Audio Myths Thread

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 14565 times.

dB Cooper

Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #100 on: 16 Jun 2019, 03:10 am »

The fact that you truly enjoy what you have is the single most important aspect of this hobby.  Only recently have I come to appreciate this.

Cheers! :beer:

Agreed. At some point you just need to kick back and enjoy some tunes. If you want something that sounds like live music... listen to some. Problem is, the equipment industry needs you to become vaguely dissatisfied with your equipment.... regularly.... in order to survive (since the 'hobby' isn't growing.) Perhaps you become more adept at hearing imperfections over time. However, whatever you replace it with will have its own imperfections, so you may be back where you started after a few years. Rinse and repeat.

I would suggest that when you are spending six figures (or close to it) on audio equipment, it has ceased to be a 'hobby'. Unfortunately, that is about all you will see at audio shows anymore.

I read the linked article and it was interesting. Not in 100% agreement, but there are truths in it.

JohnR

Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #101 on: 16 Jun 2019, 03:55 am »
2. His understanding of testing is extremely limited, being limited to only "sight" as a confound variable (or variable confound).

That's rubbish - read the first paragraph of the conclusions again.

SteveJewels

Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #102 on: 16 Jun 2019, 01:41 pm »
I love switching power supplies!!!!!

My day job includes measuring radiated and conducted RF interference from electronic equipment for commercial and military aircraft. When the equipment has emissions greater than the limit I have to troubleshoot it and isolate the source of the emissions. Then the designers are called in and we work on a solution.

Sometimes the problem is improper assembly. That is easy to fix.

Sometimes the solution can be shielding which is not good for airplanes because it add weight. An extra pound on a commercial airplane costs the operator $5,000/yr so not a happy solution.

Shunting or diverting the energy to ground (In theory of course as there is no 'ground' on an airplane. LOL) requires capacitors (expensive) and/or ferrites (expensive and heavy).

Or, as is usually the case, redesigning the circuit to ameliorate the energy at the source, which 4 times out of 5, is a switching power source.

Of course I get paid for the troubleshooting, convincing the designer that yes, the interference really is coming from his 'beautiful' switching power supply, working with certain aspects of the design, the delays while the design is being improved and of course re-testing.

Recent events such as these are paying for my 'new' amplifier so yes I 'love' switching power supplies.

Back to one of Benchmark's assertions that a switching power supply can be made to perform well. I agree, at least conditionally. The part they leave out is that if you spend and equal amount of effort designing a linear power supply the linear power supply will be better, much better.

I have access to world class power supply designers. They are my colleagues and friends. The new linear power supply I am building for my phono preamp is linear. It will have around 1 uV ripple at 28 VDC, 100 mA output.


Freo-1

Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #103 on: 16 Jun 2019, 01:50 pm »
Agreed. At some point you just need to kick back and enjoy some tunes. If you want something that sounds like live music... listen to some. Problem is, the equipment industry needs you to become vaguely dissatisfied with your equipment.... regularly.... in order to survive (since the 'hobby' isn't growing.) Perhaps you become more adept at hearing imperfections over time. However, whatever you replace it with will have its own imperfections, so you may be back where you started after a few years. Rinse and repeat.

I would suggest that when you are spending six figures (or close to it) on audio equipment, it has ceased to be a 'hobby'. Unfortunately, that is about all you will see at audio shows anymore.

I read the linked article and it was interesting. Not in 100% agreement, but there are truths in it.



So let's ask:  What areas do you take issue with?  For argument's sake,  I think the write-up is pretty spot-on.  The only quibble I have is the area regarding caps.  I feel that based on experience with restoring and working on tube gear,  good quality caps can make an improvement in sound quality.   I'm partial to Mundorf caps for tube amps. Still, I think I get his point on the issue. 


Outside of that, the arguments presented are pretty compelling. 

Photon46

Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #104 on: 16 Jun 2019, 02:40 pm »
I would suggest that when you are spending six figures (or close to it) on audio equipment, it has ceased to be a 'hobby'. Unfortunately, that is about all you will see at audio shows anymore.

I don't see it that way myself. That's kind of like saying anyone who spends $500k. on a Ferrari can't be true automotive enthusiast. I'm sure there are more than a few who spend large amounts on audio primarily as a status display. On the other hand, some people with large incomes just have great interest in reproducing music well. $200k spent on an audio system by someone that makes 20 million a year is proportionally less than what most of of us spend on our systems. I also don't see anything wrong with appreciating fine craftsmanship if you can afford it.

Plus, just as technology trickles down from über expensive cars to average cars, one could make the argument that some aspects of music reproduction technology have enjoyed similar benefits from trickle down. Speakers and digital reproduction come foremost to mind.

SteveJewels

Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #105 on: 16 Jun 2019, 03:01 pm »
All excellent points, especially the last. The first adopters are the ones that make the R&D done to design the top of the line equipment economically feasible. This technology eventually gets implemented in the lower cost units.



Steve

Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #106 on: 16 Jun 2019, 04:45 pm »
That's rubbish - read the first paragraph of the conclusions again.

If that is your opinion, fine.

I addressed my post on page 5 to the first paragraph of the article, and point 2 is absolutely
scientifically correct. I just read the first paragraph of his conclusion in the article, and his
disparaging comments are as error filled and obnoxious as the initial paragraphs of the article. May
I be a direct as you are? After all, we are looking for the truth.

If I may, let me ask some questions in general?

1. I have yet to see proof that ABing 10 times in a row equates to normal listening, or just 1 or 2 abs
when comparing. Do you have such proof and would you provide it here?

2. I have yet to see this or other article being cleared by any Medical Organizations/hospitals. 

3. The way testing is described, via the article and other "audio" posts/publications, is based upon
input data provided via AB or ABX "back and forths". (The states are hidden via double blind, so I
just used the simple term.)

As such, only "sight" is ever mentioned as a confound variable. This confound variable is dealt
with so as to prevent "sight" from influencing the input data.
The input data is used for calculating the confidence level, usually 95%.

Why is he not listing any other confound variables? I won't list any till you do.

4. I have one sample problem for you or others to consider, if I may. If a group of test subjects is at
a venue, some 50% of test subjects are in areas of increasing and maximum bass nodes,
and 50% are in decreasing and minimal bass nodes. Under what conditions would one obtain
a 95% confidence level?

By the way, if he believes mylar capacitors sound the same as polypropylene capacitors, well.....

Cheers.
steve
« Last Edit: 24 Jun 2019, 04:08 pm by Steve »

avahifi

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4698
    • http://www.avahifi.com
Re: Audio Myths Thread
« Reply #107 on: 16 Jun 2019, 07:04 pm »
So who here has seriously actually used a competent double blind comparator to evaluate audio equipment?

We use ours all the time and it really helps us refine our equipment.

Often we do not get the answers we were hoping for!  However, when we get repeatable results we know that it is a lot better than wishful thinking.

It is just a very useful tool, prevents mistakes and bad ideas from being passed on to you.

Frank