Audio myths and misconceptions

[Addicted to music]

3 hours ago, Simonon said:

Okay off the cheap shots and onto something a bit more serious and something closer to my heart as I love restoring vintage HiFi, tube amps in particular.

I have basically given up on modern tubes such as Electro Harmonix, Sovtek and Mullard remakes after having a number of them fail in various ways in just over 12 months. My biggest mistake was thinking the new Mullard EL34s and 12AT7 tubes were exact copies of the original great versions, how wrong I was as they bear no resemblance internally. If a company states the tube is a Mullard remake it should look the same internally surely.

The vacuum tube industry today seems to suffer from more than its fair share of marketing hype. Like the audio cable, the tube market is full of all kinds of nonsense such as cryo-treatment, tube dampers, tube coolers and even rebranding modern manufacture tubes under the names of once great manufacturers ( Mullard remakes)– cheap gimmicks that are no substitute for real engineering. All this nonsense makes purchasing good quality tubes more complicated and difficult than it should be. When buying tubes: invest in tubes from a reputable vendor that checks and matches them on a tube tester and guarantees them or better still, seek out vintage N.O.S. vacuum tubes made by the likes of Mullard, Philips, Sylvania or the other tube manufacturing giants from the golden age of tube manufacture even though they are expensive they are worth it.

Perhaps the biggest Myth is in regards to Cryogenically treated tubes sounding better ( interested in user experience here). Cryogenic treatment works to improve the hardness of ferrous metals such as steel, but what about a vacuum tube – a tube is not a lump of steel – it’s a complex device made up of many different materials. The metal electrodes are mainly nickel for the plates and heater cover, titanium for the heater wire, molybdenum for the grid wire and copper support posts. The heater is coated with strontium/barium oxides. The electrodes are supported by mica washers within a glass envelope. One can only guess as to what effect cooling a tube down to so such low temperatures will do to it as there’s been no serious scientific research investigation into this. Additionally, tube vendors have done little in the way of publishing noise measurement figures and life tests comparing treated and untreated tubes. Typically all you’ll find are references to surface hardening, maybe nice magnified images of the surface of cryogenically treated steel and even fluff about NASA and Einstein on vendor websites.

At best, exposing tubes to the stresses of cryogenic temperatures provides a test methodology to reveal potential early failures – a kind of negative null test. It does not improve performance, however it might explain why some people can hear a difference – it’s simply because they’re listening to a hand-selected tube. There is no evidence for the process actually improving noise or microphony though. Nor is there anything of substance online that indicates how cryogenic treatment might possibly improve the ‘tone’ of tubes either. Does it change the way electrons are emitted from the cathode? Does it change the way electromagnetic fields form inside the tube? Does it improve the bonding of the oxide coatings to the cathode to make it quieter? Does cryogenic treatment affect the tube in any measurable or audible way at all? ( please put something on this thread if you think it does). Tube vendors give us the science of how they cryogenically treat tubes, but what about the science of what it does to improve the performance of tubes which I am yet to find.

I am interested if anybody actually uses cry'od tubes and if they last the distance after what is obviously a huge stress given they were never designed to be cooled to this temperature. Given the premium price how do you know they have undergone the process in the first place?

For now I have gone back to some nice 1964 Mullard  Blackburn XF2 EL34 tubes which sound great with my main system. Luckily a friend of mine has a huge box full of them in his shed and I did not have to pay the current premium asking price on many tube vendor websites.

 

That's just hypnotic marketing,  im sticking to a NE 5535 opamp that has magical controlled GFB gain.  

Edited November 10, 2017 by Addicted to music

[Assisi]

9 hours ago, JSmith said:

 

Mate the "myth" wasn't about the price of the cable... it was about the dubious claims I posted. Are you deliberately attempting to obfuscate the issue?

 

... and the way the cable was described as working was not?

 

We weren't discussing speaker cables though (I think we're all aware of the differences in speaker cables due to completely different reasons than a data cable)... Assisi attempted to misdirect the topic/myth raised which was an Ethernet cable.

 

JSmith

@JSmith

Your post started with the cost and you emphasised the cost of the cable with bold font which to me was an attempt to create sensation.   My response was entirely about the high cost of silver products.  I did not comment at all on the performance of the cable or the validity of the comments from Audioquest.  There are reviewers who have commented favourably on the Audioquest Diamond such as John Darko and Michael Lavorgana.  Are they right?  I do not know for sure.  For me I think that there is a benefit

Link to Michael Lavorgana.  Naturally there is a definite divergence in the opinions in the comments.

https://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-vodka-ethernet-cable-and-diamond-ethernet-cable

John

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

10 hours ago, Assisi said:

@Eggcup The Daft,

I run a 15 metre CAT 6 from the router to a switch and then 0.6metre Diamond to a NAS and 1 metre  Diamond to the server.  I am sure that neither you nor I will be doing long lengths of Diamond cable.  I am pleased with the Diamond and I am aware of what I could buy other CAT 7 for.   The article was sensational nonsense to get attention.

John

I am concerned with the company's description of the cable. Audioquest are particularly depressing. They actually make some excellent products, and in the Ethernet space, they know exactly what really goes on - they make a series of cables that do the job required. They KNOW that what is being sent down the cable is the analogue expression of 1s and 0s, a signal that is actually a simple but high speed one. They choose to mislead with the talk of sending "multi-octave music" when they know that the cable is really handling the digital representation of that.

 

 

 

 

[Addicted to music]

12 hours ago, Assisi said:

@Addicted to music

 

I have various serious crystals but not from the river bed.  You can be sceptical about the impact but to me it is about the unknown and the possible.  To some people crystals have very powerful properties and energies.   Whether they work for me I have not reached a conclusion and I do not care but they look nice.  I do put my amethyst out on the full moon to cleanse it.  Now you can have a laugh.  Just remember as I have said in a previous post some crystals are used in audio in serious ways

John

I have a frontage full of the stuff, the BOSS wanted this brown natural look becuase of stage 2 water restrictions.

Not cheap.   

 

[Assisi]

21 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

I am concerned with the company's description of the cable. Audioquest are particularly depressing. They actually make some excellent products, and in the Ethernet space, they know exactly what really goes on - they make a series of cables that do the job required. They KNOW that what is being sent down the cable is the analogue expression of 1s and 0s, a signal that is actually a simple but high speed one. They choose to mislead with the talk of sending "multi-octave music" when they know that the cable is really handling the digital representation of that.

 

 

 

 

I do not know enough to to comment objectively about the validity or otherwise of the claims of Audioquest.  This is my experience.  Initially my NAS  was close to the router some distance from the DAC hence the 15 metre CAT 6.  SQ was very poor.  I moved the NAS to be close to the DAC.  The NAS was  connected by short inexpensive CAT 7 to a switch connected to the 15 metre CAT 6.   SQ improved noticeably.  I then did Diamond from switch to NAS and then Diamond to the DAC.   A small improvement in SQ.  There was a difference because of the variations in configuration yet I would expect some would say that there shouln't be.

John

Edited November 10, 2017 by Assisi

[Guest Simonon]

[mention=151965]Simonon[/mention]
Here we go the insults start.

You appear to be very sensitive and my comment was not intended to offend you and is a commonly used figure of speech. Cat 6 ethernet is a "standard" and therefore a standard cable purchased from IT warehouse for example will have exactly the same properties and performance to a very expensive silver one. Just because it costs more does not necessarily dictate superior performance. Mystical crystals inside the cable will not make a difference either except to satisfy a persons delusions. At the end of the day the question is can you hear an improvement in the sound of your system with an expensive ethernet or Spdif cable over a standard one. As we are talking digital information here any technician, engineer, IT person would say that their would be no audible improvement especially with the cable lengths in question. It is therefore a myth that expensive digital cables will improve the sound of your system over standard cables. I invite comment and again am happy to be proven wrong.

[Assisi]

8 minutes ago, Addicted to music said:

I have a frontage full of the stuff, the BOSS wanted this brown natural look becuase of stage 2 water restrictions.

Not cheap.   

 

@Addicted to music ,

Good one.  Are the pebbles paramagnetic?  Test with a magnet.  The paths in my garden comprise 30 cubic metres of basalt rock dust that is paramagnetic.  The plants grow better because of the energy transfer around garden.

John

[Addicted to music]

Just now, Assisi said:

@Addicted to music ,

Good one.  Are the pebbles paramagnetic?  Test with a magnet.  The paths in my garden comprise 30 cubic metres of basalt rock dust that is paramagnetic.  The plants grow better because of the energy transfer around garden.

John

You're not wrong about plants growing better......keeps me friggin busy. 

