If there were any worthwhile awards for contributions to truth and understanding in audio, then Ethan Winer should indeed be at the head of the queue. He's not in this to separate you from your money or even to make friends. Respect.
This is just incredible! The amount of knowledge, research, writing, editing, narration, audio and visual references... Holy crap how much effort and experience went into this!>!?!? There needs to be some kind of Nobel peace prize for truth in audio. I nominate Ethan Winer.
strange love I worked in R&D on that fly by wire system (A330) and it didn’t involve fancy OFC cables. Rather more concerning was redundancy in computing and software issues. The audio industry makes much money out of all the snake oil fallacies.
@Dirk Knight I guess my point is that actual scientific information is not easy to find because it's purposely drowned by tons of marketing stuff disguised as technical material. I feel I'm luckier than the typical audiophile because my engineering training, while not in electronics, helps me sniff out the BS.
Well the reason why companies do not touch any of this... Simple....the actual truth does not sell 3000usd cables and 12000 usd amplifiers. Audio is these days a business model, and a very successful one.
An excellent and very informative video. A few things to add: 1. Two forms of inaccuracy not mentioned here, at least not directly: modulation noise, and phase shift. Phase shift comes under the rubric of frequency response, but must be specified separately from the amplitude response. (Exception: If you can positively assure that the whole system is minimum-phase, then in theory knowing the amplitude response gives the phase response. However, even then, small amplitude errors could lead to larger phase errors, and the reverse as well.) 2. Modulation noise usually tends to cluster right near the original signal in the frequency domain, so instruments designed to measure THD and IM won't pick it up, with the usual methods. (OTOH that same proximity tends to mask its audibility.) 3. Has the audibility of phase distortion finally been characterized clearly. Decades ago, it seemed there were thousands of papers on this subject, with each presumably claimed to shed new light on the subject. 4. Slew rate may be a relevant measurement for line-level analog circuits, but for power amps, power bandwidth seems to show what's going on more clearly. 5. Many claims have been made about less negative feedback being better on account of better handling of high-frequency, high-power signals. I could never understand that. You either have the necessary power bandwidth or you don't, and feedback or the lack of it doesn't change that, as far as I can see. 6. Objective measurements (using the usual parameters) can indeed tell you how accurately a device reproduces sound, but the problem is that the amount of data can become huge. And as you indicate, when it comes to mics and speakers, the data can even go beyond three dimensions, as you account for level, frequency, and direction, just to start with. Computers are a big help with this, but of course, using them to good effect is not always a trivial matter.
Fabulous post Ronald, thanks! You said it all, but I'll address #3: Phase shift in usual amounts is not audible. It's one of those bogey men that uneducated hi-fi reviewers and forum posters indict for various ills they believe they hear or don't understand. in my earlier Audio Myths Workshop video I offer demonstrations of phase shift, and even with very large amounts smack in the middle of the audible range it's not an issue. This link goes right to that part of the video: ruclips.net/video/BYTlN6wjcvQ/видео.htmlm45s
GREAT Video, I will have to watch it many times, I'm looking at the "Analog Discovery 2" its computer based software and its does more than a digital scope (its based on a Built in sound Card) after searching the web I think this it the best for me instead of the old testing Equipment (E-bay) which is very good but old. The Analog Discovery 2 is growing and they "Digilent" will keep updating the software and I hope it will be around for a while, what do you think of Digilent.-Analog Discovery 2 ????
I'm not familiar with that device, but I've had very good results with this software 'scope that costs even less: audioxpress.com/article/usb-oscilloscopes-a-look-at-the-labnation-smartscope I also use the LTspice freeware for software simulation of circuits, which is even easier than building prototypes on a breadboard. This article shows how it works and has links for download: audioxpress.com/article/you-can-diy-build-the-mojo-maestro
Excellent and clear presentation. I know you weren't here for the last workshop I presented on TIM distortion, but I want to mention that there is a third, more effective test for TIM that was developed by Robert R. Cordell at Bell Labs. It uses three tones and meets these qualifications: (1) inexpensive lnstrumentation, (2) simple measurement procedure, (3) good sensitivity (particularly to midband even- and odd-order IM products), (4) in-band stimulus and response, (5) good subjective correlation due to music-like test signal risetimes. I set up this demonstration at my last B.A.S.S. workshop in April, which, unfortunately coincided with an AES event in NYC that weekend, so you were unable to attend.
just when I start thinking Im getting a grasp on a concept someone goes and 180's it :). thanks for all well laid out information that redirected me correctly. People like you make learning much less stress full. Thanks.
the high damping factor values are due to how much negative feedback the amp has. it actively steers against the back emf instead of just relying on output impedance
In 37:45 is incorrect picture. -97 dBFS is SUM of noise in ALL frequencies. Noise on ONE frequency can be as low as -130 dBFS and it's depend on FFT size and FFT window type of used analizer.
This graph is based on Figure 4.14 from the book "The Art of Digital Audio" by John Watkinson. The caption in John's book reads: "Effects of sample clock jitter on signal-to-noise ratio at different frequencies, compared with theoretical noise floors of systems with different resolutions. (After W.T. Shelton, with permission.)"I re-drew the graph for clarity, keeping only the horizontal line showing the noise level for 16-bit resolution. The original graph shows the noise levels for 18 bits at around -108 dB, and for 20 bits at around -121 dB. So I'm confident this graph is not misleading.
Ethan Winer I dont want to start large technical discussion here. But I just give you one example. Do it yourself. Create 32 bit 44.1 kHz file and generate 1 kHz tone with peak level at -100 dBFS. Convert this file to 16/44 with 1-bit TPDF dither. After that you can clearly see in the analizer and hear by your ear the 1 kHz tone at -100 dBFS level in 16-bit file with "-96 dBFS noise floor".
I don't disagree! I guess I could have been clearer. The disparity between the sum of noise, whether weighted or not, versus noise at individual frequencies in an FFT graph, can be confusing. At best it makes it difficult to relate what we see with how loud it will sound. The same goes for distortion shown in an FFT, which appears less than a THD spec that sums all the distortion components together into a single number.
Thank you Ethan for sharing. Great stuff.............way over my head but I did learn a few things. There is hope for my puny little studio with less than very expensive gear.
Great video from a great lecture that reinforced much of what I learned many years ago and believed. That is, until I started seeing a number of variances recently in what was said about fidelity, and the performance of stereo eqpt. more recently. Primarily how 2 devices can measure about the same, yet sound radically different. damn lie.
Thanks for helping to dispel the snake oil in the world of hifi. I'm in the midst of learning this stuff to purchase a system. Do you recommend publications other than Stereophile that use objective methods when reviewing gear? thanks
+Nick A First, Stereophile is not really objective. They do sometimes show measurements, but they also print highly favorable reviews of nonsense products like super expensive wires that are no better than normal wires. Sadly, there are very few hi-fi magazines you can trust to give you the facts. Hi-Fi News in England has printed honest articles, but I haven't seen enough of the magazine to assess it generally. The Audio Critic used to be fabulous, but they stopped publishing some years ago. You can still download many of their back issues here: www.theaudiocritic.com/ The best source I know of to learn how audio works are the dozens of articles on my web site, and also my Audio Expert book: ethanwiner.com/articles.html ethanwiner.com/book.htm
The following is to Oneness100 who posted literally thousands of words of ignorant blather, this is *not* to Nick A above: This thread will be gone by the time you see this post, but you might consider following me on Facebook. I went to the MIT site yesterday and looked at their white papers. What I read pegged my bullshit meter far into the red, so I decided to do an exposé about this fraudulent company for my friends and followers to enjoy. Watch for it, I'm sure you'll enjoy it too. While you're at it, invite the clowns at MIT to have a look too. My Facebook posts are all public, visible to anyone with a Facebook account.
breezyjr This is not really overkill, and the photo "stretching" style exaggerates the perceived size of the panels. But this much treatment is not needed for excellent results! The room shown is owned by a well-known mastering engineer, and he needs his room and system to be as flat as possible without regard to cost.
Ethan Winer Thanks for the info.... I was at least hoping it wasn't for a home user, which I imagine would make it overkill... Knowing it is for an engineer, makes sense, for someone who is probably a perfectionist....
This video is a must see for would-be savvy audiophiles as well as audio engineers. As usual Ethan is crystal clear, concise for a complex topic, and technically right-on. However, Dorsey's claim that two mic mfgrs show a graph where the 0deg and 180deg plots have been switched is incorrect. As their polar responses would indicate, real directional mics often exhibit a HF boost, and at VLF, effectively less directionality at those extremes toward the back. (The exception is a bidirectional fig8 mic.) [Don't fret, as some forums have, about the audio in the video - it's the content that counts! And ironic as it might seem, in my 40yr attending and presenting at AES conferences around the world, the PA audio has always sucked!] - R Miller
Good video Ethan! It's about time someone (who knows what they are speaking about) started doing Audio related Videos to educate those who are interested in Audio and understanding what constitutes Hign Fidelity audio! I'm sorry I'm just seeing this now.
Mixing and mastering engineers are quite aware that many people have playback with lesser quality than they enjoy while mixing. The main difference is the room, more than the equipment and speakers. This is from my Audio Expert book: If you're a recording engineer you may ask why you need acoustic treatment at all, since few people listening to the music you create will be in a room that's acoustically treated. The reason is simple: All rooms sound differently, both in their amount of liveness and frequency response. If you create a mix that sounds good in your room, which has its own particular frequency response, it's likely to sound very different in other rooms. For example, if your room lacks deep bass, your mixes will probably contain too much bass as you incorrectly compensate for what you hear. And if someone plays your music in a room that has too much deep bass, the mixing error will be exaggerated and they'll hear *way* too much deep bass. Therefore, the only practical solution is to make your room as accurate and neutral as possible so any variation others experience is due solely to the response of their own room. Most people are probably used to the non-flat response of their room anyway.
Isn’t this very issue one of the main reasons that mixing engineers still seem to love Yamaha NS-10s? “If a mix sounds good on NS-10s, it’s going to work on any other playback system.” That’s the old ethos in a nutshell. Also, mixing engineers add crappy playback systems intentionally. CLA has a cheap boombox wired up in his multi-million-dollar studio to run mixes through, for example, and it isn’t uncommon for mix engineers to copy a rough mix to their phone’s music library and go out for a drive, monitoring the mix through their car stereo systems, or listen on a cheap set of ear buds. The bulk of the work is done in well-treated rooms through high-end playback gear, but it often still double-checked on cheap, lo-fi systems to be sure the music translates well in almost any listening context. At least that is my understanding, and certainly how I would do it if I were mixing professionally.
I am guessing pro tools has a graphic equalizer that can measure the frequency response? I haven’t found it yet. Is there a plug in you recommend when running these tests?
An equalizer changes the response, where an analyzer *measures* the response. I'm not familiar with what comes with Pro Tools, but look for RTA or FFT or "analyzer."
My biggest problem today is the overuse of compression and peak limiting. The loudness wars are continuing and too many are using plugins just because they can. I can see it in my DAW and now stop buying music from some artists. Maybe it is because too many artists are using streaming services and feel that quality is lost anyway.
There is also the issue pointed out by Toole and many others that recording engineers often do not have accurate monitors. so one has to be prepared to change the sound at the consumer end to make things sound the way they ought. Buy an EQ!
Did Toole really say that? Recording engineers working in high end studios *ABSOLUTELY DO* have accurate monitoring. And a lot more accurate than what Floyd has. See the second half of this article: ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm The main reason to buy an EQ for hi-fi use is to change the sound of a recording to your preference. Or maybe your bookshelf speakers roll off at 70 Hz or some other too-high frequency, so you need to boost the low end a bit. And maybe in some cases you are compensating for someone else's poor monitoring, but that's rare for music from major record companies.
@@EthanWiner could you clarify, if a portable digital recorder has low-gain preamps compared to another with good preamps with lot of clean gain, do you consider them to be equally transparent?
Strictly speaking, the gain of a preamp has nothing to do with its quality. The main specs for quality are frequency response, noise, and distortion. So one preamp could have 60 dB of available gain but with poor specs, and another preamp having only 40 dB of gain could have excellent fidelity.
@@EthanWiner How do I find that actual info on a product. You highlight how much 'marketing' is out there. How do I sift through it. Or just gimme the 'Ethan Picks'
LOL, tell me what you're looking for and maybe I can make some suggestions. I don't know every model of what's out there, so I usually stick with major brands.
@@EthanWiner Thanks for responding even lol. Just so much BS going on in audio...when all I want is to listen to the music I love and enjoy it. I'm sold that better gear results in more satisfying listening that is less fatiguing. Just looking to maximize my damn bucks. And not get fooled by sly marketing. What's your system? Sorry if this has been answered else where.
@@krsp420 This video tour shows my main living room system that serves for both home theater and stereo music: ruclips.net/video/VxbTDGSs_aA/видео.html
Fantastic video! You really covered all the bases with exceptionally clear explanations. I am curious though not so much about fidelity as what it is that makes one component universally sound better than another as there so many variables and the speakers/room acoustics should be the most critical. I currently have 4 different audio systems and the best sounding one by a large margin is a relatively modest one using a single ended Japanese triode amplifier with no negative feedback - I've had dozens of people tell me they believe it sounds better than any stereo they have ever heard. On paper it has higher distortion and lower output power but it really sounds absolutely incredible. Are we all just crazy/deaf/stupid or what? Thanks for the great video!
RUclips comments is not a good venue for tech Q&A. But I'm glad to discuss this further if you post at my Audio Expert forum:forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/forums/24/1
While I agree wholeheartedly with every word of this video, and realize that "snake oil" nonsense is more prevalent among audiophile equipment reviewers, manufacturers, and resellers than just about anywhere else, I'd like to explain that the terms mentioned at the beginning of this video are just layman's terms for audio characteristics we are all familiar with. A "forward sound" signature is one in which the midrange or vocal frequency range is emphasized by a few decibels. A "sterile sound" signature is one in which the sound is completely uncolored by harmonics - solid state device sound "sterile" compared to hybrid tube designs, for example. A "musical" sound signature is one colored by harmonics, and/or one in which the highest frequencies are slightly smoothed by a lessening of transients. And "fast bass" is a result of excellent transient response, a high damping factor, and possibly a slight reduction in the upper bass/lower mids that can make bass muddy. These terms are no different than other terms we use to describe the sound signature of audio equipment - especially speakers - such as, "warm", "bassy", "bright", etc.
Thanks for your detailed post, Michael. I agree with pretty much everything you said. I have no problem with bassy or bright, though I still prefer the more precise wording when possible.
@@EthanWiner Thanks. As a scientific type, I prefer the more accurate wording as well. I was just explaining what the terms mean to the general public. I wish you guys would do more "snake oil" videos. They are most entertaining.
Both my boston acoustics and paradigm speakers have woofer much smaller then on the official specs. Monitor 9 its really a 4.5' but stated to be 5.5' and Boston A26 its a 5.5' stated to be 6.5'. They measure the groove line in the surrounding as if been part of the woofer, its really a joke. Most of my vintage speakers are more musical: large cabinet and woofer. The mids are surrounding, the bass has ease and power at the same time. The rooms gets filled but not only with bass and punch like those multi stacked woofers on floorstanders. The actal trend in audio seems all wrong. And people get down to only what they can explain so feelings have been thrown out of the equation. Scientific approach! Thats the meaning of sterile by the way. But somehow I agree with most of what you guys said. Thanks !
Ethan, should I seek out cheap Chinese sweat shop components so as to be "Smart"... ? Or am I ok to buy USA, EU and Japan made Hi-Fi that might not sound better to my ears, but it sure looks, smells, feels, and makes me feel good! ???
@@EthanWiner Can you see the value in buying Hi-FI gear not only for good sound (a given), but for the quality of it's build? The fact that it's made with well paid and proud employees? How do you measure Chinese sweat shop labor vs UK, US and Japan labor? What I'm trying to say is, there are many reasons to buy high end not relating just to how it measures..
I mostly address audio fidelity, though build quality matters too. Mainly because we'd like our devices to last forever rather than break 3 days after the warranty runs out. Appearance matters too, though to a lesser extent. But it's a mistake to believe that everything made in China is inferior. A *LOT* of stuff is made in China, and elsewhere in Asia, and a lot of it is very high quality. Do you own any Apple products? Since you mentioned "high end" I'll add that some of the most expensive stuff is actually worse than consumer grade gear. Not all, of course. But more than you might think. And there's never a reason to pay more than a few dollars per foot for wire, or a few dollars per watt for power amplifiers. A CD player than costs $10,000 is a rip-off and can't possibly be worth that amount.
I used to visit about ten audio forums every day. But when I started working on my Audio Expert book I had to reduce that activity, and then I was out of the habit. I still visit some forums, and I have my own now where people can ask questions about my videos and articles. You're welcome to post there: the-audio-expert.freeforums.net/
@@EthanWiner Thanks for your advice and concise explanations! It seems like Paul of PS audio has engage in a bit of battle with you. It seems he is more on the audiophile side of... audio! And you, from a more engineering perspective.
About the tirst part: not bad as far as it goes. But the real truth is that it is really hard for anyone but a psychoacoustics expert to tell from specifications what the sound will really be like because, it the context that nothing is perfect, it is necessary to have information on what the audible effects of measured errors is. This information is really hard to come by and often is not really known in detail. Of course it a piece of equipment is essentially flawless, then this is not needed. But if the errors are audible, then what they do to the listener is not clear from data on the errors. One has to have a model of what one is going to hear. All this makes sense only in the case where the errors are insignificant in audible terms. In general, it is not so simple as this discussion suggests, though it is correct as far as it goes(mostly)
Other than speakers and the room, all competent modern audio devices are clean enough to not color the sound. In other words, there's no difference between 0.005 and 0.009 percent distortion because neither is audible. And it doesn't take an expert ear to know what a roll-off of 5 dB down at 10 KHz sounds like (slightly muffled). It just takes a little practice with an equalizer. If you want a flat response - and you should! - the solution is good speakers, and plenty of bass traps and other acoustic treatment. Then you use software such as Room EQ Wizard to verify the result. These may help: AES Damn Lies video about measurements: ruclips.net/video/Zvireu2SGZM/видео.html Acoustic Basics: realtraps.com/art_basics-ht.htm Room EQ Wizard: realtraps.com/art_measuring.htm
So you´ve described in great detail what´s all about.... Thank you so much!! And if you just *invert* at least the damping factor and/or the slew rate statements, then we are where all this ´high-end´ rippoffers are. they all talk about big bottom and bass with a deep fundament or whatever scumwords the came with...its just this. Slow devices with weak damping factor makes the speaker to to what he whants not what he need to do.... Furthermore hardly one of these magazine authors nor the listeners/readers will understand one word when someone will do some serious explainings, as you in this video here....
@@EthanWiner I’ve been in vehicles that measure quieter than others (using a-weighting as is standard in auto industry reviews), but are less aurally comfortable or more fatiguing. Quality of sound can be more important than quantity, but maybe that’s an issue where the auto industry reviewers are not taking enough measurements. Since cars have a lot of low frequency noise it seems like dBC or dBZ would be necessary at a minimum. Does that make sense?
Oh, you mean car noise, as opposed to the noise from audio devices. Specs can still tell you how loud the noise is, but you're correct that some frequencies are more irritating than others. Fletcher-Munson probably applies in cars too, with 3-4 KHz being more irritating than 500 Hz. But very low frequencies are felt as much as heard. So maybe those specs should go further than just apply weighting curves to a single number, and instead show specific dB SPL levels in octave or even third-octave bands.
adjectives can be TREMENDOUSLY useful to describe things. See also: english 101. not just a snarky comment ... but seems to be something that most people overlook. we use language for conveying concepts that numbers cannot. for example - saying a given loudspeaker has 'more definition' 'more detail' etc ... or saying that one can 'follow individual instruments' much better with this or that component i think is VERY CLEAR. How would you measure THAT?
You can't measure words like that because they don't mean the same thing to all people. So such wording is not useful, and borders on nonsense. However, to me "detail" is a flat (or exaggerated) high frequency response. Lose the treble and you lose detail. Same for "definition." This excerpt is from my Audio Expert book, which I'm sure you and others here would benefit from: Earlier I mentioned that I prefer the term "low-cut" rather than "high-pass" when changing the frequency response in the bass range, because those are the frequencies being affected. Both are technically correct, but some common audio terms make less sense. For example, "warm," "cold," "sterile," "digital," "forward," "silky," and so forth are not useful because they don't mean the same thing to everyone. On the other hand, "3 dB down at 200 Hz" is precise and leaves no room for misinterpretation. Of course, "warm" and "cold" or "sterile" could describe the relative amount of high-frequency content. But saying "subdued or exaggerated highs" is still better than "sterile" in my opinion. However, many of the terms I see are nonsensical. Sometimes people refer to a piece of gear as being "musical" sounding or "resolving," but what does that really mean? What sounds musical to you may not sound musical to me. Some people like the added bass you get from a hi-fi receiver's Loudness setting. To me that usually makes music sound tubby, unless the music is already too thin sounding. The same goes for a slight treble boost to add sheen or a slight treble cut to reduce harshness. Whether these response changes sound pleasing or not is highly dependent on the music being played, the specific frequencies being boosted or cut, and personal preference. I don't think we need yet more adjectives to describe audio fidelity when we already have perfectly good ones. Some audiophile words are even sillier, such as "fast bass," which is an oxymoron. The common audiophile terms "PRaT" (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing) take this absurdity to new heights, because these words already have a specific musical meaning unrelated to whatever audiophiles believe they are conveying. Some of the worst examples of nonsensical audio terms I've seen arose from a discussion in a hi-fi audio forum. One fellow [a reviewer for Stereophile magazine] claimed that digital audio misses capturing certain aspects of music compared to analog tape and LP records. So I asked him to state some *specific* properties of sound that digital audio is unable to record. Among his list were tonal texture, transparency in the midrange, bloom and openness, substance, and the organic signature of instruments. I explained that those are not legitimate audio properties, but he remained convinced of his beliefs anyway.
@@EthanWiner it's all in how you use the dialectic - if you can have flabby bass say, then why not it's opposite - 'tight or defined' bass? i certainly get a pretty good idea what someone means by that. perhaps a word (or number) is only useful to the ear of the beholder ... numbers can be equally misleading of course too ... you know the adage: 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'! I certainly don't mind someone conveying their experience to me via spoken (or written) language. I am in a group online doing a lot of electronic modifications to equipment and often we report the results of changing various components (mostly capacitors etc) or doing regulator mods and need a quick efficient way of explaining the resutls of the modifications ... works pretty well for us.
and i guess - the converse to 'measuring words' is that numbers won't tell you what a loudspeaker's characteristics are the way that words will .... there's simply no translation or why of telling you what their transient characteristics are like or if they have grating treble or floppy boomy bass ...
"Grating treble" and time-based issues with bass are easily measured. Same for the differences between capacitors. There's no magic, and nothing about audio devices that's not fully understood by audio engineers. This is a great quote by a great scientist that you'll do well to understand: "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science." --Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson), nineteenth-century physicist
no i'm not saying there's any 'magic' whatsoever - except in a fantastic album you love etc perhaps. but it IS useful to use such adjectives for common folk who DON'T happen to drag around microphones and scopes to the local hifi shop in order to communicate their experiences with others - it also happens to be the case that a lot of the people who are attracted to that 'high end' world CAN be predisposed to pretentious language .... but maybe that's a separate issue!
I use the free Ad Blocker Plus so I never see ads on RUclips. But in this case I can't disable the ads. The copyright owners of some of the music clips I used put in claims, so *THEY* monetized the video and there's nothing I can do. Sorry!
I think you say that most modern equipment is 'transparent'. At Lindos Electronics we have tested many devices and found that many do not live up to this claim, and in particular many devices described as '24-bit' fall far short of even 16-bit performance. Here is a video showing a handheld recorder, the Zoom H4n, highly praised by many who recommend it for video sound - the results are quite shocking! ruclips.net/video/3NDcjR4VTsE/видео.html 'Zoom H4n Review'
Nice video. And nice test device. I agree that the left-right phase shift difference is pretty bad, and also surprising! But even by your own words the rest seems good enough to be transparent. I have an original H2 and its preamps have more noise than I'd like. But it's only when recording very soft material. It does a lot for a device costing only $150.
It does not help that the FTC repealed the requirements that had been in place in the 70's for standard specification presentation. I know of no two manufactures that even come close to stating specs in similar methods. Low frequencies are also greatly effected by the actual loudspeaker connected to an amplifier. The almost currently unseen Damping Factor specification will help you know how closely the woofer/sub-woofer may be able to match its motion compared to the signal being sent to it.
and of course anyone of those analogue lovers that cant understand physics and technical objective measurements in audio, so they "rate" their systems using adjectives like "superb sound, warmer, incredible space" and BS like that
I agree with everything said Ethan but I think I know what they mean by fast bass. Of course they are just using very bad terminology. I'm confident they are referring to transient freq response of bass driver. As in not lacking from amp with poor damping factor or inadequate cable to carry current etc. Love your work. You'r prone to a lot of unjustified criticism by these mislead people but understand there's a lot of us that highly value factual knowledge and the efforts real audio engineers have made to create quality without the voodoo. And, of course your efforts in purifying the truth here.
Mark Lowe more expensive subs like Rythmik allow you to have control in the amount of damping. I have set mine to ‘high’ though, as I have found it provides better bass definition. You can crank up the volume more when the damping switch is set ‘low’ without damaging the driver, which is also recommended for movies by Rythmik, but some detail/clarity is lost - from my own experience.
You understand most of audiophile are fooled when they always choose the most expensive components in audio reproduction. Due to unmeasurable quality of certain products. Just cause they like it. Well it's certainly strange you always like the most expensive components if it's just a matter of liking it. Let audiophile choose components with double blind tests and all the audiophile market collapse.
To be clear, there is no aspect of audio that can be heard but not measured. But you are correct that hi-fi these days is more about buying expensive stuff than enjoying good sound. If sound quality was truly important to audiophiles, every one of them would have acoustic treatment in their room. More here: ethanwiner.com/hi-fi.htm
@@EthanWiner I agree with that. But when people talk for example about ethernet audio stuff I get angry. I'm an IT tech in networking. I can explain easily why 10000$ eth cables are fool as 1000$ eth audio grade switch 8p. Just lies about that.
hahaha 6 MOONS the place to be for snake oil reviews.... they look professional . up to where you read stuff about acoustics using all kinds of expensive metals to make bowls that really make your room sound nice... SCAM! oh dont forget to mention some kind of exotic woods tuned by some Japanese guy. same goes for the videos about THE MOST EXPENSIVE SET bla bla all tunes by some excotic japanese dude that uses useless wood (look nice) on random places and then..... it sounds great of course.
