The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio By : Peter Aczel.

strongly suspect that people are more gullible today than they were inmy younger years. Back then we didn’t put magnets in our shoes, the police didn’t use psychics to search for missing persons, and no head of state since Hitler had consulted astrologers.

Most of us believed in science without any reservations. When the hi-fi era dawned, engineers like Paul Klipsch, Lincoln Walsh, Stew Hegeman, Dave Hafler, Ed Villchur, and C. G. McProud were our fountainhead of Audio information. The untutored tweako/weirdo pundits who don’t know the integral of ex were still in the benighted future.

Don’t misunderstand me. In terms of the existing spectrum of knowledge, the audio scene today is clearly ahead of the early years; at one end of the spectrum there are brilliant practitioners who far outshine the founding fathers.

At the dark end of that spectrum, however, a new age of ignorance, superstition, and dishonesty holds sway.

Why and how that came about has been amply covered in past issues of this publication; here I shall focus on the rogues’ gallery of currently proffered mendacities to snare the credulous.

1. The Cable Lie

Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.

The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents can’t distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.

The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. T

he signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC.

Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, insulation, etc., to avoid reliability problems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections.

In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in consumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publications to the pressures of the cable marketers is truly depressing to behold.

2. The Vacuum-TubeLie

This lie is also, in a sense, about a peripheral matter, since vacuum tubes are hardly mainstream in the age of silicon.

It’s an all-pervasive lie, however, in the high-end audio market; just count the tube-equipment ads as a percentage of total ad pages in the typical high-end magazine. Unbelievable! 

And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum

tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applications—don’t you believe it.

Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!) digital components like CD and DVD players.

What’s wrong with tubes?

Nothing, really. There’s nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper incisors (that Mideastern grin); it’s just that modern dentistry offers more attractive options. Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability.

Even the world’s best-designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion than an equally well-designed transistor amplifier and will almost certainly need more servicing (tube replacements, rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idiotic designs such as 8-watt single-ended triode amplifiers are of course exempt, by default, from such comparisons since they have no solid-state counterpart.)

As for the “tube sound,” there are two possibilities: (1) It’s a figment of the deluded audiophile’s imagination, or (2) it’s a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way.

Yes, there exist very special situations where a sophisticated designer of hi-fi electronics might consider using a tube (e.g., the RF stage of an FM tuner), but those rare and narrowly qualified exceptions cannot redeem the common, garden-variety lies of the tube marketers, who want you to buy into an obsolete technology.

3. The Antidigital Lie

You have heard this one often, in one form or another. To wit: Digital sound is vastly inferior to analog. Digitized audio is a like a crude newspaper photograph made up of dots.

The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is all wet. The 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the compact disc cannot resolve the highest audio frequencies where there are only two or three sampling points.

Digital sound, even in the best cases, is hard and edgy. And so on and so forth—all of it, without exception, ignorant drivel or deliberate misrepresentation.

Once again, the lie has little bearing on the mainstream, where the digital technology has gained complete acceptance; but in the byways and tributaries of the audio world, in unregenerate high-end audio salons and the listening rooms of various tweako mandarins, it remains the party line.

The most ludicrous manifestation of the antidigital fallacy is the preference for the obsolete LP over the CD. Not the analog master tape over the digital master tape, which remains a semirespectable controversy, but the clicks, crackles and pops of the vinyl over the digital data pits’ background silence, which is a perverse rejection of reality.

Here are the scientific facts any second-year E.E. student can verify for you: Digital audio is bulletproof in a way analog audio never was and never can be. The 0’s and 1’s are inherently incapable of being distorted in the signal path, unlike an analog waveform.

Even a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, the lowest used in today’s high-fidelity applications, more than adequately resolves all audio frequencies.

It will not cause any loss of information in the audio range—not an iota, not a scintilla.

The “how can two sampling points resolve 20 kHz?” argumentis an untutored misinterpretation of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.

(Doubters are advised to take an elementary course in digital systems.)

The reason why certain analog recordings sound better than certaindigital recordings is that the engineers did a better job with microphone placement, levels, balance, and equalization, or that the recording venue was acoustically superior. Some early digital recordings were indeed hard and edgy, not because they were digital but because the engineers were still thinking analog, compensating for anticipated losses that did not exist.

