Hifi/audio myths

Second biggest myth I think is subwoofers (having experimented with a few). Vast cost for a tiny percentage of the audible spectrum.

Don't really agree that it's a tiny percentage. Say you're young and healthy and can hear 20 Hz to 20 kHz. That's about 10 octaves. If you set a sub to do everything below 80 Hz, that's 2 octaves, or 20%. Those 20% are also the most energy demanding octaves to reproduce. While the cost is high, subwoofers do some heavy lifting in an area where there's a lot of energy from bass drums, bass guitars, double basses, percussion, movie explosions etc. But I'll readily agree they need careful integration in normal size rooms.

My favorite hi-fi myth is ethernet regenerators. Or, they're not a myth, they're a total scam!
 
Don't really agree that it's a tiny percentage. Say you're young and healthy and can hear 20 Hz to 20 kHz. That's about 10 octaves. If you set a sub to do everything below 80 Hz, that's 2 octaves, or 20%. Those 20% are also the most energy demanding octaves to reproduce. While the cost is high, subwoofers do some heavy lifting in an area where there's a lot of energy from bass drums, bass guitars, double basses, percussion, movie explosions etc. But I'll readily agree they need careful integration in normal size rooms.

My favorite hi-fi myth is ethernet regenerators. Or, they're not a myth, they're a total scam!

Agreed.

The extra weight is worth it alone.

A sub should be a good one, but that’s not so expensive for music. BKs littlest adds a very useful mass.

Having them set up with some sort of room correction is crucial to my mind though.

But again, a relatively inexpensive Anti-Mode will do the job splendidly.

On a properly setup, quality subwoofer, even when think you can’t hear it, it is adding to the joy.

Not a myth at all. In fact, I’d go so far as to say a necessary part of a first class hifi.

Even an inexpensive one.
 
MYTH= All audiophiles are skinny, geeky, pocket pencil wearing dorks who cant get laid in a whorehouse, even with $50,000 sitting in a briefcsse!
NOPE!!!!!!

IM AS SEXY AS F#@%K!!!!!! 😁😁😁
 
The biggest 'myth' is the supposed benefits of 11.2 systems, or whatever the manufacturers are pushing these days. People who buy into this are deluded!

Second biggest myth I think is subwoofers (having experimented with a few). Vast cost for a tiny percentage of the audible spectrum.

Third myth is cables.
I think the subwoofer is essential for movies, unless you have fronts that go extremely deep (and those are rare). My speakers simply cannot produce the deep bass and rumble that's often used in movie soundtracks.
 
Almost anything Linn claims about its various turntables.

Mana racks.

What hifi isn’t a daft comic.

My favourite review of theirs is the Xbox One S. something about how the colours or detail isn’t as deep as other 4K players?

That was the review that immediately killed any respect I had for them

Favourite myth is that subwoofers shouldn’t be used for stereo music. Heard this a lot from the guys at Audio T in Brighton when I was looking to get my dad a subwoofer for his setup. They were trying to sell him a £700 integrated amp and £700 turntable insisting they’d have a much bigger impact than a subwoofer. They were pairing them with a pair of B&W 607. In a very large living room.

I’ve mentioned this before, but has someone with experience producing, mixing and mastering audio, a sub can add to a track. But it needs to be properly integrated and the track you’re listening to needs to have some level of bass in it. If it’s heavily acoustic, maybe not, but with orchestral, it can add an additional level of emotion to the song :)
 
Last edited:
Second biggest myth I think is subwoofers (having experimented with a few). Vast cost for a tiny percentage of the audible spectrum.

I was confused by this statement so I did some searching, I saw you've had a bad experience with a BK Monolith and didn't get much help in the BK thread where you posted your graphs, which explains your thoughts on subs. Having studied your graphs (I've been researching/learning how to set up subs for years, it's incredibly complex, I still have a long way to go) it looks like your room is just really bad for bass or maybe a faulty HPF on the BK. Did you try taking measurements with the BK in different room locations (not just putting the mic in different locations, which as you found makes very little difference)? You might not think/expect that moving the sub will make a big difference but it really does. Or maybe you were just expecting too much bass from too little a sub. I guess it's too late to debate now since you sold it.

If you'd like to hear what an overkill sub system can sound like (almost) properly set up you're welcome to visit my very humble system since we both live in London.

Or if you ever decide to try a sub again I'd be happy to offer a second opinion to help you set it up.
 
The reality here is that what we each hear, feel, or become emotionally attached to is very different and what one person believes is radically different to another (This is still true regardless of any measurements as there are many thing that make up to how we each experience sound that cannot truly be measured. Take listening with friends whilst comparing it against solitary listening. The two are completely different as you can both influence each others opinion even though the sound hasn't changed as just one example).

