order to show a visible difference in cable performance, I had to raise the z out and lower the z in. I raised the z out by running the test signal (pink noise) in series with a passive P-bass pickup, and I lowered the z in by putting a 1 Meg resistor in parallel with the input. This also shows an exaggerated view of the type of tone changes that can be heard with a passive guitar. Here is the new analysis of the same ten cables:

    To have readable results, the guy had to raise the output impedance to 10Kohm vs a input impedance of 500 Kohm

    As a comparison, an amp might have a impedance of 0.0something ohms vs speakers at 2 to 8 ohms. A microphone can have an impedance of ~100 ohms vs an imput impedance of a mixer around 10kohm

    So yeah, no, in the real world there’s no such thing as cable frequency response

    Reply
  2. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The safety standard EN60950 is describing headphone outlets with a normal load of 32 ohms. Most acoustic safety standards are written for this impedance. That is why all bundled headphones are 32 ohms, but you can buy 16 ohms if you want loudness and a risk of damaging your ears. 1200 ohms will sound around -16dB softer than your 32 ohm headphones.

    Reply
  3. Tomi Engdahl says:

    High impedance headphones of such an high Z as 1,2k allowed to get rid of the output transformer in vacuum tube amplifier, which was considerable advantage in mobile equipment.

    you won’t cause any harm puttingvthem across a standard output. They wont be very loud, but won’t be designed to be anyway!

    There’s no point in adapting the impedance using a resistor in parallel. Test it first. If the sound level is too low you have two options. The most authentic is to connect it via a suitable impedance transformer. The other option is to replace the internals with modern headset speakers.

    Reply
  4. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The most important element in high end audio cables by far would be the marketing of the cables.

    Reply
  5. Tomi Engdahl says:

    I call B.S. – I’ve never met anyone who truly understood the science of audio reproduction and has practical experience in the field ever transition from truly believing every cable’s performance is defined by its electrical characteristics (LCR) and the circuit in which it is placed transition to being diehard followers of the mystical “cable magic” nonsense that plagues this hobby and infects the weak minded. However, I know a TON of people who without any proper research, learning, or experience who’ve been brainwashed into absolute faith in the outrageous claims of esoteric cable makers and fellow believers who’ve decided to create fake testimonies of their difficult journeys from non-believing to spending 80% of their gear budgets on rare and unproven cable technology.

    I think this person is lying or is so out of touch with the universe they convinced themselves the joy they get from the fun hobby of pretending to appreciate cable A from cable B as it relates to the stock factory cable – such fun – is really based on reality.

    https://www.facebook.com/share/p/VoNp4CaJQP5y8CCr/

    Reply
  6. Tomi Engdahl says:

    And to not understand anything of anything. rubes are wire charlatans best customers

    Reply
  7. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Mittaa jokaisen elementin puhekela et onko ehjiä. Diskantit palaa helpoiten, muut kestää paremmin vahvistimen säröytymistä. Tarkista samalla vaivalla että vastukset ovat ehjät. Lähinnä diskantin 4.7 ohm on ainoa mikä vaikuttaa dramaattisesti ääneen jos on rikki, silloin diskantti on mykkä, muilla vastuksilla on vähäisempi (mutta usein havaittavissa oleva) vaikutus.

    On ihan normaalia että puhekelan tasavirtavastus (yleismittarilla mitaten) on yleensä hieman pienempi kuin mikä on elementin nimellisimpedanssi. 8 ohm elementillä usein jotain päälle 6 ohm. Tärkeintä on että olisivat samat parin molemmissa elementeissä.

    Niinku Tony mainitsi niin elkojen vaihto riittänee. Basson haarassa olevat konkat sietää äänellisistä syistä olla bipolaareja, keskiäänellä ja diskantilla itse käyttäisin muovisia. Noiden ero kuuluu yleensä lähinnä >>1 kHz alueella.

    Jos on ferriittikeloja (tai teräsrunkoisia) diskantilla (tai keskiäänellä), niin sitten ilmasydämisellä saattaa olla havaittavissa olevia äänellisiä eroja. Ilmasydänkeloissa on yleensä huomattavan paljon isompi resistanssi kuin niissä joissa on sydän, ellei käytä reilumman paksuista lankaa (kalliimpi hinta). Mutta mikään kela ei kyllä ikäänny eikä sen takia kannata vaihtaa.