Today’s best digital recordings are the best recordings ever made. To be fair, it must be admitted that a state-of the-art analog recording and a state-of-the-art digital recording, at this stage of their respective technologies, will probably be of comparable quality. Even so, the number of Tree-Worshiping Analog

Druids is rapidly dwindling in the professional recording world. The digital way is simply the better way.

4. The Listening-Test Lie

Regular readers of this publication know how to refute the various lies invoked by the high-end cultists in opposition to double-blind listening tests at matched levels (ABX testing), but a brief overview is in order here.

The ABX methodology requires device A and device B to be levelmatched within ±0.1 dB, after which you can listen to fully identified A and fully identified B for as long as youlike.

If you then think they sound different, you are asked to identify X, which may be either A or B (as determined by a double-blind randomization process). You are allowed to make an A/X or B/X comparison at any time, as many times as you like, to decide whether X=A or X=B. Since sheer guessing will yield the correct answer 50% of the time, a minimum of 12 trials is needed for statistical validity (16 is better, 20 better yet). There is no better way to determine scientifically whether you are just claiming to hear a difference or can actually hear one.

The tweako cultists will tell you that ABX tests are completely invalid.

Everybody knows that a Krell sounds better than a Pioneer, so if they are indistinguishable from each other in an ABX test, then the ABX method is all wet—that’s their logic. Everybody knows that Joe is taller than Mike, so if they both measure exactly 5 feet 111⁄4 inches, then there is something wrong with the Stanley tape measure, right?

The standard tweako objections to ABX tests are too much pressure (as in “let’s see how well you really hear”), too little time (as in “get on with it, we need to do 16 trials”), too many devices inserted in the signal path (viz.,relays, switches, attenuators, etc.), and of course assorted psychobabble on the subject of aural perception. None of that amounts to anything more than a red herring, of one flavor or another, to divert attention from the basics of controlled testing.

The truth is that you can perform an ABX test all by yourself without any pressure from other participants, that you can take as much time as wish (how about 16 trials over 16 weeks?), and that you can verify the transparency of the inserted control devices with a straight-wire bypass.

The objections are totally bogus and hypocritical.

Here’s how you smoke out a lying, weaseling, obfuscating anti-ABX hypocrite.

Ask him if he believes in any kind of A/B testing at all.

He will probably say yes.

Then ask him what special insights he gains by (1) not matching levels and (2) peeking atthe nameplates.

Watch him squirm and fume.

5. The Feedback Lie

Negative feedback, in an amplifier or preamplifier, is baaaad. No feedback at all is gooood. So goes this widely invoked untruth.

The fact is that negative feedback is one of the most useful tools available tothe circuit designer.

It reduces distortion and increases stability.

Only in the Bronze Age of solid-state amplifierdesign, back in the late ’60s and early ’70s, was feedback applied so recklessly and indiscriminately by certain practitioners that the circuit could get into various kinds of trouble.

That was the origin of the no-feedback fetish. In the early ’80s a number ofseminal papers by Edward Cherr (Australia) and Robert Cordell (USA) made it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that negative feedback is totally benign as long as certain basic guidelines are strictly observed.

Enough time has elapsed since then for that truth to sink in.

Today’s no-feedback dogmatists are either dishonest or ignorant.

6. The Burn-In Lie

This widely reiterated piece of B.S. would have you believe that audio electronics, and even cables, will “sound better” after a burn-in period of days or weeks or months (yes,months).

Pure garbage.

Capacitors will “form” in a matter of seconds after power-on. Bias will stabilize in a matter of minutes (and shouldn’t be all that critical in well-designed equipment, to begin with). There is absolutely no difference in performance between a correctly designed amplifier’s (or preamp’s or CD player’s) firsthour firsthour and 1000th-hour performance.

As for cables, yecch…

We’re dealing with audiophile voodoo here rather than science. (See also the Duo-Tech review in Issue No. 19, page 36.)

Loudspeakers, however, may require a break-in period of a few hours, perhaps even a day or two, before reaching optimum performance.

That’s because they are mechanical devices with moving parts under stress thatneed to settle in.

(The same is true of reciprocating engines and firearms.)

That doesn’t mean a good loudspeaker won’t “sound good” right out of the box, any more than a new car with 10 miles on it won’t be good to drive.

7. The Biwiring Lie

Even fairly sophisticated audiophiles fall for this hocus-pocus. What’s more, loudspeaker manufacturers participate in the sham when they tell you that those two pairs of terminals on the back of the speaker are for biwiring as well as biamping. Some of the most highly respected names in loudspeakers are guilty of this hypocritical genuflection to the tweako sacraments—they are in effect surrendering to the “realities” of the market.

The truth is that biamping makes sense in certain cases, even with a passive crossover, but biwiring is pure voodoo.

If you move one pair of speaker wires to the same terminals where the other pair is connected, absolutely nothing changes electrically. The law of physics that says so is called the superposition principle.

In terms of electronics, the superpositiontheorem states that any number of voltagesapplied simultaneously to a linearnetwork will result in a current which isthe exact sum of the currents that would result if the voltages were applied individually.

The audio salesman or ’phile who can prove the contrary will be aninstant candidate for some truly majorscientific prizes and academic honors.

AtISSUE NO. 26 • FALL 2000 7the same time it is only fair to point out that biwiring does no harm. It just doesn’t do anything.

Like magnets inyour shoes.

8. The Power Conditioner Lie

Just about all that needs to be said on this subject has been said by Bryston in their owner’s manuals: “All Bryston amplifiers containhigh-quality, dedicated circuitry in the power supplies to reject RF, line spikes and other power-line problems.

Bryston power amplifiers do not require specialized power line conditioners. Plug the amplifier directly into its own wall socket.”

What they don’t say is that the same is true, more or less, of all well-designed amplifiers. They may not all be the Brystons’ equal in regulation and PSRR, but if they are any good they can be plugged directly into a wall socket. If you can afford a fancy power conditioner you can also afford a well-designed amplifier, in which case you don’t need the fancy power conditioner. It will do absolutely nothing for you. (Please note that we aren’t talking about surge-protected power strips for computer equipment.

They cost a lot less than a Tice Audio magic box, and computers with their peripherals are electrically more vulnerable than decent audio equipment.)

The biggest and stupidest lie of them all on the subject of “clean” power is that you need a specially designed high-priced line cord to obtain the best possible sound. Any line cord rated to´handle domestic ac voltages and currents will perform like any other. Ultrahigh- end line cords are a fraud.

Your audio circuits don’t know, and don’t care, what’s on the ac side of the power transformer. All they’re interested in is the dc voltages they need. Think about it. Does your car care about the hose you filled the tank with?

9. The CD Treatment Lie

This goes back to the vinyl days, when treating the LP surface with various magic liquids and sprays sometimes (but far from always) resulted in improved playback, especially when the pressing process left some residue in the grooves. Commercial logic then brought forth, in the 1980s and ’90s, similarly magical products for the treatment of CDs. The trouble is that the only thing a CD has in common with an LP is that it has a surface you can put gunk on. The CD surface, however, is very different. Its tiny indentations do not correspond to analog waveforms but merely carry a numerical code made up of 0’s and 1’s. Those 0’s and 1’s cannot be made “better” (or “worse,” for that matter) the way the undulations of an LP groove can sometimes be made more smoothly trackable.

They are read as either 0’s or 1’s, and that’s that. You might as well polish a quarter to a high shine so the cashier won’t mistake it for a dime.

Just say no to CD treatments, from green markers to spray-ons and rub-ons.

The idiophiles who claim to hear the improvement can never, never identify the treated CD blind.´(Needless to say, all of the above also goes for DVDs.)

10. The Golden Ear Lie

This is the catchall lie that should perhaps go to the head of the list as No. 1 but will also do nicely as a wrap-up.

The Golden Ears want you to believe that their hearing is so keen, so exquisite, that they can hear tiny nuances of reproduced sound too elusive for the rest of us. Absolutely not true.

Anyone without actual hearing impairment can hear what they hear, but only those with training and experience know what to make of it, how to interpret it.

Thus, if a loudspeaker has a huge dip at 3 kHz, it will not sound like one with flat response to any ear, golden or tin, but only the experienced ear will quickly identify the problem. It’s like an automobile mechanic listening to engine sounds and knowing almost instantly what’s wrong. His hearing is no keener than yours; he just knows what to listen for.

You could do it too if you had dealt with as many engines as he has.

