Hacker News Reader

It's "funny" how sometimes the "audiophile" equipment people use for hearing music is way more expensive (not better, necessarily) than the equipment used to record said music. Particularly cables.

How come an "audiophile" balanced XLR cable is 10 times more expensive (or more) than the ones used to connect the mics in the original recording, even when using the best Mogami cable, Neutrik plugs and paying somebody for hand soldering it?

More or less same as you, the team made by my "cheap" Denon amp plus a couple of Q Acoustics bookshelf speakers (and a relatively cheap high quality bluetooth receiver) sounds great, and the whole costs just a bit more than some crappy Beats headphones.

(Now that I'm venting, brands like Bose have some nice things but overprice lots of their equipment. Not to talk about the "DSP boards" needed to run their classic 802 PA systems, that was so bad)

urgh, Cables.

because the studios were pretty well booked, we had a fair few repair jobs. Cables break, normally its where they are soldered into the XLR. From what I could tell, the main difference between cheap and expensive cables was the amount of string that was bundled into the core along with the actual cable. I suspect now is both string and the woven sheathing on the outside.

sure some were copper, others were aluminium coated in copper (although they broke more often, I'm not sure because copper is more ductile and AL just stress fractures, or because they were really cheap and shoddy)

They all sounded the same, apart from when we used phantom power on long cables. Then sometimes they turned into microphones. You didn't notice it unless you were in the theatre, and people would accidentally stand or kick the cable, making a massive thud.

> It's "funny" how sometimes the "audiophile" equipment people use for hearing music is way more expensive (not better, necessarily) than the equipment used to record said music. Particularly cables.

The simple fact is most "audiophiles" are rich people showing off their wealth. It has little to do with actual audio reproduction.

On the other end of this you have serious audio reviewers who on one hand are professionals and have tonnes of experience, but then you see them review an absolute nonsense product like an audio-friendly ethernet switch(!!!) or "audiophile" NVMe drive, and write an entire article about how transformative it was to their sound(for the better, of course).

Then you start to realize that even the best ear is still subjective, and people will hear things if they want to hear them.

> Then you start to realize that even the best ear is still subjective, and people will hear things if they want to hear them.

urgh yes.

When I was recording something, I routed an (audio)compressor/gate combo. I was twiddling something on the effect and convinced myself that it was making a change.

Looked to my left, the person was vehemently agreeing with me, I looked behind, the other person had a face like I'd farted. A while later I realised that I had routed the output into a muted bus. (ie I couldn't hear the output of the effect, only the raw original)

Here's a great example, https://youtu.be/f-QxLAxwxkM -- a CD trimmer that (paraphrasing) "improves your audio quality" and was lauded by audiophiles.

If you want a good laugh, have a look at this forum thread - it's like these people are from a different planet. So many posters saying that the NVMe drive has improved the clarity and "richness" of their sound. Fortunately it's a harmless kind of ignorance.

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/62753-nvme-ssd-desi...

It's actually beneficial ignorance. Money is transferred from those who don't know what to do with it into the broader economy.

I doubt any kind of ignorance is beneficial. Ignorance and stupidity are one of humanity's biggest blights, so the less we have them, the better.

Many of the systemic problems we have today are the direct result of greedy and intelligent people.

A hypothetical world where all people are one deviation smarter would probably be way more dangerous and stressful. The number of highly intelligent sociopaths would explode, leading to exponential damage.

Perhaps, but also tons of issues come from people's stupidity and shortsightedness. People become greedy and callous in large part due to bad childhood experiences, and bad childhood stems from parents being stupid or making bad decisions (like having children while 17 years old). The only way to stop the perpetual vicious circle of bad parents raising another generation of shitty parents (and shitty people in general) is to improve people, not by keeping them ignorant.

I can see your point, but it makes it very hard for new comers. I was talking to someone the other day who had bought 3 DACs for different purposes to listen to YouTube sound on their edifier speakers and headphones. Its difficult to tell them they could probably not bother with the dacs, but there's a whole echo chamber about these things that confuses the new comers.

Think of it this way: on a purely logical basis, it's better for society if money is in the hands of people who understand its value and hope to do useful things with it. I'm not claiming to be one of those people; I would definitely waste it all myself.

Of course, we can't easily transfer money like this from the frivolous to the useful for a ton a reasons. Life isn't a fairytale. But the next best thing is to have them spend their money so that at least it can power some form of growth.

It's not that these newcomers deserve to be mislead by echo chambers, but rather that if they demonstrate so little regard or respect for their money by failing to do much research or understanding what they're buying in detail, especially if they are buying something extraneous to begin with, that I don't see a moral or ethical problem to keep them spending. If anything, the money should be parted from the well-to-do fool, if only to provide macroeconomic support to the rest of the population.

Well, you're assuming that everyone can just learn electronic engineering and get the optimal solution, things don't work that way. It's an interesting viewpoint though.

>The problem with audio in general is that its really difficult to find decent reviews of the product.

The website linked here is in fact trying to solve this problem, with reviews based on measurements:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?reviews/

The root is that at some point (late 20th century) the cheap wine became as good as the good wine. So the key differentiating metric for most of the space turned from performance to marketing. The high-end got pushed into the stratosphere (I'll never own a pair of electrostats) and everything else is good enough (hopefully, sometimes there is incompetence).

So if it's all good enough for the mass market then the audiophiles need to look in the mirror and ask what they're after. Some will say a mystical, ethereal experience. Some will say total control over the signal chain from outside the body to inside. These are orthogonal wants crammed into a single market.

The second path is harder, but it at least the end result is some form of truth. Very few engineers want to devote themselves to a pointless crusade for a tiny market of consumer goods. There's better things to do on the weekend. However, when they do it's special.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/

"personally, I have a second hand denon HDMI decoder thing, with airplay [..] dsp filtering [..] calibration stage [...] decent flat reproduction"

These are certainly words, and everything else being the same I absolutely would rather have the "bit wooly" kind of review to read.

i see what you did there! also point taken.

In my defence, "decent flat reproduction" is at least measurable. However I should have actually been much more precise in my language. It should have read something like "the frequency response across the full spectrum is flat, which means that what you put in is what comes out, there is no extra base or treble, despite the shape and sound performance of the room"

Is the microphone embedded? If not:

Should be qualified by "since the mic is on the receiver, if you were to situate your head at the receiver's mic position and accounting for the mic's ADC circuit there is a chance that your human ears would hear something like a flat response."

But of course that can't be generalized across the room, different points in the room will have different acoustic response because of the unique positioning wrt other reflective surfaces.

The closest you can actually get is to use something like miniDSP and a umik, position the umik where you would usually sit, and then let the DSP run and calibrate.

Anyhow--I'm not knocking you. I'm all about better audio through such tricks as well. It's just we can't probably say absolute things having a flat response, because at the end of the day people hear different things (both physiologically but also psychologically). One of the things I do for fun sometimes is run a flat signal that sweeps through the frequency range and edit the equalizer until I _perceive it_ to be a flat response, then compare the EQ to the FR chart on audiosciencereview if they have reviewed it or if the product has included it in their marketing :)

Yep - reviews of consumer electronics in general are awash with useless content-farm generated crap.

IMO the best audio review site currently is https://www.audioholics.com/

The comment you are replying to was criticising "experts" not content farms.

Most amplifier reviews are less informative than the Knob Feel YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/KnobFeel

And they do it in all languages, which is really helpful.

I like rtings personally. Understandable for mere mortals like me, but clear about their test methods which seem scientific enough.