    Jos sielä on bipolaarikonkkia niin vaihtaisin, joo. Muuten aika turha koskea.

    Ne elementitkin voi mätiä. Ja jos sielä on bipolaarikonkkia niin ne uusiks. Mieluiten muovikonkkia tilalle. 22uF on kyl muoviks jo aika iso mut..

    Ja vastukset ja kelathan tuskin menee mikskään.

    Voi olla ihan juotoksissakin vikaa. Yksi elementti kolmesta poissa pelistä niin varmasti kuulostaa eriltä kuin toinen kaiutin.

    Mittaa jokaisen elementin puhekela et onko ehjiä. Diskantit palaa helpoiten, muut kestää paremmin vahvistimen säröytymistä. Tarkista samalla vaivalla että vastukset ovat ehjät. Lähinnä diskantin 4.7 ohm on ainoa mikä vaikuttaa dramaattisesti ääneen jos on rikki, silloin diskantti on mykkä, muilla vastuksilla on vähäisempi (mutta usein havaittavissa oleva) vaikutus.

    On ihan normaalia että puhekelan tasavirtavastus (yleismittarilla mitaten) on yleensä hieman pienempi kuin mikä on elementin nimellisimpedanssi. 8 ohm elementillä usein jotain päälle 6 ohm. Tärkeintä on että olisivat samat parin molemmissa elementeissä.

    Niinku Tony mainitsi niin elkojen vaihto riittänee. Basson haarassa olevat konkat sietää äänellisistä syistä olla bipolaareja, keskiäänellä ja diskantilla itse käyttäisin muovisia. Noiden ero kuuluu yleensä lähinnä >>1 kHz alueella.

    Jos on ferriittikeloja (tai teräsrunkoisia) diskantilla (tai keskiäänellä), niin sitten ilmasydämisellä saattaa olla havaittavissa olevia äänellisiä eroja. Ilmasydänkeloissa on yleensä huomattavan paljon isompi resistanssi kuin niissä joissa on sydän, ellei käytä reilumman paksuista lankaa (kalliimpi hinta). Mutta mikään kela ei kyllä ikäänny eikä sen takia kannata vaihtaa.

    Reply
  8. Tomi Engdahl says:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Audio_woo?fbclid=IwAR3TSuQxyF7VeVCIdN9BWtqY6cr7XkKzh0nkj1ZaW0Tcs9nbGBDlBeaxGpI

    Audio woo
    Jump to navigationJump to search

    A classic example of the species.
    Style over substance
    Pseudoscience
    Icon pseudoscience.svg
    Popular pseudosciences
    Alternative medicine
    Creationism
    Racialism
    Pseudopsychology
    Random examples
    Quantum Stirwand
    Pseudolinguistics
    Crust displacement
    JPANDS
    HHO gas
    Science woo
    God helmet
    Mommy instinct
    Chemophobia
    v – t – e
    Audio woo consists of various vague and unsupported claims for devices or methods for getting better sound quality from systems that reproduce recorded music. Such claims are made by manufacturers, hobbyists, and writers in the field.

    Reply
  9. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Graphic demonstration of cable frequency response:
    https://www.ovnilab.com/articles/cables.shtml

    Reply
  10. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Lossless Audio Does Not Sound Better Than MP3
    Audiophiles swear lossless music sounds richer than MP3, but most people don’t hear a difference at all
    https://gizmodo.com/lossless-audio-does-not-sound-better-than-mp3-1851341155

    Reply
  11. Tomi Engdahl says:

    IS YOUR AUDIO SYSTEM REALLY READY FOR LOSSLESS SOUND?
    Recently, a lossless music streaming provider offered a quick online test to let you check if you and your equipment were ready to hear losslessly compressed music. There was just one problem.

    The test didn’t answer the question.1 2
    https://abx.digitalfeed.net/?fbclid=IwAR3WxbomiXfl8qEu-28DPCt_kW7rUICt1VR7QRRkX2SpqslJpSJrpwJ4rY8

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*