Debunking Audiophoolery! or, how magic rocks won't make your hifi system better.

[smugtronix]

In the world of audiophoolery, everyone and their brother try to separate you from your money, by means of extremely far-fetched methods. Whether it's $7000/ft cable, or magic EMI filter rocks, it's just insane! I know Dave has directed his rage to the audiophool crowd before, but I think a teardown/ mythbusting of an outrageous audiophool contraption might be hilarious!

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm Magic EMI filter rocks.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Looks like a block of ferrite, but they got a patent so it must be good....

[poptones]

It would be much more interesting to see some attempt at measuring the effect. It's not just a block of ferrite. Have you even looked at the patent? It's basically the electromagnetic version of one of these, but in reverse. That is, instead of amplifying the resonators are designed to dissipate the energy through resistance.

[olsenn]

I aggree that there are MANY ludacris gimmicks out there aimed at tricking people that their "magic rocks" or "snake oil coated copper" will improve sound quality. However, the persuit of aural nirvana is not all in vain! Having listened to many high-end headphones (Grado, Sennheiser, AKG...) and bookshelf speakers (Audioengine, Klipsch...) I can tell you that NO TWO SETUPS SOUND ALIKE! This infers two things: 1) that preference to sound is subject to opinion, and 2) that the "accuracy" (if defined by repeatability and standardization) of even the expensive systems is not all that great.

Build a headphone amplifier using precision, ultra low noise Op-Amps. After gaining an appreciation for how a particular song sounds, replace the Op-Amp for another (also high precision and ultra low noise). Both IC's will have an exceptionally flat frequency responce over the audible frequency range, but the same song will sound SIGNIFICANTLY different! Most engineers today have been accustomed to dealing with digital electronics, where you can take assumptions for granted. However, in the analog world, there are many more factors to consider than noise and frequency response... such as how the system responds to an input that consists of two simultaneous frequencies at opposite ends of the spectrum.

In short, audiophilles aren't as stupid as you may think. They (I am not one of them) know that many factors can affect the sound of their DUT; including but not limited to, capacitor type, conductor type, temperature coefficients, and alloy resonance. There is no such thing as magic, but there are still plenty of fields of science which haven't been discovered yet!

[smugtronix]

I aggree that there are MANY ludacris gimmicks out there aimed at tricking people that their "magic rocks" or "snake oil coated copper" will improve sound quality. However, the persuit of aural nirvana is not all in vain! Having listened to many high-end headphones (Grado, Sennheiser, AKG...) and bookshelf speakers (Audioengine, Klipsch...) I can tell you that NO TWO SETUPS SOUND ALIKE! This infers two things: 1) that preference to sound is subject to opinion, and 2) that the "accuracy" (if defined by repeatability and standardization) of even the expensive systems is not all that great.

Build a headphone amplifier using precision, ultra low noise Op-Amps. After gaining an appreciation for how a particular song sounds, replace the Op-Amp for another (also high precision and ultra low noise). Both IC's will have an exceptionally flat frequency responce over the audible frequency range, but the same song will sound SIGNIFICANTLY different! Most engineers today have been accustomed to dealing with digital electronics, where you can take assumptions for granted. However, in the analog world, there are many more factors to consider than noise and frequency response... such as how the system responds to an input that consists of two simultaneous frequencies at opposite ends of the spectrum.

In short, audiophilles aren't as stupid as you may think. They (I am not one of them) know that many factors can affect the sound of their DUT; including but not limited to, capacitor type, conductor type, temperature coefficients, and alloy resonance. There is no such thing as magic, but there are still plenty of fields of science which haven't been discovered yet!

I do believe that different op-amps  will sound different in the same application. I build guitar pedals. I just got a sample order from TI, with a  couple of op-amps, including LM833s, a couple of Burr Browns, and some el-cheapo 4560s. I'm fully expecting different tonal characteristics from each one. Where I don't believe the audiophools is in the $8000/foot USB cable, or the $200 cable lifters that supposedly improve your sound.

[jucole]

The most overlooked part of an audio setup I think is your ears; so if you're older and or you have listened to lots of loud music over the years you've probably lost the ability to hear certain frequencies.  So then what's the point of a posh hifi system?



Try it! get your frequency generator out and a small speaker.   When I tried it I could hear up to 15.5Khz, which is not bad for someone my age (40).

[poptones]

I once made a headphone amp, very simple servo controlled circuit that was designed for a CFA. I used, I believe, 1K/330 ohm feedback network to set the gain, and it was battery powered via two sealed lead acid batteries. I had an inventory of samples, and though the circuit worked well within the design paramters of each, and in spite of having similar specs and bandwidth into the mhz range, the difference in sound was noticeable. I never cared to analyze it, I just picked the one I liked best - in this cast, the Maxim part.

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/snos704/snos704.pdf
http://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/MAX457.pdf

The "point" is not in how high you can hear, but in how GOOD you can hear. You don't have to be able to hear even to 5khz to still be able to locate the direction of a sound, or distortion in the sound.

[EEVblog]

I do believe that different op-amps  will sound different in the same application.

Unless you performed a TRUE double blind A-B comparison, you are very likely fooling yourself.
Unless of course the actual THD of the signal is drastically different between the two opamps, and that of course can be the case in real life.

Bebunking the audiophool industry boils down to something very simple:
If two items measure identically, then they MUST sound identical. And that is *always* bought out in true scientific double-blind A-B experiments.

The last chain in the system, the speaker, is of course much more difficult to measure and characterise, as of course it is the part of the system turning electricity into acoustic energy, and has by far the greatest impact and most uncertainty. So the above statement pretty much excludes the speakers, but can be applied to almost every other part of the system.

Dave.

[smugtronix]

I do believe that different op-amps  will sound different in the same application.

Unless you performed a TRUE double blind A-B comparison, you are very likely fooling yourself.
Unless of course the actual THD of the signal is drastically different between the two opamps, and that of course can be the case in real life.

Bebunking the audiophool industry boils down to something very simple:
If two items measure identically, then they MUST sound identical. And that is *always* bought out in true scientific double-blind A-B experiments.

The last chain in the system, the speaker, is of course much more difficult to measure and characterise, as of course it is the part of the system turning electricity into acoustic energy, and has by far the greatest impact and most uncertainty. So the above statement pretty much excludes the speakers, but can be applied to almost every other part of the system.

Dave.

Thanks Dave for setting things straight.
I guess the psychoacoustic element is undeniable. You change things hoping to improve your tone somehow, and you might be doing nothing, but in your mind, it's real. I agree that I would not be able to pick out different op-amps in a double-blind test. "Guitar player science" dictates swapping things around until you find something that you personally think is good... but that's something I really want to get away from. I'm trying to graduate from cobbling together building blocks from old circuits to actually designing my own, and your videos and the forum are a real big help.

[poptones]

But I've heard countless rebukes of stuff like the tice clock and shakti stones, but not once have I seen an objective evaluation.

So far as "fooling oneself" we are talking here about subjective preference. Whether or not one is "fooled" is the ultimate goal.

Human ears are not "tuned" for THD. THD and IMD are not critical parts of creating a compelling illusion - one need only listen to a Nine Inch Nails or Crystal Castles CD to hear proof of this: the sound is full of all sorts of distortions and yet one can easily pinpoint the origin of that sound in space if one has a good setup. The ear uses phase and timbral changes to determine locality; these are the most critical parameters, yet most bench testers pay minimal attention to these details.

John Curl is a well establish engineer in the field. I've known him more than ten years and never known him to be a tweaker, and he defends the shakti technology. It would be interesting to see some objective evaluations of the stated goals.

[EEVblog]

But I've heard countless rebukes of stuff like the tice clock and shakti stones, but not once have I seen an objective evaluation.

Because the things are so frigg'n expensive, limiting the market to fools who will pay for it and hence will hear the difference!
And they will never loan them out to someone who's actually going to do a proper scientific double-blind A-B comparison test, because they know very well it would show absolutely no improvement.

John Curl is a well establish engineer in the field. I've known him more than ten years and never known him to be a tweaker, and he defends the shakti technology.

Which proves absolutely and precisely squat.
You can be easily deluded and not know it.

It would be interesting to see some objective evaluations of the stated goals.

Sure. Get a set of them, a set of trained ears,  a suitable top notch gear studio, a bunch of time, an A-B rig, suitable top notch measurement rigs, and I betcha you'll find that the results will be no better than chance.

Dave.

[poptones]

I'm really surprised to hea you dismiss things so nonchalantly. It's expensive, they won't loan me one, I haven't looked at the patent or dissected the thesis but it must not work...

I betcha you'll find that the results will be no better than chance

That's not what I said. I didn't say anything at all about listening. I'm not interested in ABX nor in someone's opinion.

[nitro2k01]

That's not what I said. I didn't say anything at all about listening. I'm not interested in ABX nor in someone's opinion.

It don't think they'd loan one out for RF absorption testing either. Obviously the thing is going to absorb EMI, but would it be better than a solid slab of ferrite? That's where I have my doubts.

[EEVblog]

I'm really surprised to hea you dismiss things so nonchalantly. It's expensive, they won't loan me one, I haven't looked at the patent or dissected the thesis but it must not work...

Because I can sniff BS a mile away, and this is some of the stinkiest I've ever smelled.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Did I ever say it's can't work? No. It's just massively unlikely and smell like regular audiophool BS.
I'm also basing this on the fact that the audiophool industry has NEVER been able to prove their wild claims in any proper scientific test. If they can do that then they can easily win $1,000,000 from James Randi's foundation.
So my BS detector is not without a great deal of history behind it.

I betcha you'll find that the results will be no better than chance
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything at all about listening. I'm not interested in ABX nor in someone's opinion.

What the hell are you interested in then?
Either the product "works" or it doesn't.
There are three ways to determine that:
1) proper scientific double blind A-B comparison
2) you take someone word for it.
3) you listen yourself and make up your own mind

Note that #2 and #3 are both easily open to self delusion and bias.

Dave.

[nitro2k01]

But I've heard countless rebukes of stuff like the tice clock and shakti stones, but not once have I seen an objective evaluation.

So far as "fooling oneself" we are talking here about subjective preference. Whether or not one is "fooled" is the ultimate goal.

As mentioned above, I think they'd be very wary about loaning out units for objective evaluation, say Dave analyzing the thing with oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers. Someone could also buy one and donate it for science, if they cared. The second best option is try to guess how the thing will work based on established physical principles. And then of course analyze whether the item is worth its price.

Here's the thing though, caring about whether people are fooled is called compassion. There are businessmen who can sell cow manure as if it was gold. Some people would praise such a businessman as an innovative and successful entrepreneur, whereas others would call him a conman.

Human ears are not "tuned" for THD. THD and IMD are not critical parts of creating a compelling illusion - one need only listen to a Nine Inch Nails or Crystal Castles CD to hear proof of this: the sound is full of all sorts of distortions and yet one can easily pinpoint the origin of that sound in space if one has a good setup. The ear uses phase and timbral changes to determine locality; these are the most critical parameters, yet most bench testers pay minimal attention to these details.

THD and IMD are two sides of the same coin. THD is a standardized way of measuring non-linearities in the amplitude reproduction of a signal chain by feeding a sine through it. Simple signal = harmonic distortion. Feed a more complex signal through the same nonlinear signal chain and you will instead get IMD. And while small amounts harmonic distortion can be pleasurable, intermodulation distortion creates new harmonic content and is less desirable. This, I'm assuming you already know.

I think this comment is a bit off the mark. In a NiN or CC song, the distorsion is obviously an intended part of the production. If I'm listening to say a recording of classical music on a crappy system with something like 1% THD I'm not hearing the music as it was intended to be.

So, why the focus on distortion rather than phase and timbral changes? First off, distortion is a more unique characteristic of electronics than phase and timbral changes. Phase and timbral changes are acoustical effects. The choice of walls and placement of speakers, musicians and listeners will drastically impact phase and timbral content. Hell, you can't even turn your head without making the sound arrive milliseconds later to one ear than the other and reflect differently in the outer ear. But you're gonna work damn hard if you're gonna make a room distort. That's just a non-sequitur. Transistors and tubes on the other hand do distort, so there distortion is a relevant criterion. On the other hand it's relatively hard to mess up the timbral and phase reproduction in an amplifier unless you're trying. Unlike RF, you're not going to have your signal leaking all over the place or getting resonances everywhere. In principle, these things are trivially in the hand of the designer of the circuit. I believe that the component that affects phase and frequency response the most are the speakers, and I also do believe speaker designers generally pay attention to these things.

[vk6zgo]

Of course,"people who live in glass houses,etc,"
Many times,I've seen a PIC used to do a job which could be done with equal or greater ease using a few passive components.
But we are all addicted to those "magic rocks"!
The upside is they are nice cheap rocks!

[poptones]

In the case of this particular device I am interested in measurements. I don't know how this could not be more clear, I have said this repeatedly. Measurements. Put device near a coil of wire, excite an impulse and do an FFT of what comes out the other end. Maybe make some more tests. It has nothing to do with sound, whether or not the device is subjectively "worth" whatever it costs, or how someone who hasn't even been in the thing's presence evaluates the claims made.

The designer claims to use these things with a vehicle as a means of "cleaning up" the signal for the fuel injection system. I am tempted to call bullshit on this as well, but I'm not so belligerent as to deem it "foolishness" without ever seeing the first objective test.

So far as HD: If you can detect 1% HD in a real musical signal involving an orchestra, I would be profoundly amazed - especially since there are relatively damn few people living today who have even heard a full orchestra in a live setting to have any meaningful point of reference.

And yes, rooms distort quite badly. Often they are the worse part of the chain. Undamped resonances in windows, tables, paneling, ceiling tiles, computer cases and (especially) floors and floor joists excited by the energy from subwoofers are all very, very common problems - not to mention the ambient noise filtering in from urban settings.

And compassion is completely misplaced. We're not talking about people being oppressed we're talking about people of means (because people who work at Burger King don't buy ten thousand dollar audio cables) spending their money as they choose. Even still, that is completely beside the point of deeming the particular device mentioned by OP as "foolishness" when it is, in fact, based on robust science.

[Tepe]

Try it! get your frequency generator out and a small speaker.   When I tried it I could hear up to 15.5Khz, which is not bad for someone my age (40).

Or better, take the small speaker out of the equation and get a professional hearing test done. Just to factor out the technical limitations of your home-made test setup.

[poptones]

Professional hearing tests only go to 7KHz.

[EEVblog]

Even still, that is completely beside the point of deeming the particular device mentioned by OP as "foolishness" when it is, in fact, based on robust science.

Many devices in the audiophool market are "based on robust science", that's how they sell them, and aren't ashamed to advertise the fact of course.
What is almost always the case though, is that the science is completely irrelevant to the actual result (or lack of) or quoted use of these devices.
They use the science as a means of justify what they have deluded themselves into hearing. (or can actually hear, but are being intellectually dishonest because they never do proper apples-apples comparisons).

As the for actual Shatki Stones, FFS, just read some of the shit:
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

Automotive Computers (ECUs) and audio/video components self generate a radiated EMI field that degrades signal transfer functions.

One need only place SHAKTI units in near proximity to the CPU or audio component to obtain discernible performance improvements.

Placement on automotive CPUs has measurably increased engine horsepower.

High quality video systems will benefit from SHAKTI devices near power supplies, projection guns and laser disc/DVD players.

When one On-Line was placed on each of the 8 individual coils of a Chevy Tahoe, it showed a remarkable improvement of almost four tenths of a second in its 0 to 60 time. Changes of this magnitude usually cost several thousand dollars in engine modifications, not the $400 cost for 8 On-Lines. This parallels resolution improvements in analog and digital audio components when SHAKTI units are placed near power supplies, DAC chips, capacitors and system wiring.

It's goddamn outright deluded BS.
Yes, RF traps et.al might be "robust science", but it's just being used as BS here.

Dave.

[grumpydoc]

Placement on automotive CPUs has measurably increased engine horsepower.

That sounds like a claim which can readily be tested in a totally objective way and debunked (or not, but that doesn't seem likely).

In the UK you could then try to get Trading Standards after them. However I suspect a mild slap on the wrist and being told to remove that one claim is the best that could result.

[Tepe]

Professional hearing tests only go to 7KHz.

250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz in a simple standard test used here for children. Starting at 20 dB and then lowered in steps of 5 dB. I hope you don't think that that is the only kind available.

[jucole]

The "point" is not in how high you can hear, but in how GOOD you can hear. You don't have to be able to hear even to 5khz to still be able to locate the direction of a sound, or distortion in the sound.

Unless you're a bird enthusiast;  many birds like warblers, sparrows, waxwings, kinglets, and a number of other birds produce sounds that reach 8,000 Hz and beyond.

[JuKu]

Bebunking the audiophool industry boils down to something very simple:
If two items measure identically, then they MUST sound identical. And that is *always* bought out in true scientific double-blind A-B experiments.

While I agree most of what is said in this thread (and the foolery of magic stones), this statement assumes that we actually know what makes any circuitry sound the way it sounds. Sure, we know some (like THD, TIM, IMD, phase and frequency response), but I don't think we know all. Actually, I think we know less than half. There is true science being made discovering the issues; usually, but not always(*), in blind or double blind A-B or (more often) A-B-X tests.

There is also the facinating not-yet-reasearched area from very plausible, just not yet fully researched or publicized to outright frauds and anything in between.

Audio is fascinating  for many reasons. One is the above, especially when things are discovered and folklore turns out to be true (or completely bs). Also, a consumer seldom is in blind A-B situation. When you know (or think you know) what you are listening to, your perception of sound changes. The air molecules may move the same, but your hearing sensation changes. Therefore, the magic stones can (sadly) really work. Not for you, not for me, but for somebody with zero understanding of electronics and believing the marketing, the perceived sound of his system could really be better - for him. (*): Therefore, a good deal of research is purposely done in non-blind tests to find out these issues.

Btw, did you know that different colored speakers do sound different in a non-blind trials? There is a good, scientifically proved reason why speakers are black or natural wood colored...

[jucole]

You can buy Shakti Stone Crystals on Ebay, here's an extract of their powers.

"These wonderful healers/helpers are here to awaken and help all that seek enlightenment...my own personal experience is that of a connection to the Blue Dog Star beings of Sirius, but not all will call that into their energyfield...those who are attuned to Sirius maybe able to use this crystal to reach these Beings of Light...others will connect The Source of White Light through these, it just depends upon to whom or should I say 'with whom' you are connected to and through which YOU personally channel this Prana, Divine Source, Shakti Energy..."

I'm telling you now though, you bring one of those suckers into your home,  next thing you know your kid is missing and your wife is talking her through the tv and ornaments are flying around your house, just like the Spielberg film Poltergeist! ;-)

[JuKu]

:lol: Ok, maybe (hopefully) nobody is THAT fallible!

[Tepe]

Btw, did you know that different colored speakers do sound different in a non-blind trials? There is a good, scientifically proved reason why speakers are black or natural wood colored...

Ah, shoot mine are neither of those...

[olsenn]

Btw, did you know that different colored speakers do sound different in a non-blind trials? There is a good, scientifically proved reason why speakers are black or natural wood colored...

Wel, the colour obviosly has no effect on the sound; some may say that the type of paint does, but this would be so insignificant that no human ear could possibly discern the difference. However, and this surprised me as well, the type of wood used can make a very big difference. The more resonant the material is, the more the sound will echo back; the phase difference is small, but it can be enough to keep transients alive longer, which will make more detail stand out. If there is too much resonance, the sound will get all distorted and sound like crap.

If you have a pair of open headphones, make a cup with your hand over the back of the cans; the bass will get significantly reduced and the treble will be accentuated. Reagrdless though, our ears get accustomed to whatever sound we're used to hearing, and even the in-ear buds that come with our mp3 players are good enough for most people who just want to listen to some songs.

[EEVblog]

Therefore, the magic stones can (sadly) really work. Not for you, not for me, but for somebody with zero understanding of electronics and believing the marketing, the perceived sound of his system could really be better - for him. (*)

That is precisely what I said in my audiophool rant video.
Can these things work and the buyer hear a difference, yes, in many cases they can. Not for the scientific reasons they advertise, but because of what your brain is doing. And that is what the scam is.
The exact same product without the scientific mumbo-jumbo and marketing reinforcement by a cottage industry under the same perfectionist delusion would not work at all. When there is no vested interested you do not hear the difference.

Dave.

[JuKu]

Wel, the colour obviosly has no effect on the sound

That depends on what is meant by "sound", and why I wrote "non-blind"!. If "sound" is physical movement of air molecules, then color has no effect. But if "sound" is the psychological phenomenon in the brain, caused by pressure variations of the air, then color of the speaker is indeed important.

When you say "This sounds like...", don't you, in fact, mean the latter?

[EEVblog]

That depends on what is meant by "sound", and why I wrote "non-blind"!. If "sound" is physical movement of air molecules, then color has no effect. But if "sound" is the psychological phenomenon in the brain, caused by pressure variations of the air, then color of the speaker is indeed important.

Try eating food with a peg over your nose, the taste is entirely different!

Dave.

[Bored@Work]

But if "sound" is the psychological phenomenon in the brain, caused by pressure variations of the air,

Forget about the pressure variation of air as a prerequisite. Some people hear voices in their heads without anyone actually speaking Audiophoolery is just a mild variation of that medical condition.

[SeanB]

Tearing down a set of "Balanced Music Link Transparent Cable Plus" XLR interconnects ( came in a big box of cables, assorted) and there actually is something inside aside from a fancy box on the cable. Inside there ia a RC filter damped with a resistor. Red unmarked inductor damped by a 118R Dale precision resistor, and a 2200pF polystyrene capacitor to the common conductor. All in heatshrink, and then covered with a shield made from braid. Nicely hot snotted into a plastic box in line with the cable.

Stripping it for the nice XLR connectors on it.............. Anybody want the pure silver PTFE interconnects there are there as well?

[ejeffrey]

That depends on what is meant by "sound", and why I wrote "non-blind"!. If "sound" is physical movement of air molecules, then color has no effect. But if "sound" is the psychological phenomenon in the brain, caused by pressure variations of the air, then color of the speaker is indeed important.

When you say "This sounds like...", don't you, in fact, mean the latter?

If anything can be sound, then it is a pointless and stupid word.  Sound means vibrational waves traveling through air.  Saying it can include the visual appearance or even more intangible ideas is just pointless drivel to take away from the fact that these products do not do what is advertised and the people who sell them are nothing but con artists.

Nobody with any sense doubts that paying $5000 for a power cord or painting your volume knob bright pink can change your experience, but it doesn't not change the sound.

[Mechatrommer]

Nobody with any sense doubts that paying $5000 for a power cord or painting your volume knob bright pink can change your experience, but it doesn't not change the sound.

no, as BaW reasoned, painting the knob pink will change medical condition hence the sound in his head will be different. and paying $5000 will trigger synapses in some region changing the sound translation behaviour.

[smugtronix]

Tearing down a set of "Balanced Music Link Transparent Cable Plus" XLR interconnects ( came in a big box of cables, assorted) and there actually is something inside aside from a fancy box on the cable. Inside there ia a RC filter damped with a resistor. Red unmarked inductor damped by a 118R Dale precision resistor, and a 2200pF polystyrene capacitor to the common conductor. All in heatshrink, and then covered with a shield made from braid. Nicely hot snotted into a plastic box in line with the cable.

Stripping it for the nice XLR connectors on it.............. Anybody want the pure silver PTFE interconnects there are there as well?

Interesting... I always thought the main goal of audiophool cables are to reduce total capacitance....

[poptones]

Of course not. The primary goal of high end audio cables is to make money.

[SeanB]

Don't forget look shiny, and look different to the others...........