In my many years in the industry, I've heard pathetic budget speakers (which would struggle to get a single star review) create quite a dynamic sound with sensationally priced cables worth over 10 times the value, yet sound as flat as a pancake when using them bell cable ensuring they barely get that one star review. I've also heard speakers which cost £10k+ sound just as lifeless with very expensive cabling yet when adding ridiculously price cable those speakers had the same effect as the pathetic budget speakers and came to life like I hadn't expected. It's funny that before the ridiculous cabling was added, the expensive cabling sounded fine and it was only when returning the original cables did it become so noticeable that everyone commented in the room (even those who didn't believe cables made a difference)

I believe that pricing shouldn't really come into equation when people talk about cables as a good cable is a good cable, regardless of cost. One thing that is certain is that every cable (not to mention every in the chain) is trying not to degrade the information from the amplifier and other sources before you hear as much information as is audibly achievable in your listening room. The only cable I'm a little sceptical about is the mains cables - but I'm a true advocate in clean mains to the electronics where possible from the electric junction box with the hifi having its own ring main

One thing that is certain, if you cannot hear a difference, then you can certainly save yourself some cash whilst laughing at those who do
Your contribution reminded me of a post I read elsewhere by a guy whose company made speakers. The story he told fascinated me. (Was it you?) His factory turned out a particular range of speakers for which customers could choose between several different coloured cabinets. They found some colours sold better than others, as you might expect but what came as a surprise was that customers and the dealers were convinced that there was a difference in sound quality depending on the colour, and the criticisms were consistent across the listeners about the colours! But all speakers were identical in every respect except for their colours! The company carried out an experiment at different locations, which was to play through a range of the speakers in different colours cabinets using identical cables, amps, eliminating all variables. Sure enough, the audience noted distinct differences between the coloured cabinets. Next, a curtain was drawn across in front of the speakers hiding from view and the order of the speakers was changed. This time the audiences were unable to differentiate between different coloured speakers: they all sounded the same. So, why did they sound different before when each speaker cabinet was visible? My theory is that when one of our senses is being used how it interprets information is altered by how a different sense is interpreting the same information. In other words, what the eyes can see affects what we hear.
 
Your contribution reminded me of a post I read elsewhere by a guy whose company made speakers. The story he told fascinated me. (Was it you?) His factory turned out a particular range of speakers for which customers could choose between several different coloured cabinets. They found some colours sold better than others, as you might expect but what came as a surprise was that customers and the dealers were convinced that there was a difference in sound quality depending on the colour, and the criticisms were consistent across the listeners about the colours! But all speakers were identical in every respect except for their colours! The company carried out an experiment at different locations, which was to play through a range of the speakers in different colours cabinets using identical cables, amps, eliminating all variables. Sure enough, the audience noted distinct differences between the coloured cabinets. Next, a curtain was drawn across in front of the speakers hiding from view and the order of the speakers was changed. This time the audiences were unable to differentiate between different coloured speakers: they all sounded the same. So, why did they sound different before when each speaker cabinet was visible? My theory is that when one of our senses is being used how it interprets information is altered by how a different sense is interpreting the same information. In other words, what the eyes can see affects what we hear.
Thank you, but no it wasn't me. I feel you are on the right track that it's not all about what our ears hear alone. I've believed it for years that there's more to how we perceive sound and enjoyment combined. Is that a myth, I doubt it. Have I got scientific evidence, nope, am I worried about it either, nope :)
 
Audoiphiles and myths.... where to start. In the 80's I used to work at the BBC in the control room and continuities and new well the NICAM stereo broadcast path to the transmitters. I also used the antiquated continuity equipment which was about as far from audiophile as Bloosom Hill is from a vintage Bordeaux.
Then I would hear audiophiles going on about the appalling nature of digital and speak glowingly of BBC Radio 3 FM broadcasts etc, not seeming to realise that they all went down a pretty poor compressed digital path (significantly inferior to CD digital).
 
Crystals placed strategically in the room.

Yeah, I chuckled to myself the first time I saw stones advertised that you place on or near your hifi to improve the sound. The text in the ad could be read as very technical and plausible. In reality the only real way those stones would noticeably affect how the music sounds is if they were positioned very near your eardrums. I've had a stone in my ear as a kid and it wasn't nice!
 
Similar to the post about fuses in a mains plug, I used to work with someone who was convinced that the mains cable to his amp affected the sound quality (and not in an earth hum sort of way)
 
I recall reading a reader's letter in a hi-fi mag, about 30 years ago, where the writer stated that, during the day, the usage on the national grid was such that nobody got exactly 240 volts, and this would have a detrimental effect on one's hi-fi system. He went on to state that his favourite time for listening at reference level was between 2 and 4 in the morning when there was nobody else using electricity and he could guarantee that he would be getting exactly 240 volts and that this would not detract from his listening experience.

All I could think at the time, between guffaws, was "your neighbours must ****ing love you....."
 
My theory is that when one of our senses is being used how it interprets information is altered by how a different sense is interpreting the same information. In other words, what the eyes can see affects what we hear.
Thought that smelt a funny colour, much more like six than an echo
 
What about GOLD plated fibre optic cables !!! What is the point
What do you mean? Gold is shiny => shiny means more light reflection => fiber optics work with light => [did I leave the stove on?] => better audio quality => PROFIT!
 
I recall someone claiming in What Hi-Fi that having items in your listening room with an odd number of edges ruined the sound so he recommended cutting the corners off your album sleeves!

Then there was the green marker pen to paint the edges of your CD's to improve the reflected light from the lazer.

I have to say I thought speaker cables made little difference until I swapped a multi-core cable for 13amp solid core cable. With solid cable the bass just disappeared, I was surprised and so were the 3 people in the room with me.

I have Active Kabers with 3 LK100 amps, I'm an active convert, so much better.
 
Last edited:
Pop over to WHF as they have just posted an article. (I have not posted the link as I am not sure if it contravenes AVForum rules)

Bill
 
Pop over to WHF as they have just posted an article. (I have not posted the link as I am not sure if it contravenes AVForum rules)

Bill
You can link.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom