One for the audio physics deniers

One upshot of playback systems progressing as far as they have is the irritation I get when trying to play a CD of Led Zeppelin’s “Since I’ve Been Loving You” from “Led Zep 3”.

SURELY they didn’t decide to keep the track with Bonham’s squeeky old metal-linked Ludwig bass drum pedal?

“Dah-duh-dum, SQUEEKASQUEEKASQUEEKASQUEEK…” Drives me right round the bend.

😯

Just have a search for websites that explain why music producers use monitors. There is a good reason they don’t use your ‘audiophile’ set ups.

Clearly, though you can write, you seem unable to read.

Let met re-phrase that – what objectively measurable property of the QED cable makes it so much better than the mains cable? I don’t recall you mentioning anything except a lot of waffle about what you thought you heard, without any suggestion of a ABX test.

I’ve a bit of research on pyschoacoustics and sound reproduction, and it seems striking how many professional commentators are so profoundly ignorant on the subject. For instance, I’ve never seen What Hi-Fi carry out an objective test on a single piece of equipiment. It’s really not that hard to do ABX testing, or even to have a bash at seting up an anechoic chamber with a reference mike and a spectrum analyser.

After quite a bit of research, the conclusion I came to was that speakers are most important, and that active speakers (i.e. without a passive crossover) are technically better, particularly when it comes to bass control.

Electronics are so good these days it seems very likely that differences that are measurable in the lab are actaully not audible in an ABX test. The very few reported ABX tests of expensive kit vs cheap kit (with similar objective measurements) appears to confirm this.

By all means buy the expensive stuff – it probably sounds better in the same way that branded painkillers work better (and measurably so).

There is a good reason they don’t use your ‘audiophile’ set ups.

you are just talking bs. The main difference between domestic speakers and the monitors they use in studios is in the voil coils and the tolerance they have to being driven hard.

Many ‘audiophiles’ use ATC, Harbeth or PMC speakers, which are basically studio monitors. The Harbeth 40.1 has a bass heavy response in a domestic environment as it is designed to be used at head height in a studio.

I personally use Quad amplifiers, a more powerful derivative of what Phillips used to use when monitoring their classical recordings.

I also use LS3/5as, which were actually BBC grade 2 monitors designed for monitoring in a outside broadcast van, although mine are upgraded with more-lossy cabinets and external crossovers which bring them closer to grade 1.

After quite a bit of research, the conclusion I came to was that speakers are most important, and that active speakers (i.e. without a passive crossover) are technically better, particularly when it comes to bass control

room is most important…

you are just talking bs

Are you really proposing the entire music production industry has it got it wrong by using reference monitors, or are you denying they actually use them? Either way, I grow weary of your disillusion, but admire your persistance.

Sorry, what’s an ABX test?

Are you really proposing the entire music production industry has it got it wrong by using reference monitors, or are you denying they actually use them? Either way, I grow weary of your disillusion, but admire your persistance.

try reading my posts – you are implying that an ‘audiophile’ setup is somehow inferior to what they use in a studio – in some cases this may be true but in many it is not – often there is b*gger all difference and the ‘audiophile’ system may actually use many of the same components, as I am trying to point out but you seem to keep ignoring.

ABX test

Thanks to this thread, I’ve been doing a fair bit of reading about ABX hi-fi testing.
It seems people can’t reliably tell the difference between just about any piece of hi-fi equipment in an ABX test.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

(passed tests are more frequent for speakers than any other component, but even then there are plenty of fails)

Dear djcombes,

I do understand the objective argument and agree with it. However, the little experiment I conducted way back in 1980 was so obvious in sound difference that I am left thinking that whatever is going on, it should be measureable and therefore, explainable. That current methodology cannot do this, is interesting at least. I am talking here about the difference between audio cable and mains cable, not expensivwe “Nordost”-type cable.

I offer the suggestion that other fans of objectivity such as we, try it out themselves, if only for a laugh and that they might find the results as interesting as I did.

I hope this (slightly tedious to go over again) re-iteration is less of a “waffle” for you.

AlexSimon – doesn’t have speakers in any of them though does it? Ultimately that’s what’s going to make the difference IMO.

Woppit, we’ve established that there are too many factors that affect our perception for it to be ‘objective’ unless it’s an ABX test.

I believe you’re getting confused here between “I can aurally tell the difference between a specific cable costing thousands and a sensibly priced good quality audio cable,” which is what the challenge is, and “I can aurally tell the difference between sensibly priced good quality audio cable and mains flex,” which is what the Wopster is claiming.

Yet under double blind conditions, people can’t tell the difference between “good quality” speaker cable, and coathangers.

Are you therefore suggesting that mains flex performs worse than coathangers in this application?

From a HiFi point of view, the idea that the most important part of the system is the speakers is a very “1970’s” point of view.

In terms of reproducing accurately from the source, the most important point of the system is said to be the front-end (turntable/CD player/whatever) and in descending order through the system until the speakers are reached. This is because, if at any point information is lost in transferring between the seperate bits of equipment, no subsequent piece (however excellent) can get it back…

Yes, there are plenty of ABX speaker tests. Most of the ones picked in that thread (all 43 of them!) are chosen because they display ‘failed’ tests. But there are some that fail on speakers.

There’s another thread which highlights ‘passed’ tests.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results

Although the ‘blindness’ of some of these is debated.

It seems people can’t reliably tell the difference between just about any piece of hi-fi equipment in an ABX test.

There was a large scale test where people compared a CD player to a Townsend Rock turntable.

In one of the tests people were played the CD player and then they were played the CD player again at a slightly louder volume, instead of it being the turntable. They all thought the louder version was better.

There was a speaker cable test where they got reliable results that the fatter speaker cable sounded better than the thinner cable. However, the fatter cable has less resitence, and so the sound is louder.
When level matched there was no longer a reliable preference.

Wharfedale did a sighted test with 3 pairs of identical Wharfdale diamond speakers, although they told the listeners that they had differences. One set was painted red, one yellow, one white.

They got reliable results that everyone thought that the red pair sounded warm, the while pair bright, and the yellow pair lean.

I am fully aware of the placebo effects, the need to level match (I have a sound meter, thanks), the shortness and unreliable nature of audio memory, etc.

So when I found that speaker cables affected my power amp, in probably the same manner as Mr Woppit, you can be sure that I spent a fair amount of rigour investigating it, before coming to my final conclusion.

Also, my speaker and amps setup is probably worth £7000 and I wire it up with speaker cables that cost at most £8 a metre – what’s the problem – this is probably the same or less than a lot of forum members that are always recommending that low-quality outfit that begins with richer.

grum – Member
AlexSimon – doesn’t have speakers in any of them though does it? Ultimately that’s what’s going to make the difference IMO.

Woppit, we’ve established that there are too many factors that affect our perception for it to be ‘objective’ unless it’s an ABX test.

Yes, I know. However, the difference was so marked that I am (as I have already said, several times) confident that anybody else would be able to hear it also.

So what would the hi-fi of a complete sceptic look like?

Would it be…?

Choose speakers first (what criteria?).
Match a cheap amplifier to the requirements of the speaker.
Connect any source.
Use inexpensive commercial studio cable throughout.

Can someone give an example of a system like this?
Or is it still really subjective?

As it cannot be proved to be a fact scientifically under test conditions I conclude it is not true. If you wish to conclude it is still true due to personal perceptions then this would mean religious belief by personla perception is also true as that cannot be proved under experimental conditions.

“room is most important.”

obviously, but you try treating the living room to optimise reverberation times, and see what your missus makes of it. I can’t even get the speakers located in the right place.

One reason why I think computational approaches in which multiple speakers and DSPs are used to correct the room response are interesting. Obviously not as good as getting the room right in the first place, but still interesting.

my speaker and amps setup is probably worth £7000

I think that’s the price, not the value 😉

.

I think that’s the price, not the value

no, that’s the value to me (and to replace without hitting ebay) 😆

From a HiFi point of view, the idea that the most important part of the system is the speakers is a very “1970’s” point of view.

In terms of reproducing accurately from the source, the most important point of the system is said to be the front-end (turntable/CD player/whatever) and in descending order through the system until the speakers are reached. This is because, if at any point information is lost in transferring between the seperate bits of equipment, no subsequent piece (however excellent) can get it back…

You mean before the audiophile bulllshit marketing industry really got going?

I bet you couldn’t tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a high end CD player in an ABX test…..

JY – Yup, this is fundamentally why I think you are a hypocrite Woppit.

I can’t even get the speakers located in the right place.

One reason why I think computational approaches in which multiple speakers and DSPs are used to correct the room response are interesting. Obviously not as good as getting the room right in the first place, but still interesting

Tact/Lyngdorf promote using small satellites and putting two subs actually against the wall, or in the corners – which might be a more WAF friendly approach. The idea is that the impulse response from the room corner is easier to correct digitally than having to deal with room reflections.

They sell some subs which actually go quite high in response – and using two subs they then crossover up around 300Hz rather than 100Hz.

I heard their setup at a hifi show a while ago – I thought it sounded sh1t!

.

I bet you couldn’t tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a high end CD player in an ABX test…..

BBC did a double blind test – found that people couldn’t reliably tell the difference once MP3 got to 256kbps…

From a HiFi point of view, the idea that the most important part of the system is the speakers is a very “1970’s” point of view.

That’s not really true. 1970s/ 80s advice would’ve been to spend more on the source, the reason being that turntables are expensive to design and produce. The advent of mass produced CD players and hard disc storage means that “spend more on the speakers” is actually contemporary advice.

Expensive cables and cheap cables with the same characteristics (impedance, resistance, etc) will perform exactly the same as electrical connectors. However, if you are evaluating them as “hi-fi components”, the effect of marketing and price have to be considered as well, so expensive cables probably are subjectively better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_bias

The BBC also found that DAB sounds ‘annoying’ below 192kbps – which is why they run all their feeds below this apart from radio 3.

Choose speakers first (what criteria?).
Match a cheap amplifier to the requirements of the speaker.
Connect any source.
Use inexpensive commercial studio cable throughout.

Can someone give an example of a system like this?
Or is it still really subjective?

I reckon the first step is constraints – what will the missus put up with, how much money have I got?

Objectively, I this sort of setup is probably best:

http://www.avihifi.co.uk/adm9.html

Active speakers, decent DAC, not ludicrously expensive. I’d look for measurements of the frequency response from the speakers, which you can often get with studio monitors. Trouble with studio monitors is that they often look awful. Shiny black plastic yuck.

I don’t honestly think there is likely to be a fat lot of difference between electronics these days, once you get past a certain point (buying from someone reputable etc). ABXing is made difficult because people are very sensitive to volume levels, and can be very difficult to accurately set the output level during comparisons.

Subjectively, there are lots of other things to take account of. You might enjoy the way a particular setup colours the music, so an objectively better system might not suit anyway. You might like the way a hulking great shiny amplifier looks in corner and says ‘expensive’.

Expensive cables and cheap cables with the same characteristics (impedance, resistance, etc) will perform exactly the same as electrical connectors

no-one here is argueing against that as far as I can see.

As I find grums’ comments regarding my “hypocrisy” to be extremely offensive, especially after my subsequent posts attempting to politely explain my position (which seems perfectly reasonable to me) in as friendly a way as I can manage, which I doubt he has read, I am taking no further part in the discussion.

no-one here is argueing against that as far as I can see.

It’s a strange one, this, isn’t it. Everyone’s arguing whilst actually agreeing with each other.

Subjectively, there are lots of other things to take account of. You might enjoy the way a particular setup colours the music, so an objectively better system might not suit anyway. You might like the way a hulking great shiny amplifier looks in corner and says ‘expensive’.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Objectively, the best watch is a £5 casio, but you might well prefer the way a vintage Omega looks and feels.

Woppit – it may offend you but you are a hypocrite. Your argument only reinforces that. I wouldn’t be being so hard on the point if you weren’t so vehement in your criticism of others who show the same faith-based reasoning.

From a HiFi point of view, the idea that the most important part of the system is the speakers is a very “1970’s” point of view.

In terms of reproducing accurately from the source, the most important point of the system is said to be the front-end (turntable/CD player/whatever) and in descending order through the system until the speakers are reached. This is because, if at any point information is lost in transferring between the seperate bits of equipment, no subsequent piece (however excellent) can get it back…
It was true in the 70s and it’s still true now. The most important part of the system is the bit that reproduces least faithfully. That is the speakers, by a bloody mile. Objective measurements confirm this. Distortion and frequency response is a lot worse from pretty well any speakers than from a CD player. Especially if you take into account the fact that the typical room has marked resonant frequencies, which will always put lumps in any frequency response.

Measurements from speakers (alone) are tricky, and require an anechoic chamber, otherwise the pesky room will get involved, and you’ll be measuring the room/speaker system.

I also use LS3/5as, which were actually BBC grade 2 monitors designed for monitoring in a outside broadcast van, although mine are upgraded with more-lossy cabinets and external crossovers which bring them closer to grade 1.

Listening to mine as we speak, and Led Zep as it happens.
Built by my Dad when he worked at R & D department of the BBC at Kingswood.
Top job..

Just to say grum, on my way out, a previous post of mine pointed out the obvious difference between the hifi and the religious (straw man)argument . You have either singularly failed to 1: read it or 2: understand it.

Built by my Dad when he worked at R & D department of the BBC at Kingswood.

I was in the service planning dept as my first job after uni, several of our rooms were next to the sound dept ones.

Check the back panel of your LS3/5a – are they screwed on – do they look like the pictues just below the

The Kingswood Warren LS3/5As.

heading on this page:

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/kingswood.html

If so these are some of the prototypes that were built at KW – the production ones had 12mm cabinets and glued on backs instead.

If so they may go for a crazy price on ebay – even crazier than the prices the asians are paying for old rogers and chartwell models.