This is simply ridiculous! Measurements are all well and good, but how can you measure Harry Pearson's "Golden Ears"? (Oh, OK, I know he's gone beyond the veil, but you all get the point) That's like trying to analyze Robert Parker's tastebuds! Forget that Karl Popper would likely be laughing uncontrollably at the notion that the *theory* that subjective impressions of any phenomenon, including audio fidelity, unaccompanied by empirical evidence constitute a valid analytical methodology that has greater predictive power and is experimentally testable. Such isn't science; it's Deepak Chopra/David Icke territory.
There's a big difference between subjective impression and measuring the fidelity of audio electronic devices. You seem to be addressing the former, where this video addresses only the latter. If you don't understand that fidelity (not preference) is easily measured, perhaps you need to watch this video again.
@@EthanWiner - I think you REALLY missed my point. Read the first three sentences ironically. My last sentence explicitly states my disdain for Subjectivism.
LOL, got it. You can see the sort of nonsense I've gotten used to replying too! This happens ALL THE TIME. I talk about measuring fidelity, and some moron says "You can't measure a symphony." This recent article addresses exactly that: www.audioxpress.com/article/why-doesn-t-my-stereo-sound-like-a-live-concert
@@EthanWiner - we're talking about possibly a difference in 3 orders of magnitude in the volume of a good symphony hall vs. Joe-Bob's living room. There are thousands of bodies and few right angles, and many venues are actively tuned these days. OF COURSE it won't sound the same. This is the difference between Dogmatic thinking and Critical thinking. The Dogmatist starts with the proposition that his system should sound like a live event. It does not; ergo, his system is less than perfect. The Critical thinker starts with a problem, that being "why does my system not sound like a live event?" Then she identifies the constraints on the problem, such as "can current recording technology capture a live event such that the live event and recording are indistinguishable?" "Can any listening space become invisible with respect to the information received by the listener?" One doesn't need more than that to conclude that the problem is currently insoluble. Too many people delude themselves into believing they are critical thinkers when they are not. (trying to get a handle on quantum gravity has pointed me to Karl Popper and now I'm totally screwed up)
I like the way you think. You can get close to the live concert experience if you "remove the room" with acoustic treatment. I address that in my article above. There's also a link to a fabulous RUclips video where a black belt mixing engineer shows how he makes recorded music sound better than the real thing.
Some people enjoy being lied to be the audiophile equivalent of a religious huckster. Ideologues will also defend their pseudoscientific and subjective claims using name calling and offence taking, they may also accuse you of being too objective and clinical. If you are selling audiophile gear, sadly you need to position yourself somewhere midway between an engineer and a mystic or you will not sell anything.
Your point is well put. Not all audio salespeople are crooks, though too many sure are! Worse, some audio salespeople are so uneducated they actually believe their own BS: ethanwiner.com/hi-fi.htm
@@EthanWiner thank you, sir, for your answer. I have another question: could we notice the difference between cheap and expensive caparitors in crossover network and, if yes, to what extent should we upgrade the caps to be cost effective?
Some types of capacitors have more distortion than others, especially when used in a crossover. It's more about type than cost. The article below shows measurements for several types, though this is about coupling capacitors that are not active in the middle of the audio range. But any speaker that's any good will have crossover caps of the correct type. audioxpress.com/article/practical-test-measurement-stop-worrying-about-coupling-capacitors
I thank that in general, upgrading gear you already own is a waste of time. Do you have bass traps and other acoustic treatment? That will do *much more* to improve sound quality than changing capacitors in a loudspeaker's crossover.
Another fantastic no BS video Ethan, you really are an asset to the audio and acoustics community. Around 9 years ago I acoustically treated my home recording studio and your forum was my go to resource for that project. Coincidentally my next bit of diy is building a new amplifier for my main listening system, and my main interest was transparency and low distortion (without the high price tag) I happened to come across you video and my chosen amp project on the same day. I think you'll approve of all of the measurements and specs the designer quoted on the site (I'm not the creator of this circuit) www.neurochrome.com/modulus-86/
Thanks for the nice note. And that amplifier looks amazing! I'll be glad to hear how that project turns out when you're done. Either here or in my Audio Expert forum: the-audio-expert.freeforums.net/
Forgive my ignorance,but why should we trust the measurments of these machines.I assume our ears are "analogue",why trust a "digital" machine? Sound waves are analogue,yet we want to measure them with a digital machine? My ears will tell me if I like a sound and my mouth will tell me if I like the taste of something etc .I know this view is very simplistic ,just trying to understand.If someone could direct me to more videos/ reading i would be gratful..thanks for the video..it make me think ;)
Did you watch the whole video? It's hardly simplistic, and it explains why test equipment is more reliable and more accurate than human hearing. Good audio test equipment is calibrated to high standards, and gives the same readings every time. Versus listening that varies from day to day or even minute to minute depending on your mood. There's also the Null Test that this video explains clearly. That's even simpler and more direct than measuring distortion or frequency response manually. If you want to learn more, my earlier AES Audio Myths video has a lot of additional information: ruclips.net/video/BYTlN6wjcvQ/видео.html And if you want the *complete* story, my Audio Expert book has 808 pages of exactly what you're looking for: ethanwiner.com/book.htm
On a scientific level, the mechanics for our hearing is already well documented. Knowing how the hearing works mechanically means it possible to asses wheter tests are acurate enough for the mechanical part of our hearing. The interperation of signals is not fully documented, and never will be, because our mechanical hearing interpreted by our brain, differ from every person, and even during a day, a persons hearing will change. How sound is tranferred through the air is also well documented. It moves with air pressure waves. And how to translate those waves in to a signal that cna then be sent through another equipment to re-generate that wave is also known. With modern technology achievements in those areas have led to results where we can often record and reproduce at higher sensitivity than our mechanical hearing. So to our hearing it will sound the same. But only for a point-source... but that has nothing to do with any of the aspects brought up here or sold by hifi-makers or even the audio recording hardware companies, that are just numbers... humans can actually hear in surround, and playing back sounds from two speakers in a room will not create the same room as the recording was made in. But most recordings are made in sound treated studios with mics directed at the soundsources, and reverbs and various effects are added, so that the "room" on the recording is actually not real, so the recreation doesn't have to be that exact. Knowing that information makes it possible to asses if digital technolgoy can go beyond the mechanics of our hearing in terms of reading soundwaves, and their correctness. And it can.
" interpretation of signals" that is what I am interested in ,from the psychological/psychosomatic aspect and how this manifests to make a judgement. Thank you for making the time to reply.
So this apparently educational video morphs into an ad as expected! Corner absorbers? What a joke. They do nothing but waste an otherwise potentially useful corner since particle velocity is zero there.
You don't seem to know very much about bass traps. In fact, corner placement is the very best location, and bass traps there are more than twice as effective in a corner rather than on a wall. You'll find proof in the data shown on the RealTraps web site below. This data is from IBM's Acoustics Lab, and there's even a link to photos of the test sessions: realtraps.com/data.htm
Yes, some people like the distorted sound of tubes and records, and that's okay with me. But it's not hi-fi, and it's not what the artist and mix engineer signed off on.
@@EthanWiner Any talk about fidelity should be based around the listener and their ability to hear what they want to hear - the "artist" is irrelevant. A good system is one that allows me to hear what I want to hear. "The artists intent" is unknowable and it may be to sound good in his brother's car. There is no reason to conflate the final mix and "good" and it leads to a lot of confusion in the community.
"you should hear exactly what the producers and mix engineers heard" Well you wont... and you will not even if you listen to the master in the very same studio it was recorded. Everyone has unique hearing, in technical terms. And everyone has unique hearing in a psycological terms. What could be strived for, is reproducing the same sound in the room as the producers and mix engineers had in their room. But that is atually impossible, since almost no control-room/Mixing studio has a completely acousticaly dead room, so each room will have it's own profile, and your room can't change the profile to be any studio in the world. So the only thing that is actually really possible to strive for is having the sound in the room come as close as possible to the sound on the media being played back. Unfortunately most producers and mixing engineers dont realize that their hearing has a unique profile to start with. Most at the top probably do realize that they have some hearing damage, as they will after working with audio for many years. Many think they know enough about their hearing to compensate for this, that is most likely a false assumption. Many producers an mixing engineers have sworn by different speakers with clear colorisation of sound, and claim that they know the speakers so well that they can compensate for it. Well I don't believe that one bit... These are top producers and top mixing engineers making such claim, and that is worrying to me. If they really knew what they were doing they would have invested in speakers that actually have as little coloring as possible for mixing/mastering. It is one thing to have speakers with coloring for trying the mix out, but they use clearly colored speakers for their mixing. And many of them have a hard time listening to comments on how other people hear the sounds, they tend to think they know best. And in many cases, people that are not professional audio engineers might not even dare to speak up during sessions, because they are so confident in that person, that they feel like it must be their own hearing that is off. Audio engineers is not like the emperor with his new cloths, because when they are confronted, they still hear the music in the same way. There are a lot of music out there that people describe as hars, on many types of listening equipment. So it might even be necessary to have a EQ or dynamic EQ at hand, to actually stand listening to those harsh songs. The mixing engineers/and producers probably did not hear them as harsh, because of their hearing. Or it could be the way hearing is different and sensitivity in different frequency that make some people hear that music as harsh. So its is not totally true that everyone should strive for the flattest possible frequency response in a room, if that means many songs become really harsh. Then we have dialogue in films and series, often beeing mixed at not loud enough against the background, or against audio peaks (that makes the listener adjust the volume, so thatafter adjusting the volume during peakts, they no logner hear the dialogue). Mixing engineers have already heard the dialogue several of times, so for them the sound will be precieved as louder than anyone hearing it for the first time. Then there are sound designers and composers fighting for their parts to be clearly heard. And then we have the issue of mixing being done in a treated enviroment, often with near field monitors, so a very different enviroment from any place anyone is going to hear it after that point.... perhaps with speakers that are colored favourable for voices. Clerarly we can't trust the source to be what the mixing engineers heard or percieved. But yes, from an objective standpoint, if one had a flat room with flat equipment the sound in the room would be the closes to the only reference one would have access to = the soundata from the source. But there is no way of knowing if EQing to ones own hearing is further or closers from how the mixing engineer heard it on a single sound source. But the average for all music and other media played thru ones system, will most likely be further away from what the mixing engineers heard on every single source compared to having a flat response in ones room, since they all would have heard differently. Dynamic EQs could be applied in such a matter that they will mostly affect parts that makes the sound too harsh for ones like, and thereby probalby be closer to the less harsh version that the mixing engineers probably heard. But that wont bring back any bass that the mixing engineers perhaps tuned down because their speakers were bass happy. And it wont roll off the high frequencies that the mixing engineer probably could not even hear. And it wont compensates for all the dips in the frequency response of the mixing engineer, that were because of that dip boosted. And it will not solve the dialogue issue. It wont add back any bass that the mixing engineer mixed out because it created issues on their test-rigs. The actual truth is tht we will never hear sounds the same way as other people. But a purse signal path, and flat response ist still the best to start with, even if a EQ and/or dynamic EQ is later added to sculpt sound to ones own hearing, and trying to compensate for what one think is the result of the mixing engineers hearing and listening room. Trying to color sounds with Tube-amps, or thinking one can clearly color sound with cables or choosing a D/A that is not transparent, would have much less effect than what can be achieved with an EQ, and would be much less controllable... Colored speakers can however do quite drastic things to the sound, but it would still be better to have a flat speaker and an EQ. (personally if often prefer listening to music via speakers that spread the sound more than a typical speaker, or even listening to music upcoded to surround, but I'm fully aware that it is a personal preference and that it colors the sound quite extremely, and other should not follow that example of mine if they don't feel the same way as I do... I just wish there was more music that fitted my sound ideal, with surroundcoding already done by the artist/producer) (Building a home studio/studio, I would never pick studio monitors that fit my personal preference, and I would not go for the one I think would give me the flattest response... and I would trust AI EQs over my own hearing, if they are based on research... unfortunately some of them seems based on machine learning, where they take after other peoples preferences rather that scientifically trying to achive the EQ curve that fits most people, and like I've stated many high en producers/mixing engineers don't mix as objectively as they think)
Thanks Jon, those are many good points. And yes, of course no two people will "hear" exactly the same, even standing next to each other in the same room. The main point is to make your room and system as flat as possible. That at least gets you closest to the artist's intent.
A flat room yes, to reduce reflections an uncontrollable boosts of frequencies (especially in the low end). However there is no real way of knowing what room reflections and frequency boosts where present at the mixing stage, so there is no way of actually knowing the artists (or rather mixer's, be it artist's or engineer's) intent for the sound, for that you would have to invinte the person that mixed the record to your room and ask them if the sound fits therir preferences (they would never be able to tell if it sounds exactly as when they mixed it, but they could tell if it fits theyr typical preference). Yes, one is likely to get a better average on getting closest to the intent by working towards a flat response. (I've seen studios used for mixing and mastering that aren't anywhere near as acousticly treated as they would have to be, and not always even with speakers cabable of the lowest ends, or any capable subwoofer either, meanings that any possible presence of those frequencies would only be by the room boosting frequencies at that lowest end). The idea that the intent is what is present on the audio file, is a myth on it's own. A flat room, and speakers able to produce a flat requency response (with no resonances or distortions in the elements or by the cross-over, even if the flat response itself is achieved by a EQ), and of course flat electronics should be the goal one should works towards. But the idea that, if it was possible to achieve that, one would hear music as it was intended is incorrect. It would give one the best contitions, as it would be free from any distotions, that could cause issues, but the sound in the room will not be what was heard by those mixing, and what one hear will mostly be even further from it. (even if music was distributed by sending electrical impulses to the brain directly, music would still not be percieved the same way as it was by those mixing, even if the mixing was done with the same type of electrical impulses, but it would certianly be a lot closer that anything that comes with a room and speakers... without implants, at this point those headphones that meassures hearing is probably the closest we can get, but unless Samsung/AKG starts producing studio reference headphones that way, it will probably not reach the pro market... google nuraphone if you haven't heard of the concept, but I think there are others working with headphones on the same principle of Otoacoustic Emission (OAE)) Have you done any video yet, on the myth of pin-pointing instruments on a scene, actual or virtual, while listening through speakers (hifi or PA)? Mics close to instruments, thus not sounding like the instrument would if one was seated at listening position. Sound engineers mixing the volumes by personal preference. Sound engineers doing the stereo-pan roughly. (when a band is recorded separately, without any real reference as well) And all of the thre above creating a rather diffuse positioning of instruments compared to the listener, where actually nothing really consistent with listening only to stage sound. And then the addition or room effects (mainly on recorded music), that further diffuses the image. And yet we can read in magazines all the time about how reviewers with a particular system can pinpoint musicians, and how they can "see" the stage. (all of it simply being their imagination working, really) Recordings made by a stereo mic at listening position, without any additions of room effects or anything else that might diffuse the "stage", are probably less than a thousandth of a percent when it comes to music distributed through official channels. (mobile video recordings of a small event, witout PA-system, is probably ones best source for actual recording of a stage, where some actually do have stereo-mic's roughly in the correct position, but others mixes the sound from more than two mics, and thus diffuses the stage, and then one is also sujected to influences by the visual presentation of the video, that gets in the way by trying to by ears only "see" the musicians in their "stage" position).
28:53 - Impedance. There's a spec I will NEVER be able to understand, even if God himself came down and explained it to me! HOW can a speaker with a higher impedance - IE 8ohms, be EASIER to drive by the same amplifier than a speaker with a lower impedance, IE 4ohms??? Either the wording or the concepts simply go against my gut instinct.
Impedance is not as complex as you think. First, you know what happens if you put a paper clip across a 9 volt battery, right? The paper clip is a short circuit that draws a lot of current, and with a fresh battery the paper clip can get red hot. It's not good for the battery either. Well, a paper clip is a very low impedance. It "impedes" the current so little that all the current from Plus on the battery gets through to Minus. Now, replace the paper clip with a loudspeaker and you have the same thing. A 16 ohm speaker doesn't let much current through, so the driving amplifier doesn't have to work very hard. As you go to 8 ohms, then 4 ohms, then 2 ohms, the speaker resists less and less and so becomes more like that paper clip short circuit. I'll add that with DC we call this "resistance," and impedance is the same thing for AC. Impedance implies that the resistance can change with frequency, though it doesn't have to.
Thanks for clearing that up! So if I read you correctly, if my receiver specs 8-16ohm speakers, and I hook up 12ohms, set my playback volume, then replace the 12ohm speakers with, IE, 4ohm speakers, which will sound louder?
@@Zickcermacity The 4 ohm speaker will sound louder because it's closer to a "short circuit" across the amplifier's output and therefore draws more current. Just as the paper clip is a very low impedance across the battery terminals. I can add a little more: An audio power amplifier is considered a "constant voltage" device. If you play a steady 1 KHz test tone at some volume, the voltage at the amplifier's output terminals will stay the same whether you connect 16 ohms, 8 ohms, 4 ohms, or maybe even 2 ohms if the amp is capable. This is just like an AC wall output that puts out 120 volts whether you plug in a 4 watt nightlight or a 1,000 watt toaster oven. (Aside from possible slight dimming if the wires back to the breaker box are long or too thin.) The formula for power is amps times volts, So if the amplifier outputs 10 volts steadily into 10 ohms, that draws 1 amp = 10 watts. But a 1 ohm load draws 10 amps = 100 watts.
I thought so! So my hunch for desiring higher impedance speakers for my home rig was right on. :D I like being able to turn my volume knob up to a reasonable position to achieve the volume I desire. Problem is, it's getting harder and harder to find 8ohm speakers for my 24 year old receiver which specifies 8-16ohm speakers. Also Ethan: I was told by Mike Rivers and other regulars on rec.audio.pro that I can run any impedance combination of receiver & speakers if both are relatively recent age. ???
Good video, although the statement that "the playback system shout strive for transparency" and "but with a consumer system you SHOULD hear exactly what the producer/engineer heard" is a rather subjective argument. What if the listener doesn't like the way a musical piece is being mixed? But even more important, humans don't have the same hearing. So every person hears things different, to the same way that we don't see or feel everything the same way either (for whatever cause). Even until today the discussion is always about "more transparency" and better specs or representation. Even among (most) engineers in the field. As an engineer myself, I often miss the engineering point of view. So understand all these parameters and understand how to make them work in a certain situation. For example, a PA-system has very different recommendations compared to a bluetooth speaker or a hifi speaker in a living room. Neither of those are better or worse than the other, they are just different solutions for different problems. It is rather strange that we always have the same discussions, yet this is exactly the way mechanical or electronics engineers work. They use different methods or solutions for different situations.
Of course I agree that some music sounds better or worse than others. I mention in my Audio Expert book that buying an EQ is a good solution. Then you can change the sound on a per-recording basis. But I don't think a *system* should add a fixed "color" to everything. Then again, if someone's hearing at high frequencies falls off due to age, a fixed treble boost isn't wrong. Though that too is usually better done with an equalizer than with intentionally colored preamps etc.
This is from my Audio Expert book: Accurate or Pleasing? A common question I see in audio forums asks about the difference between professional studio monitors and regular hi-fi speakers. Conventional wisdom says that monitors must be as flat as possible to mix accurately, while hi-fi speakers should aim for a pleasing sound. It seems to me that a hi-fi speaker should aim to recreate the same listening experience that the mixing and mastering engineers heard in their rooms while equalizing and otherwise adjusting the sound of the recording. Otherwise, the listener will not fully appreciate the artist's intent. So by that logic, a hi-fi speaker should also be as accurate as possible. If someone prefers an intentionally skewed frequency response, it probably makes sense to just buy an equalizer. Then you can also dial in different response curves to tailor the sound on a per-recording basis. This brings up the related issue of whether speakers used for professional mixing benefit from a pleasing frequency response curve. In my opinion that's not a good idea, and I find the current trend toward "smooth sounding" non-harsh loudspeakers aimed at the professional market disturbing. If you mix on speakers that have an intentional dip in the harshness range between 2 to 4 KHz, you'll tend to add too much energy in that range to compensate, making your mixes sound brittle on good speakers that are more accurate. Indeed, loudspeaker selection is one of the most difficult and personal decisions anyone can make, whether you're a professional recording engineer or serious listener.
@@EthanWiner Thank you for opening my eyes and ears! So much relief reading that that hype is just that. Just a question about EQs that you suggest. I believe this would be a good investment for me. I have little knowledge so parametric, graphic, etc. is just confusing. Any short response would be most appreciated or a link. Thank you for exposing the nonsense. Most appreciated.
@@Synonomous My best advice is to get my book The Audio Expert, available on Amazon and my web site ethanwiner.com. Otherwise, find your way to my web site Articles page and there's an article that explains the various EQ types.
@@EthanWiner I'll definitely support you by getting the book as you are doing so much to clear the air surrounding this whole magic wire nonsense. Strange, I have many old guitar tube amps and there's the same kind of voodoo surrounding the different tubes making a big difference when at one point the signal actually goes through the air inside the valve, lol. I've done my own tests with up to 20 tubes in the same amp to see absolutely zero difference unless the tube was out of spec. Great work and I look forward to your book. Cheers! Scott.
The measuring equipment is better than the ears? Due to shite opinions like this technology is held back. The instruments can measure what is wrong with a signal, which does not mean the reciprocal is goodness. Static measurements are unusually suspect. Simple ideas conceived in the 1920's with the simple instruments then available, are hopelessly dated. Wine tasting by chemists would not be taken seriously. Sensory experiences has as yet not been fully broken down to a value scale. These idiots who buy $3000 cables know they are being screwed, and they love it. Next month they buy a new cable for twice as much, not being happy with weakeing sensation. Audio engineers are not the ultimate in picking out the best sounding violin or other musical instruments. Basic measurements are OK as start, like the pH of wine, but are incomplete. Imagination and wishful thinking can be pretty powerful.
Yes, test equipment can measure distortion and other artifacts below -150 dB, where human ears struggle to hear distortion that's only 40-50 dB below the music. It's clear you've never tested this, so hold your strong opinions until you've learned a little about your own hearing. Here you go: ethanwiner.com/audibility.html You should also educate yourself about null testing, which works perfectly well using music as a test signal. Did you even watch this video? Null testing is explained early on: ruclips.net/video/Zvireu2SGZM/видео.htmlm08s And then demonstrated in my other AES Workshop video: ruclips.net/video/BYTlN6wjcvQ/видео.htmlm39s As for $3,000 wires, people who buy into that BS really do think the sound is better. They too understand little about their own hearing. This shows a Null Tester hardware device proving that expensive RCA wires pass audio exactly the same as a $3 RCA wire: ruclips.net/video/ZyWt3kANA3Q/видео.html
If there were any worthwhile awards for contributions to truth and understanding in audio, then Ethan Winer should indeed be at the head of the queue.
He's not in this to separate you from your money or even to make friends.
Respect.
Thanks very much!
This is just incredible! The amount of knowledge, research, writing, editing, narration, audio and visual references... Holy crap how much effort and experience went into this!>!?!?
There needs to be some kind of Nobel peace prize for truth in audio.
I nominate Ethan Winer.
Nobel peace prize lol. Simplistic minded fool is more appropriate.
are you sure of what you are saying ? hehehehe
strange love I worked in R&D on that fly by wire system (A330) and it didn’t involve fancy OFC cables. Rather more concerning was redundancy in computing and software issues. The audio industry makes much money out of all the snake oil fallacies.
@Dirk Knight Can you recommend a title for _beginner's textbook on audio technology_?
@Dirk Knight I guess my point is that actual scientific information is not easy to find because it's purposely drowned by tons of marketing stuff disguised as technical material. I feel I'm luckier than the typical audiophile because my engineering training, while not in electronics, helps me sniff out the BS.
Well the reason why companies do not touch any of this...
Simple....the actual truth does not sell 3000usd cables and 12000 usd amplifiers. Audio is these days a business model, and a very successful one.
Extremely well presented- with excellent narration, graphics, and information, and covering a lot of important ground.
Excellent.Thanks for assembling the data and making it available.
An excellent and very informative video. A few things to add:
1. Two forms of inaccuracy not mentioned here, at least not directly: modulation noise, and phase shift. Phase shift comes under the rubric of frequency response, but must be specified separately from the amplitude response. (Exception: If you can positively assure that the whole system is minimum-phase, then in theory knowing the amplitude response gives the phase response. However, even then, small amplitude errors could lead to larger phase errors, and the reverse as well.)
2. Modulation noise usually tends to cluster right near the original signal in the frequency domain, so instruments designed to measure THD and IM won't pick it up, with the usual methods. (OTOH that same proximity tends to mask its audibility.)
3. Has the audibility of phase distortion finally been characterized clearly. Decades ago, it seemed there were thousands of papers on this subject, with each presumably claimed to shed new light on the subject.
4. Slew rate may be a relevant measurement for line-level analog circuits, but for power amps, power bandwidth seems to show what's going on more clearly.
5. Many claims have been made about less negative feedback being better on account of better handling of high-frequency, high-power signals. I could never understand that. You either have the necessary power bandwidth or you don't, and feedback or the lack of it doesn't change that, as far as I can see.
6. Objective measurements (using the usual parameters) can indeed tell you how accurately a device reproduces sound, but the problem is that the amount of data can become huge. And as you indicate, when it comes to mics and speakers, the data can even go beyond three dimensions, as you account for level, frequency, and direction, just to start with. Computers are a big help with this, but of course, using them to good effect is not always a trivial matter.
Fabulous post Ronald, thanks! You said it all, but I'll address #3: Phase shift in usual amounts is not audible. It's one of those bogey men that uneducated hi-fi reviewers and forum posters indict for various ills they believe they hear or don't understand. in my earlier Audio Myths Workshop video I offer demonstrations of phase shift, and even with very large amounts smack in the middle of the audible range it's not an issue. This link goes right to that part of the video:
ruclips.net/video/BYTlN6wjcvQ/видео.htmlm45s
Thank you Ethan & Co. This video was most appreciated.
I would love to have you step in my space and do a video explaining all the problems … so fascinating!!!
GREAT Video, I will have to watch it many times, I'm looking at the "Analog Discovery 2" its computer based software and its does more than a digital scope (its based on a Built in sound Card) after searching the web I think this it the best for me instead of the old testing Equipment (E-bay) which is very good but old. The Analog Discovery 2 is growing and they "Digilent" will keep updating the software and I hope it will be around for a while, what do you think of Digilent.-Analog Discovery 2 ????
I'm not familiar with that device, but I've had very good results with this software 'scope that costs even less:
audioxpress.com/article/usb-oscilloscopes-a-look-at-the-labnation-smartscope
I also use the LTspice freeware for software simulation of circuits, which is even easier than building prototypes on a breadboard. This article shows how it works and has links for download:
audioxpress.com/article/you-can-diy-build-the-mojo-maestro
respect Ethan. I value how sincere you are in demystifying the subject matter. thank you
Thanks!
Excellent and clear presentation. I know you weren't here for the last workshop I presented on TIM distortion, but I want to mention that there is a third, more effective test for TIM that was developed by Robert R. Cordell at Bell Labs. It uses three tones and meets these qualifications: (1) inexpensive lnstrumentation, (2) simple measurement procedure, (3) good sensitivity (particularly to midband even- and
odd-order IM products), (4) in-band stimulus and response, (5) good subjective correlation due to music-like test signal risetimes. I set up this demonstration at my last B.A.S.S. workshop in April, which, unfortunately coincided with an AES event in NYC that weekend, so you were unable to attend.
just when I start thinking Im getting a grasp on a concept someone goes and 180's it :). thanks for all well laid out information that redirected me correctly. People like you make learning much less stress full. Thanks.
I learned a bunch of things that I wasn't sure about before. Thanks.
Very helpful primer for the audio enthusiast!! Thank you for your efforts!
the high damping factor values are due to how much negative feedback the amp has. it actively steers against the back emf instead of just relying on output impedance
Yes, exactly.
5:49 this might be the most important and valuable statement I've ever heard
In 37:45 is incorrect picture. -97 dBFS is SUM of noise in ALL frequencies. Noise on ONE frequency can be as low as -130 dBFS and it's depend on FFT size and FFT window type of used analizer.
This graph is based on Figure 4.14 from the book "The Art of Digital Audio" by John Watkinson. The caption in John's book reads: "Effects of sample clock jitter on signal-to-noise ratio at different frequencies, compared with theoretical noise floors of systems with different resolutions. (After W.T. Shelton, with permission.)"I re-drew the graph for clarity, keeping only the horizontal line showing the noise level for 16-bit resolution. The original graph shows the noise levels for 18 bits at around -108 dB, and for 20 bits at around -121 dB. So I'm confident this graph is not misleading.
Ethan Winer I dont want to start large technical discussion here. But I just give you one example. Do it yourself. Create 32 bit 44.1 kHz file and generate 1 kHz tone with peak level at -100 dBFS. Convert this file to 16/44 with 1-bit TPDF dither. After that you can clearly see in the analizer and hear by your ear the 1 kHz tone at -100 dBFS level in 16-bit file with "-96 dBFS noise floor".
I don't disagree! I guess I could have been clearer. The disparity between the sum of noise, whether weighted or not, versus noise at individual frequencies in an FFT graph, can be confusing. At best it makes it difficult to relate what we see with how loud it will sound. The same goes for distortion shown in an FFT, which appears less than a THD spec that sums all the distortion components together into a single number.
Very impressed at the wealth of information and effort put into this.
Many thanks to the guy who made this video.
Meh.
This is a great comprehensive video Ethan! Thanks for making it!
For Ethan Winer, dabbling in circuit design = I built 3 synthesisers (and a mixing desk)
Winer is self contradictive
@@strangelove9608
"I built some audio gear in high school"
"but you have uploaded no youtube videos"
?????????
@@strangelove9608 you're goofy
Damn that's harsh
Thank you Ethan for sharing. Great stuff.............way over my head but I did learn a few things. There is hope for my puny little studio with less than very expensive gear.
My shop, as it appeared a few years ago at 1:30. :)
And what a nice shop it is. Thanks Mark!
Great video from a great lecture that reinforced much of what I learned many years ago and believed. That is, until I started seeing a number of variances recently in what was said about fidelity, and the performance of stereo eqpt. more recently. Primarily how 2 devices can measure about the same, yet sound radically different. damn lie.
Thanks for helping to dispel the snake oil in the world of hifi. I'm in the midst of learning this stuff to purchase a system. Do you recommend publications other than Stereophile that use objective methods when reviewing gear?
thanks
+Nick A First, Stereophile is not really objective. They do sometimes show measurements, but they also print highly favorable reviews of nonsense products like super expensive wires that are no better than normal wires. Sadly, there are very few hi-fi magazines you can trust to give you the facts. Hi-Fi News in England has printed honest articles, but I haven't seen enough of the magazine to assess it generally. The Audio Critic used to be fabulous, but they stopped publishing some years ago. You can still download many of their back issues here:
www.theaudiocritic.com/
The best source I know of to learn how audio works are the dozens of articles on my web site, and also my Audio Expert book:
ethanwiner.com/articles.html
ethanwiner.com/book.htm
The following is to Oneness100 who posted literally thousands of words of ignorant blather, this is *not* to Nick A above:
This thread will be gone by the time you see this post, but you might consider following me on Facebook. I went to the MIT site yesterday and looked at their white papers. What I read pegged my bullshit meter far into the red, so I decided to do an exposé about this fraudulent company for my friends and followers to enjoy. Watch for it, I'm sure you'll enjoy it too. While you're at it, invite the clowns at MIT to have a look too. My Facebook posts are all public, visible to anyone with a Facebook account.
Fascinating share!!!
45:37 Just curious.. is this room overkill, or done correctly? Very interesting presentation...
breezyjr This is not really overkill, and the photo "stretching" style exaggerates the perceived size of the panels. But this much treatment is not needed for excellent results! The room shown is owned by a well-known mastering engineer, and he needs his room and system to be as flat as possible without regard to cost.
Ethan Winer Thanks for the info.... I was at least hoping it wasn't for a home user, which I imagine would make it overkill... Knowing it is for an engineer, makes sense, for someone who is probably a perfectionist....
This video is a must see for would-be savvy audiophiles as well as audio engineers. As usual Ethan is crystal clear, concise for a complex topic, and technically right-on. However, Dorsey's claim that two mic mfgrs show a graph where the 0deg and 180deg plots have been switched is incorrect. As their polar responses would indicate, real directional mics often exhibit a HF boost, and at VLF, effectively less directionality at those extremes toward the back. (The exception is a bidirectional fig8 mic.)
[Don't fret, as some forums have, about the audio in the video - it's the content that counts! And ironic as it might seem, in my 40yr attending and presenting at AES conferences around the world, the PA audio has always sucked!] - R Miller
Good video Ethan! It's about time someone (who knows what they are speaking about) started doing Audio related Videos to educate those who are interested in Audio and understanding what constitutes Hign Fidelity audio! I'm sorry I'm just seeing this now.
Thanks Gary, there are many more educational videos on my RUclips channel.
ethan do i need to design an external sha and lowpass filter before reaching the adc or adc's LIKE APOGEE rosetta have those circuits inside ?
I don't know what an "sha" is, but all converters provide the needed filtering both in and out.
This is a great review!!! Thank you Mr. Ethan!
Awesome stuff!
Thank you Mr. Ethan. Thank you very much sir....
Is there anything to be said about recording engineers mixing a track based on what they may perceive as the average listeners playback system?
Mixing and mastering engineers are quite aware that many people have playback with lesser quality than they enjoy while mixing. The main difference is the room, more than the equipment and speakers. This is from my Audio Expert book:
If you're a recording engineer you may ask why you need acoustic treatment at all, since few people listening to the music you create will be in a room that's acoustically treated. The reason is simple: All rooms sound differently, both in their amount of liveness and frequency response. If you create a mix that sounds good in your room, which has its own particular frequency response, it's likely to sound very different in other rooms. For example, if your room lacks deep bass, your mixes will probably contain too much bass as you incorrectly compensate for what you hear. And if someone plays your music in a room that has too much deep bass, the mixing error will be exaggerated and they'll hear *way* too much deep bass. Therefore, the only practical solution is to make your room as accurate and neutral as possible so any variation others experience is due solely to the response of their own room. Most people are probably used to the non-flat response of their room anyway.
Isn’t this very issue one of the main reasons that mixing engineers still seem to love Yamaha NS-10s?
“If a mix sounds good on NS-10s, it’s going to work on any other playback system.” That’s the old ethos in a nutshell.
Also, mixing engineers add crappy playback systems intentionally. CLA has a cheap boombox wired up in his multi-million-dollar studio to run mixes through, for example, and it isn’t uncommon for mix engineers to copy a rough mix to their phone’s music library and go out for a drive, monitoring the mix through their car stereo systems, or listen on a cheap set of ear buds.
The bulk of the work is done in well-treated rooms through high-end playback gear, but it often still double-checked on cheap, lo-fi systems to be sure the music translates well in almost any listening context. At least that is my understanding, and certainly how I would do it if I were mixing professionally.
I am guessing pro tools has a graphic equalizer that can measure the frequency response? I haven’t found it yet. Is there a plug in you recommend when running these tests?
An equalizer changes the response, where an analyzer *measures* the response. I'm not familiar with what comes with Pro Tools, but look for RTA or FFT or "analyzer."
@@EthanWiner thank you for your responsiveness
@@EthanWiner logic equalizers are also analyzers so it’s a bit synonymous
That's true, some EQ plug-ins include a real time analyzer display.
Which of the four measurement categories do group delay and phase delay come under?
Those would come under time-based effects because both are frequency-dependent time shift.
My biggest problem today is the overuse of compression and peak limiting. The loudness wars are continuing and too many are using plugins just because they can. I can see it in my DAW and now stop buying music from some artists. Maybe it is because too many artists are using streaming services and feel that quality is lost anyway.
Excellent
Great video Ethan
There is also the issue pointed out by Toole and many others that recording engineers often do not have accurate monitors. so one has to be prepared to change the sound at the consumer end to make things sound the way they ought. Buy an EQ!
Did Toole really say that? Recording engineers working in high end studios *ABSOLUTELY DO* have accurate monitoring. And a lot more accurate than what Floyd has. See the second half of this article:
ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm
The main reason to buy an EQ for hi-fi use is to change the sound of a recording to your preference. Or maybe your bookshelf speakers roll off at 70 Hz or some other too-high frequency, so you need to boost the low end a bit. And maybe in some cases you are compensating for someone else's poor monitoring, but that's rare for music from major record companies.
Thanks for posting these wonderful stuff.
It's weird that a genelec monitor is shown when talking about badly reported specs, since they give the specs immaculately.
My intent wasn't to single out any manufacturer, and checking now I see that Genelec even includes distortion in their specs. Excellent!
@@EthanWiner could you clarify, if a portable digital recorder has low-gain preamps compared to another with good preamps with lot of clean gain, do you consider them to be equally transparent?
Strictly speaking, the gain of a preamp has nothing to do with its quality. The main specs for quality are frequency response, noise, and distortion. So one preamp could have 60 dB of available gain but with poor specs, and another preamp having only 40 dB of gain could have excellent fidelity.
This is all very interesting. But what do I buy.
You buy the audio gear that has the flattest response, with the lowest noise and distortion.
@@EthanWiner How do I find that actual info on a product. You highlight how much 'marketing' is out there. How do I sift through it.
Or just gimme the 'Ethan Picks'
LOL, tell me what you're looking for and maybe I can make some suggestions. I don't know every model of what's out there, so I usually stick with major brands.
@@EthanWiner Thanks for responding even lol. Just so much BS going on in audio...when all I want is to listen to the music I love and enjoy it. I'm sold that better gear results in more satisfying listening that is less fatiguing. Just looking to maximize my damn bucks. And not get fooled by sly marketing.
What's your system? Sorry if this has been answered else where.
@@krsp420 This video tour shows my main living room system that serves for both home theater and stereo music: ruclips.net/video/VxbTDGSs_aA/видео.html
Fantastic video! You really covered all the bases with exceptionally clear explanations. I am curious though not so much about fidelity as what it is that makes one component universally sound better than another as there so many variables and the speakers/room acoustics should be the most critical.
I currently have 4 different audio systems and the best sounding one by a large margin is a relatively modest one using a single ended Japanese triode amplifier with no negative feedback - I've had dozens of people tell me they believe it sounds better than any stereo they have ever heard. On paper it has higher distortion and lower output power but it really sounds absolutely incredible. Are we all just crazy/deaf/stupid or what?
Thanks for the great video!
RUclips comments is not a good venue for tech Q&A. But I'm glad to discuss this further if you post at my Audio Expert forum:forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/forums/24/1
What is that system?
Very informative.
While I agree wholeheartedly with every word of this video, and realize that "snake oil" nonsense is more prevalent among audiophile equipment reviewers, manufacturers, and resellers than just about anywhere else, I'd like to explain that the terms mentioned at the beginning of this video are just layman's terms for audio characteristics we are all familiar with. A "forward sound" signature is one in which the midrange or vocal frequency range is emphasized by a few decibels. A "sterile sound" signature is one in which the sound is completely uncolored by harmonics - solid state device sound "sterile" compared to hybrid tube designs, for example. A "musical" sound signature is one colored by harmonics, and/or one in which the highest frequencies are slightly smoothed by a lessening of transients. And "fast bass" is a result of excellent transient response, a high damping factor, and possibly a slight reduction in the upper bass/lower mids that can make bass muddy. These terms are no different than other terms we use to describe the sound signature of audio equipment - especially speakers - such as, "warm", "bassy", "bright", etc.
Thanks for your detailed post, Michael. I agree with pretty much everything you said. I have no problem with bassy or bright, though I still prefer the more precise wording when possible.
@@EthanWiner Thanks. As a scientific type, I prefer the more accurate wording as well. I was just explaining what the terms mean to the general public. I wish you guys would do more "snake oil" videos. They are most entertaining.
Both my boston acoustics and paradigm speakers have woofer much smaller then on the official specs. Monitor 9 its really a 4.5' but stated to be 5.5' and Boston A26 its a 5.5' stated to be 6.5'. They measure the groove line in the surrounding as if been part of the woofer, its really a joke. Most of my vintage speakers are more musical: large cabinet and woofer. The mids are surrounding, the bass has ease and power at the same time. The rooms gets filled but not only with bass and punch like those multi stacked woofers on floorstanders. The actal trend in audio seems all wrong. And people get down to only what they can explain so feelings have been thrown out of the equation. Scientific approach! Thats the meaning of sterile by the way. But somehow I agree with most of what you guys said. Thanks !
Wanted to add, to sond more modest, I have lerned much with your workshop, the first one too. Thnks again.
Ethan, should I seek out cheap Chinese sweat shop components so as to be "Smart"... ? Or am I ok to buy USA, EU and Japan made Hi-Fi that might not sound better to my ears, but it sure looks, smells, feels, and makes me feel good! ???
LOL, what?
@@EthanWiner Can you see the value in buying Hi-FI gear not only for good sound (a given), but for the quality of it's build? The fact that it's made with well paid and proud employees? How do you measure Chinese sweat shop labor vs UK, US and Japan labor? What I'm trying to say is, there are many reasons to buy high end not relating just to how it measures..
I mostly address audio fidelity, though build quality matters too. Mainly because we'd like our devices to last forever rather than break 3 days after the warranty runs out. Appearance matters too, though to a lesser extent. But it's a mistake to believe that everything made in China is inferior. A *LOT* of stuff is made in China, and elsewhere in Asia, and a lot of it is very high quality. Do you own any Apple products?
Since you mentioned "high end" I'll add that some of the most expensive stuff is actually worse than consumer grade gear. Not all, of course. But more than you might think. And there's never a reason to pay more than a few dollars per foot for wire, or a few dollars per watt for power amplifiers. A CD player than costs $10,000 is a rip-off and can't possibly be worth that amount.
@@EthanWiner I own Apple products and I'm ashamed at the way they treat their workers... check this out: ruclips.net/video/vpHy-2Cebco/видео.html
@@EthanWiner ruclips.net/video/fjM6Wp11a00/видео.html
excellent
Awesome as always!
Hello Ethan! I was at the 2013 AES in New York, but regrettably not on the day of your panel.Do you spend much time on the Usenet group rec.audio.pro?
I used to visit about ten audio forums every day. But when I started working on my Audio Expert book I had to reduce that activity, and then I was out of the habit. I still visit some forums, and I have my own now where people can ask questions about my videos and articles. You're welcome to post there: the-audio-expert.freeforums.net/
@@EthanWiner Thanks for your advice and concise explanations!
It seems like Paul of PS audio has engage in a bit of battle with you. It seems he is more on the audiophile side of... audio! And you, from a more engineering perspective.
Great stuff.......
28:11 the data sheet may be misleading but it's explicit enough that I can tell you that's a Chinese RK47 capsule
heck - i bought a pretty expensive microphone a few years back that included NO specs ... just not available.
A fool and his money is soon parted.
@@analoguejames8514 perhaps but i think it was $2500 very well spent!
@@analoguejames8514 look them up! Brauner microphones are one of the best regarded studio microphones on the planet!
Good stuff.
Ethan Winer one of smartest audio guys on the planet. His last name should be “Winner”
Thanks Vadim.
Your hero is a zero.
About the tirst part: not bad as far as it goes. But the real truth is that it is really hard for anyone but a psychoacoustics expert to tell from specifications what the sound will really be like because, it the context that nothing is perfect, it is necessary to have information on what the audible effects of measured errors is. This information is really hard to come by and often is not really known in detail. Of course it a piece of equipment is essentially flawless, then this is not needed. But if the errors are audible, then what they do to the listener is not clear from data on the errors. One has to have a model of what one is going to hear. All this makes sense only in the case where the errors are insignificant in audible terms. In general, it is not so simple as this discussion suggests, though it is correct as far as it goes(mostly)
Other than speakers and the room, all competent modern audio devices are clean enough to not color the sound. In other words, there's no difference between 0.005 and 0.009 percent distortion because neither is audible. And it doesn't take an expert ear to know what a roll-off of 5 dB down at 10 KHz sounds like (slightly muffled). It just takes a little practice with an equalizer. If you want a flat response - and you should! - the solution is good speakers, and plenty of bass traps and other acoustic treatment. Then you use software such as Room EQ Wizard to verify the result. These may help:
AES Damn Lies video about measurements:
ruclips.net/video/Zvireu2SGZM/видео.html
Acoustic Basics:
realtraps.com/art_basics-ht.htm
Room EQ Wizard:
realtraps.com/art_measuring.htm
So you´ve described in great detail what´s all about....
Thank you so much!!
And if you just *invert* at least the damping factor and/or the slew rate statements, then we are where all this ´high-end´ rippoffers are. they all talk about big bottom and bass with a deep fundament or whatever scumwords the came with...its just this. Slow devices with weak damping factor makes the speaker to to what he whants not what he need to do....
Furthermore hardly one of these magazine authors nor the listeners/readers will understand one word when someone will do some serious explainings, as you in this video here....
Specs are great, but in the car example dBA certainly does not tell the entire story of auto NVH.
Specs can tell you everything. What specifically are you claiming?
@@EthanWiner I’ve been in vehicles that measure quieter than others (using a-weighting as is standard in auto industry reviews), but are less aurally comfortable or more fatiguing. Quality of sound can be more important than quantity, but maybe that’s an issue where the auto industry reviewers are not taking enough measurements. Since cars have a lot of low frequency noise it seems like dBC or dBZ would be necessary at a minimum. Does that make sense?
Oh, you mean car noise, as opposed to the noise from audio devices. Specs can still tell you how loud the noise is, but you're correct that some frequencies are more irritating than others. Fletcher-Munson probably applies in cars too, with 3-4 KHz being more irritating than 500 Hz. But very low frequencies are felt as much as heard. So maybe those specs should go further than just apply weighting curves to a single number, and instead show specific dB SPL levels in octave or even third-octave bands.
Great video
Quite the contrary.
at least I prob. have more exposure to test methods for rooms than many
This should be watched by everyone before entering the Hifi market.
adjectives can be TREMENDOUSLY useful to describe things. See also: english 101. not just a snarky comment ... but seems to be something that most people overlook. we use language for conveying concepts that numbers cannot. for example - saying a given loudspeaker has 'more definition' 'more detail' etc ... or saying that one can 'follow individual instruments' much better with this or that component i think is VERY CLEAR. How would you measure THAT?
You can't measure words like that because they don't mean the same thing to all people. So such wording is not useful, and borders on nonsense. However, to me "detail" is a flat (or exaggerated) high frequency response. Lose the treble and you lose detail. Same for "definition." This excerpt is from my Audio Expert book, which I'm sure you and others here would benefit from:
Earlier I mentioned that I prefer the term "low-cut" rather than "high-pass" when changing the frequency response in the bass range, because those are the frequencies being affected. Both are technically correct, but some common audio terms make less sense. For example, "warm," "cold," "sterile," "digital," "forward," "silky," and so forth are not useful because they don't mean the same thing to everyone. On the other hand, "3 dB down at 200 Hz" is precise and leaves no room for misinterpretation. Of course, "warm" and "cold" or "sterile" could describe the relative amount of high-frequency content. But saying "subdued or exaggerated highs" is still better than "sterile" in my opinion. However, many of the terms I see are nonsensical.
Sometimes people refer to a piece of gear as being "musical" sounding or "resolving," but what does that really mean? What sounds musical to you may not sound musical to me. Some people like the added bass you get from a hi-fi receiver's Loudness setting. To me that usually makes music sound tubby, unless the music is already too thin sounding. The same goes for a slight treble boost to add sheen or a slight treble cut to reduce harshness. Whether these response changes sound pleasing or not is highly dependent on the music being played, the specific frequencies being boosted or cut, and personal preference.
I don't think we need yet more adjectives to describe audio fidelity when we already have perfectly good ones. Some audiophile words are even sillier, such as "fast bass," which is an oxymoron. The common audiophile terms "PRaT" (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing) take this absurdity to new heights, because these words already have a specific musical meaning unrelated to whatever audiophiles believe they are conveying. Some of the worst examples of nonsensical audio terms I've seen arose from a discussion in a hi-fi audio forum. One fellow [a reviewer for Stereophile magazine] claimed that digital audio misses capturing certain aspects of music compared to analog tape and LP records. So I asked him to state some *specific* properties of sound that digital audio is unable to record. Among his list were tonal texture, transparency in the midrange, bloom and openness, substance, and the organic signature of instruments. I explained that those are not legitimate audio properties, but he remained convinced of his beliefs anyway.
@@EthanWiner it's all in how you use the dialectic - if you can have flabby bass say, then why not it's opposite - 'tight or defined' bass? i certainly get a pretty good idea what someone means by that. perhaps a word (or number) is only useful to the ear of the beholder ... numbers can be equally misleading of course too ... you know the adage: 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'! I certainly don't mind someone conveying their experience to me via spoken (or written) language. I am in a group online doing a lot of electronic modifications to equipment and often we report the results of changing various components (mostly capacitors etc) or doing regulator mods and need a quick efficient way of explaining the resutls of the modifications ... works pretty well for us.
and i guess - the converse to 'measuring words' is that numbers won't tell you what a loudspeaker's characteristics are the way that words will .... there's simply no translation or why of telling you what their transient characteristics are like or if they have grating treble or floppy boomy bass ...
"Grating treble" and time-based issues with bass are easily measured. Same for the differences between capacitors. There's no magic, and nothing about audio devices that's not fully understood by audio engineers. This is a great quote by a great scientist that you'll do well to understand:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science."
--Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson), nineteenth-century physicist
no i'm not saying there's any 'magic' whatsoever - except in a fantastic album you love etc perhaps. but it IS useful to use such adjectives for common folk who DON'T happen to drag around microphones and scopes to the local hifi shop in order to communicate their experiences with others - it also happens to be the case that a lot of the people who are attracted to that 'high end' world CAN be predisposed to pretentious language .... but maybe that's a separate issue!
This is why I prefer THX certified components. They actually meet the stated specifications
I just had to google my speaker and amp specs as I am watching this, just to see what's going on :)
the amount of ads in this video is insane
I use the free Ad Blocker Plus so I never see ads on RUclips. But in this case I can't disable the ads. The copyright owners of some of the music clips I used put in claims, so *THEY* monetized the video and there's nothing I can do. Sorry!
Steve use RUclips Vanced android app and you will have zero ads 😉
I think you say that most modern equipment is 'transparent'. At Lindos Electronics we have tested many devices and found that many do not live up to this claim, and in particular many devices described as '24-bit' fall far short of even 16-bit performance. Here is a video showing a handheld recorder, the Zoom H4n, highly praised by many who recommend it for video sound - the results are quite shocking!
ruclips.net/video/3NDcjR4VTsE/видео.html 'Zoom H4n Review'
Nice video. And nice test device. I agree that the left-right phase shift difference is pretty bad, and also surprising! But even by your own words the rest seems good enough to be transparent. I have an original H2 and its preamps have more noise than I'd like. But it's only when recording very soft material. It does a lot for a device costing only $150.
@@EthanWiner Not my words, my sons ! I designed the MS20 test set used in the video - he will sell you one for only £800 :-)
@@lindosland I'll take two! :->)
It does not help that the FTC repealed the requirements that had been in place in the 70's for standard specification presentation. I know of no two manufactures that even come close to stating specs in similar methods. Low frequencies are also greatly effected by the actual loudspeaker connected to an amplifier. The almost currently unseen Damping Factor specification will help you know how closely the woofer/sub-woofer may be able to match its motion compared to the signal being sent to it.
haha wow - it's the old rec.audio.pro gang workshop
Who the hell gave this a thumbs down? Sometimes I think there is no hope for our species....
People who spent $$$$ on "hi-tech" audio gear believing it would make their music sound better.
The companies that are lying to you and taking your money!
and of course anyone of those analogue lovers that cant understand physics and technical objective measurements in audio, so they "rate" their systems using adjectives like "superb sound, warmer, incredible space" and BS like that
What you truly mean to say is music does not move you emotionally at any level. Enjoy your Bose radio flat earther lol.
It must be tiring saying "would you like fries with that" all day long.
wow ..
i'll need several more views to absorb that amount of knowledge :)
I only accept full bandwidth all channels driven
I agree with everything said Ethan but I think I know what they mean by fast bass. Of course they are just using very bad terminology.
I'm confident they are referring to transient freq response of bass driver. As in not lacking from amp with poor damping factor or inadequate cable to carry current etc.
