Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 153 posts

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#121

Post by microflash »

Youden wrote: post #67
crims0n wrote: post #26

Probably going to make some people mad... but I went down the Audiophile rabbit hole last year before ultimately coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. I understand the appeal, especially someone who values a nice piece of hardware. There is so much to choose from... DACs, DAPs, amps, fancy looking balanced cables in quality braiding, headphones with solid wood accents, IEMs that look straight outa sci…

The thing I've learned is that headphones and IEMs can sound completely different to different people, just because of differences in the shape of your ears and ear canal. I bought some custom IEMs and had the opportunity to test ~10 of the super high-end options from several different brands. I found that there was no correlation whatsoever between price or even brand and how good they sounded to me. The technician…

I came to the same conclusion a while ago. You can get a lot of mileage by tweaking EQ. For me almost all headphones felt flat until I tried a bunch of studio monitors. They are not portable but I’ve been using a cheap AKG K72 pair at home and it has been great. Your experience may vary but do try a bunch of options, as suggested by parent.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#122

Post by 4gotunameagain »

codpiece wrote: post #114

This article and these comments make a caricature of audiophiles, akin to mocking aeronautics because of a flat earther steam-powered rocket pilot. Audio equipment is produced by engineers and they create elegant solutions to physical constraints. There is a huge difference in quality when hearing a pair of Allison One speakers, or AKG K1000 headphones over an airpod. Some engineers believe in speaker wire improvemen…

Nobody is saying that your 1000 euro speakers sound the same like the earbuds that came with your mp3 player in 2005. You know, the ones with the injection mold ports still there, that would dig into your ears.

This is to expose the people that buy gold wires for USB, a digital protocol.

You are free to spend your money how you like, but extreme diminishing returns are a very much overlooked thing in the "audiophile" circles.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#123

Post by 112233 »

codpiece wrote: post #114

This article and these comments make a caricature of audiophiles, akin to mocking aeronautics because of a flat earther steam-powered rocket pilot. Audio equipment is produced by engineers and they create elegant solutions to physical constraints. There is a huge difference in quality when hearing a pair of Allison One speakers, or AKG K1000 headphones over an airpod. Some engineers believe in speaker wire improvemen…

The point about haughty attitude is an important, but rarely mentioned. No one has convinced me to reexamine and change my views by calling me stupid, mocking me, and pointing a finger. If anything, it makes me avoid both that person and their whole group.

"the industry that supports audio engineering" though — are you sure this support is welcome? It is not unlike asking to treat counterfeit drug producers with dignity and respect because they support medical professionals.

I really do not see how any actual engineer producing audio equipment would not be there if not for a company selling one-directional ethernet cables for 1000/m that improve sound, with a plastic bag filled with gravel that also improves sound... I mean...

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#124

Post by bob1029 »

I was never too fanatical about the signal chain. The room and the loudspeakers were always more important to me. There was a time when things like SACD and high res audio were interesting, but it became clear this stuff has negligible impact compared to concerns like the dimensions of the room.

My preferred equipment today is a MiniDSP 2x4HD, a pair of 8" studio monitors on floor stands, a 12" subwoofer and a tape measure. The whole setup cost maybe $1200 and is nearly indistinguishable from my prior setup which cost easily 10x as much.

If you've got a bunch of money to spend on audio gear, the best thing you can probably buy right now is some rockwool and the time of a construction crew.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#125

Post by TiredOfLife »

codpiece wrote: post #114

This article and these comments make a caricature of audiophiles, akin to mocking aeronautics because of a flat earther steam-powered rocket pilot. Audio equipment is produced by engineers and they create elegant solutions to physical constraints. There is a huge difference in quality when hearing a pair of Allison One speakers, or AKG K1000 headphones over an airpod. Some engineers believe in speaker wire improvemen…

Audiophiles ARE the same thing as flat earthers

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#126

Post by whackernews »

Yeh, to zoom out a bit, this is a pattern with all products. It’s all a scam. The only thing you should ever pay for is build quality (you should buy something once, that you can hand down to your kids) and staff wages (something that is made in your own country so you’re not undermining your own economy, this is more of a moral reason).

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#127

Post by kachapopopow »

atoav wrote: post #118
atoav wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well ot is very easy to figure that out using the Null method. You have the original recording (A) and play through whatever chain recording it at the end, resulting in recording (B). You now place A and B into seperate tracks of the DAW of your choice and align them in time. You flip the polarity on B and adjust the levels till the output level is minimized (to account for level changes in your playback/recording ch…

Small addition: you can also run the signal through a different chain C and then compare B and C. And since they ran through the same DAC, output filters, output connectors, input connectors, preamp and ADC, aside from noise the only measuable (relevant for human ears) difference should be the chain inbetween. This allows you to compare any magical device against a simple conductor. So next time someone tries to sell…

I run $100 speakers and some airpods, but this was a good read!

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#128

Post by pseudohadamard »

kachapopopow wrote: post #5

I don't know... this test is unscientific... clearly mud and banana can have an unintended side effect that makes audio sound better and needs to be investigated immediately. on a more serious note.. doesn't seem like the "good" audio was good? there is a huge difference between noise free audio and garbage integrated audio / speakers with hizz imbalance and peaking... if the "good" audio is bad then there obviously…

>I don't know... this test is unscientific..

I dunno, it reproduced my Muddy Waters LPs perfectly.

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#129

Post by [deleted] »

bayindirh wrote: post #66
toast0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't mains cable make good speaker wire? Probably much larger diameter than needed for audio and therefore more expensive if fairly priced, but if you've got to wire speakers and that's what you've got, should be fine. About the only things you could do wrong would be using wire that's too small to carry the load, is frayed/broken/severely corroded, or is coiled in a way that inductance becomes a real issue.…

In the past, there was no special speaker wire. It was all mains wire, because all was 100% copper. Today, finding 100% copper cable having the cross-section stamped on it is pretty rare. Electronics being more efficient hence drawing less power allows manufacturers to run 3-4 copper clad aluminum strands as mains cable in some cases. Today, I'd still use "mains wire" if I can find it in a 100% copper form with the c…

[deleted]

Re: Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud

#130

Post by [deleted] »

bayindirh wrote: post #83
amluto wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live? In the US, there a lot of widely available brands of UL-listed (or equivalent) wire with clearly marked specs and the cross section in ridiculous units of AWG. If it says it’s copper and it’s not an outrageous counterfeit, it’s copper. (And it will have a resistance that is in spec, because this is important for code-compliant electrical installations, and it won’t corrode when terminated properly.…

> Where do you live? Somewhere far w.r.t. US. :) > 16AWG CL2 cable is fantastic speaker wire, Yet, it's way thinner than the manufacturer of my speakers recommend, which start at 13, and only go up. In my case I need 12 or 11. I don't remember honestly. The good thing is, I managed to get a roll of the correct cable made by Acoustic Research. While the cable is not "fancy", it's copper, has the correct thickness and…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN