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.
1,967 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
13 most common audiophile myths, debunked: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/04/most-common-audiophile-myths/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Class A solid state has the clearest least colored sound followed by class AB and class G/H amplifiers. G/H is basically class AB amps with extra output transistors and voltage rails for class D like efficiency and class AB sound. A 30 to 50 watt per channel class A solid state amp is the end game amp for many audiophiles. For the most accurate sound pair them with electrostatics, magnetic planers, or speakers with well designed ribbon tweeters or large Air motion transformer tweeters/middlers such as ESS Labs AMT 1
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AFXCCh3eL/
Tomi Engdahl says:
This means no sense whatsoever. The Tube amplifier requires a high power high linearity (expensive) line transformer that acts like a bandpass filter. The Class D doesn’t. It just has a tiny little high Q low pass filter.
And class D is soooooo much more efficient, and with modern class D amplifiers hitting the 0.001 percent distortion easily these days…
I guess it depends on what you want. Did you want to hear the sound like the artist made it? Or do you want it mellowed and changed by the harmonics of a tube amp.
And this concept that “filtering” is bad? Fuck nearly EVERY STEP of any preamp and amp, mixer, tone control etc they are filters. Either on purpose or simple due to physics.
If this person listens to modern audio, there is a sharp cut off low passfilter just after the dac.
If this person listen to LP…. there is a fuckin great honkin RIAA equalisation filter right in the audio path.
—
There are Class D amps today that can leave everything else standing. When non-technical people latch on to a myth they never let go and changing their mind when presented with evidence isn’t something they’d ever consider! I was building valve amps 59 years ago and I still have a great passion for them but I wouldn’t use one now as a ‘daily driver’.
There are pretty good class D amps nowadays
Diego Hernandez Jimenez There are *extremely* good class D amplifiers out there nowadays. That makes many audiophools apoplectic.
By definition, a tube amp colours the sound. It’s the least faithful form of reproduction.
Bren Roemich but it adds a nice character
David Perry and many do think that certain types of similar signal reproduction failures sound good. That’s why ampliers run on incandescent bulbs still sell.
Audio engineers and scientists knew before 1950 that an amplifier was perfect for all practical purposes once it had flat frequency response , and inaudible noise and distortion. DTN Williamson stated this clearly enough when he published his famous amplifier design.
Tubes sound great in guitar amps because they produce pleasant sounding distortion and compression but what does that have to do with trying to reproduce sound as accurately and distortion free as possible?
“hErP DeRp FiLtErS ArE bAd huuuuuuuuuuuuu”
Markus Murola
Came here to say this. If you’re using tube amps or preamps, musical saturation/distortion is what you’re after.
Markus Murola
Much of the distortion in reproduced music is due to limitations of loudspeaker design.
What’s funny is tube type amplifiers are more accurately depicted in the right picture, as the grid filters and modulates the thermionic emission between the cathode and the anode. Unfortunately, the current flow is not perfectly linear with the grid voltage, which introduces distortion to the signal. My granddad was deep into ham radio, building all of his equipment, including multi kilowatt tube RF amplifiers. I absorbed all my small brain could from him decades ago. Class D amps work more like a Star Trek transporter, digitizing an incoming audio signal and reproducing it at higher amplitude utilizing pulse width modulation.
Lol. A tube output stage is basically not suited to drive the low impedance of loudspeakers. It’s a good old impedance mismatch. The fix is a nasty iron core transformer. I don’t see water being poured cleanly in a cup here.
Lars Ole Transformers can be quite superb in design and audio performance. They’re drawback is they’re heavy and expensive. Not conducive to dfm.
It‘s 2025, you can use any class-D-amp that can almost come as cheap as possible and get the best result. That high-end-thing is a relict from the middle of the 20th century, when money and effort improved the sound from almost-telephone-quality towards more and more accurate reproduction of the sound.
Harald Horn “High-end” is just a euphemism for “expensive.”
Stanley Nuremburg I like to think of expensive as not worth the money…
It’s crazy how much mid FI has been catapulted by modern tech
Stanley Nuremburg. It shouldn’t be. Philips original meaning remains relevant. True to the source. Which is why tube amps can never be hi fi – if pleasant – while even a cheap fosi class d is.
David Williams transformers are typically quite far from superb. The outout transformers introduce more or less a set of transformer non-idealities to the audio signal: distortion due core magnetic properties, coil resistance, leakage inductance etc..
It‘s 2025, you can use any class-D-amp that can almost come as cheap as possible and get the best result. That high-end-thing is a relict from the middle of the 20th century, when money and effort improved the sound from almost-telephone-quality towards more and more accurate reproduction of the sound.
Reinforcing my current opinion that audiophool marketing teams are mocking their customers.
The valve amp should have some ‘natural’ colours added. Whatever else, it’s not ‘pure’ – that’s why it sounds different. Frequency dependent phase shift? Even harmonics? The jury is still out, decades later.
Ralph Houston When I worked in studios I used some valve kit. One of my favourite mic pre-amp and compressor is valve based. But I used those to colour the sound. For reproduction I’m solid state all the way.