Love your work. You'r prone to a lot of unjustified criticism by these mislead people but understand there's a lot of us that highly value factual knowledge and the efforts real audio engineers have made to create quality without the voodoo. And, of course your efforts in purifying the truth here.
Mark Lowe more expensive subs like Rythmik allow you to have control in the amount of damping. I have set mine to ‘high’ though, as I have found it provides better bass definition. You can crank up the volume more when the damping switch is set ‘low’ without damaging the driver, which is also recommended for movies by Rythmik, but some detail/clarity is lost - from my own experience.
The most evil and misleading specs I have seen: a/v receiver power ratings.
Correction....new receivers ...older ones not. They cut corners these days. You also see it in the mid range amplifier world.
Michel Linschoten iirc, luxman, denon and even sansui of the 80’s had real output. My 2006 denon had 1/3 rated power. It was weak.
@@scottlowell493
First I've heard of an underperforming Denon. What model was that?
Ethan is like the Steve Wozniak of Audio
I'll take that as a compliment! Woz is one of my heroes.
@@EthanWiner its far from an insult.
19 Voodoo Lemmings was here...
You understand most of audiophile are fooled when they always choose the most expensive components in audio reproduction. Due to unmeasurable quality of certain products. Just cause they like it. Well it's certainly strange you always like the most expensive components if it's just a matter of liking it.
Let audiophile choose components with double blind tests and all the audiophile market collapse.
To be clear, there is no aspect of audio that can be heard but not measured. But you are correct that hi-fi these days is more about buying expensive stuff than enjoying good sound. If sound quality was truly important to audiophiles, every one of them would have acoustic treatment in their room. More here:
ethanwiner.com/hi-fi.htm
@@EthanWiner I agree with that. But when people talk for example about ethernet audio stuff I get angry. I'm an IT tech in networking. I can explain easily why 10000$ eth cables are fool as 1000$ eth audio grade switch 8p. Just lies about that.
LOL, yes, expensive USB and CAT5 wires etc for digital audio are just stupid.
I’m obsessed. If this was a cult, I’d join.
hahaha 6 MOONS the place to be for snake oil reviews.... they look professional . up to where you read stuff about acoustics using all kinds of expensive metals to make bowls that really make your room sound nice... SCAM! oh dont forget to mention some kind of exotic woods tuned by some Japanese guy.
same goes for the videos about THE MOST EXPENSIVE SET bla bla all tunes by some excotic japanese dude that uses useless wood (look nice) on random places and then..... it sounds great of course.
Jealous much lol.
@@analoguejames8514 Salty much lmfao
@@analoguejames8514 yeah placing wood on random pieces makes me jalous :) why did i not think of this scam...
This is simply ridiculous! Measurements are all well and good, but how can you measure Harry Pearson's "Golden Ears"? (Oh, OK, I know he's gone beyond the veil, but you all get the point) That's like trying to analyze Robert Parker's tastebuds! Forget that Karl Popper would likely be laughing uncontrollably at the notion that the *theory* that subjective impressions of any phenomenon, including audio fidelity, unaccompanied by empirical evidence constitute a valid analytical methodology that has greater predictive power and is experimentally testable.
Such isn't science; it's Deepak Chopra/David Icke territory.
There's a big difference between subjective impression and measuring the fidelity of audio electronic devices. You seem to be addressing the former, where this video addresses only the latter. If you don't understand that fidelity (not preference) is easily measured, perhaps you need to watch this video again.
@@EthanWiner - I think you REALLY missed my point. Read the first three sentences ironically. My last sentence explicitly states my disdain for Subjectivism.
LOL, got it. You can see the sort of nonsense I've gotten used to replying too! This happens ALL THE TIME. I talk about measuring fidelity, and some moron says "You can't measure a symphony." This recent article addresses exactly that:
www.audioxpress.com/article/why-doesn-t-my-stereo-sound-like-a-live-concert
@@EthanWiner - we're talking about possibly a difference in 3 orders of magnitude in the volume of a good symphony hall vs. Joe-Bob's living room. There are thousands of bodies and few right angles, and many venues are actively tuned these days. OF COURSE it won't sound the same.
This is the difference between Dogmatic thinking and Critical thinking. The Dogmatist starts with the proposition that his system should sound like a live event. It does not; ergo, his system is less than perfect. The Critical thinker starts with a problem, that being "why does my system not sound like a live event?" Then she identifies the constraints on the problem, such as "can current recording technology capture a live event such that the live event and recording are indistinguishable?" "Can any listening space become invisible with respect to the information received by the listener?" One doesn't need more than that to conclude that the problem is currently insoluble.
Too many people delude themselves into believing they are critical thinkers when they are not. (trying to get a handle on quantum gravity has pointed me to Karl Popper and now I'm totally screwed up)
I like the way you think. You can get close to the live concert experience if you "remove the room" with acoustic treatment. I address that in my article above. There's also a link to a fabulous RUclips video where a black belt mixing engineer shows how he makes recorded music sound better than the real thing.
Why the 👎🏻👎🏼👎🏽👎🏾👎🏿???
Believe it or not, there's a large faction of audio fanciers who don't believe in measurements.
@@EthanWiner 😂
Some people enjoy being lied to be the audiophile equivalent of a religious huckster. Ideologues will also defend their pseudoscientific and subjective claims using name calling and offence taking, they may also accuse you of being too objective and clinical. If you are selling audiophile gear, sadly you need to position yourself somewhere midway between an engineer and a mystic or you will not sell anything.
Your point is well put. Not all audio salespeople are crooks, though too many sure are! Worse, some audio salespeople are so uneducated they actually believe their own BS:
ethanwiner.com/hi-fi.htm
I always trust Consumer Reports. ;-)
so basically, just buy studio monitors to listen to music at home
All studio monitors are not excellent, but many are. And you usually get better quality versus cost compared to many expensive "home" speakers.
@@EthanWiner thank you, sir, for your answer. I have another question: could we notice the difference between cheap and expensive caparitors in crossover network and, if yes, to what extent should we upgrade the caps to be cost effective?
Some types of capacitors have more distortion than others, especially when used in a crossover. It's more about type than cost. The article below shows measurements for several types, though this is about coupling capacitors that are not active in the middle of the audio range. But any speaker that's any good will have crossover caps of the correct type.
audioxpress.com/article/practical-test-measurement-stop-worrying-about-coupling-capacitors
I thank that in general, upgrading gear you already own is a waste of time. Do you have bass traps and other acoustic treatment? That will do *much more* to improve sound quality than changing capacitors in a loudspeaker's crossover.
Maybe now I'll take the plunge. Too much BS out there but this cuts through.
Another fantastic no BS video Ethan, you really are an asset to the audio and acoustics community.
Around 9 years ago I acoustically treated my home recording studio and your forum was my go to resource for that project.
Coincidentally my next bit of diy is building a new amplifier for my main listening system, and my main interest was transparency and low distortion (without the high price tag) I happened to come across you video and my chosen amp project on the same day.
I think you'll approve of all of the measurements and specs the designer quoted on the site (I'm not the creator of this circuit)
www.neurochrome.com/modulus-86/
Thanks for the nice note. And that amplifier looks amazing! I'll be glad to hear how that project turns out when you're done. Either here or in my Audio Expert forum:
the-audio-expert.freeforums.net/
Forgive my ignorance,but why should we trust the measurments of these machines.I assume our ears are "analogue",why trust a "digital" machine? Sound waves are analogue,yet we want to measure them with a digital machine? My ears will tell me if I like a sound and my mouth will tell me if I like the taste of something etc .I know this view is very simplistic ,just trying to understand.If someone could direct me to more videos/ reading i would be gratful..thanks for the video..it make me think ;)
Did you watch the whole video? It's hardly simplistic, and it explains why test equipment is more reliable and more accurate than human hearing. Good audio test equipment is calibrated to high standards, and gives the same readings every time. Versus listening that varies from day to day or even minute to minute depending on your mood. There's also the Null Test that this video explains clearly. That's even simpler and more direct than measuring distortion or frequency response manually.
If you want to learn more, my earlier AES Audio Myths video has a lot of additional information:
ruclips.net/video/BYTlN6wjcvQ/видео.html
And if you want the *complete* story, my Audio Expert book has 808 pages of exactly what you're looking for:
ethanwiner.com/book.htm
On a scientific level, the mechanics for our hearing is already well documented.
Knowing how the hearing works mechanically means it possible to asses wheter tests are acurate enough for the mechanical part of our hearing.
The interperation of signals is not fully documented, and never will be, because our mechanical hearing interpreted by our brain, differ from every person, and even during a day, a persons hearing will change.
How sound is tranferred through the air is also well documented. It moves with air pressure waves.
And how to translate those waves in to a signal that cna then be sent through another equipment to re-generate that wave is also known.
With modern technology achievements in those areas have led to results where we can often record and reproduce at higher sensitivity than our mechanical hearing. So to our hearing it will sound the same. But only for a point-source... but that has nothing to do with any of the aspects brought up here or sold by hifi-makers or even the audio recording hardware companies, that are just numbers... humans can actually hear in surround, and playing back sounds from two speakers in a room will not create the same room as the recording was made in. But most recordings are made in sound treated studios with mics directed at the soundsources, and reverbs and various effects are added, so that the "room" on the recording is actually not real, so the recreation doesn't have to be that exact.
Knowing that information makes it possible to asses if digital technolgoy can go beyond the mechanics of our hearing in terms of reading soundwaves, and their correctness.
And it can.
" interpretation of signals" that is what I am interested in ,from the psychological/psychosomatic aspect and how this manifests to make a judgement. Thank you for making the time to reply.
Interpretation happens in the brain. So that's outside the realm of audio fidelity, which is all that measuring with test equipment can address.
So this apparently educational video morphs into an ad as expected! Corner absorbers? What a joke. They do nothing but waste an otherwise potentially useful corner since particle velocity is zero there.
You don't seem to know very much about bass traps. In fact, corner placement is the very best location, and bass traps there are more than twice as effective in a corner rather than on a wall. You'll find proof in the data shown on the RealTraps web site below. This data is from IBM's Acoustics Lab, and there's even a link to photos of the test sessions:
realtraps.com/data.htm
oggieoggiedoggie whiskey tango fox trot???
"artistic intent" is a massive lie. You're welcome to listen to anything however you want. If you like it, then it's better for you.
Yes, some people like the distorted sound of tubes and records, and that's okay with me. But it's not hi-fi, and it's not what the artist and mix engineer signed off on.
@@EthanWiner Any talk about fidelity should be based around the listener and their ability to hear what they want to hear - the "artist" is irrelevant. A good system is one that allows me to hear what I want to hear. "The artists intent" is unknowable and it may be to sound good in his brother's car. There is no reason to conflate the final mix and "good" and it leads to a lot of confusion in the community.
Okay, fair enough.
"you should hear exactly what the producers and mix engineers heard"
Well you wont... and you will not even if you listen to the master in the very same studio it was recorded.
Everyone has unique hearing, in technical terms.
And everyone has unique hearing in a psycological terms.
What could be strived for, is reproducing the same sound in the room as the producers and mix engineers had in their room.
But that is atually impossible, since almost no control-room/Mixing studio has a completely acousticaly dead room, so each room will have it's own profile, and your room can't change the profile to be any studio in the world.
So the only thing that is actually really possible to strive for is having the sound in the room come as close as possible to the sound on the media being played back.
Unfortunately most producers and mixing engineers dont realize that their hearing has a unique profile to start with. Most at the top probably do realize that they have some hearing damage, as they will after working with audio for many years. Many think they know enough about their hearing to compensate for this, that is most likely a false assumption.
Many producers an mixing engineers have sworn by different speakers with clear colorisation of sound, and claim that they know the speakers so well that they can compensate for it. Well I don't believe that one bit... These are top producers and top mixing engineers making such claim, and that is worrying to me. If they really knew what they were doing they would have invested in speakers that actually have as little coloring as possible for mixing/mastering. It is one thing to have speakers with coloring for trying the mix out, but they use clearly colored speakers for their mixing.
And many of them have a hard time listening to comments on how other people hear the sounds, they tend to think they know best. And in many cases, people that are not professional audio engineers might not even dare to speak up during sessions, because they are so confident in that person, that they feel like it must be their own hearing that is off. Audio engineers is not like the emperor with his new cloths, because when they are confronted, they still hear the music in the same way.
There are a lot of music out there that people describe as hars, on many types of listening equipment. So it might even be necessary to have a EQ or dynamic EQ at hand, to actually stand listening to those harsh songs.
The mixing engineers/and producers probably did not hear them as harsh, because of their hearing.
Or it could be the way hearing is different and sensitivity in different frequency that make some people hear that music as harsh.
So its is not totally true that everyone should strive for the flattest possible frequency response in a room, if that means many songs become really harsh.
Then we have dialogue in films and series, often beeing mixed at not loud enough against the background, or against audio peaks (that makes the listener adjust the volume, so thatafter adjusting the volume during peakts, they no logner hear the dialogue).
Mixing engineers have already heard the dialogue several of times, so for them the sound will be precieved as louder than anyone hearing it for the first time. Then there are sound designers and composers fighting for their parts to be clearly heard.
And then we have the issue of mixing being done in a treated enviroment, often with near field monitors, so a very different enviroment from any place anyone is going to hear it after that point.... perhaps with speakers that are colored favourable for voices.
