Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1) (Read 21461 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

As a microelectronics engineer (in theory.. I actually forgot most of that while becoming a software engineer) I read all kinds of wonderous claims about audiophile sound. Jitter! Bit depth! Quantisation noise! Crosstalk! I'm familiar with all of these concepts, so I know they are real phenomena in principle. What I am very confused about is the actual relative impact of all these effects when appreciating sound quality in practice.

For example, I bet a Skoda car salesmen will gush about how totally awesome the cup holders in their cars are, never mentioning that the fact the engine is horrible (don't hurt me Skoda people) 
                                                                                                                 
Back in audio land, some audiophile may go on and on about his $10000 powerline noise filter, or his $1000 power cables. While I'm sure that if you're the Sultan of Brunei, it is better to be on the safe side, for most mere mortals, it probably pays off a lot more to replace your wonky $100 cd player first. 

So. This brings me to the question at hand:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Considering the entire signal line, from the digital source medium (cd/dvda/sacd/flac file) to your ears:
* Assuming an undamaged, 'perfect' source medium
* Assuming the goal is exact reproduction, not (necessarily) the warm tube sound.
* Assuming a standard signal line, so no active speakers, biamping etc
- Which audiophile factors play a role worth mentioning                                                                                               
- How do the impacts of these factors compare to eachother 
                                                                                             
Please note that I said 'audiophile factors' which indicates I am talking about the 'upper percentile' here already. Im sure we will all agree that the first thing to do is not use $5 headphones, which matters a lot more than the aforementioned powerline noise filter, but assuming the beginning audiophile has at least done his base homework. Also, I hope the sense of 'value for money' works the same for most people.
                                                                                                                                                          The first stage is identifying the factors. Here's my first attempt:                                                                                     
- Jitter compensation/prevention
- Quantisation Noise                           
- Source Bit Depth
- Source Sample Rate                                                                                                                                      - DAC internal Bit Depth (upsampling)                                                     
- DAC internal Sample Rate (upsampling)
- Analog Interconnect Quality (between source and Pre)                                                                             
- Analog Interconnect Type (XLR, Rca, jack?)                                                               
- Analog Amp Connect Quality (between pre and power amp)
- Analog Amp Connect Type (XLR, RCA, Jack??)                                                                                                           
- Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)                                               
- Power headroom (a 400W amp driving a 100W max speaker set?)
- Speaker Cable Quality                                                                                                                                   
- Digital Interconnect Quality (between medium reader and DAC)                                                                                         
- Digital Interconnect system (USB/SPDIF/TOSLINK/AES)
- Power cable quality                           
- Power noise filtering                             
- In/output stage impedances of the various subsystems
- Amplifier class (discrete class A AB AC AD.. )                                                                 
- DAC chip brand/type 'Burr Brown.. '...
- Geometric considerations (Room layout, speaker positioning)
- Echo (due to the type of room)
                                                                                                             
[edit 1] added 'geometric considerations' and 'echo'

AFTER we've listed most 'voodoo factors' people go on about, I would like to ask you all (this would be phase 2, perhaps Ill open a new topic with a poll) to put these elements in order of importance. Which are the irrelevant cupholders and which factors should be your main focus when shopping for improvements? Since im sure some people will feel the psychological need to defend their purchase of gold plated cupholders, please feel free to include justifications especially for your #1 choices.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #1 –
Quote from: puntloos on
- Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)

As a coleague-engineer, I have to say that there's no such thing as a passive amplifier. The Law of Conservation of Energy. It would be nice if audiophiles had a better technical knowledge. Don't you agree?
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #2 –
A preamp is sometimes described to simply mean a volume control. And heck, it's not called an amp, it's called a pre-amp. So the fact that sometimes it's only a potentiometer doesn't seem incorrect to me. What else would you call it?

