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

131–140 of 153 posts

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

#131

Post by luqtas »

atoav wrote: post #98
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…

As someone who still occasionally mixes for a living, designs and builds audio hardware: Audiophiles are full of shit and this has been scientifically shown probably since the 90s (various AES studies conducted on the perception of CD quality). Of course there is a difference between cheap gear and decent gear. But the difference between decent gear and audiophile gear is non-perceptible in a blind ABX test. And here…

> It would be funny if it wasn't auch a successful con.

sometimes i remember about this space and laugh. i guess i found thinking i would find some data for a speaker i was looking for back in the days but it turned out into audiophiles typing their absurd: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php

another funny demographics is mechanical keyboard enthusiasts by rating sound of switches and discussing over minimal numbers of gf (grams-force) in same type of switches (linear, clicky etc.). often times there are videos showing sounds of hundreds of USD keyboards with owners hunting and pecking hahaha

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

#132

Post by lproven »

Small side note...

Around COVID lockdown #1 I did a lot more walking outside, pushing a pram and listening to music on headphones.

For years I'd been using cheap wired headphones from exhibition swag and things.

I put a pair through the washing machine. Top tip: this is really not good for them.

I looked online and found I could buy a brand new pair of my preferred Sony in-ear ones for $NotALot.

I bought the absolutely top of the line most expensive bass-boost in-ear buds.

They cost the equivalent of $20 (about £15) and the sound is amazing.

The point being here: because all the fashion-victims want Bluetooth, wired headphones have got really cheap and top quality premium grade ones cost less than a modest meal, or alternatively perhaps, less than I could easily drink in beer while listening to 1 CD or album.

Shun wireless. Go back to wired. Get an adaptor if your phone doesn't have a socket. You can get really good earphones for very little money now, they never need charging, never go flat, never need pairing, are compatible with every OS able to play sound, and they come with a handy tool to stop them falling out and you losing them, called "a cable".

Also: the microphone is great as well. I've recorded podcasts with them. The quality is way better than my £300 over-ear sound-cancelling premium Bluetooth headset, which I now only use while onboard aeroplanes.

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

#133

Post by sheepscreek »

The total number of people surveyed was ~6 I believe. That's a really small and insignificant sample for any reasonable deduction. So yes, these audiophiles had a hard time deducing the original source - the result cannot be generalized beyond that. From the point of scientific rigor, even for an amateur experiment, the experiment falls short. Interesting idea. I wonder if LLMs can tell any difference.

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

#134

Post by pseudohadamard »

amluto wrote: post #85
bayindirh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My speaker's manual says the following: > Please always use a good quality loudspeaker connection cable from an audio dealer. To prevent impairment of sound quality, we recommend cables with cross-sections of at least 2.5 mm² for lengths up to 3 m and at least 4 mm² for lengths above 3 m. Interestingly, the table present in the printed manual is not present in the one on the internet. IIRC, recommendation for 100W up…

> To prevent impairment of sound quality, we recommend cables with cross-sections of at least 2.5 mm² for lengths up to 3 m and at least 4 mm² for lengths above 3 m. This is just a unit issue. See: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-gauges-d_419.html Those numbers are also ridiculous. They’re recommending 13AWG or higher for a 3m run. That’s about 20 feet round trip, which is about 0.04 ohms. The speaker should…

You can get hum from ground loops which, given how hard it can be to track down, could end up being blamed on nearby mains wiring because you'll always have some sort of mains wiring in the vicinity of the audio gear in order to power it.

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

#135

Post by pseudohadamard »

atoav wrote: post #100
stonogo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does aluminum not conduct electricity?

Yes, and it is also useed for certain applications, if you don't care for the need of thicker wires to get the same resistance.

Like cheap UPSes where the transformers... aluminium wire... pseudo-soldered not crimped... shudder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIEM2bG8mOQ

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

#136

Post by pseudohadamard »

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…

Except that they're not mocking audiophiles, or calling them flat earthers. They're presenting the results of an experiment in a detached and fairly clinical manner. It's not the most rigorously-controlled experiment because they were having a bit of fun, but it's an experimental result nonetheless, and that's all it is, they're not judging people over it or calling them names.

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

#137

Post by pseudohadamard »

bob1029 wrote: post #124

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 m…

Hey, don't diss SACD. I have a DVD player that happens to do SACD that I'm hoping to resell to an audiophile for five or more times what I paid for it at some point, I just have to wait another ten years or so for it to become a rare piece of classic audio hardware, so far it's only about 20 years old.

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

#138

Post by hulitu »

londons_explore wrote: post #29

The perfect speaker system is indistinguishable from having a live band in the room with you (when blindfolded). Can today's audio systems do that? How much money do I have to spend to get there?

Live bands can also have crappy sound systems or play in crappy rooms.

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

#139

Post by hulitu »

Slow_Hand wrote: post #108
londons_explore wrote: post #29

The perfect speaker system is indistinguishable from having a live band in the room with you (when blindfolded). Can today's audio systems do that? How much money do I have to spend to get there?

I have a background in bands, producing records, mixing, and designing high end studios, tuning speaker rigs, etc. In my experience, a record has never truly sounded like being in the room with a band. And that's okay. To me, they're different experiences. I think people overlook how artificial records are. Even the ones that are ostensibly "natural". Records are "hyper real" in that they are usually crafted to give…

> I've still never heard a classical record that sounds as good as sitting in a hall in front of a world class orchestra.

Never heard a SACD but a CD doesn't have the dynamic range of a live symphonic orchestra. And there is the recording equipment charateristics which matters.

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

#140

Post by amluto »

pseudohadamard wrote: post #134
amluto wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To prevent impairment of sound quality, we recommend cables with cross-sections of at least 2.5 mm² for lengths up to 3 m and at least 4 mm² for lengths above 3 m. This is just a unit issue. See: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-gauges-d_419.html Those numbers are also ridiculous. They’re recommending 13AWG or higher for a 3m run. That’s about 20 feet round trip, which is about 0.04 ohms. The speaker should…

You can get hum from ground loops which, given how hard it can be to track down, could end up being blamed on nearby mains wiring because you'll always have some sort of mains wiring in the vicinity of the audio gear in order to power it.

Right. I’ve never heard hum from a loop in the amplified wiring to a passive speaker. I did do the math, and it is certainly possible to arrange to couple in enough power to hear it without amplification, but this isn’t the norm.
Post reply on HN