Clerarly we can't trust the source to be what the mixing engineers heard or percieved.
But yes, from an objective standpoint, if one had a flat room with flat equipment the sound in the room would be the closes to the only reference one would have access to = the soundata from the source.
But there is no way of knowing if EQing to ones own hearing is further or closers from how the mixing engineer heard it on a single sound source.
But the average for all music and other media played thru ones system, will most likely be further away from what the mixing engineers heard on every single source compared to having a flat response in ones room, since they all would have heard differently.
Dynamic EQs could be applied in such a matter that they will mostly affect parts that makes the sound too harsh for ones like, and thereby probalby be closer to the less harsh version that the mixing engineers probably heard. But that wont bring back any bass that the mixing engineers perhaps tuned down because their speakers were bass happy. And it wont roll off the high frequencies that the mixing engineer probably could not even hear. And it wont compensates for all the dips in the frequency response of the mixing engineer, that were because of that dip boosted. And it will not solve the dialogue issue. It wont add back any bass that the mixing engineer mixed out because it created issues on their test-rigs.
The actual truth is tht we will never hear sounds the same way as other people.
But a purse signal path, and flat response ist still the best to start with, even if a EQ and/or dynamic EQ is later added to sculpt sound to ones own hearing, and trying to compensate for what one think is the result of the mixing engineers hearing and listening room.
Trying to color sounds with Tube-amps, or thinking one can clearly color sound with cables or choosing a D/A that is not transparent, would have much less effect than what can be achieved with an EQ, and would be much less controllable... Colored speakers can however do quite drastic things to the sound, but it would still be better to have a flat speaker and an EQ.
(personally if often prefer listening to music via speakers that spread the sound more than a typical speaker, or even listening to music upcoded to surround, but I'm fully aware that it is a personal preference and that it colors the sound quite extremely, and other should not follow that example of mine if they don't feel the same way as I do... I just wish there was more music that fitted my sound ideal, with surroundcoding already done by the artist/producer) (Building a home studio/studio, I would never pick studio monitors that fit my personal preference, and I would not go for the one I think would give me the flattest response... and I would trust AI EQs over my own hearing, if they are based on research... unfortunately some of them seems based on machine learning, where they take after other peoples preferences rather that scientifically trying to achive the EQ curve that fits most people, and like I've stated many high en producers/mixing engineers don't mix as objectively as they think)
Thanks Jon, those are many good points. And yes, of course no two people will "hear" exactly the same, even standing next to each other in the same room. The main point is to make your room and system as flat as possible. That at least gets you closest to the artist's intent.
A flat room yes, to reduce reflections an uncontrollable boosts of frequencies (especially in the low end).
However there is no real way of knowing what room reflections and frequency boosts where present at the mixing stage, so there is no way of actually knowing the artists (or rather mixer's, be it artist's or engineer's) intent for the sound, for that you would have to invinte the person that mixed the record to your room and ask them if the sound fits therir preferences (they would never be able to tell if it sounds exactly as when they mixed it, but they could tell if it fits theyr typical preference).
Yes, one is likely to get a better average on getting closest to the intent by working towards a flat response.
(I've seen studios used for mixing and mastering that aren't anywhere near as acousticly treated as they would have to be, and not always even with speakers cabable of the lowest ends, or any capable subwoofer either, meanings that any possible presence of those frequencies would only be by the room boosting frequencies at that lowest end).
The idea that the intent is what is present on the audio file, is a myth on it's own.
A flat room, and speakers able to produce a flat requency response (with no resonances or distortions in the elements or by the cross-over, even if the flat response itself is achieved by a EQ), and of course flat electronics should be the goal one should works towards.
But the idea that, if it was possible to achieve that, one would hear music as it was intended is incorrect.
It would give one the best contitions, as it would be free from any distotions, that could cause issues, but the sound in the room will not be what was heard by those mixing, and what one hear will mostly be even further from it.
(even if music was distributed by sending electrical impulses to the brain directly, music would still not be percieved the same way as it was by those mixing, even if the mixing was done with the same type of electrical impulses, but it would certianly be a lot closer that anything that comes with a room and speakers... without implants, at this point those headphones that meassures hearing is probably the closest we can get, but unless Samsung/AKG starts producing studio reference headphones that way, it will probably not reach the pro market... google nuraphone if you haven't heard of the concept, but I think there are others working with headphones on the same principle of Otoacoustic Emission (OAE))
Have you done any video yet, on the myth of pin-pointing instruments on a scene, actual or virtual, while listening through speakers (hifi or PA)?
Mics close to instruments, thus not sounding like the instrument would if one was seated at listening position.
Sound engineers mixing the volumes by personal preference.
Sound engineers doing the stereo-pan roughly. (when a band is recorded separately, without any real reference as well)
And all of the thre above creating a rather diffuse positioning of instruments compared to the listener, where actually nothing really consistent with listening only to stage sound.
And then the addition or room effects (mainly on recorded music), that further diffuses the image.
And yet we can read in magazines all the time about how reviewers with a particular system can pinpoint musicians, and how they can "see" the stage. (all of it simply being their imagination working, really)
Recordings made by a stereo mic at listening position, without any additions of room effects or anything else that might diffuse the "stage", are probably less than a thousandth of a percent when it comes to music distributed through official channels. (mobile video recordings of a small event, witout PA-system, is probably ones best source for actual recording of a stage, where some actually do have stereo-mic's roughly in the correct position, but others mixes the sound from more than two mics, and thus diffuses the stage, and then one is also sujected to influences by the visual presentation of the video, that gets in the way by trying to by ears only "see" the musicians in their "stage" position).
28:53 - Impedance. There's a spec I will NEVER be able to understand, even if God himself came down and explained it to me! HOW can a speaker with a higher impedance - IE 8ohms, be EASIER to drive by the same amplifier than a speaker with a lower impedance, IE 4ohms??? Either the wording or the concepts simply go against my gut instinct.
Impedance is not as complex as you think. First, you know what happens if you put a paper clip across a 9 volt battery, right? The paper clip is a short circuit that draws a lot of current, and with a fresh battery the paper clip can get red hot. It's not good for the battery either. Well, a paper clip is a very low impedance. It "impedes" the current so little that all the current from Plus on the battery gets through to Minus. Now, replace the paper clip with a loudspeaker and you have the same thing. A 16 ohm speaker doesn't let much current through, so the driving amplifier doesn't have to work very hard. As you go to 8 ohms, then 4 ohms, then 2 ohms, the speaker resists less and less and so becomes more like that paper clip short circuit.
I'll add that with DC we call this "resistance," and impedance is the same thing for AC. Impedance implies that the resistance can change with frequency, though it doesn't have to.
Thanks for clearing that up! So if I read you correctly, if my receiver specs 8-16ohm speakers, and I hook up 12ohms, set my playback volume, then replace the 12ohm speakers with, IE, 4ohm speakers, which will sound louder?
@@Zickcermacity The 4 ohm speaker will sound louder because it's closer to a "short circuit" across the amplifier's output and therefore draws more current. Just as the paper clip is a very low impedance across the battery terminals. I can add a little more:
An audio power amplifier is considered a "constant voltage" device. If you play a steady 1 KHz test tone at some volume, the voltage at the amplifier's output terminals will stay the same whether you connect 16 ohms, 8 ohms, 4 ohms, or maybe even 2 ohms if the amp is capable. This is just like an AC wall output that puts out 120 volts whether you plug in a 4 watt nightlight or a 1,000 watt toaster oven. (Aside from possible slight dimming if the wires back to the breaker box are long or too thin.)
The formula for power is amps times volts, So if the amplifier outputs 10 volts steadily into 10 ohms, that draws 1 amp = 10 watts. But a 1 ohm load draws 10 amps = 100 watts.
I thought so! So my hunch for desiring higher impedance speakers for my home rig was right on. :D I like being able to turn my volume knob up to a reasonable position to achieve the volume I desire. Problem is, it's getting harder and harder to find 8ohm speakers for my 24 year old receiver which specifies 8-16ohm speakers. Also Ethan: I was told by Mike Rivers and other regulars on rec.audio.pro that I can run any impedance combination of receiver & speakers if both are relatively recent age. ???
Most modern receivers and amplifiers are pretty tolerant of load.
Good video, although the statement that "the playback system shout strive for transparency" and "but with a consumer system you SHOULD hear exactly what the producer/engineer heard" is a rather subjective argument.
What if the listener doesn't like the way a musical piece is being mixed?
But even more important, humans don't have the same hearing.
So every person hears things different, to the same way that we don't see or feel everything the same way either (for whatever cause).
Even until today the discussion is always about "more transparency" and better specs or representation. Even among (most) engineers in the field.
As an engineer myself, I often miss the engineering point of view. So understand all these parameters and understand how to make them work in a certain situation.
For example, a PA-system has very different recommendations compared to a bluetooth speaker or a hifi speaker in a living room.
Neither of those are better or worse than the other, they are just different solutions for different problems.
It is rather strange that we always have the same discussions, yet this is exactly the way mechanical or electronics engineers work.
They use different methods or solutions for different situations.
Of course I agree that some music sounds better or worse than others. I mention in my Audio Expert book that buying an EQ is a good solution. Then you can change the sound on a per-recording basis. But I don't think a *system* should add a fixed "color" to everything. Then again, if someone's hearing at high frequencies falls off due to age, a fixed treble boost isn't wrong. Though that too is usually better done with an equalizer than with intentionally colored preamps etc.
This is from my Audio Expert book:
Accurate or Pleasing?
A common question I see in audio forums asks about the difference between professional studio monitors and regular hi-fi speakers. Conventional wisdom says that monitors must be as flat as possible to mix accurately, while hi-fi speakers should aim for a pleasing sound. It seems to me that a hi-fi speaker should aim to recreate the same listening experience that the mixing and mastering engineers heard in their rooms while equalizing and otherwise adjusting the sound of the recording. Otherwise, the listener will not fully appreciate the artist's intent. So by that logic, a hi-fi speaker should also be as accurate as possible. If someone prefers an intentionally skewed frequency response, it probably makes sense to just buy an equalizer. Then you can also dial in different response curves to tailor the sound on a per-recording basis.
This brings up the related issue of whether speakers used for professional mixing benefit from a pleasing frequency response curve. In my opinion that's not a good idea, and I find the current trend toward "smooth sounding" non-harsh loudspeakers aimed at the professional market disturbing. If you mix on speakers that have an intentional dip in the harshness range between 2 to 4 KHz, you'll tend to add too much energy in that range to compensate, making your mixes sound brittle on good speakers that are more accurate. Indeed, loudspeaker selection is one of the most difficult and personal decisions anyone can make, whether you're a professional recording engineer or serious listener.
@@EthanWiner Thank you for opening my eyes and ears! So much relief reading that that hype is just that.
Just a question about EQs that you suggest. I believe this would be a good investment for me. I have little knowledge so parametric, graphic, etc. is just confusing. Any short response would be most appreciated or a link. Thank you for exposing the nonsense. Most appreciated.
@@Synonomous My best advice is to get my book The Audio Expert, available on Amazon and my web site ethanwiner.com. Otherwise, find your way to my web site Articles page and there's an article that explains the various EQ types.
@@EthanWiner I'll definitely support you by getting the book as you are doing so much to clear the air surrounding this whole magic wire nonsense.
Strange, I have many old guitar tube amps and there's the same kind of voodoo surrounding the different tubes making a big difference when at one point the signal actually goes through the air inside the valve, lol. I've done my own tests with up to 20 tubes in the same amp to see absolutely zero difference unless the tube was out of spec.
Great work and I look forward to your book.
Cheers!
Scott.
The measuring equipment is better than the ears?
Due to shite opinions like this technology is held back.
The instruments can measure what is wrong with a signal, which does not mean the reciprocal is goodness. Static measurements are unusually suspect. Simple ideas conceived in the 1920's with the simple instruments then available, are hopelessly dated.
Wine tasting by chemists would not be taken seriously. Sensory experiences has as yet not been fully broken down to a value scale. These idiots who buy $3000 cables know they are being screwed, and they love it. Next month they buy a new cable for twice as much, not being happy with weakeing sensation.
Audio engineers are not the ultimate in picking out the best sounding violin or other musical instruments.
Basic measurements are OK as start, like the pH of wine, but are incomplete.
Imagination and wishful thinking can be pretty powerful.
Yes, test equipment can measure distortion and other artifacts below -150 dB, where human ears struggle to hear distortion that's only 40-50 dB below the music. It's clear you've never tested this, so hold your strong opinions until you've learned a little about your own hearing. Here you go:
ethanwiner.com/audibility.html
You should also educate yourself about null testing, which works perfectly well using music as a test signal. Did you even watch this video? Null testing is explained early on:
ruclips.net/video/Zvireu2SGZM/видео.htmlm08s
And then demonstrated in my other AES Workshop video:
ruclips.net/video/BYTlN6wjcvQ/видео.htmlm39s
As for $3,000 wires, people who buy into that BS really do think the sound is better. They too understand little about their own hearing. This shows a Null Tester hardware device proving that expensive RCA wires pass audio exactly the same as a $3 RCA wire:
ruclips.net/video/ZyWt3kANA3Q/видео.html
Yes, blind tests reveal everything. I read one account where one wine "expert" even confused white wine for red wine!