Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
10 Lies in Audio

10 Lies in Audio

Ratings:

4.0

(1)
|Views: 342 |Likes:
Published by Charles F Port
Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic describes the 10 biggest lies in the current world of "over-hyped" high-end audio.
Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic describes the 10 biggest lies in the current world of "over-hyped" high-end audio.

More info:

Published by: Charles F Port on Dec 18, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/14/2011

pdf

text

original

 
3421
4THE AUDIO CRITICISSUE NO. 26 FALL 20005
2. The Vacuum-TubeLie
This lie is also, in a sense, about a pe-ripheral matter, since vacuum tubes arehardly mainstream in the age of sil-icon. It’s an all-pervasive lie, however,in the high-end audio market; justcount the tube-equipment ads as a per-centage of total ad pages in the typicalhigh-end magazine. Unbelievable! Andso is, of course, the claim that vacuumtubes are inherently superior to tran-sistors in audio applications—don’tyou believe it.Tubes are great for high-poweredRF transmitters and microwave ovensbut not, at the turn of the century, foramplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!)digital components like CD and DVDplayers. What’s wrong with tubes?Nothing, really. There’s nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upperincisors (that Mideastern grin); it’s justthat modern dentistry offers more at-tractive options. Whatever vacuumtubes can do in a piece of audio equip-ment, solid-state devices can do better,at lower cost, with greater reliability.Even the world’s best-designed tubeamplifier will have higher distortionthan an equally well-designed transistoramplifier and will almost certainly needmore servicing (tube replacements,rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idi-otic designs such as 8-watt single-endedtriode amplifiers are of course exempt,by default, from such comparisons sincethey have no solid-state counterpart.) As for the “tube sound,” there aretwo possibilities: (1) It’s a figment of the deluded audiophile’s imagination,or (2) it’s a deliberate coloration intro-duced by the manufacturer to appealto corrupted tastes, in which case asolid-state design could easily mimicthe sound if the designer were perverseenough to want it that way. Yes, there exist very special situations where a sophisticated designer of hi-fielectronics might consider using a tube(e.g., the RF stage of an FM tuner), butthose rare and narrowly qualified excep-tions cannot redeem the common,garden-variety lies of the tube mar-keters, who want you to buy into an ob-solete technology.
3. The Antidigital Lie
 You have heard this one often, in oneform or another. To wit: Digital soundis vastly inferior to analog. Digitizedaudio is a like a crude newspaper pho-tograph made up of dots. TheNyquist-Shannon sampling theorem isall wet. The 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the compact disc cannot resolve thehighest audio frequencies where thereare only two or three sampling points.Digital sound, even in the best cases, ishard and edgy. And so on and soforth—all of it, without exception, ig-norant drivel or deliberate misrepre-sentation. Once again, the lie has littlebearing on the mainstream, where thedigital technology has gained completeacceptance; but in the byways and trib-utaries of the audio world, in unregen-erate high-end audio salons and thelistening rooms of various tweakomandarins, it remains the party line.The most ludicrous manifestation of the antidigital fallacy is the preferencefor the obsolete LP over the CD. Notthe analog master tape over the digitalmaster tape, which remains a semi-respectable controversy, but the clicks,crackles and pops of the vinyl over thedigital data pits’ background silence, which is a perverse rejection of reality.Here are the scientific facts any second-year E.E. student can verify foryou: Digital audio is bulletproof in a way analog audio never was and nevercan be. The 0’s and 1’s are inherently incapable of being distorted in thesignal path, unlike an analog wave-form. Even a sampling rate of 44.1kHz, the lowest used in today’s high-fi-delity applications, more than ade-quately resolves all audio frequencies.It will not cause any loss of informa-tion in the audio range—not an iota,not a scintilla. The “how can two sam-pling points resolve 20 kHz?” argu-ment is an untutored misinterpretationof the Nyquist-Shannon sampling the-orem. (Doubters are advised to take anelementary course in digital systems.)The reason why certain analogrecordings sound better than certaindigital recordings is that the engineersdid a better job with microphoneplacement, levels, balance, and equal-ization, or that the recording venue was acoustically superior. Some early digital recordings were indeed hardand edgy, not because they were digitalbut because the engineers were stillthinking analog, compensating for an-ticipated losses that did not exist.Today’s best digital recordings are thebest recordings ever made. To be fair, itmust be admitted that a state-of the-artanalog recording and a state-of-the-artdigital recording, at this stage of theirrespective technologies, will probably be of comparable quality. Even so, thenumber of Tree-Worshiping AnalogDruids is rapidly dwindling in the pro-fessional recording world. The digital way is simply the better way.
4. The Listening-TestLie
Regular readers of this publicationknow how to refute the various lies in-voked by the high-end cultists in op-position to double-blind listening testsat matched levels (ABX testing), but abrief overview is in order here.The ABX methodology requiresdevice A and device B to be level-matched within ±0.1 dB, after whichyou can listen to fully identified A andfully identified B for as long as youlike. If you then think they sound dif-ferent, you are asked to identify X,I strongly suspect that people aremore gullible today than they were inmy younger years. Back then we didn’tput magnets in our shoes, the policedidn’t use psychics to search formissing persons, and no head of statesince Hitler had consulted astrologers.Most of us believed in science withoutany reservations. When the hi-fi eradawned, engineers like Paul Klipsch,Lincoln Walsh, Stew Hegeman, DaveHafler, Ed Villchur, and C. G.McProud were our fountainhead of audio information. The untutoredtweako/weirdo pundits who don’tknow the integral of 
 x 
 were still in thebenighted future.Don’t misunderstand me. In termsof the existing spectrum of knowledge,the audio scene today is clearly ahead of the early years; at one end of the spec-trum there are brilliant practitioners who far outshine the founding fathers. At the dark end of that spectrum, how-ever, a new age of ignorance, supersti-tion, and dishonesty holds sway. Why and how that came about has beenamply covered in past issues of thispublication; here I shall focus on therogues’ gallery of currently profferedmendacities to snare the credulous.
1. The Cable Lie
Logically this is not the lie to start withbecause cables are accessories, not pri-mary audio components. But it is thehugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most in-telligence-insulting and, above all, mostfraudulently profitable lie in audio, andtherefore must go to the head of the list.The lie is that high-priced speakercables and interconnects sound betterthan the standard, run-of-the-mill (say,Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that hasbeen exposed, shamed, and refutedover and over again by every genuineauthority under the sun, but thetweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents can’t distinguish itfrom self-serving charlatanry.The simple truth is that resistance,inductance, and capacitance (R, L, andC) are the only cable parameters thataffect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has noidea whether it is being transmittedthrough cheap or expensive RLC. Yes,you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, in-sulation, etc., to avoid reliability prob-lems, and you have to pay attention toresistance in longer connections. Inbasic electrical performance, however,a nice pair of straightened-out wirecoat hangers with the ends scraped isnot a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whizmiracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lampcord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-pricedcables are the biggest scam in con-sumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publica-tions to the pressures of the cable mar-keters is truly depressing to behold.(For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables andaudio interconnects, see Issues No. 16and No. 17.)
The punch line of Lincoln’s famous bon mot,that you cannot fool all the people all of thetime, appears to be just barely applicable tohigh-end audio. What follows here is anattempt to make it stick.
10
TheTenBiggest Lies inAudio
ByPETER ACZEL,
Editor

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Bbaggi Bk liked this
bonelli liked this
farmakoxeris liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->