How much does it cost to be an audiophile?
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
Nobody who feels that a $4,000 power cable is important has any semblance of sanity remaining. It's the homeopathy of consumer electronics.
If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with 'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)
That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you have any facts to back it up?
First off, that begs the question: how reliable do you consider a comment on a forum? Are you going to condemn an entire industry based on that? But that doesn't really matter. As I mentioned in my reply to mikeash, that's just not enough evidence. I'm not going to repeat myself here. You can read my other comment to understand why one piece of evidence isn't conclusive.
To address the Engadget article, it took one paragraph of that post out of context to make a narrow point about Monster cables. If you read the rest of the post (and probably the rest of the forum thread), it's clear that the author is not advocating that there's no difference between any stereo equipment. In fact, the thread that he's posting in is about how to choose the right loudspeakers. The paragraph that was taken out of context is just part of the author making a point to the other forum participants.
In another post (in the same thread), the author writes: "Some systems sound boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others are explosive and extremely good at creating 'illusion' of reality such as Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis)" [1]. It seems to me that he's saying he can hear the difference between speakers, which is exactly contrary to the conclusion that you're using his words to support. "Audiophile equipment" and "mundane equipment" includes more than just speaker cables.
A review of audiophile SATA cables (yes, the digital connectors that let your hard drives talk to your computer) quickly became infamous:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/dont-buy-into-the-expensi...
I can't find the original, because the author took it down. Not because he realized he was wrong, but because he was getting too much hate mail. In a followup post (now also unavailable, for some reason), he completely stood by his original conclusion:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/that-sata-cable-saga-the-...
Please read the quotes from the original post, they are absolutely priceless.
Here is a similarly hilarious review of a high-end audiophile USB cable:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/entreq/usb.html
A choice quote:
"As in, demonstrably more refinement in the upper ranges; more extended harmonics; better separation and superior articulation across the range. The generic cable sounded warmer, fuzzier, less distinct - actually blurry. The biggest differentiator was arguably the additional information above the upper midrange."
(That's from page 2, which is accessed by a not-entirely-obvious "next" link at the bottom.)
No, I didn't make that up. This reviewer is reporting substantially better audio from using a high-end USB cable. You know, a digital connector, where data either arrives or it doesn't. And he's not reporting that the cheap cable loses any data, because that would show up as clicks, pops, static, or worse. No, he's reporting that the cheap cable is "fuzzier", and the expensive one shows "more refinement". From a digital cable.
I have no doubt that there are people out there who actually understand audio equipment and spend good money on stuff that actually makes a difference. However, I doubt most of them will self-describe as "audiophiles", because that word has been largely co-opted by a crowd that operates on the same level as homeopaths and palm readers.
If anybody can reliably distinguish the expensive SATA cable from a regular one in a proper blind test, then I will cheerfully retract all of the above.
You've shown two anecdotes of audiophile reviewers making claims that a high-end digital cable improves audio quality. We both know that those claims are bunk. But picking a couple of anecdotes doesn't qualify as conclusive evidence. For example, I could find a few scientists that claim that global warming isn't real. But those scientists have a dissenting opinion from the rest of the scientific community on global warming. Hence, the anecdotes don't indicate the overall trend.
Every field has its share quacks. Showing me a couple anecdotes doesn't convince me that an entire field is filled with quacks.
> If anybody can reliably distinguish the expensive SATA cable from a regular one in a proper blind test, then I will cheerfully retract all of the above.
I appreciate that you're approaching this with skepticism. I think that's the right approach. I highly doubt that anyone will ever be able to distinguish between SATA cables in a blind study, so I think our conclusions about digital signal cables will hold.
The lack of skepticism on the part of the reviewers is the real problem we're seeing here. This quote from your second ZDNet link is telling:
I know full well that it is ‘scientifically' not possible for a data cable to exert such influence but I know what we heard and hoped that maybe someone might be able to throw some light on what might be going on.
I wouldn't be surprised the reviewer really did hear a difference, but it was probably in his head. (Even though he admits that he knows its impossible.) Enjoying music is a psychological process, which makes it even more important to do double-blind tests when doing a comparison in order to remove expectation bias.
This problem, I admit, is prevalent among hi-fi reviews. I've read a lot of reviews of different stereo equipment and not once seen a reviewer use a double-blind test. I've heard that a lot of times, reviewers have a financial incentive to post glowing reviews. I don't know how true that is. If it is true, that will probably make it harder to get reviewers to adopt double-blind testing. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes (ZDNet author) should be commended for taking Malcolm Steward (hi-fi blogger) to task over his SATA cable reviews. I'd love to see hi-fi reviewers take a more scientific approach.
However, it does not follow that all audiophiles are incapable of discerning the differences in equipment. First of all, the evidence we've looked at so far only concerns reviewers. We haven't looked at hobbyists. Do hobbyists accept everything that the reviewers write? It's one thing for a reviewer to write a glowing review for a new product (especially when the manufacture pays a lot of money for ads in their magazine). It's quite another for someone to actually spend hard-earned cash on that new product. Lastly, we've only discussed digital cables so far. Which isn't really fair, because that's not a component that can make a difference. What about DACs, amplifiers, and speakers? Do you honestly think that audiophiles can't tell the difference between a good speaker and a budget speaker? Even better, do you have any evidence that that's true?
I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. If I was a betting man, I would bet that a lot of people can tell the difference between cheap and mid-range, but I have no clue about mid-range and high-end. (Say, for example, $30 headphones from Best Buy versus $300 Sennheissers versus $3000 planar magnetic headphones.) So it's also going to depend on how we define "audiophile equipment" versus "mundane equipment." Are we comparing the $3000 headphones to the $300 ones or the $300 pair to the $30 pair? I suspect it will make a difference which ones we decide to compare.
My point in all of this is that more evidence is needed to substantiate a claim as large as, "not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test." Just like you're demanding a double-blind test for the reviewers to prove a difference in cables, I'm demanding a more representative sample of evidence from you to substantiate your claim that an entire group of people can't distinguish between two classes of equipment.
In case you're wondering why this matters so much to me, it's because of two reasons. (1) Generalizations about groups of people are the root of prejudice. (2) I want to build a better stereo system for myself. If there's a categorical bias within the audiophile community, knowing the details of that bias (e.g., at what price point does the bias start to outweigh the actual differences in equipment) could significantly reduce the solution-space that I have to search within. Telling me that some people believe that there's a difference in digital signal cables doesn't help. I already know that. And I already know that that's bunk.
As for your goal of building a better stereo system, I'd say your best bet is to avoid any community that self-describes as "audiophile". I imagine you know enough about audio to know what makes sense and what doesn't, so see how people evaluate stuff and go for the people who use sane benchmarks. Avoid anybody who talks about stuff being "warm" or similar, especially in the context of changing digital components, and look for people who provide measurement of sensible numbers.
> I say that audiophiles can't tell the difference with much equipment in blind tests, because nobody can, because it makes no difference.
That only holds true for digital equipment, but not for analog. If that's your definition of audiophile equipment, then your position makes sense. But that doesn't fit my definition of audiophile equipment, and I think a lot of audiophiles would disagree, too.
> As for your goal of building a better stereo system, I'd say your best bet is to avoid any community that self-describes as "audiophile".
I appreciate you're advice. I mean no offense by this, but I'm going to pass. I'm just not going to avoid an entire group of people because some guy on the internet (who I've never met) has some unsubstantiated claims about that group of people.
The perfection side has scopes, meters, and blind testing among its tools. The goal is in fact "perfect sound reproduction". The problem here is that between the original source (microphone, usually) and the listener's brain is all of this stuff that distorts the sound. Removing it completely is really hard, and replicating that quality repeatedly is even harder.
The experience side has experts, rituals, and demos. The goal there is to reach the limit of audio experience, literally to hear what wouldn't otherwise be heard with lesser systems. The problem on this end is that "near-perfect" systems deliver less exciting and engaging experiences than what the experience experts deem to be better. They don't enjoy the systems calibrated to perfection as much as their own custom systems with tweaks and rituals applied.
These two sides really are in a bit of opposition, but it's nice to have both to drive the high-end market of audio equipment.
When listening to music in the background and while doing other things (cleaning the house, cooking, driving, socializing with others, working out at the gym, etc), distortion is easily lost in other background noises (and you're not paying as much attention to it anyway). For a lot of people, I think this is the only way they ever listen to music, and so it's understandable why they wouldn't see the value in higher quality components.
For someone like yourself, who will actively listen to music without other distractions, it makes sense to spend a few thousand dollars for a better experience. With more expensive systems, I think you start to see diminishing returns. (But I'm not as dismissive as other commenters in saying that there's no difference.)
And while I don't think audiophiles are just about spending money to impress friends, sometimes they go about things in incredibly inefficient ways and pretend they are not susceptible to placebo effects.
As with most hobbies.
This line of argument is one of the most common attacks against the 'irrational snake-oil' that audiophiles purchase. Yet, I have to disagree. Its not that I believe that a $4k power cord has any/significant technical advantage over a $4 power cord. You used the words 'feels' and 'important'. The feeling of listening to a $4k power cord is clearly internal and subjective as is the determination of its importance. If the listener 'feels' that the $4k cord makes a difference, makes the experience better, then it has value to them and I think that they certainly have the freedom to assign how much importance it has. If audio is your passion, then perhaps there is real value, if perhaps only symbolically, to devoting large sums of cash to it in tribute. In my experience, audiophiles aren't simply gullible rich guys mindlessly blowing money on $4k power cords. Many have very deep relationships with music and with their stereo equipment. This relationship is often complex and rich enough that spending large amounts of money on a new 'X' would almost be like purchasing your wife a gold bracelet. Almost.
Realistically, any half decent source and amplifier will introduce practically no distortion compared to what the combination of the speaker (and placement) and the listening room introduce. The only thing that makes loudspeakers viable really is our uncanny ability to make sense of room acoustical distortions. Thus, we can sense the true sound even though it has been mangled by echos, reverberations and room modes.
However, we can still hear the distortion--and much more so than the comparatively small distortions introduced by sources, amplifiers or cables.
The thing is, if you really want some stellar sound from your home stereo, it does not make much sense to spend more than a couple thousand bucks on audio equipment without significantly improving your room acoustics. A $1000 sound system in a good room will always outperform any system in a bad room. So if you really want to improve your sound, you should probably look into room acoustical measures.
I have heard some > $40k sound systems in purpose-built rooms. The result is really amazing. If you close your eyes, even a trained ear will have difficulties discerning the recording from the original. In one recording studio, they had a $100k sound system. However, they also had a room to match it: The room was physically decoupled from the outside world (the whole room was standing on rubber feet, so to speak), it had special double windows, a purpose-built air conditioning and above all, loads of sound absorbing material and architecture.
And frankly, if you really are serious about sound quality, this is the kind of effort you have to make in order to get there. Spending the same money on more expensive speakers won't help.
Being an audiophile is rather cheap once you gather the knowledge on forums (audiokarma.org) and patience at craigslist/thriftstores/ebay.
http://www.antiqueradio.org/recap.htm for some things on checking old caps.
This is a huge win! I haven't lost Refinement Points because I don't need to buy fancy tea. But I have gained money and convenience.
If you're an audiophile, wine lover, or anyone else who spends a lot for quality that "others can't appreciate", I humbly suggest that you put yourself to a test. If you pass, your sophisticated taste is validated. If you fail, you can spend a lot less money and be content knowing you're getting just as good an experience.
Retail therapy works, sadly. I personally think that anything that gives you enjoyment and does not harm others is a good thing.
Seeing that expensive tea is just as good as cheap tea will just make me depressed about our economy ;-)
It's also possible that you'll find you actually like the more expensive tea better, which is fine. Then you'll know it's money well spent.
If you really get enjoyment out of expensive stuff because it's expensive, I'd be happy to sell you some milk for $300 a gallon. Trust me, it's the best. I'll put a fancy label on it and everything.
The world of audiophile gear is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The human ear, just like the human eye, is.. well, rather poor. We have a very small spectrum in which we operate. So these magazines like stereophile will plop an osciliscope onto the latest piece of gear and marvel over the fact that it's flat from 0 to a kazillion and then talk about its "creamy, refined mids." Someone please kill me.
Audiophile USB cables, audiophile mode-correcting rocks, audiophile amps with .00000000000001% THD, that damn marker to color your CDs with? All hooey. I once read in a forum an anecdote about a guy switching from Monster, to some other overpriced cable and being able to tell the difference from a room away. This was not a tongue in cheek post.
The big problem is that this stuff is eerily close to religion. A bulk of the hard-core, $7000 CD player audiophiles I know are actually rather well educated -- engineers of one type or another, but they slip into cognitive dissonance when it comes to anything relating to audio. A phrase uttered far too frequently is "You can't measure what I'm hearing." Once that mindset is adopted, confirmation bias is king. Here's a $4k pear audio cable. It'll increase the air in the high end by around 15%.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-bl...
(I'm a little wary of buying used headphones, at least without replacing all the soft parts and cleaning thoroughly, though.)
My headphone rig objectively sounds better than my speaker rig, but the speakers ultimately sound more natural, even if by objective measurements (e.g. frequency response) they're markedly inferior.
(Neither rig is super high end, not too far above the ~$1000 system at the end of the article, but they are all properly chosen and installed components.)
I'm using it on Linux (alsa) for my in-ear-phones.
From /etc/asound.conf:
pcm.crossfeed {
type plug
slave.pcm "ladspa"
}
pcm.ladspa {
type ladspa
slave.pcm "plughw:0,1";
path "/usr/lib/ladspa";
plugins [
{
label bs2b
input {
controls [ 700 4 ]
}
}
]
}There's huge variation in quality of headphone-out on computers. I'm sure some are good, and most Apple products are at least ok, but I've usually found even the lowest end (CMOY, Filo, etc.) is a big improvement.
(plus, the amp is really helpful for high-impedance headphones. Mine range from ~30 to ~600 Ohm.)
edit - added references:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sonicimpact/t_2.html
Engineering for the above metrics is straightforward, and not particularly costly. Even a 10k system can tie for top rank in blind tests if you pay attention to the details that actually have leverage against perception. If you're paying 250k for a home audio system, you're being sold an expensive trinket through a narrative of fetishism.
[1]: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12794
[2]: http://www.waynejones.net/wayne/documents/T&MW_Harman_Ar...
This is not how I see it going down. There are a couple reasons why older formats of music aren't going anywhere and will always serve as compliments to the newer digital formats.
The biggest difference between buying CDs/Vinyl vs. a subscription to Spotify/Pandora is ownership. For the foreseeable future there will be a significant market of people, including audiophiles and DJs who want to own the music they buy rather than lease it. And it's now possible for regular to receive the benefits of both formats by buying CDs, ripping them to a media server and then streaming them to your phone or tablet using services such as Audiogalaxy and Google Music.
The other reason is the lack of innovation in high quality audio formats. As evidenced by the failure of SACD, the demand is simply not big enough to support the research and marketing of new physical mediums designed solely for music. In the future we will be forced to rely on CDs (which are never the weakest link anyways in an audiophiles system) or piggyback onto other, more popular formats such as Bluray for 5.1+ high quality audio.
I have several large boxes of CD's which I know look at with scorn. I haven't used a CD or even a ripped copy of them in years. I've tried Audiogalaxy, Google Music, iTunes Match, and Amazon MP3. It takes a lot of effort to migrate your music to each of those services.
What I've found by using subscription services is what the author is saying: cheaper, faster, and more social access to music. Audiophiles will continue to have their niche but I tend to agree that that is not the way history is going.
Although unscientific, I played some tones on youtube in the office and the twenty somethings could hear almost 20kHz and the forty somethings couldn't hear anything by the time the frequency sweep was just below 15kHz.
This article is just a description of a shopping experience, together with the research result you have to do before you buy something that is a new category to you.
Oh well.
I notice the aural qualities of every room I enter; when I'm in a small space with hard walls, I hum a bit to identify the pitch that will make the room resonate. (I'll bet some with perfect pitch could measure the space between two walls quite accurately with their eyes closed by learning the wave sizes...).
I notice when someone's speech or laugh in my house causes sympathetic vibrations on the strings of my acoustic bass guitar in the corner. Or on the metal cover of the radiator.
I've spent decades learning to produce sound, from various instruments including the built-in ones (like whistling, body percussion, various forms of vocal music including Tuuvan throat singing), to making music from objects never intended to be instruments. When I listen to others making music I pick it apart in my head.
There are lots of people with better-trained ears than I have, who make better music as well -- so moving on: how much money have I spent on audio reproduction equipment?
Probably less than $500 in my lifetime.
The music I'm listening to the most right now are performances of the Brandenburg Concertos, from YouTube, played from a Macbook Air speaker in another room, while I march up and down the stairs with a baby over my shoulder.
I like the way it echoes up the narrow stairs, and how there's one spot partway up that's more resonant than anywhere else. I can't hear subtle details -- so what? I know what that sounds like already; my brain can fill in the missing bits. And there's no possible playback that can reproduce actually performing music -- imagine tje cello vibrating against your body and filling your ears, the thrumming pushback of the bow against your hand -- and these are the things worth having in your head when you listen to someone more accomplished playing a piece.
I'll probably get a decent set of speakers someday (though I can't imagine paying more than I'd pay for an actual well-made instrument), but any playback is unavoidably a shadow of the actual performance; I can't imagine caring deeply about getting a perfectly crisp shadow (as long as I get a reasonably clear one) when I'm just using it to imagine the real thing anyway.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/coat-hanger-wire-is-just-...
1. USB DAC 2. Magnepan Speakers 3. Stereo Receiver
For movies or games you'll want surround and a sub