 

[Guest]

Wouldn't be too concerned with the little bags of rocks, sounds fishy and

for the gullible 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Guest

[aussievintage]

26 minutes ago, Simonon said:

51 minutes ago, Assisi said:

 

 Cat 6 ethernet is a "standard" and therefore a standard cable purchased from IT warehouse for example will have exactly the same properties and performance to a very expensive silver one. Just because it costs more does not necessarily dictate superior performance. Mystical crystals inside the cable will not make a difference either except to satisfy a persons delusions.

 

 

As we are talking digital information here any technician, engineer, IT person would say that their would be no audible improvement especially with the cable lengths in question. It is therefore a myth that expensive digital cables will improve the sound of your system over standard cables. I invite comment and again am happy to be proven wrong.

 +1      Just a clarification though,  The Cat 6 standard provides crosstalk and noise specs, for example, that might be exceeded by a more expensive cable, however,  the important point is that it won't result in increased audio quality, because it is not carry audio, it's carrying digital packets of info ,with all the associated protocols and error checking, at a speed that far exceeds the requirements of the application (in this case transmission of data for later playback as audio)

[Guest Simonon]

 +1      Just a clarification though,  The Cat 6 standard provides crosstalk and noise specs, for example, that might be exceeded by a more expensive cable, however,  the important point is that it won't result in increased audio quality, because it is not carry audio, it's carrying digital packets of info ,with all the associated protocols and error checking, at a speed that far exceeds the requirements of the application (in this case transmission of data for later playback as audio)

One can also purchase shielded cat 6 cable and there is also the cat 6e standard which allows for cable lengths of up to 60 metres. Overkill for home network applications.

[wolster]

Moderator post:

This thread always had the potential to test the boundaries of our guidelines but it has mostly been debated in good spirit.

I have edited one post that contained a potential slur on others. Let’s stay polite and remember that we all have different views based on personal experience.

[proftournesol]

2 hours ago, Assisi said:

@JSmith

Your post started with the cost and you emphasised the cost of the cable with bold font which to me was an attempt to create sensation.   My response was entirely about the high cost of silver products.  I did not comment at all on the performance of the cable or the validity of the comments from Audioquest.  There are reviewers who have commented favourably on the Audioquest Diamond such as John Darko and Michael Lavorgana.  Are they right?  I do not know for sure.  For me I think that there is a benefit

Link to Michael Lavorgana.  Naturally there is a definite divergence in the opinions in the comments.

https://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-vodka-ethernet-cable-and-diamond-ethernet-cable

John

Silver cost = $16/kg

Copper cost = $6.50/kg

Not that much difference in material cost given the amount of material used in cabling. I don't know how the forming costs compare though

[bob_m_54]

On 11/10/2017 at 7:35 AM, hochopeper said:

What's this talk about being 'comstrained' or otherwise by electronics 101?? If you understand it or not its laws of physics. You can't just say I'm not constrained by gravity, for example.

Depends what you smoke...

[Guest guru]

12 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

Silver cost = $16/kg

Copper cost = $6.50/kg

Not that much difference in material cost given the amount of material used in cabling. I don't know how the forming costs compare though

Can I buy all you can supply at $16 / kg? I will take tonnes.

generally I pay around $750 a kg so your deal is amazing.

[proftournesol]

4 minutes ago, guru said:

Can I buy all you can supply at $16 / kg? I will take tonnes.

generally I pay around $750 a kg so your deal is amazing.

Googled the prices and that's what it gave me

[sir sanders zingmore]

3 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

Googled the prices and that's what it gave me

I suspect you have ounces and kilos mixed up 

[Guest guru]

He does.

[frednork]

This thread annoys me a lot.... but I cant stop looking..

 

[bob_m_54]

2 hours ago, Assisi said:

@Addicted to music ,

Good one.  Are the pebbles paramagnetic?  Test with a magnet.  The paths in my garden comprise 30 cubic metres of basalt rock dust that is paramagnetic.  The plants grow better because of the energy transfer around garden.

John

I thought the thread was about audio myths...

[aechmea]

At this moment ...

 

Bullion grade in $Aus

silver is 22.18 per troy oz

gold 1667.10

platinum 1235.47

palladium 1324.28

 

troy oz are heavier than avoirdupois oz (x 1.0971)

 

It's 8ish years since silver has been $16.  For a brief period in 2012 it was over 40.00

[edit: I guess non-bullion grade will be cheaper]

 

Now back to the news and weather.

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by aechmea

[sir sanders zingmore]

2 minutes ago, aechmea said:

At this moment ...