Of all the studios I’ve been in I’ve never known one with valve amplifiers for the monitors as accuracy is paramount.
Ralph Houston Third/ odd-order harmonics sound worse than even-order harmonics…
Stanley – exactly. Early junction semiconductor class A/B amps sound harsh for just that reason. A MOSFET amp or a class D PWM should not colour the sound at all.
i can see where they’re coming from in terms of class d/pwm amps employing filters to smooth out the amplified signal, and some cheaper/less sophisticated class Ds can have some interesting artefacts- albeit well out of audible range. but as with most audiophoolery they’ve grabbed a little bit of science and run off into fantasy land
“Tube” vs. “class D” is apples vs. oranges. It’s entirely possible to build an amplifier in *any* class using vacuum tubes. It’s also possible to build a class A amplifier that sounds absolutely stunning, *without* using tubes.
Whoever wrote that, and whoever believes it, are not very smart.
Class D amps have their uses like driving low end frequencies, clarity isnt as important. That especially applies in PA applications
20 years ago maybe, Modern Class D amplifiers can be just as clean and sometimes even cleaner than Class A amplifiers, depending on design.
Ian Femtifire Digilogue Mmmmmmm, no. They are good for the entire audible range.
Roberto Avanzi Mmmmm, i didnt say they didnt, some dont like them at all. D class PA amps are used for subs because of their high output compared to physical size
Ian Femtifire Digilogue Or in portable bluetooth speakers because they can get away with class D amplifier due to the small low efficiency drivers masking out the switching noise and are required for battery life. Compression driver tweeter type speakers for home audio are optimal for pure musical listening. There is a reason why even really good PA powered speakers have a very unpleasant and peaky sound to them. A pair of awesome home audio speakers cranked up loud enough to where it’s 97 to 102 dB when seated 4 meters from the speakers and powered by a high quality class AB or G/H amplifier is painless to the ears while JBL SRX815Ps have a horribly peaky sound and is uncomfortable or painful to your ears even at 92 decibels of SPL. Even a pair of inexpensive particle board(non MDF) enclosured floorstanding speakers with generic soft dome tweeters and steel basketed 6-1/2 inch woofers, and a basic class AB integrated amplifier with stamped steel chassis and plastic buttons, knobs, and faceplate will sound so much better than those JBL PA speakers.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Franco Lazlo I have been designing and building audio amplifiers since the sixties and you are talking nonsense. A modern class D amplifier will provide near-perfect amplification of any waveform within the audio baseband – which is more than can be said for the vast majority of tube amps.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-hypex-nc400-diy-amp.5907/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Franco Lazlo You set an artificial bar without regard to relevance, but here you go, anyway: Can Class-D Amplifier Audio Performance Get Any Better? | Electronic Design https://share.google/9HVMN4MolGc9Zt7wI
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/analog/article/21801912/can-class-d-amplifier-audio-performance-get-any-better
Tomi Engdahl says:
a tube amp is more like drinking poorly rendered beef tallow because you have manufacturing variance and susceptibility to temperature. class D is like drinking milk – all the solid particles are too small to detect as solids.
Tomi Engdahl says:
These tracks reveal just as much about your system as the classics you’ve worn out.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/07/best-audiophile-approved-modern-pop-songs/
Tomi Engdahl says:
XLR ‘balanced’ interconnects are the industry standard for analogue signal transmission in all professional music environments and recording studios for several very good reasons.
Noise rejection is the main reason and this is achieved by clever phase-balancing, hence where the description ‘balanced’ originates.
If you are at all interested in learning more about how this works then the excellent description ‘Designing for high common-mode rejection in balanced audio inputs’ written by John Caldwell of Texas Instruments goes into great detail. Link in the comments.
I always suggest using XLR interconnects in favour of RCA connections where possible in order to take advantage of these benefits and my ‘World of Twist’ XLR cables takes the established and proven principle of Common Mode Rejection a step further by implementing the phases via completely separate and independently-isolated conductor wires.
This effectively adds more layers of shielding against external noise (EMI/RFI) and is measurable.
Here are just a few examples of customer feedback:
Dick
‘Hello Chris. Great sound, thank you. Greetings, Dick’
audio
‘Hi Chris, I received the cables yesterday in good order and installed them right away.
I let them run in the background for a few hours yesterday and listened to them extensively today. I’d like to share my initial findings: what I’ve definitely noticed is that the overall sound has a very soft, full feel compared to the RCA cables. The bass sounds a bit fuller and better defined, while the treble generally sounds a bit more rounded and less shrill on certain notes. It’s all very subtle, but still noticeable. The stereo image is nice and wide, and I have the impression that the dynamics also improve with this cable.
Conclusion: this is a beautiful, “velvet-like” cable, and not only beautiful to listen to, but also to look at. I’m very happy with my purchase! I’m going to enjoy listening to it for hours to come.’
rayettedipesto
‘Although the copper in these cables hasn’t been harvested by levitating Tibetan monks, the socks not woven by ancient Vestal Virgins, and the plugs not ceremonially made in the deserts of Sudan, these XLR cables are truly a serious article made by a bona fide audio expert in the Netherlands to cater to sound people who don’t accept bullshit, only absolute quality. They look marvelous, too.’
Jo
But I see things that make me positive, such as the extension of the heat shrink tubing beyond the connector. The cable itself is very flexible – that will be comfortable (and because it’s the right length, there’s less in the way). And I also like the feel of the cable to the touch. I wanted to let you know. Greetings, Jo’
‘Hi Chris, something arrived in the mail today! Nice, sustainable, and efficient packaging – plus points! I’ve only been able to look and feel so far
Jaak
‘Hi Chris, Your World of Twist XLR cable arrived safely. And sound-wise, I’d describe it as “nothing in between”! So, fantastic! Kind regards, Jaak.’
From €240 / pair
Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15uhgtbsGj/
Tomi Engdahl says:
“XLR ‘balanced’ interconnects are the industry standard for analogue signal transmission in all professional music environments and recording studios for several very good reasons.
Noise rejection is the main reason and this is achieved by clever phase-balancing, hence where the description ‘balanced’ originates.
If you are at all interested in learning more about how this works then the excellent description ‘Designing for high common-mode rejection in balanced audio inputs’ written by John Caldwell of Texas Instruments goes into great detail. Link in the comments.
I always suggest using XLR interconnects in favour of RCA connections where possible in order to take advantage of these benefits”
- this is true
Tomi Engdahl says:
For balanced signals it is beneficial to have the signal carrying wires near each other tightly twisted. Putting these wires longer distance away and have less twists gives just worse noise shielding than traditional shielded twisted pair or star-quad geometries.
So this looks like bullshit
” my ‘World of Twist’ XLR cables takes the established and proven principle of Common Mode Rejection a step further by implementing the phases via completely separate and independently-isolated conductor wires.
This effectively adds more layers of shielding against external noise (EMI/RFI) and is measurable.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
The Crystal Clear XLR
‘I have the impression that the dynamics also improve with this cable. Conclusion: this is a beautiful, ‘velvet’ cable and not only beautiful to listen to, but also to look at’
‘Great sound, thank you’
‘Although the copper in these cables hasn’t been harvested by levitating Tibetan monks, the socks not woven by ancient Vestal Virgins and the plugs not ceremonially made in the deserts of Sudan, these XLR cables really are a serious article made by a bona-fide audio expert in the Netherlands to cater for sound people who do not acquiesce to bullshit, only to absolute quality. They look marvellous too.’
Just a few positive things my customers are saying about the Crystal Clear XLR audiophile balanced interconnects.
You certainly don’t need to ‘acquiesce to bullshit’ regarding the price too as the Crystal Clear XLR cables start at a very sensible €240/pair!
Available to audition or purchase via:
https://link.marktplaats.nl/m2284979936
and
https://chriscablesstore.etsy.com/listing/1616597183
Tomi Engdahl says:
Christ on a bike … does he not realise the whole point of balanced cables is the cables have to be kept as close as possible, so any induced noise is induced identically on both phases … and kept inside the same screen.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Insights:
Value proposition
It’s always interesting to see heated discussions here and on various audio forums about the perceived value of certain hifi components.
Cables are possibly one of the single most devisive components when it comes to defining a value-proposition and with very good reason!
I see many ’boutique’ cable makers applying ridiculous prices to their products when I and many others know that the ‘law of dimishing returns’ applies very clearly here. There is simply no justification for any cable-maker levying a price in 1000′s of any 1st-world currency, even if they have a product-development budget to recoup!
One of the prime motivators to leave a 35 year senior-level career in engineering to start my own cable-making company was to set out to disrupt this shady practice by offering cables with a high build-quality using proven cable-stock and components and offer them at sensible prices.
I’m glad to report that after almost 2 years of trading as Chris Cables the risk was worth it!
My ‘Core Function’ range of cables offers what I and many of my customers who have bought these cables the highest possible price-to-performance ratio.
Focusing on a cable’s core function of transmitting an analogue signal using the best performing and best value components that I could source was the objective.
That value-driven objective paid off as I now have a budget cable model in my range that performs more than adequately in even some very high-end systems.
You will never see any of my cables for sale with a 4-figure pricetag!
Alpha Audio here in NL thought so too:
https://www.alpha-audio.net/review/interlinks-dont-do-anything-or-do-they-32-rca-cables-analyzed/10/
Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BbpiV6Kmp/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Build quality. Capacitance. Shielding.
These 3 aspects have the most influence on how a cable can ‘sound’
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2024/05/part-i-high-end-dac-blind-listening.html
In 2024, a blind listening survey by Archimago compared three DACs:
An Apple USB-C dongle (~$9)
A Linn Selekt DSM (~$7,000)
A Linn Klimax DSM/3 (over $20,000)
Once volume levels were matched, listeners couldn’t consistently pick a favorite. Statistically, no one DAC came out on top.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Jesus … someone somewhere clearly has no clue about balanced cables … it is *essential* the two out of phase conductors are tightly routed together, within the same screen or you lose all the benefits.