The "Post a silly and delusional audiophool YouTube reveiw" Thread

[dmills]

The trouble with satirising the  audiophool stuff is that you are **Almost** sure it is satire, but there is never any way to be 100% confident.
I mean Machina Dynamica must be a pisstake? Surely?

The one which amuses me is the tweaker end of that spectrum, I mean the guys who insist on fitting **Massive** film caps in place of the ceramics decoupling something high speed like a DAC, or replacing the jellybean electrolytics with super low ESR ones, and of course a '797' in place of a fet input opamp is "clearly an improvement" in a high Z circuit (well it makes it a better radio transmitter I guess).

The scary thing is that you ALSO see spurious claims by some 'engineers' to the effect that X cannot matter because... When a little thought shows that it can matter but is usually easily pushed into the 'does not matter' orders of magnitude, you usually get this from predominantly digital guys trying to do AD or DA converter boards for the first time. 

73 Dan.

[CJay]

The one which amuses me is the tweaker end of that spectrum, I mean the guys who insist on fitting **Massive** film caps in place of the ceramics decoupling something high speed like a DAC, or replacing the jellybean electrolytics with super low ESR ones, and of course a '797' in place of a fet input opamp is "clearly an improvement" in a high Z circuit (well it makes it a better radio transmitter I guess).

Pfft, had one guy come into the shop (over 30 years ago) asking how much it would cost to have all the solder in his pre and power amp replaced because he had some super expensive stuff on order from America that was supposed to improve the audio quality.

We told him we couldn't do it. 

[CatalinaWOW]

It is amazing that those who are looking for audio nirvana, perfection in sound, are willing to put up with the visual hell that those lessloss cables and their supports provide.

I always thought that the purpose of a great audio system was to make an appealing environment for snuggling with your favorite squeeze or trying to entice someone to be that favorite.  I can promise that delivering on the audio while failing in the visual is not a winning recipe.

[cat87]

50 seconds in into the video in the OP and man, what a bunch of bull.

On the other hand, giving how much cash a set-up like that costs and that there really are people that buy that sort of stuff, I'm thinking "yeah, I'm in the wrong line of work. Damn you, conscience"

And while I'm writing this, I can't but help laugh my arse off, because a few feet from me is a raspberry DAC I just finished and as expected of any prototype, it has wires coming out of it like no one's business....but it still has "balanced mid tones" and "a symphony of bass" and bla bla bla.

[xrunner]

50 seconds in into the video in the OP and man, what a bunch of bull.

Oh yea that guy is hopelessly deluded. He's never gonna recover. You'd have to send him to the equivalent of a cult de-programming center where he couldn't go home until he got rational about this. 

But seriously, as far as these people take this I'm really shocked at something. If you wanted to take it to the limit, take it all the way, (and why not?) it seems to me that they would construct a "clean room" environment for all the equipment. An absolutely clean room with dust, temperature, and humidity control, RF shielding, gold plated power lines and whatever the f*ck else gets them off, that no one but the owner could enter. Then what comes out of that room or closet is the speaker wiring to the speakers in your living room. I mean that's the logical end-game isn't it?

Hey wait a second - I just got an idea for a new company! 

[helius]

Even in an anechoic chamber, there are poles and resonance effects in the speaker cabinet, the driver, and the crossover if one is used. You can't get to perfection that way. Besides, the absolute lack of reverberation in such a chamber is very disturbing to some people.

[Halcyon]

Pfft, had one guy come into the shop (over 30 years ago) asking how much it would cost to have all the solder in his pre and power amp replaced because he had some super expensive stuff on order from America that was supposed to improve the audio quality.

We told him we couldn't do it.

At least you guys were honest. You could have just as easily quoted him $1000 for absolutely nothing and he still would have "heard the difference".

[Groucho2005]

Not a review, but check out the closeups of PCB's in this $300,000 system, and note the portable soldering iron being used to solder connections 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX65iSZTI7E&feature=youtu.be&t=314

At around 4:00 the guy starts talking about the type of wood they use for their speaker enclosures and how "tonally great" it is. He also mentions that the same woods are used by a guitar company. Anyone with basic knowledge of physics knows that the material of a speaker enclosure should be as "dead" as possible, absorb the energy that the speaker chassis create and certainly shouldn't have a "tone". The requirements are the exact opposite of those for a guitar body. What an idiot.