Now here comes the really bad part. The self-appointed Golden Ears—tweako subjective reviewers, high-end audio-salon salesmen, audioclub ringleaders, etc.—often use their falsely assumed superior hearing to intimidate you. “Can’t you hear that?” they say when comparing two amplifiers.

You are supposed to hear huge differences between the two when in reality there are none—the GE’s can’t hear it either; they just say they do, relying on your acceptance of their GE status.

Bad scene.

The best defense against the Golden Ear lie is of course the double-blind ABX test (see No. 4 above).

That separates those who claim to hear something from those who really do. It is amazing how few, if any, GE’s are left in the room once the ABX results are tallied.

There are of course more Big Lies in audio than these ten, but let’s save a few for another time.

Besides, it’s not really the audio industry that should be blamed but our crazy consumer culture oupled with the widespread acceptanceof voodoo science.

The audio industry, specifically the high-end sector, is merely responding to the prevailing climate. In the end, every culture gets exactly whatit deserves.

Tanke vækkende ik!!??

mvh.

__________________
M.

Tjaa, tankevækkende og tankevækkende er vel så meget sagt - der er et par rigtigt gode imellem så jeg ikke kunne lade være med at grine ad, men på et tidspunkt kommer der "10 biggest truths in audio" og der står der skrevet det stik modsatte - uanset hvem der skriver, så vil de ganske enkelt have ret, uanset hvad andre siger imod! (bare se nogle af diskussionerne herinde)

__________________
Watching "Full House" with the Olsen-twins feels like having a heart attack in slow motion!!

Båt der!

Du har da vist læst lidt meget Peter Aczel .
Hæhæ! Jeg må sige, at nogle af punkterne kunne have været skrevet af mig.
Der findes i dag så megen mærkelig "rocket sciense" i hifi, som blot er kejserens nye klæder.
2X3m højttalerkabler, som koster over 80K, og som tydeligvis koster nada at lave. Man forbavses og chokeres.
Jeg har altid betragtet f.eks. Danske Banks kunder med lidt undren, de går glad hen i deres bank, og bliver pelset for alt de har, lige før de går ud af banken, bliver de lige kaldt tilbage et øjeblik, hvor de så lige bliver pelset endnu en gang.
Stolte forlader de filialen og synes, at det er godt nok en god bank.
I HIFI gælder de samme regler, blot med et boost og lidt mystik. Så kan du få lov at betale det samme for et sæt kabler på 3m, som du skal give for en lille bil med registreringsafgift og hele molevitten.
Vildere bliver svindel ikke.
Jow sørme så, hvis man så kan få hele den pukkelryggede, letpåvirkelige, prøvekabelmodtagelige anmelderskare til, at skrive lidt om det, så er guldet næsten hjemme.
Det er så tåbeligt, som det alt sammen næsten kan blive.
Brug 1/1000 på akustikregulering, og du er allerede meget længere end du nogensinde kommer med kabler.
Ak! Sund fornuft er noget frygteligt noget.

Afsnittet omkring feedback er i mine øjne kun "næsten" rigtigt.
Feedback er ikke en rigtig fremgangsmåde i mine øjne. Jeg er dog ikke blind for, at jeg faktisk har hørt amps med feedback, som lød ganske glimragende.

Absolut enig i alle punkter - i øvrigt mener jeg, at det er almindelig god praktis at bevise de forbedringer, der evt. skulle være i nogle af de mere eksotiske produkter. Hvis en producent vælger IKKE at bevise, at sit produkt er bedre, er det nok fordi, at det faktisk IKKE er bedre.

__________________
/Karsten

Ja jeg kunne nu især godt li det punkt om biwireing. Er ret enig.

Med hensyn til de andre punkter, så er det ikke dem alle jeg er helt inde i, da jeg nok har lidt mangel på viden inden for hifi

hmm - ja det er da noget tankevækkende  Den med golden ears og sælgeren, den har man jo oplevet nogle gange 

Men det bliver da spændende at se, hvor mange der nu begynder at modbevise punkterne

hmm. Jeg kunne da høre en ret markant forbedring da jeg fik mine højttalere biwiret

Ellers en sjov artikel.

MaltheK skrev: hmm. Jeg kunne da høre en ret markant forbedring da jeg fik mine højttalere biwiret

Det er jo desværre en stærkt subjektiv vurdering og netop hvad der angribes i artiklen? Jeg har også prøvet at købe nye dyre kabler og syntes bestemt der var en positiv forskel til at starte med - så gik jeg i gang med at skifte frem og tilbage en 10-15 gange og måtte til sidst konkludere, at jeg ikke kunne høre forskel. Hvis man tror på naturvidenskaben, ville man jo kunne måle hvad der kommer ud på den anden side af delefilteret, både med to forskellige kabler og med og uden biwire - hvis det er det samme, ja så er der jo ikke forskel, med mindre naturvidenskabens love ikke gælder i hifi-verdenen, og i så fald, kan vi ikke diskutere noget som helst.


__________________
Roder med digital afspilning

MaltheK skrev: hmm. Jeg kunne da høre en ret markant forbedring da jeg fik mine højttalere biwiret Ellers en sjov artikel.

Ja, det kunne jeg nu også, men på den anden side så er (som man jo også lidt kan udlede af artiklen) meget i HI-FI verdenen lutter svindel og humbug! Intet andet...

solu skrev: MaltheK skrev: hmm. Jeg kunne da høre en ret markant forbedring da jeg fik mine højttalere biwiret med mindre naturvidenskabens love ikke gælder i hifi-verdenen, og i så fald, kan vi ikke diskutere noget som helst.

Vent du bare... der skal nok være nogen herinde som mener at de ikke gælder...  - så har jeg ikke sagt noget om nogen. De melder sig evt. selv!  

Biwire giver typisk en fornemmelse af mere luft og tranparens, sådan hører jeg det. Så der er en forskel. Men jeg er den dag idag stadig dybt i tvivl om det er rigtigt at biwire, for er det nu rigtigt med al den "ekstra" luftighed?

Kører idag selv med singlewire og jumpers i samme kabel mellem de 4 kontaker bagpå HT. Det lyder som det lyder - og så er den potte ude!

solu skrev: MaltheK skrev: hmm. Jeg kunne da høre en ret markant forbedring da jeg fik mine højttalere biwiret Det er jo desværre en stærkt subjektiv vurdering og netop hvad der angribes i artiklen? Jeg har også prøvet at købe nye dyre kabler og syntes bestemt der var en positiv forskel til at starte med - så gik jeg i gang med at skifte frem og tilbage en 10-15 gange og måtte til sidst konkludere, at jeg ikke kunne høre forskel. Hvis man tror på naturvidenskaben, ville man jo kunne måle hvad der kommer ud på den anden side af delefilteret, både med to forskellige kabler og med og uden biwire - hvis det er det samme, ja så er der jo ikke forskel, med mindre naturvidenskabens love ikke gælder i hifi-verdenen, og i så fald, kan vi ikke diskutere noget som helst.

Ja, men min tiltro til naturvidenskaben ligger på et meget lille sted. Det er ikke mange år siden man blev brændt på bålet for at påstå jorden var rund...

At naturvidenskaben ikke kan forklare et fænomen, kan lige så vel være udtryk for at den på nuværende tidspunkt ikke kan stille med en dækkende forklaring på hvorfor virkeligheden opfører sig som den gør.

Man kan heller ikke rigtig måle kabler virkning - her er det menneskellige øre stadig det ypperste måleinstrument..

så ja, et spørgsmål om tro er det måske langt hen ad vejen, men derfor behøver det jo ikke være forkert?

 

kontrast skrev: Biwire giver typisk en fornemmelse af mere luft og tranparens, sådan hører jeg det. Så der er en forskel.

Hehe, hvordan var det liiiige du kom frem til den konklusion? Pointen i artiklen er jo netop, at fordi alle andre inklusive sælgeren tilsyneladende kan høre det, vil du også selv høre det, om det så er kablernes eller fantasiens skyld. Det er bare sjovt at du så skråsikkert konkluderer at "det er altså en forskel", når artiklen lægger op til, at det er objektivt og ikke subjektivt . Men lad os ikke starte endnu en religionskrig, nu vi taler videnskab.

Til MichaelJDK - ja, der er mange her som tror mere på de gyldne ører, end videnskaben.


__________________
Roder med digital afspilning

Den er god den der - det er sådanne man lægger sig ud med folk med hang til LP, dyre kabler mv.

MaltheK skrev: Ja, men min tiltro til naturvidenskaben ligger på et meget lille sted. Det er ikke mange år siden man blev brændt på bålet for at påstå jorden var rund... Man kan heller ikke rigtig måle kabler virkning - her er det menneskellige øre stadig det ypperste måleinstrument..

Engang blev man brændt jo, men der er jo sket uendelig meget siden - så den holder ikke helt. Hvis man ikke kan måle forskellen på to kabler, kunne det jo være fordi, der ikke var forskel? Det skulle være meget underligt, at vi kan rejse til månen, beskyde meteorer i rummet, arbejde med nanoteknologi, men vi kan ikke måle hvad der kommer ud af et simpelt kabel? Især hvad angår digitallyd, her er det en smal sag at måle om 100% kommer frem, det kan gøres med diverse checksum - bare tænk på en computer, mangler der bare 1 bit til et program, spil etc., så virker det ikke - det er ganske håndgribeligt. De små tynde lakridsbånd i computeren kan sagtens overføre 100%, ellers virkede programmerne jo ikke. Hvordan kan der så være forskel på digitalkabler til hifi, når man kan købe et kabel i en computerbiks der overfører alle data til 5 kr? Indtil videre kan jeg ikke se, hvorfor hifi er noget helt unikt i verden, der ikke er underlagt naturlovene - det sparer mig i hvert fald for en del penge

__________________
Roder med digital afspilning

Nu må vi heller ikke glemmer at der internt i "videnskaben" foregår lige så heftige diskussioner om hvad der er rigtig og forkert.

Ovenstående artikel afspejler således blot et enkelt bud, og de skråsikre udsagn kan meget vel være modsagt af andre fra den videnskabelige side af hegnet...

solu skrev: MaltheK skrev: Ja, men min tiltro til naturvidenskaben ligger på et meget lille sted. Det er ikke mange år siden man blev brændt på bålet for at påstå jorden var rund... Man kan heller ikke rigtig måle kabler virkning - her er det menneskellige øre stadig det ypperste måleinstrument.. Engang blev man brændt jo, men der er jo sket uendelig meget siden - så den holder ikke helt. Hvis man ikke kan måle forskellen på to kabler, kunne det jo være fordi, der ikke var forskel? Det skulle være meget underligt, at vi kan rejse til månen, beskyde meteorer i rummet, arbejde med nanoteknologi, men vi kan ikke måle hvad der kommer ud af et simpelt kabel? Især hvad angår digitallyd, her er det en smal sag at måle om 100% kommer frem, det kan gøres med diverse checksum - bare tænk på en computer, mangler der bare 1 bit til et program, spil etc., så virker det ikke - det er ganske håndgribeligt. De små tynde lakridsbånd i computeren kan sagtens overføre 100%, ellers virkede programmerne jo ikke. Hvordan kan der så være forskel på digitalkabler til hifi, når man kan købe et kabel i en computerbiks der overfører alle data til 5 kr? Indtil videre kan jeg ikke se, hvorfor hifi er noget helt unikt i verden, der ikke er underlagt naturlovene - det sparer mig i hvert fald for en del penge

Mener du seriøst at der ikke er forkel på lyden i kabler?

PS. I rumskibene bruger de flatline kabler fra Nordost

Bare en tanke.............

Ifm. biwiring nævnes der superposition, som bl.a. kræver linearitet for at kunne bruges. Kan højttalere og forstærkere betragtes som lineære?.

Det sjove kommer især når en producent med "gyldne musikalske ører" fornægter videnskaben, køber et billigt DVD-drev som videnskaben har frembragt, putter det i en dyr kasse og tilføjer magiske strygninger og en historie om musisk magi, og fortæller om hvordan det skal gøres med følelse....

På samme måde sælges urtemedicin i kuponkataloger

__________________
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

Bundgård skrev: Bare en tanke............. Ifm. biwiring nævnes der superposition, som bl.a. kræver linearitet for at kunne bruges. Kan højttalere og forstærkere betragtes som lineære?.

Forstærkere er ikke (helt), højttalere er slet heller ikke, men nu er det kablerne det handler om, og jeg tvivler på at man kan fremprovokere ret mange reelle ulinariteter der...

Jeg synes det er et rigtig interessant emne det her, bliver spændende at følge med i...

__________________
/ Morten