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #3 –
It's called the attenuator
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #4 –
A pre-amp has volume control? I thought a pre-amp would only let you select the source and destination and maybe also offer an EQ, while the volume is on the final.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #5 –
The terminology is probably not well defined all around. Here's at least one audiophile vendor using it in the same way I am:

http://www.dact.com/html/passive_preamp.html

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #6 –
My old pre-amp has an awful lot of transistors in it to be just a volume control!  It does act as an amp for low power inputs such as phono cartridges.  I just checked the specs and it has 30 transistors, 2 IC's and 12 diodes.  I do not think they are in there for show. 
Nov schmoz kapop.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #8 –
Guys! Cut it out. I'm not saying that a preamp only does attenuation. I'm saying that some people use the term "passive preamp" for a passive attenuator and that this is common terminology in the industry.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #9 –
I worked in an "audiophile" stereo shop for about 5 years. We actually sold a variety of stuff, affordable and some higher end stuff.

We had a switching system so you could immediately compare sources, amps, and speakers. It was very expensive and seemed well made,gold contacts, silver solder etc. its hard to a/b stuff but this was as good as we could manage.

Overall, most decent amps we were selling sounded approximately the same. We had Sony, Sony ES, Rotel, Sansui and briefly NAD. The Rotel seemed to have more impact in lower bass ranges. I think this is referred to as "slam" these days. But for the most part at listening levels that were not extreme, a good amp was a good amp.

Stereo cartidges for vinyl varied significantly, but the cd players were all pretty good over about $300 Canadian.

The soundroom was damped and allowed for equilateral triangle listening, speakers out from the walls etc.

The biggest impact on any system was the speakers and we encouraged all customers to invest 50% or more of their money in the speakers and decent stands. We tried to steer people toward the smaller Kef and Celestion speakers coupled with a decent subwoofer.

Speakers by far and away impacted the quality of the system more than any other factor. We sold Sony, Boston Acoustics, Kef, and later Celestion.

Every speaker was unique, both within a brand, and between brands.

$.02
 

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #10 –
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims. I understand this is obvious, but I'm confused at the topic being the majority of the members of hydrogenaudio are hard skeptics of audiophile concepts/components to begin with. You're more or less preaching to the choir.

Having said for reading on the subject i'd point out a couple of Stereophile editorials (hold your breath it's going to hurt):

You Heard What?!?!?! (the ambiguity of audiophile reviews, good source of audiophile jargon)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/806awsi/

Quote
This range of contradictory reactions from audiophiles presumably well versed in critical listening underscores the challenges confronting equipment reviewers. As much as we may think we have a handle on how something sounds, people's reference points, hearing differences, and mental filters seem more than capable of making a silk purse from any sow's ear. All of which suggests that, in addition to controlling variables by adding to a reference system whose sound we know backward and forward only one new component—the component under review—humility is in order before we voice observations and make critical pronouncements. In a world in which one person's Carnegie Hall is another's Madison Square Garden, how can you be sure which way is up?


Information on their "review" process (more jargon herein)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/

In my opinion, cables and power sources are by far the greatest offenders in the audiophile world. If you listen to a 10 dollar pair of speakers compared to a 1k dollar pair and then a 10k dollar pair, you're going to hear positive differences assuming reasonable source / transport. This is not nearly as much the case when comparing a 10, 100, 1k, 10k pair of speaker cables, interconnects or power sources. Quality is relevant sure, but it doesn't exist solely in the 1k+ market.

Hope my first post isn't too annoying

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #11 –
A cable is a cable is a cable.

Give me 2 cables with exact same RLC, and as long as the cables are not broken, they will sound the same.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #12 –
Short answer: ABX

If you can't ABX it, you can claim whatever you want; it won't matter a bit.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #13 –
A preamp is whatever device is in the audio chain prior to the power amp. The distinction is somewhat artificial - where does one end and the other begin? Depends upon definitions and purpose.

I think that for practical purposes a preamp in consumer electronics has meant "a line level device that provides control over the audio signal". So it typically meant the box that housed input selectors, volume controls, EQ, etc. But it could NOT deliver power to speakers. This does not mean that the preamp is "passive" - I love that term, used to glorify potentiometers and switches in a box - it very likely will use active components in order to achieve goals, such as:

1. Phono stages
2. Silent switching between sources
3. Boosting gain of signals
4. EQ
5. Impedance matching for both sources and outputs

A power amp generally accepts line level inputs but provides no or minimal controls. It does deliver power to speakers.

Specialized cases exist for certain purposes. The most common example is a phono preamp, which takes the very weak signal from a phono cartridge, applies the RIAA EQ and boosts the signal to line level. It must provide proper impedance matching for the cartridge. It need not provide any other control, but in most cases it is integrated with some device that does provide control.

The definition can still get fuzzy.

For example, if I have a some audio source with a line level output (defined as -10dBV for consumer gear) then you might connect it directly to a "power amp" and successfully drive speakers. Of course the power amp has some input stage (buffer) followed by driver stages and output stages. In that case, you have no "preamp" per se, though you may achieve your goals.

The notion that a separate preamp is preferable to an integrated preamp is thus a canard. What is important is the functionality delivered, whether in one box or three or four. The only difference is one of choice in mixing and matching the components, which may be of value to some but has no intrinsic virtue.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #14 –
Quote from: b3n on
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims.

What you mean is right, but the words are choosen a bit unlucky. Believers actually do NOT rely on their perception and instead on their ability to manipulate their perception to their liking. Or simpler: they rely on fantasy - believing is compensating deficits with fantasy (important: this does not mean that fantasy is identical to believing - it just means that believing makes use of it).

To get back on topic: I agree that it is useless to disprove believers with science (except if the goal is learning yourself something from your investigation, instead of "converting" believers). The reason for this is the same as above: believers dont need reality and truth to justify their judgements - their worldview is based on fantasy... you cannot take fantasy from them, therefore you cannot destroy their worldview - their worldview exists completely independent of reality (thats the whole point about believing in the first place - as i said "compensating deficits with fantasy".

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #15 –
Quote from: BradPDX on
A preamp is whatever device is in the audio chain prior to the power amp. The distinction is somewhat artificial - where does one end and the other begin? Depends upon definitions and purpose.


*cackle* hey, thanks for another out, explicitly using the word 'pre' as a pronoun.. genius! 

My own justification to call my box a passive preamp was that I own an Adcom GFP750 which is a box which contains an attenuator, relays and a disconnectable active amplification stage. (I can choose wether or not I want it to act as an amplifier or just an attenuator).

As for the whole 'meta discussion'.. I wholly sympathize (hence this topic). There was some french audio group who did an actual double blind test with one hidden guy switching speaker cables (E0.5/m, E10/m, E500/m) and 4 guys sitting in a row. Noone could distinguish between them, which makes sense to my microelectronics mind. I used to love the word 'negligible' when doing tests too. Calling stuff negligible was an excellent out which was correct most of the time  In this case Im sure that minor variations of resistances, crosstalk, impedances will cause minor quality changes, but (pulling figures out of my hiney here..) if the THD caused by this would be more than 0.001% I would be surprised, while for example speakers often have 5% or more THD (yes even 'audiophile ones).

Anyway, this is where my question came from, I would love to hear people order the terms Ive already suggested, and for example give me numerical grounds for my hunches

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #16 –
Quote from: puntloos on
Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)

As has been outlined, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  What do you mean by passive or active pre-amp?

Quote from: puntloos on
- Amplifier class (discrete class A AB AC AD.. )

Here again, you're making up terms.  Class AC?  Amplifiers come in A, B, AB, C, D, G, H... but no AC or AD.

Quote from: puntloos on
- DAC chip brand/type 'Burr Brown.. '...

My personal feeling is that any modern DAC uses such a high sample rate and bit depth that they've long since moved beyond the point where human beings could audibly detect a difference.  That is, of course, a personal opinion

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #17 –
BradPDX gave a very good explanation, I had no time to write the longer reply.
What I ment to say can be clearly seen here
If people had some more knowledge, they couldn't be scamed in this way. Mark the price at the upper right corner of the page, and read the description of the "product". It's sad.
All parts of the audio reproduction chain have their impact on the final audio quality. That'a fact. But if I don't hear the difference between product A (300 €) and product B (3000 €), I won't even consider to buy it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that B is not better than A, but there's no point in buying it even if I had that money to spend on it.
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #18 –
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics!  That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).

After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.

All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.

Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other.  If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design.  This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).

Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks.  There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.

If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them.  I'm always open to revising my beliefs.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Room101 on
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics!  That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).

After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.

I agree absolutely with that. When you want to improve something in your audio chain you must begin with the parts that are the closest to the ear. And if the listening room isn't as it should be, there's nothing to talk about any further
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Room101 on
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics!  That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).

After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.

All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.

Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other.  If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design.  This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).

Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks.  There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.

CD-Player and Amps sound all the same but cables sound different??? 
I can't believe you're serious ...
... if you are serious, listen to a nearfield Studio-speaker with different amps ... you can ABX the amp from the next room ...

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Curtor on
Quote from: puntloos on
Type of Pre-amp (passive/active)

As has been outlined, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  What do you mean by passive or active pre-amp?

See the previous post. While it is a touch fuzzy terminology, a fair description of what people mean by 'passive preamp' is 'an attenuator and/or a source switching system' instead of a powered, signal processing stage that must by design alter and (negatively?) influence the signal. Additionally, if you want to get all scientific-y about it, 'negative amplification' is still a form of amplification, a.k.a. attenuation.
Quote
Quote from: puntloos on
- Amplifier class (discrete class A AB AC AD.. )

Here again, you're making up terms.  Class AC?  Amplifiers come in A, B, AB, C, D, G, H... but no AC or AD.

Yes I made a joke.  but not 'again'

Quote from: Room101 on
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics!  That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).

Good point! Ill add that to the original post if I can.
Quote
After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.

All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.

And let the debate rage on.
Quote
Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other.  If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design.  This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).

That is a touchy question. I do disagree with you, but perhaps not for the reasons you would assume. The reason I disagree is that I make a distinction between what I personally call 'Just In Time (JIT)' sources and prepared sources. If you press 'play' on a settop CD player, its goal is to produce the best possible sound, starting 0.3 seconds after 'play' and no hiccups. A bad ($100?) cd player will probably a/ have bad error correction/recovery (I know, I said let's discount that here!), and b/ low quality DA conversion chips that for example don't smooth/filter and so forth.

Personally, I use a $30 computer CDROM player that can take its merry time to read, reread and read again a certain CD track, and 'buffer' it to harddisk at a strict 44/16 rate. Compare it to online cdrip CRC databases, and there isn't much more to do to make it perfect-er.
Quote
Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks.  There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.

If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them.  I'm always open to revising my beliefs.

Blind ABX Cable test (in french)
Reasonably clear google translation
("The choice of the programme line [cable - ed] did not have an audible effect for the listeners present, on the selected system. ")

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #22 –
saw you post this on headfi. going to bet you're going to get flamed for no reason 

Quote
It's called the attenuator


you're being difficult

Quote
A pre-amp has volume control? I thought a pre-amp would only let you select the source and destination and maybe also offer an EQ, while the volume is on the final.


almost always, the preamp refers to the "control".

Quote
Using science to disprove audiophile concepts and or principles is akin to using science to disprove god. Audiophiles, much like religious peoples rely heavily on faith and personal perception rather then hard science to give evidence to their claims. I understand this is obvious, but I'm confused at the topic being the majority of the members of hydrogenaudio are hard skeptics of audiophile concepts/components to begin with. You're more or less preaching to the choir.

Having said for reading on the subject i'd point out a couple of Stereophile editorials (hold your breath it's going to hurt):

You Heard What?!?!?! (the ambiguity of audiophile reviews, good source of audiophile jargon)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/806awsi/

Quote
This range of contradictory reactions from audiophiles presumably well versed in critical listening underscores the challenges confronting equipment reviewers. As much as we may think we have a handle on how something sounds, people's reference points, hearing differences, and mental filters seem more than capable of making a silk purse from any sow's ear. All of which suggests that, in addition to controlling variables by adding to a reference system whose sound we know backward and forward only one new component—the component under review—humility is in order before we voice observations and make critical pronouncements. In a world in which one person's Carnegie Hall is another's Madison Square Garden, how can you be sure which way is up?



Information on their "review" process (more jargon herein)
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/

In my opinion, cables and power sources are by far the greatest offenders in the audiophile world. If you listen to a 10 dollar pair of speakers compared to a 1k dollar pair and then a 10k dollar pair, you're going to hear positive differences assuming reasonable source / transport. This is not nearly as much the case when comparing a 10, 100, 1k, 10k pair of speaker cables, interconnects or power sources. Quality is relevant sure, but it doesn't exist solely in the 1k+ market.

Hope my first post isn't too annoying


for the most part you are correct. however it is definitely unfair to say that ALL audiophiles are lunatics.

Quote
The number one most important factor by a long stretch is acoustics! That means choosing the right room, placing your speakers and listening position properly, and then applying acousitcal room treatments (best to do all this before you get married).

After that, the next most important factor is speaker selection.

All adequately powered, properly designed amps with decent specs sound virtually the same.

Any halfway decent CD player (even your $100 version) will sound as good as any other. If you hear a difference between two CD players, either one of them is broken, or it has faulty design. This may or may not apply when you include new, higher resolution formats (I don't know anything about that subject).

Nothing, however expensive, beats Belden or Canare cables, unless you are counting looks. There may be even less expensive alternatives that sound just as good, but Belden cables are cheap enough and they have a proven reputation.

If you know of any blind listening tests that disprove any of the above, I'd love to read about them. I'm always open to revising my beliefs.


define "properly designed". are you an engineer? do you have any idea what you are talking about? do you know anything about d/a conversion?




it is probably pretty obvious that i am an "audiophile". i am somewhat ashamed, thanks to all of the bullshit that other "audiophiles" indulge in. on the other hand, there are just as uninformed skeptical jerkoffs like some people here, not necessarily in this topic, that enjoy making sweeping generalizations. live and let live for god's sake. for reference i do not believe in cable sound.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Thelonious Monk on
for the most part you are correct. however it is definitely unfair to say that ALL audiophiles are lunatics.


I never used the word lunatic. I did however accurately describe audiophiles. How? Because I am for the most part, one of them.  I am however - more so then most, a skeptic. It takes more then John Atkinson gushing over something to convince me of the intrinsic value of a piece of gear. Pseudo science presented as fact will not guide my pushing decisions, nor will it convince me better sound can be found through 5k magical pads to rest my turn-table upon. Over the last 4 years I've come to depend on hydrogenaudio for the cold hard facts, when I want my piece of placebo heaven ( and I do ) I'll hit the pages of stereophile, hi-fi+, and the plethora of sites dedicated to their shared thought process.

Scientifically cutting through Audiophile claims (phase 1)

Reply #24 –
Quote from: henkersmahlzeit on
CD-Player and Amps sound all the same but cables sound different??? 
I can't believe you're serious ...


Sorry, no I didn't mean to suggest that cables sound different.  I'm not saying that Belden or Canare sound better than any other cable, only that no other cable sounds better than they do.  Even freebies are probably audibly indistinguishable from higher quality cables.
I suspect that my hearing is not good enough to hear a difference between cables unless one set of cables is well below what are generally recomended to be the appropriate guage and type for a given connection and length.  I like Belden and Canare because I feel confident that they will live up to their stated specifications and because they are known for top notch construction quality.  Construction quality, I think, counts for something even though it doesn't influence sound quality (at least not until the low quality cables start to fail at the connections, etc.)
[EDIT: clarification]


Quote from: henkersmahlzeit on
... if you are serious, listen to a nearfield Studio-speaker with different amps ... you can ABX the amp from the next room ...


Unfortunately I don't know of anyplace where I could really do that under controlled conditions, so I have to trust what I have read from various sources that seem trustworthy.  I would be most interested in reading about the results of any such ABX testing, if you could direct me to such information.