That review is total BS no matter how you look at it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reviewer got a kickback from the manufacturer.
That review is hilarious. Thank you.
On the face of it, this isn’t an unreasonable first approximation, however the reality is significantly different.
A studio is a complex system, and the entire recording chain from end to end usually very long, with a lot of gear in the way. There are recording chains that strive to be very minimal - and SACD is one - partly out of necessity. In the analog days there were things like direct to disk - which avoided tape and cut a disk master in real time as the performance occurred. The point is that if every component did impart a colour to the sound, a colour which was chosen as part of the producer’s art, the complexity of the system would be impossible to manage. In general most parts of the system strive for maximum accuracy, and colour is introduced in a very controlled manner only when desired. This may occur on a signal by signal, track by track, basis. In reality, the older analog studio systems all had some inaccurate natures, and a skilled engineer knew how to exploit them when he desired. Typically this involved running a unit outside its design limits to achieve a particular colour. Or some components were known to have a certain sound. Neve mic pre-amps for instance gave us the sound of rock and roll for many years. The dominant tonal balance is achieved with choice of mic and its position, and everything else being pretty much as accurate as possible. The idea that the wiring in a studio was chosen for its sound would be ridiculous - as it would weld you into that sound, and remove choice. So the goal is accuracy, and the ability to craft the sound only when desired, and accurate when not.
Audiophiles were sold on the dream of perfectly accurate reproduction, and it has been one of the marketing triumphs of the ages. This is particularly so, when the reality is the exact opposite. One of the first brilliant triumphs was convincing audiophiles that tone controls were ab-initio evil. No serious bit of gear could ever have tone controls - it was quite simply the dividing mark between junk and serious equipment. So how did audiophiles modify the spectral response of their system? By messing about with second order effects. We deride cables as making no possible difference. This is almost, but not quite true. Different cables have different capacitance, and in the range of audiophile cables there can be a wide variation. Swapping cables with different capacitance has the effect of slightly changing the frequency response of the system. Not my much, but the ear is very sensitive to relative changes across the spectrum, and a 0.5db lift or droop can make the difference between a “bright” “accurate” “forward” “etched” sound, or a “smooth” “recessed” “warm” sound.
The elephant in the room is, and probably always will be the speakers. Speakers can have a huge range of frequency response problems. It is very very difficult, verging on the impossible to create a speaker with a flat response in a room. The direct sound versus the diffuse sound field have different responses. The interaction with the room can yield wild variations in response, especially in the bass. It is desperately bad. And almost any change made in the speakers or their position can make a real difference to the sound. Just changing the angle of the speakers can make astounding changes to the response. Audiophiles have long ignored the effects of a room, and only recently have any started to look a room treatments as perhaps the most critical part of their entire setup.
Then you get an astounding amount of total snake oil about accurate reproduction. There has been staggering amounts of drivel published trying to prove that tube amplifiers inherently are more accurate than semiconductor amplifiers, most of it with about the same scientific validity as healing yourself with ultra-pure water. Similarly for vinyl versus digital. Yet in each case the reality is that it is these components that have significant distortion mechanisms, and mechanisms that are chosen, based upon sound, by the audiophile to create a euphonic final system. The very components that the audiophile is sold as super accurate due to some pseudo-scientific mechanism often are less accurate due to some mundane bit of physics, but allow the purchaser to tweak the sound - usually with tiny changes in frequency response. Thus leading them to believe that the silly priced bit of junk is doing some magic, when in fact a well designed tone control would provide exactly the same answer. Efforts by some high end designers to introduce tone controls into the market have largely been ignored. (Not all designers are charlatans, there are gifted and honest guys that actually do try to make a useful difference, but they are often lost in the crown of idiots.)
Some amplifier designers are starting to admit that their very high end designs deliberately introduce a tiny bit of crafted harmonic distortion, the warm up the sound, some of this is in defence against a rival camp of designers (such as Doug Self) who have brought amplifier design to the point where there really is no distortion in any objective form. This actually took a lot longer than a lot of people realise.
The scientific understanding of home audio is actually improving quite a bit. Computer modelling has allowed previously intractable questions to be addressed, at least enough to get a handle on better ways of designing speakers and positioning them. Digital processing is in its embryonic days, but already some very interesting possibilities are coming along.