 

Bullion grade in $Aus

silver is 22.18 per troy oz

gold 1667.10

platinum 1235.47

palladium 1324.28

 

troy oz are heavier than avoirdupois oz (x 1.0971)

 

It's 8ish years since silver has been $16.  For a brief period in 2012 it was over 40.00

[edit: I guess non-bullion grade will be cheaper]

 

Now back to the news and weather.

 

I love Troy measurements 'cos they allow you to ask trick questions:

what weighs more, a ton of gold or a ton of feathers ?

[Assisi]

3 hours ago, Simonon said:

3 hours ago, Assisi said:

 

You appear to be very sensitive and my comment was not intended to offend you and is a commonly used figure of speech. Cat 6 ethernet is a "standard" and therefore a standard cable purchased from IT warehouse for example will have exactly the same properties and performance to a very expensive silver one. Just because it costs more does not necessarily dictate superior performance. Mystical crystals inside the cable will not make a difference either except to satisfy a persons delusions. At the end of the day the question is can you hear an improvement in the sound of your system with an expensive ethernet or Spdif cable over a standard one. As we are talking digital information here any technician, engineer, IT person would say that their would be no audible improvement especially with the cable lengths in question. It is therefore a myth that expensive digital cables will improve the sound of your system over standard cables. I invite comment and again am happy to be proven wrong.

@Simonon ,

I thought the comment was unnecessary and it whilst it may be a common expression it is no different to similar comments.   It served no useful purpose in this thread and it should have not have come from the initiator of the thread who I assume wanted serious feedback and discussion.  Or did you just want people to get a good laugh about the supposed myths?  Gee isn’t this one silly.

 

I do have some relatively expensive quality equipment but I consider that I definitely have sense as well.  From my experience there is often a correlation between expense, quality and beneficial outcomes.  No matter how good a wine maker may be he/she cannot make a quality wine out of low quality grapes.

 

I have commented before about electronics 101 and I do have regret, as I know so do many others that I do not understand enough about electronics.  Given the categorical responses of some SNA posters who ostensibly have electrical and or electronics qualifications experience to some topics I do question whether the experience sometimes is a constraint.  From their experience a certain outcome cannot or should not happen therefore on occasions it seems to me that it is easier for the expert to deny.  Whereas to me it I consider that it sometimes things do happen.

 

The experience of someone like me who does not have electronics knowledge still has validity.  I am not overly interested in proving things to you or that you are wrong.  I am aware that I do not know enough to have the debate.  To me there are many things in this world that even today cannot easily be explained by known science or measured.  For me it is about the question or the challenge of the unknown.  The What Ifs.

In a recent thread on SNA about power conditioning the following two comments were said by an expert.

“The Devialet is an extremely clever and very well designed and built product. It's power supply is fully regulated, so I cannot imagine it can be made better by the addition of any external components.”

 

“Good quality equipment does not benefit from using a power conditioner. Poor quality equipment may be assisted.”

 

 

There was more.  I know that my equipment is serious quality and in my case there was definite benefit from the use of a power conditioner.  No ifs, no buts, no maybes.  Definite.  You may be cynical or sceptical about the benefits of some products and in some cases rightly so, I am equally sceptical about some of the comments and or advice of the experts.  I like to work it out for myself and let my ears and what is between them be the ultimate determinate for me.

Some people place an emphasis on measurement and DBT.  I don’t.  Even when there are measurements available I am just interested as I expect many others are also as to how it sounds.  Are we listening to measurements or the music?  There are examples of devices that measure well and sound poor.  The opposite is also true.

When the PS Audio DS DAC designed/developed by Ted Smith was first seriously reviewed it received a commendation for the quality of the sound.  When it was measured there was something wrong in one part of the frequency response.  Ted Smith had to get a much more accurate oscilloscope to find the error.  He revised the FPGA code, which in turn improved the sound and there was less code.

With some measuring I think that we just do not have the equipment sophisticated enough to do the measuring to the ultimate extent to determine what is or is not a myth.  So I rely on my hearing and the advice of people who I know can tell very subtle differences.  For example it is said that brass screws are better than steel to hold the drivers in speaker cabinets.  Copper is even better.  Have a think about that.  Is it a myth?  Who knows

John

Edited November 11, 2017 by Assisi
word

[Batty]

Myth... Hendrix was not the best guitarist ever.

Truth... He was.

 

 discuss... maybe.

[sir sanders zingmore]

can someone give me an example of a piece of equipment that measure well but sounds bad?