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

61–70 of 153 posts

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

#61

Post by tuesdaynight »

onli wrote: post #49
crims0n wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a dumb question... I phrased it badly. I was referring to over the ears as something like Koss Porta Pros or similar.

Then I think I disagree with the specifics of that statement, or am I reading this wrong? The porta pros have to sound better than the average IEM, or think of the KSC 75 for another quite nice option in that space. Especially for the price. And I'm not even sure that speakers sound better than headphones most of the time. +1 though for the thought that the medium makes the biggest part of the sound quality.

What is an average IEM for you? I had a Porta Pro in the past, but IEM got so much better in the last 10 years that your statement made me curious

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

#62

Post by lich_king »

kraussvonespy wrote: post #55
lich_king wrote: post #50

It's fashionable to dunk on audiophiles because many of their beliefs are silly and there are businesses that prey on them selling them "oxygen-free" cables and stuff like that. And some of their beliefs are auto-suggestion. But here's another way to look at it: some audio setups will sound better than others in your living room , because of a million variables you can't really control for. Maybe one manufacturer com…

Or they could buy equipment with active room conditioning like Dirac. I have Dirac receivers in two rooms that are absolutely terrible listening areas, and running the full Dirac calibration on the room creates a soundstage where you don’t hear individual speakers anymore. But it’s much more fun to spend crazy money on magic rocks and snake oil that make your rich audiophile friends want their own magic rocks. https:…

> Or they could buy equipment with active room conditioning like Dirac.

You realize that the pitch for this is basically the same as the pitch for magic pebbles? It's a cure-all box you put on the wire to make things sound better, for a low price of $1,500 or something like that.

I know enough about signal processing to know that magic pebbles probably work worse, but I can think of many reasons why it might not produce the audio you subjectively like better. I suspect it can't really even correct for many of the real-world issues you might have, because equalization doesn't fix echoes, resonance, etc.

In any case, it's a bit of a strawman, because most audiophiles are not buying pebbles in the first place. They're trying vacuum tubes instead of ICs, or are trying out different op-amps, or stuff like that.

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

#63

Post by crims0n »

onli wrote: post #49
crims0n wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a dumb question... I phrased it badly. I was referring to over the ears as something like Koss Porta Pros or similar.

Then I think I disagree with the specifics of that statement, or am I reading this wrong? The porta pros have to sound better than the average IEM, or think of the KSC 75 for another quite nice option in that space. Especially for the price. And I'm not even sure that speakers sound better than headphones most of the time. +1 though for the thought that the medium makes the biggest part of the sound quality.

Interesting, even with Yaxi pads I could not get the Porta Pros to my liking. Compared to the average IEM I thought the IEMs sounded much cleaner and more technically accurate. Stepping up to something like Letshuoer S12s absolutely blew them out of the water (more expensive, I know). Maybe I just falsely attributed that to an inherent advantage of sealing off the ear canals. Will give the Porta Pros another try.

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

#64

Post by mrguyorama »

lich_king wrote: post #50

It's fashionable to dunk on audiophiles because many of their beliefs are silly and there are businesses that prey on them selling them "oxygen-free" cables and stuff like that. And some of their beliefs are auto-suggestion. But here's another way to look at it: some audio setups will sound better than others in your living room , because of a million variables you can't really control for. Maybe one manufacturer com…

This presupposes that audiophiles are finding real improvements in sound quality in their cases.

They aren't. They aren't even seeing statistical noise. There is nothing an "oxygen-free" cable can do to your sound, regardless of your unique particulars. They will still insist it sounds better.

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

#65

Post by metalman »

I spent 3 years in school studying to be an audio engineer, and have built all my own stereo set ups from random equipment and home made bits and bobs, but I am fussy about a clean signal and carefull speaker placement, do silly things like wash a record in the sink with soap and water, and since I run missmatched speakers, amps that are not built tough, die quickly, just occured to me to impidence match sides by daisy chaining random speakers till I get a match, liking that. But yep!, we are not whales, and cant hear at 200khz and dont need to hear the difference between mud and bananas, but I think a whale would.

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

#66

Post by bayindirh »

toast0 wrote: post #36
gorgoiler wrote: post #15

The classic fable round these parts is Quad (and/or Cambridge Audio?) demo-ing their latest and greatest at a 1970s Heathrow Expo using mains cables as speaker wire. It’s the least important part of any system and indeed my Quad amp and CA R50s are wired with twisted, braided, brown lamp cable as a nice aesthetic homage.

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 correct cross section. The reason I used "speaker wire" in my set is because the recommended cable was thicker than the standard stuff, and I didn't believe that I'd be able to get 100% copper wire easily.

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

#67

Post by Youden »

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 was working with said he observed the same thing all the time in the professionals he worked with. He'd have musicians on the same instruments in the same roles in the same group come in and all walk put with completely different products.

IEMs are the most personal but even headphones have the problem.

Because of this, my recommendation is that you make purchasing decisions in one of two ways:

- Learn how to EQ to get a sound you like. Purchase based on objective measurements like frequency response curves to find products that require minimal EQ to match your preference.

- Only buy after listening, or buy, listen and return if that's an option for you.

I recommend avoiding purchases based on reviews that make subjective judgements about the sound.

If you want to learn more, I like the videos/articles/forums of Headphones.com and Crinacle.

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

#68

Post by onli »

crims0n wrote: post #63
onli wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I think I disagree with the specifics of that statement, or am I reading this wrong? The porta pros have to sound better than the average IEM, or think of the KSC 75 for another quite nice option in that space. Especially for the price. And I'm not even sure that speakers sound better than headphones most of the time. +1 though for the thought that the medium makes the biggest part of the sound quality.

Interesting, even with Yaxi pads I could not get the Porta Pros to my liking. Compared to the average IEM I thought the IEMs sounded much cleaner and more technically accurate. Stepping up to something like Letshuoer S12s absolutely blew them out of the water (more expensive, I know). Maybe I just falsely attributed that to an inherent advantage of sealing off the ear canals. Will give the Porta Pros another try.

Porta pros specifically seem to be a subjective thing, many describe them as a bit muddy, while some like that as an easy listing mode. The KSC 75 though really impressed me, for me they replaced the ath-m50x. Less base (partly because of no clamping pressure, I read, so changeable with a headband). I do have a cheap chinese hifi IEM I do like and would understand if someone preferred that one to the kSC 75, to further complicate things, but I stuck to them.

Also read positive things about the moondrop old fashioned, to mention an alternative to the porta pro in a very close form factor, not the strange ear clips that are the KSC 75.

I'd argue that the additional space should give the form factor an advantage, though sure, being closer to the ear might also be one. And no doubt, given the huge popularity of IEMs the technology must have seen a lot of progress, so I might be wrong.

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

#69

Post by bayindirh »

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…

Unfortunately, (1) is not always true. I have in ears surpass some speakers, over the ears which surpass some IEMs, etc.

For (2), again it depends. Some companies build amazing things for cheap, some companies build crapshoot for tons of money. The trick is to find the sound you like for the cheapest price.

For (3), the simplest chain is the best(est) chain. I used to have a high-end 2x10 band eq which sat between pre and power stages. I removed it, and I'm happier. Unless I'm listening vinyl, I bypass loudness and tone circuits even.

There's a funny thing in audio. When you increase the resolution too much, the problems in old/remastered sources become apparent, and you can't enjoy that material anymore. A good Hi-Fi system is meant to create enjoyment, not motivation to spend more money on more equipment or sources.

Lastly, for casual listening, even the basic airpods provide plenty of resolution and detail.

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

#70

Post by onli »

tuesdaynight wrote: post #61
onli wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I think I disagree with the specifics of that statement, or am I reading this wrong? The porta pros have to sound better than the average IEM, or think of the KSC 75 for another quite nice option in that space. Especially for the price. And I'm not even sure that speakers sound better than headphones most of the time. +1 though for the thought that the medium makes the biggest part of the sound quality.

What is an average IEM for you? I had a Porta Pro in the past, but IEM got so much better in the last 10 years that your statement made me curious

Fair point. It's a huge field and I have no defensible option there. I was thinking of the wireless Anker IEM and the various older ones that accompanied my phones, even though as mentioned in the other comment I'm aware of higher class (and sometimes even cheap) IEMs that do exist. But still, I wouldn't generalize it like that, I really do like the KSC 75 a lot and think those kind of headphones are too often overlooked despite their quality, which collides with classifying them so low.
Post reply on HN