[grumpydoc]

Even in an anechoic chamber, there are poles and resonance effects in the speaker cabinet, the driver, and the crossover if one is used. You can't get to perfection that way. Besides, the absolute lack of reverberation in such a chamber is very disturbing to some people.

Define perfection, as applied to audio reproduction, anyway.

You might say that you want to hear the "original performance", well most recorded music is produced by laying down individual tracks and then mixing them, entirely electronically (or digitally). There was never a single "original performance " to reproduce.

Maybe, just maybe, if we talk about a live event ideally with musicians playing unamplified instruments (say, an orchestra) we could define it as reproducing the sound that you would get at some point in an auditorium and, with binaural recording and minimal pissing around with the signal chain you could achieve that. You could, at least, start to think about measuring the signal at source and again when reproduced to show that the reproduction is accurate.

As far as I know no review or comparison of audio equipment has ever set out to define what the reproduction should sound like and compare reality with that "ideal".

After that it's all a question of my distortion sounds more pleasing to me than your distortion.

Edit: Actually that brings to mind a spoof article, possibly in Everyday Electronics in about 1979 or 1980, which lauded the new "octophonic" playback system which was capable of reproducing the exact sound experienced by some one in seat ZZ18 in the Albert hall (or wherever, I forget). It then went on to describe how each channel was devoted, in turn, to the sound of someone in the audience coughing, or rustling a bag of crisps etc until, finally, the 8th channel was devoted to the concert - but very quietly as seat ZZ18 was way at the back!

[Zero999]

Holy moly, you weren't kidding:

I'm pretty sure that sort of thing would definitely NOT be allowed in any aerospace application...

Yuck, look at that nasty, noisy, carbon composition resistor.

[helius]

As far as I know no review or comparison of audio equipment has ever set out to define what the reproduction should sound like and compare reality with that "ideal".

You've just described an audio distortion measurement. Distortion is the most widely tested and reported measure of performance (as THD and IMD) for reproduction equipment. The fact that it appears in the specifications of amplifiers but not of loudspeakers should be a clue as to where most of it is coming from.

Distortion as heard is more complicated than one-dimensional THD but not as easily measured. Quantifying it more fully is the only path to improved fidelity of the audio reproduction chain.

You might say that you want to hear the "original performance", well most recorded music is produced by laying down individual tracks and then mixing them, entirely electronically (or digitally). There was never a single "original performance " to reproduce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
This objection flies in the face of physics. The sum of several isolated instruments in a multitrack studio is heard as a single performance containing all of them together. This is just a consequence of the wave equation and you can't do or say anything about it.

[grumpydoc]

As far as I know no review or comparison of audio equipment has ever set out to define what the reproduction should sound like and compare reality with that "ideal".

You've just described an audio distortion measurement. Distortion is the most widely tested and reported measure of performance (as THD and IMD) for reproduction equipment. The fact that it appears in the specifications of amplifiers but not of loudspeakers should be a clue as to where most it is coming from.

Distortion as heard is more complicated than one-dimensional THD but not as easily measured. Quantifying it more fully is the only path to improved fidelity of the audio reproduction chain.

Yes, of course - distortion is well defined; for individual components. But it's rarely (never?) done for the whole chain.

My point is from where do you pick your reference in the first place.

You might say that you want to hear the "original performance", well most recorded music is produced by laying down individual tracks and then mixing them, entirely electronically (or digitally). There was never a single "original performance " to reproduce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
This objection flies in the face of physics. The sum of several isolated instruments in a multitrack studio is heard as a single performance containing all of them together. This is just a consequence of the wave equation and you can't do or say anything about it.

Agreed but, again, the point is about picking a reference from which to define "fidelity". Which is where audiophoolery breaks down (IMO, of course); perfection is being sought with no way of knowing when that perfection has been achieved. Perhaps the reference point is the sound heard by the mixing engineer on the studio monitors, which will involve some distortion and colouration of the "pure" performance in the mixing desk caused by the amplifier, loudspeakers and how they interact with the volume of air in the studio.

How can we know that we have matched all of that. Is that indeed what we should be attempting to match.

As I said it all rather boils down to I like my distortions and colourations of the sound more that I like your distortions and colourations. But neither is objectively closer to the "truth" (whatever that is).

[helius]

Agreed but, again, the point is about picking a reference from which to define "fidelity". Which is where audiophoolery breaks down (IMO, of course); perfection is being sought with no way of knowing when that perfetion has been achieved. Perhaps the reference point is the sound heard by the mixing engineer on the studio monitors, which will involve some distortion and colouration of the "pure" performance in the mixing desk caused by the amplifier, loudspeakers and how they interact with the volume of air in the studio.

I think the idea that the studio monitors are the "reference" stems from a misunderstanding of what the mix engineer is doing. They are not mangling the sound as much as possible until they hear some artifact and then backing off slightly, taking the monitors to be the touchstone of what is an acceptable manipulation. The monitors are used to compare levels of different channels to achieve the desired balance and tonal character to make a good mix. The kinds of processing that are used do not depend on every detail being revealed in the monitors.

The studio monitors do not need to be totally transparent, and in fact for economic reasons it is better if they are mediocre, since most of the paying public will not be using the best available equipment. It is better for the bottom line if everyone experiences the recording as good, than if only a select few experience it as perfect and the rest are nonplussed.

[X]

Forgive my ignorance as a lowly pinball repair tech, but aren't you supposed to solder in the components on the BOTTOM of the board and not from the top?  At first I thought he was soldering onto one of the rotary switches, which would make sense, but nope, that's a power resistor he's soldering in there.  With a portable iron.  On a bench.

Erm.....

Never mind that the messy wiring and total lack of shielding will have increased parasitic capacitance and inductance and introduce cross-talk, and the EI-core transformer will emit some EMI which can be picked up by the messy wiring and components. At least they made the amp case out of guitar wood.

[Muxr]

Those $300K speakers did look cool. A lot of audio gear actually looks cool. But man that industry is full of snake oil salesmen. That amp though with flux left all over the place. Like they are all nice big components too, there is no excuse for such shoddy work.

Some audio stuff is cool, like I never knew headphones had to have this really weird response curve to reproduce the sound accurately. I always though flat response curve was the best. But it has to do with how our ears interpret sound from close sources and headphones have to compensate for it... to name one.

[Sonny_Jim]

The studio monitors do not need to be totally transparent, and in fact for economic reasons it is better if they are mediocre, since most of the paying public will not be using the best available equipment.

If you look in the background when people are doing interviews in studios, more often than not mingling with the $100k+ reference speakers, you'll see a pair of Yamaha NS10s.  The story I was told was that everybody knows how crap they are, but if you can get the mix to sound good on them, it'll sound good on consumer gear.

http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

[Keicar]

If you look in the background when people are doing interviews in studios, more often than not mingling with the $100k+ reference speakers, you'll see a pair of Yamaha NS10s.  The story I was told was that everybody knows how crap they are, but if you can get the mix to sound good on them, it'll sound good on consumer gear.

http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

Indeed. Before the NS10 there was the Auratone (aka 'Horrortone'), which was even more craptastic.

Karl.

[Zero999]

As far as I know no review or comparison of audio equipment has ever set out to define what the reproduction should sound like and compare reality with that "ideal".

You've just described an audio distortion measurement. Distortion is the most widely tested and reported measure of performance (as THD and IMD) for reproduction equipment. The fact that it appears in the specifications of amplifiers but not of loudspeakers should be a clue as to where most of it is coming from.

Yes,  the audio amplifier is a problem which has been technically solved for decades: for a long time, it's been very cheap to design a transparent amplifier. The only recent improvements centre around efficiency, with the increased popularity of class D amplifiers which is now give lower distortion than any speaker and DSP for effects in guitar amplifiers.

The trouble with specifying distortion in speakers is it can vary, depending on where the mic. is and the room acoustics.

