Audio myths and misconceptions

[batou]

5 hours ago, Simonon said:

My wife can even hear what I am thinking

my wife can even hear before i think.

[LHC]

6 minutes ago, Newman said:

Which makes me wonder why you want to hose down the discussion like that. Maybe feeling a little defensive about some things that have been labeled myths in this thread?

I am not hosing down anything. Are you scared of precision and accuracy in discussion?

[aussievintage]

5 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

 

This thread is about 'myths and misconception', and I presume people wants to seek the truth. 

 

I have found that often that is NOT the case at all.  Sadly.    People want to believe in something they have spent many dollars on for example.  They also want to believe something they have been proponents of, even despite evidence to the contrary.  Sometimes they just want to be different.  Humans are complex creatures.

[aussievintage]

9 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

 

This thread is about 'myths and misconception', and I presume people wants to seek the truth. 

 duplicate...

Edited November 9, 2017 by aussievintage

[aussievintage]

9 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

 

This thread is about 'myths and misconception', and I presume people wants to seek the truth. 

 

and again...

Edited November 9, 2017 by aussievintage

[MLXXX]

3 minutes ago, LHC said:

My proposal that a myth has to be the majority view is precisely and quantitatively defined and has no such ambiguity.

Perhaps one day your proposal will be voted on by a society of engineers and a special technical definition will be created for the word "myth" for use in engineering publications!

 

In the meantime, all we have is common usage.  Here's a further example of a dictionary definition of "myth" (from the Cambridge Dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/myth ):-

 

a commonly believed but false idea:

Statistics disprove the myth that women are worse drivers than men.

[Guest Simonon]

I am not hosing down anything. Are you scared of precision and accuracy in discussion?

Your interpretation of a myth and the purpose of this thread appears to be a misconception which by definition is a conclusion that's wrong because it's based on faulty thinking .

[LHC]

20 hours ago, MLXXX said:

A widely believed myth is that 96kHz/24-bit format PCM sounds better than 44.1kHz/16-bit format PCM, as a distribution format for music in stereo. 

 

 

Ok, lets check how widely believed this claim is. Here is an informal survey of this claim from two years ago.

 

 

The survey result shows that 31.11% believe hi-res audio sound better than CD in general. While 28.89% are unsure, they believe hi-res audio can sound better on some occasions. 13.33% believe hi-res is better only because they are mastered better. The survey categories are not really precise, but one could probably say 44.44% believe hi-res audio as sounding better than CD in general. This is just shy of a majority; however given 28.89% are a 'maybe', I think one can certainly make the case that the hi-res claim does meet the first criteria of being a myth. 

 

[Due to the low quality of the straw poll, I am withdrawing my last sentence/conclusion. This example should be treated as illustrative rather than conclusive.]

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by LHC

[MLXXX]

8 minutes ago, LHC said:

This is just shy of a majority; however given 28.89% are a 'maybe', I think one can certainly make the case that the hi-res claim does meet the first criteria of being a myth. 

Well that is your own first criterion, based on your own proposal of what the definition of myth ought to be. 

 

As for your second personal criterion, that the thing be false 100% of the time, I rather like the way Newman put the matter:

 

8 hours ago, Newman said:

There is a myth regarding the claimed magnitude of an audible difference. That myth should be called for what it is, without demanding 100% proof of inaudibility of the faintest difference.

 

Indeed, proponents of the "hi-res sounds better" myth will not suggest there is merely a faintly audible difference. They will claim there is a distinctly audible difference!

[Guest Simonon]

 
Ok, lets check how widely believed this claim is. Here is an informal survey of this claim from two years ago.
 
 
The survey result shows that 31.11% believe hi-res audio sound better than CD in general. While 28.89% are unsure, they believe hi-res audio can sound better on some occasions. 13.33% believe hi-res is better only because they are mastered better. The survey categories are not really precise, but one could probably say 44.44% believe hi-res audio as sounding better than CD in general. This is just shy of a majority; however given 28.89% are a 'maybe', I think one can certainly make the case that the hi-res claim does meet the first criteria of being a myth. 
 

Well all I can say is that if you believe that "Hires audio sounds better" is not a myth then it certainly is a misconception to many.that have contributed to this thread. You seem to be hung up on a definition.

[sir sanders zingmore]

 

36 minutes ago, LHC said:

 

Ok, lets check how widely believed this claim is. Here is an informal survey of this claim from two years ago.

 

 

The survey result shows that 31.11% believe hi-res audio sound better than CD in general. While 28.89% are unsure, they believe hi-res audio can sound better on some occasions. 13.33% believe hi-res is better only because they are mastered better. The survey categories are not really precise, but one could probably say 44.44% believe hi-res audio as sounding better than CD in general. This is just shy of a majority; however given 28.89% are a 'maybe', I think one can certainly make the case that the hi-res claim does meet the first criteria of being a myth. 

 

 

Let's see what someone once said about sampling.....

 

On 6/28/2017 at 7:11 PM, LHC said:

 

<snip> . Scientifically speaking the only way any claim can be substantiated is by comprehensive surveying of all Australians like in a census or nationwide vote; selective sampling with small population sizes could only lend support to a claim but not substantiate it (c.f. how the US polling failed to predict that Trump would win). 

 

 

 

[LHC]

5 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

 

Let's see what someone once said about sampling.....

 

 

There is no inconsistency. The hi-res survey was a straw poll of low quality, small sample size, and likely to have significant errors. But what else have we got that is better? 

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 minutes ago, LHC said:

There is no inconsistency. The hi-res survey was a straw poll of low quality, small sample size, and likely to have significant errors. But what else have we got that is better? 

given that, you probably shouldn't be making this claim (especially with with your expression "one can certainly make the case")

 

49 minutes ago, LHC said:

This is just shy of a majority; however given 28.89% are a 'maybe', I think one can certainly make the case that the hi-res claim does meet the first criteria of being a myth. 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Sir Sanders Zingmore

[Assisi]

1 hour ago, aussievintage said:

 

I have found that often that is NOT the case at all.  Sadly.    People want to believe in something they have spent many dollars on for example.  They also want to believe something they have been proponents of, even despite evidence to the contrary.  Sometimes they just want to be different.  Humans are complex creatures.

@aussievintage ,

To me there is another perspective to the comment you made  There are some people who are unable or don't want to believe that something that they cannot afford actually works because they are potentially excluded from the experience.  So for some it appears to me that denial is often a safe option.  Instead of snake oil there are references to "fools and their money" or similar.  How many times have you read where somebody is trying to save others from supposedly wasting their money?  I have bought products that for me work yet I won't talk about them on SNA because I expect to be ridiculed for wasting my money.

John

[Wimbo]

8 hours ago, valkyre said:

those ofc copper made in china sold on ebay hongkong or china site does not sound any better than than the copper cable spool i buy from bunnings.

Which is OFC from China.

[LHC]

24 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

given that, you probably shouldn't be making this claim (especially with with your expression "one can certainly make the case")

 

 

That is fair enough. 

 

Then I will withdraw my previous conclusion the straw poll result shows that 'hi-res audio is better than CD' as a widely believed view due to a lack of high quality evidence. If there are better statistical data out there, then I would gladly use them. 

 

[Wimbo]

4 hours ago, Simonon said:

Things like directional speaker cables, crystalline structures within the cable, skin effect and other marketing terms do not cut the mustard with my technical brain.

I didnt know that these were all marketing terms. So, Skin Effect and crystalline structures are myths.

[LHC]

1 hour ago, Simonon said:

1 hour ago, LHC said:

 
Ok, lets check how widely believed this claim is. Here is an informal survey of this claim from two years ago.
 
 
The survey result shows that 31.11% believe hi-res audio sound better than CD in general. While 28.89% are unsure, they believe hi-res audio can sound better on some occasions. 13.33% believe hi-res is better only because they are mastered better. The survey categories are not really precise, but one could probably say 44.44% believe hi-res audio as sounding better than CD in general. This is just shy of a majority; however given 28.89% are a 'maybe', I think one can certainly make the case that the hi-res claim does meet the first criteria of being a myth. 
 

Read more  

Well all I can say is that if you believe that "Hires audio sounds better" is not a myth then it certainly is a misconception to many.that have contributed to this thread. You seem to be hung up on a definition.

 

I would agree with this. Treating it as a possible misconception would keep the focus solely on falsifying the claim. 

 

On the other hand I am not hung up on a definition. Careful definition is important to establish a hypothesis and setting up the testing method to validate it. It makes for tedious and boring conversations, I get that 

[Assisi]

7 hours ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

- if you can't hear it, your system isn't resolving enough

@Sir Sanders Zingmore

Trevor,

Are you saying that the above is a myth?  Or are you just trying to suck somebody like me in?   To me in systems you will or will not hear different details to varying degrees dependent  on a range of factors..  The more resolving system the more potential to hear enhanced detail.  For me the more resolving my system has become the more detail that I can hear.

John

 

[Guest Simonon]

I didnt know that these were all marketing terms. So, Skin Effect and crystalline structures are myths.

When we are talking about speaker cables yes.
Skin effect is not a myth and is real but only at Rf frequencies in the Megahertz range and when dealing with earthing for lightning protection at telecommunications sites for example. We use flat copper earth bar for earthing our radio towers for lightning protection due to the skin effect to put simply without blinding you with science. Skin effect in a conductor is not applicable at audio frequencies
I have heard many weird and wonderful marketing terms in the world of speaker cables with crystaline structures in the copper and even some of them being directional......all marketing hype.
Wiki skin effect in a conductor for some bedtime reading, the term is very real in my world of tv/ radio transmission. I am very familiar with copper, low loss rf cabling, earthing theory and interference reduction at Rf transmission sites where we broadcast commercial Fm, DAB and Digital television.

[Wimbo]

3 minutes ago, Simonon said:

Wiki skin effect in a conductor for some bedtime reading, the term is very real in my world of tv/ radio transmission. I am very familiar with copper, low loss rf cabling, earthing theory and interference reduction at Rf transmission sites where we broadcast commercial Fm, DAB and Digital television.

Ahh ok. So a speaker cable or interconnect cable cant pick up RF Frequencies in the Megahertz range.  You know more about it then me. Cheers.

10 minutes ago, Simonon said:

Wiki skin effect in a conductor for some bedtime reading,

 

Not my scene mate.

[JSmith]

43 minutes ago, Wimbo said:

Skin Effect

Not a complete myth... but it doesn't affect signals along cable the way some espouse.

 

JSmith

[sir sanders zingmore]

29 minutes ago, Assisi said:

@Sir Sanders Zingmore

Trevor,

Are you saying that the above is a myth?  Or are you just trying to suck somebody like me in?   To me in systems you will or will not hear different details to varying degrees dependent  on a range of factors..  The more resolving system the more potential to hear enhanced detail.  For me the more resolving my system has become the more detail that I can hear.

John

 

Hi John,

Obviously the more resolving a system is, the easier it is to hear details.

I was more talking about situations where that comment is used as a put-down. In a similar vein to the comments I've seen along the line of "well if your ears aren't good enough to hear the difference you're lucky - you'll save lots of money"

[JSmith]

Myth: Sound can't kill you

 

 

... whoa.

 

 

 

JSmith

[MLXXX]

18 minutes ago, Assisi said:

For me the more resolving my system has become the more detail that I can hear.

The term "resolving" seems to be a relatively recent invention of the audiophile industry. For audiophile gear, it is a broad term meaning "detailed and clear" without any units of measurement. 

 

Assisi, how were you able to boost the "resolving power" of your system?

 

          _______

 

Other meanings for "resolution"

 

Photography and astronomy have used the term "resolution" for specifications of clarity of detail available from a lens. For example, there are "cycles per inch" and there is the modulation transfer function (MTF). These are defined and measurable parameters.

 

When we speak of high resolution PCM audio files we mean a format that has either a high sample rate (generally over 48kHz, but at least over 44.1kHz) and/or a high bit depth (generally over 16 bits).