I think most studio engineers will put more trust in audio specifications like what shows on a scope, a spectrum analyzer or tests in an anechoic chamber. This is especially true for public studios (compared to private, personal ones) where they have to satisfy a wide variety of clients. Telling clients that they can capture exact, perfect sound is a selling point.
Not that perfect, unaltered sound is the ultimate goal, but effects are usually added after the sound is recorded, to taste.
In contrast, I think most home listeners just want what “sounds good” and couldn’t care less about what a scope shows. Of course, their perception of what sounds good may be highly colored by ad copy and imaginative reviewers.
My point was that what’s good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander, but that aside, pseudosciency marketbabble is good for neither.
The thing is- and you alluded to this, but I wanted to put a finer point on it- is that “audiophools” vastly overstate what is required to achieve relatively “pure” sound. Especially when it comes to the electronics and wiring. Any sanely-designed solid-state amplifier with sufficient headroom is “flat” and “clean” enough where one can reasonably accept that it doesn’t alter the sound. I mean, you have to actually try to screw up an amplifier design these days. As far as wire goes, baseband audio is low enough in frequency where you don’t have to worry about interconnects as transmission lines, and it’s not difficult to keep cable capacitance low enough not to be a problem.
speakers are a different story; it’s very, very difficult to minimize distortion from a dynamic loudspeaker. A good, unclipped solid-state amplifier can have THD+N lower than 0.01%, a great dynamic loudspeaker struggles to get below 1% THD within its optimum working frequency range. If you attempt to use it outside of its capabilities (e.g. trying to make a 6" mid-woofer play down to 30 Hz) you’ll get 20-50% THD for your trouble.
and if your listening room sucks, all bets are off.
in my view, the biggest load of shit from the audiophool camp is any claim that some characteristic or difference can be heard but not be measured.
It is a total waste of money IMO to spend huge bucks in an effort to get a slightly lower distortion spec from your speakers. Because no matter how expensive your speakers are, they won’t even come close to sounding like the real thing.
Imagine a test where a blindfolded listener listens to a top notch recording of a cello player played through a $100K system + $100K speakers. Now switch over to a *real *person playing a *real *cello. (You’ll have to match SPLs, of course.) Even a novice listener will be able to tell the difference.
So again, spending mega bucks on a stereo system is pretty foolish, IMO, because no matter how much you spend you won’t even come close to the “real thing.”
I don’t believe that’s necessarily the idea. I’m not advocating for $100k speakers, mind you, but as a recording engineer, I don’t strive for realism - I strive for a great sounding recording. Granted, in classical music those two ideals might be closer together than elsewhere, but IMHO if you’re trying to simply reproduce the real thing, you’re doing it wrong. You’re completely right - you can’t do it, that’s why you gotta make your recording into something different. It’s kind of like the difference between a book and a film - sometimes the best adaptions are the ones that stray a little from the source and become their own work of art.
There are so many things you can do on a recording that you can’t do live, and you should take advantage of that. Trying to make it sound as good as possible in your home makes sense.
It’s been a long time since I could consider myself a proper electronic engineer, but I have always been baffled by the audio woo crowd. Don’t these idiots have the FIRST FRACKING CLUE HOW ELECTRONICS WORK?
On a calmer note, here’s something I found recently, looks to be a bit expensive (I found it in my local library) but it’s utterly sensible.
The Audio Expert:Everything You Need To Know About Audio by Ethan Winer (the link is to a review).
I don’t think you’ve ever listened to really good speakers. It’s not just about range and distortion but transient response, soundstage and variety of other factors. I’ve listened to speakers where, if you turn your back, you’d be hard pressed to tell if the cello were live or recorded. And I’m not talking about spending 100 grand either.
Another thing to keep in mind and **pitchmeister **can confirm this, is that recordings are made with some thought to the equipment they are likely going to be played back on. For example, there is one recording in particular that sounds better in my car than on my home speakers. The car system is good but nothing too fancy and the recording sounds much better on the cheaper equipment than the more expensive stuff.