[Harb]

I wonder why these Audiophiles are so gullible.......

Having said that, what a easy way to make a lot of money......just come up with some new BS , describe it with made up unpronounceable words , and every wishful thinker that has a placebo leaning personality will be opening their cheque book at lightspeed.......just awesome.
 

[xrunner]

These guys have it down. This is the best marketing video. Don't even say anything - don't even try to explain the BS, just present the beautiful audiophile products. Have a glass of wine while watching, look at the beautiful wooden box they come in, with a DVD too which presents the proper way to gently plug it all in. The box is worth more than any of the poor trash you have in your home. If you have to ask the price you can't afford it, you poor shmucks.

Watch this and desire the product!

https://youtu.be/aAB9YL68h-Y

[X]

Check out these Ethernet cables which come with a variety of connectors:


And these, which apparently cost $10000.

[R005T3r]

[..]
Music Signature
Spatial enhancement
Inner voices and layers of sounds
Smoothness in the sound
Cumulative impact
[..]

"Inner voices" That explains it

"sound textures"

Also, the video just above, made me screw the repair I was doing..

[Zbig]

When I was at the local audio store to get an LP cleaning kit, the guy was trying to upsell me an "LP stabilizer". Basically, a round weight you're supposed to put on top center of the record being played on a turntable. When describing the alleged benefits of using one of these to me, he said something along the lines of the "soundstage" becoming more "weighed down" and "widened". When saying this, he was making gestures with his hands as if he was imaging this mythical "soundstage" as some kind of a ball of clay that gets flatter and wider as it's being squashed from the top. He seemed to genuinely believe it works that way. I have politely promised to take that under consideration and rushed towards the exit with my LP brush kit.

[Muxr]

When I was at the local audio store to get an LP cleaning kit, the guy was trying to upsell me an "LP stabilizer". Basically, a round weight you're supposed to put on top center of the record being played on a turntable. When describing the alleged benefits of using one of these to me, he said something along the lines of the "soundstage" becoming more "weighed down" and "widened". When saying this, he was making gestures with his hands as if he was imaging this mythical "soundstage" as some kind of a ball of clay that gets flatter and wider as it's being squashed from the top. He seemed to genuinely believe it works that way. I have politely promised to take that under consideration and rushed towards the exit with my LP brush kit.

Obviously that guy is ridiculous because he was giving you a bunch of bull, but some of those terms do have use in audiophile vernacular. I mean "soundstage" is a made up term but it isn't without merit. It is much easier explaining to someone soundstage than explaining phase and frequency response. Phase and frequency response can alter the perception of spatial sound. For instance try a set of closed headphones like ATH-M50x and compare them to say SHP9500 open headphones.. the difference is quite noticeable.

ATH-M50x sound like they are playing inside your head. While SHP9500 give you the illusion of things happening at a distance. This is simply because SHP9500's have a different measurable frequency and phase response but explaining it in simple terms like soundstage might be useful to someone who doesn't understand those concepts.

Then you give these terms to sales people and the next thing.. they start using it to describe every single thing in their shop, down to cables and "LP stabilizers". Like in the example you gave.

[CatalinaWOW]

When I was at the local audio store to get an LP cleaning kit, the guy was trying to upsell me an "LP stabilizer". Basically, a round weight you're supposed to put on top center of the record being played on a turntable. When describing the alleged benefits of using one of these to me, he said something along the lines of the "soundstage" becoming more "weighed down" and "widened". When saying this, he was making gestures with his hands as if he was imaging this mythical "soundstage" as some kind of a ball of clay that gets flatter and wider as it's being squashed from the top. He seemed to genuinely believe it works that way. I have politely promised to take that under consideration and rushed towards the exit with my LP brush kit.

Too bad he tried to sell this with BS.  The product has a real use and benefit.  It can make a warped LP playable by flattening it against the turntable.  Sometimes the resulting playback will even be quality sound, though wow and flutter from high order bends often survive these weights. 

Much audiophoolery is the result of something like this.  A basically sound idea gets modified in the transmission from person to person.  Then someone down the transmission chain "invents" something based on the really flawed understanding.  The process continues.