High End Myth Glossary.

Rex, Corollary #2--If I can hear the difference and you can't, there must be something wrong with your hearing.

If it costs more, it must sound better.

Themadmilkman,
Why d'u think many audiophiles love to have active preamp v.s. passive?

The answer is due to extra feedback to feed more linear signal onto the amp.

You know, I had always wondered that... As a marketing major (recent grad) I always saw a hole in the statements with the local feedback as opposed to global feedback-- there just weren't any designers that I could ask. I simply assumed that a no-feedback design referred to both, due to a lack of better information.

I will be sure to state that I prefer "Zero Global Feedback" designs from now on. Thanks for the heads-up.

I know well that VK was originally an SS amp designer(as well as Vladimir Lamm or previousley Vladimir Shushurin).

MOSFET as well as Bipolar or OP-Amp do need feedback. The mentioned BAT amp has probably Zero global neg. feedback while having plenty of local one. A local feedback is the one that is being applied to an individual amplification stage of an amplifier. A global feedback is being applied to the amplifier as whole.

When amplier is being designed and tested for distortions the engineer may or maynot need an additional feedback to correct them and this feedback would likely go arround the wole amplifier instead of recalculating and retesting values for every individual stage. Increasing a global negative feedback do decrease the gain and the output power of the amplifier substantially.

I've had feedback explained to me well enough, but here is my real question.

I'm a fan of BAT's solid state amps. They are balanced, no-feedback designs. I understand the need for negative feedback with tubes and op-amps, but what about with a MOSFET based amplifier?

Just curious to hear your response.

BTW-- I also prefer speakers with stable impedances, which lessens the swings caused by the high output impedances typical of zero-feedback designs.

Themadmilkman,
First you need to know what feedback is and than you will easy understand what is negative feedback.

Theoretically and in general, the gain of an amplification device such as transistor tube or OP-Amp is very high and non linear. In order to eliminate a possibility of self-oscillations i.e. instability of such tne negative feedback mandatory should be applied.

Oh, that is too true, Rex.

Also, Marakanetz-- I'm curious about your "Zero Negative Feedback." Please do illuminate me, as I am a fan of no feedback designs.

Audiophile Core Myth: If I can't hear the difference between X and Y, no one else can either. Anyone who says he can is delusional or terminally stupid.

Corollary: If I have an EE degree (or wish people to think I do), my opinions cannot be questioned.

Sean,
Most of the such recievers are built on OP-Amps that by definition have humangous gain and thus need huge neg. feedback to correct distortions. Most of these chips(used in consumer audio products) are produced in China and do have terrible characteristics far different from catalogue specified. A feedback at the same time can't be infinite and should be carefully selected so such unit will not go to oscillations...

By definition it's far more easier to produce a transistor with clean and linear characteristics(or tube) than OP-amp. A good OP-amp has much larger tolerance in its IO characteristics than a good transistor(or tube) by all logical terms but designing and building an audio component is much simplier and faster and so cheaper using OP-Amps, however there are many successfull audio-components in today's high resolution audio equipment built on OP-Amps: compact phonostages such as NAD PP1, Michell ISO by Tom Evans; preamps such as McCormack RLD, McCormack Micro Line Drive; poweramps such as Audio Research D series have input and driving circuitries using OP-Amps.

Gregm,

To understand measurements that everyone HEARS you should know ALL electronic parameters of at least audio amplification equipment. Challenge yourself and many secrets will be uncovered for you...

Sean sez:

Numbers don't lie but you have to know how to interpret them

I agree. It further seems that some "standard" measurements (or the way they are made) hardly correlate with the sonic result. Especially when it comes to amp-speaker interface. OTOH, engineers DO know circuit analysis -- so, it stand to reason that there SHOULD be SOME measurements made that actually reflect what everyone HEARS. I don't know where the catch is -- maybe the industry doesn't want to change the "standard" specs?
For an interesting discussion on this subject take a look here and here
Cheers

Numbers don't lie but you have to know how to interpret them. That specific analogy simply means that the Yamaha produces lower THD, it doesn't tell us anything about how the unit will sound or how those figures were derived. You have to look at the BIG picture and have a LOT of spec's / background on the unit and methods used for testing for the "numbers" to mean anything. Sean
>

PS... Lots of global or local negative feedback will produce very low THD figures, but it also produces a very "sterile" sounding component. One is better off with a product that uses a very solid circuit design to start off with with just enough feedback used to keep the device "clean" and "stable". There are many mass produced products that utilize "thrown together" circuit designs and then utilize GOBS of feedback to correct the poor design. Unfortunately, it is much cheaper to build a junky circuit and make it "measure good" / correct it with a lot of feedback, so that's what a lot of manufacturers do. That's why so many pieces of gear sound like crap i.e. there are more "band-aids" than healthy designs out there.

No, it means that a Yamaha integrated receiver that measures .002 percent distortion will sound MUCH better than an Audio Research Ref 600 MK3, because the ARC is not that low distortion.

Numbers cannot lie...........Right??

Does that mean all vehicles driving 75mph must have the same engine?

Following tubegroover:

1. A possibility of creating two or more systems or components by different manufacturer that HAVE same measurements...

2. Ears are far more sencitive than any measuring devices.

All systems that measure the same MUST sound the same cause measurement devices are more accurate than hearing devices.

Marakanetz: That last post of yours really stunk : ) Sean
>

To really listen to furnature you must be quiet. I find it very stressful myself.

I've noticed that, contrary to the myth that audiophiles have adversarial relationships with their spouses, my system sounds better when my wife sits next to me. I don't think she quite qualifies as furniture, however. (Although she can be a bit stoic, sometimes.)
On certain rather bright recordings, however, they do sound best when she stands in the corner.

Continue the list:

A GOLDEN EAR TEST.

...for a perfect and sensible ear(s) that able to hear .1dB differences:

1. Eat a bowl of grean pea soup with smoked chops of pork turkey or beef.
2. Play a critical recording you're intended to judge a system performance.
3. Pass some gas during an auditioning(preferably quiet especially for those who has a microphonic tube equipment so you won't interrupt a listening test)...

In result you should hear sonic changes of more than 0.1dB(not realy sure if worse or better) as the air pushed by the speaker has some content of impurities that somewhat change the air dencity and thus vary the room accoustics.

We may have gotten our signals crossed. What I find remarkable is that the people who truly believe that everything is in the head of the listener are very often the ones who have very limited knowledge of the basics of electronics. I don't purport to know a hell of a lot about the basic science behind electronics, but I know enough to recognize poppycock when I hear it. On the other hand, it does not all sound the same. Often enough there would be a simple fact based explanation, but it is a lot more entertaining to talk in broad terms emphasizing aesthetics and to bring everything back to one's individual likes or dislikes than to use a double track approach of measuring and listening. It is so strange how one school always fears that the other approach will, somehow, taint their judgment.

Some of these myths come across as being just plain silly. Too many people believe if a difference cannot be measured that it is not a difference.

The issue is that our science is still in an infancy state, but likes to make statements about things that are way over it's head! If I were to give you a set of measuring cups, but not just any set, a really good set of stainless steel, ranging from 1/8th of a cup through a two cup measuring set that is made so accurately that they contain exactly the marked amount within .00001% deviation could you tell me how many wpc I am pushing when I have my pre-amp turned up exactly half way and I'm driving an average of 4 ohms on my speakers with my Krell FPB 200 amplifier.

Remember these are the best measuring cups known to mankind and are garanteed to be within the tolerances listed above. If you were to have any trouble with these cups and the determination I requested, although I don't know how this would be possible, I will also provide the best German micrometer that money can buy!

Most of the measurements listed when equipment is designed and/or reviewed are fine as far as they go, but too much of electronics is still a complete mystery to science. Saying that there is no measurable difference between two pieces of gear so they must be the same is like looking out to the horizon and saying the earth is flat. This statement is easily observable, just look out the window, the earth is flat. Ultimately though this is still wrong!

Unlike Bob Bundus says every aspect of life is governed by absolutes, just because we don't know or like the absolutes does not compromise the truth. Opinions don't change truth either, even if we reduce them to the level of absurdity by calling them myths.

Agree with your comments about room acoustics, especially reflective surfaces.

I‘m not certain what the term audio furniture covers. If the manufacturer builds a cabinet with similar construction as home furniture, then says it has mystical properties, I refuse to believe it.

There are stands that have low resonant shelves, pointy feet and such that do effect the sound of equipment. Like all audio tweaks, the improvement can be very big or very small depending on the room, equipment and listener.

I don’t know if Sound Anchors, Systrum and similar products would fall into the category of audio furniture or not. They support equipment, speakers and such and make an audible difference.

I think I was misunderstood Pbb. I agree with Marakanetz. I interpreted the comments of bob bundus to mean that the first post of this thread was all nonsense. Perhaps I misunderstood him. If, in fact, that is his position I disagree, I think that there is a great deal in this hobby that is utter nonsense, some of which was listed by Marakanetz and some of which are absolutes. If you look at one of the last threads I chimed in on, you'll see that I feel quite strongly about this.

The word audiophile is more and more becoming synonymous with delusional. Perhaps it's the "peer pressure" to prove to friends, family and audiogon members that we have some hypersensitive hearing or the ultimate golden ear.

Consider for a moment a given component or system. There's a thread going on right now about Audio Note DAC's. I've never heard one--maybe they're the greatest thing ever, maybe they're garbage. Two people on that thread claim that there is something wrong with the bottom end. A whole ton of people said that they must be doing something wrong or are simply lying about ever hearing one. This is the problem with high end audio--the only acceptable review, comment etc. on an expensive component is praise. Neutral will get you into trouble, but perhaps not flamed too badly. A negative review will brand you either deaf, a liar, or an idiot. Furthermore, If you tell the reviewer that they are wrong and the component is good, you are adhering to some standard (aka an absolute). If you agree with the reviewer then the exact same logic applies. The contention that there are no absolutes in audio is an absurd statement.

Albert, my post reads as follows: "Main thing is to no muck up the acoustics with the placement of furniture". I have always accepted (I think I have no choice, it's a fact) that whatever is in the room does have an effect on the acoustics of the space. I also think that nothing is more annoying than a glass pane, a panel somewhere or anything else resonating. Where I draw the line is in thinking that electronics will sound different because of the furniture supporting it. Again, sanity should prevail and you don't want a wobbly piece of trash, but I still maintain that all this vibration suppressing mumbo-jumbo is simply in aid of manufacturers asking enormous amounts of money for "audio furniture". I will not suggest blind testing of furniture; it simply would be too funny.

Pbb, perhaps Ultraviolet is referring to the effect of furniture in the room. I can clearly hear position of drapes, rugs and even the change from moving around larger pieces such as sofa’s and love seats.

It is also possible to hear the difference between two identical sized sofa’s when swapped in the same spot, provided one is hard (wood) and the other is padded cotton or wool piece.

I have one friend who refuses to listen from my sofa due to the height of the back. He is sensitive to the reflection directly behind his ears (off the leather). He always draws up a Queen Anne chair and places it behind us.

Everyone has their own particular sensitivities. I learn from everyone that listens with me. My system would not be nearly as evolved without others help.

Ultraviolet, you can actually hear furniture? No kidding? Life must be tough for you. I sympathize. I can hear large appliances, but I still need training in listening to furniture. I presume you also perceive light in the ultraviolet range. Where is the line between being open minded and gullible?

Bob bundus, it must be very convenient to be absolutely sure that there are no absolutes in this world or this hobby. Your reasoning is truly impressive.

Did not see this post of yours earlier Marak. I agree with you totally. I like the "auditioning audio furniture" entry. Someone figured out a number of years ago that if folks could be sold on the superior sound of cables and wires in the thousands $$$$, hey why not tell'em they can hear the furniture and get top $$$$ for it. Main thing is to not muck up the acoustics with the placement of the furniture. The rest is hyperbole.

#19 Marakanetz has better things to do with his/her time than post trolls

# 1 myth. Big $$ adds in Stereophile will get you a good review. It's a conspiracy theory running wild lately.

I would like to apologize for my previous comments regarding Padigm speakers, as I'm having a bad day. Really I never listen to anything but Paradigm in my spare time, and could care less about listening to any other speaker I've sold over the years. Paradigm rules!!!!...yippie!

Myth #1 (from reading audiogon post for so long): Paradigm speakers sound good.

Myth #2: Most audio industry professionals and reviewers us Paradigm speakers in their "reference rigs" from which to compare other designs to.

Myth #3: Paradigm is the only speaker to onsider

Myth #4: If you are interested in non-colored, more accurate audiphiole grade sound quality, that lets you hear what's on the recording as it was originally from the source, then Paradim's are the speaker choice for you!

Myth #5: Less than 5% of the populous who own Paradigm speakers actually use an audio/video receiver to driver their speakers, rather than separates.

Myth #6: Paradigm makes bright speakers, just like the professional audio Mag reviewers all comment on continually.

Myth #7: I actually own Paradigm, and am just kidding most of the time, but really do love the higher fidelity soundquality offered by that company, which brings me closer to the accurate recordings as they were recorded.

Myth #8: Marketing hype and advertising dollars will never influence people from certain geographical areas to buy one brand over another when it comes to speaker designs..including Paradigms. Bose has this concept completely wrong..I don't know how they stay in business!

Myth #9: I own stock in Paradigm

Myth #10: Paradigm speakers don't sound anything like any other mid-fi offering.

Myth #11: Paradigm will one day make a speaker that will be awarded "speaker of the year" by Stereophile magazine, rather than "Canadian speaker weekly magazine" or "womans day magazine"!

Myth #12: One Paradigm speaker monitor(not sub) design actually made Class A rating by Stereophile magazine last century, and that feat will likely be repeated again in this century.

Myth #13: If I were ever going to recommend a speaker to a client who wanted hifidelity accurate sound quality, it would definitely be Paradigm, which is not exclusive to it's dealers, and shouldn't be readily avaliable to mail-order houses on the net!

Myth #14 Dollar per dollar, Paradigm is the best you can buy sonically.

Myth #15 The Phrases "I'm sick of hearing about em", "Eat my shorts", and Paradigm speakers should never be used in the same sentance!

Truth #1:...still people should buy what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, as long as you like it. Peace...

Bob and albert,

it's not a "troll" rather it's laughs or audio-related humor.

It uncovers the reality that Elizabeth's path(as perfect example here) and anyone who follows the same to "perfect sound" had gone too far wrong way with spending too much on "dummy activities".

+ few "trolls" more:

--Audiogon is better than Audio Asylum

--Hobby is when you spend

--Wires make differences on more pricey equipment(deliberately designed to "feel" the wires)

And Yes Bob,
"The Worst Of" is what I realy meant. There I completely agree.

The "worst troll of" ever seen on Audiogon has just been posted only as of today; it's at the very top of this page! Talk about misinformation! And then proudly paraded as gospel no less. Elizabeth's post is closest that I can come to agreeing with, although there are several others above with their heads still on straight.
There are no, repeat, NO absolutes in this world; that of course applies to the hobby as well. Must be very convenient to have everything so firmly pigeonholed - thank you god M. for showing us all the way to surefire sonic mediocrity.

Marakenetz- You are obviously using the wrong .45 magnum for those flies. Try this .45 Magnum It also has the added bonus of not damaging the walls and furniture, and keeping your neighbors alive and well, as well as keeping your mug shot off the front page of your local newspaper!

Adding to the myth list:

--Shooting a fly with 45 Magnum(you never know if you actually kill it).
A simple plastic slapper will just do enough.

I think they were referring to the Sun around these parts lately, Ohlala. At least it seems like 400 hours before it has shone.....

Marakenetz, though I am not an electrical engineer, nor vendor, I have found, through practice, your premises to be sound.

My love for old inefficient speaker choices have forced me to concentrate my money on basic amplification. Money considerations necessitated leaving golden fleece cables, Rock of Gibraltar front ends, and kitchen counter shelving decisions for the future.

With each speaker change, any differences and improvements were obviously speaker generated, and very gratifying. Amp decisions merely followed each new speaker's thirst. The latest and thirstiest speakers, the ones I wanted all along, are breathtaking.

All thoughts of upgrading shelving and cables have been forgotten. Now, I am concentrating my efforts on listening room modification.

300-400 hour break-in. Even if it is true, anyone who says "you need to give it 400 hours before it really shines" needs to be smacked.

It just seems like forever.

Ghostrider,
Thanks, I'll follow!

IMHO, the biggest myth in audio was "Perfect sound forever".

Marakanetz

6 db/bit of dynamic range is the right answer, strange as it seems - check out any engineering textbook on digital signal processing.

Marakanetz - Just in case you, or anyone else really thought I was serious about that, let me make it more clear: The reference to WE 300B's was a joke to illustrate how ridiculous the presumption that, "I" know exactly what "YOU" (and the rest of the world) should prefer, really sounds to me. Sorry if I didn't make it sound ridiculous enough in my post!!(??)

#1 Any perceived differences in sound that cant be quantified by measurement is self delusion. (if so, buy yourself a Technics receiver from 1980 that has <.0001 distortion)
#2 Cone shaped feet under speakers/components have no effect on sound. (at least try them under a turntable)
#3 I understand at least 1/2 of what Marakanetz is talking about at any given moment.

Jax2,
Lookup at least 50 years back to find out how WE300B is $900/pr now and other mega-prices as well.

You'll certainly be able to subtract from psychological "psycho" thereafter and plenty of bait for different purposes.

That the way "I" perceive the world is the identical way "you" perceive the world. Regardless of "proven" scientific facts the way we perceive those "facts" is ALL psychological: We create the way we perceive the world around us in each of our own heads, and those perceptions are more often as distinctive from one another as our fingerprints. There are no absolutes! The meanings we attach to virtually everything we perceive are uniquely our own.

With the singular exception of the undisputed superiority of the Western Electric 300B tube over all other 300B varieties, there is no right and no wrong! Of that I'm absolutely positive, and anyone who says otherwise is obviously a naive and foolish little person! :-p

....say Marakanetz, what kind of bait you using on those hooks?

Albert wins hands down : )

Mscommerce's comments are WAY too serious for this type of thread. Very good, but WAY too serious : ) Sean
>

Here are my Myth's to add to the Glossary.

Audio Asylum is as good as Audiogon.

No one at Audiogon ever "trolls" by posting controversial topics.

Bose makes the ultimate speaker.