I wrote the following as a reply on an ‘Audiophile’ blog some time ago. It is refreshing to find a discussion centering around the topic of cables, etc and what is good and what is perceived as ‘better’. An intelligent discussion on audio components in the context of performance and value.
The replies to my comment were few, a couple thanking me, and most ignoring it, plus a couple of implied (they were being kind LOL) suggestions about my being a troll. I have always been interested in what playback equipment is used by recording engineers and professional musicians, as well as their opinion on this subject.
*Many folks who are into the ‘best’ cables may be true audiophiles, or maybe not. More about that later. To me, the best cables fit well, use top materials (not necessarily esoteric), and most importantly, have excellent workmanship, whether a robot or human is doing the construction.
There may well be subtle differences in audio quality due to how a set of cables interfaces with specific equipment. If we look at cables as ‘components’ which in fact they are, then how they match up with other components may certainly make them ‘sound different’. Maybe better, worse, or just different.
In my own experience, I have found subtle differences. I think for most of us, ‘good hearing’ refers to sensitivity to sounds, and if the neuro-pathways have learned music over the years, other subtleties may be heard by some and not others, that results in more ‘critical listening’.
The biggest problem I have are with those who claim the best cables are pricey, and justify the price based on how much better things sound. However, perception is a big deal, as it involves that complex computer between our ears. And there is no way I can tell someone they are not hearing what they say they are.
I give them that, right off the bat. But often that courtesy, if you will, is not reciprocated. Instead of saying, well, it really does sound better when I use EagleSoar connections compared to the best quality lamp cord, but I can accept the fact we may hear things differently.
More often than not, the response is more like, “Well, then you should use the cheaper cables and save your money, and even lower priced components may be a better fit for you.” And if you are expressing your opinion on some blogs, you may be tagged a troll.
I can understand a defensive response if I insist there is no difference, which results in an endless argument. Or if I do not respect their choice.
Now what if a highly regarded recording engineer, or a musician who values the best in reproduced music, or a composer, etc. (and certainly more than one) stood up holding an EagleSoar or Heaven’s Brand cable and attested to it’s superior audio quality?
When that starts happening, I may well save my money for the next cable I buy for my system. Or simply accept the fact, their critical listening skills may be a bigger factor, and one I can not appreciate. For now, I will continue to go for good construction from reliable and well regarded sources that sell good quality cables at reasonable prices.
It may not always be easy finding a correlation between cable characteristics and how It ‘sounds’, nor justifying it even if you do. But then, enjoying what you have for the pleasure it provides you never needs explanation.
*
Low-oxygen or oxygen free is an indicator of snake oil, not real quality.
We most certainly do. Many connectors come gold-plated as standard.
This is quite untrue. You only need a layer of gold a few atoms thick, and the cost is trivial. Much low-end audio gear has gold-plated phono sockets.
The importance of gold is its complete resistance to corrosion. Silver contacts have often been used in switches etc because of its high conductivity, but any hint of hydrogen sulphide in the air causes a film of non-conductive silver sulphide to form, This can be disastrous.
If you’re wondering where the H2S comes from, it’s in diesel engine exhaust.
Silver’s high conductivity is certainly nice, but there are other factors which are even more important.
Most power switches and relay contacts are comprised of pure silver or silver cadmium oxide. Here is the “thought process” behind it:
Solid gold. Way too expensive.
Gold-plated copper. Very resistant to oxidation and corrosion. But arcing will quickly atomize the gold. Can only be used in “signal level” circuitry where currents and voltages are small.
Solid copper. Very susceptible to oxidation, corrosion, and arc-erosion.
Solid silver. Somewhat susceptible to sulfidation, though high contact pressure can minimize this problem. Fairly good resistance to arc-erosion. It’s somewhat soft, though, and welding may be a problem when used w/ power relays.
Silver cadmium oxide. Compared to solid silver, it’s much harder and thus has better wear properties. It also has better resistance to arc-erosion. Generally only used with power relays.
I have worked as a producer and been in a lot of studios. The difference between what a pro uses and your basic roll of speaker wire comes down to three things.
Better shielding.
Better connectors.
More rugged/durable/reliable.
Everything else is woo. I’ve seen studios lined with acoustical tile, carpeting, carpet padding, etc. and all of them seem to dampen sound equally well.
Sure, recording studios will spend more on better speakers and microphones, but that really depends on the personal preference of whoever’s spending the money. There’s no consensus on what the “best” equipment is.
I’m not qualified to weigh in on actual audio gear–all I do is sit in a mix room and tell the mixer my dumb ideas about how it should sound, and he or she pretends I’m right.
As far as gold-plating connectors, though, this is dirt cheap. I worked one summer for my father, a physicist, and part of my job was gold-plating connections for his experiments. Not like the lab was rolling in money but the amount of gold applied was vanishingly small. I killed some idle hours gold-plating a small bong; no one noticed the loss.
I did almost melt my hand in aqua regia, but that’s another story (was not high when this happened, just stupid).
There are two sounds in music… clarity and composition. A mix artist focuses on composing the music while you may be the expert in its delivery. No idea is dumb. Collaborate and listen lol
Research audio technology and music composition… also find skates that rate the technology you’re asking about. Personal preference trumps trends anyway.
Acoustics of studios and mixing rooms is actually a well developed and interesting science. And lining the walls with any of carpet, acoustic tiles or padding isn’t any part of this science (mostly.) The problem with such simple ideas is that they absorb the high frequencies and leave the mid and low stuff alone. You end up with a dead room that sound boomy and bad.
The conventional wisdom is that you need a balance between reflection, adsorption and diffusion, and they they need to be balanced across the audio spectrum. Once you get to low frequencies this becomes a significantly difficult thing to achieve. You can’t easily sculpt frequencies with wavelengths measured in metres. In general anything you use to manage sound energy needs to be of the same order in size as the wavelengths you are trying to manage - where of the same order typically means no smaller than about one quarter of a wavelength. And adsorption really is only one part of the question. People who line recording studios with egg crate foam and think they have done the needed work have no clue. No doubt - any studio with such cursory treatment will sound much the same as another - equally poor. But it you are close mic’ing everything and running everything through a slew of treatments, well it probably doesn’t matter anyway.
A really good room, one you could record acoustic instrumental ensembles in takes effort. But there is no woo involved. Lots of pretty good science. The companies that design such rooms are typically staffed by mechanical engineers. They do everything from recording studios, recording engineering rooms, right up to concert halls.
This is a nice technical article about a venue not far from where I live, which provides a very good overview of the level of science involved in acoustic design. I had a pleasant evening talking with one of the design engineers over a beer a few months ago. He is a mechanical engineer. (OK, not a recording studio, but the physics is similar.)
Do they really record or process analog in the studio setting to any great extent nowadays, except maybe as a retro thing? I would imagine everything is converted to digital, and then mathematics can substitute for any board full of dials and sliders. And variations can be re-applied to the original over and over until the result is accepted.
I can’t believe I say this about “The Good Old Days” and CD’s, but remember when the big deal was whether a CD was AAD, ADD, or DDD? I have one of the earliest issues of “Best of CCR” before the digital people had learned all their tricks. The sequence of songs is a history of studio recording, background hiss disappearing noticeably as the recordings became newer. The Beatles in their middle days were notorious for recording more tracks than their studio had, by combining all the first four tracks recorded as the fourth track of the next take.
But the digital revolution was astounding for those of us who could not afford multi-thousand dollar equipment. I had $100 speakers from Radio Shack. When I first played the second CD I ever bought for a friend of mine, in 1986, he immediately went out and bought a CD player. It was a DDD recording of Beethoven piano music, and even on crappy speakers the silent bits were silent, and through the music you could hear the piano pedals squeaking as they moved and other aspects of a “live” performance.
As for the deeper arguments of audio - the applicable quote I think of is like “you can do amazing things with cilantro in a meal, but if it tastes like soap it tastes like soap.” Then I found out that not everyone experiences, like me, that cilantro tastes like soap. Same with audio. Either it sounds “life-like” or it doesn’t, arguments about “rich”. “mellow”, “deep” are lost on me.
I see the same woo nowadays about video cables… ummm, it’s HDMI. It’s digital. Either the cable works, or you see little square blocks on the screen from dropouts, just like when the DVR screws up. The $6.99 cable from Superstore works as well as the $79.99 Monster from Best Buy for a 3-foot run.