…Or What I Wish I’d Known Before Ever Setting Foot in a Hi-fi Store

The following is my attempt to succinctly describe what audio skeptics believe about basic issues related to sound quality and consumer audio equipment. This may seem inconsequential to some, but then again music itself may seem inconsequential to some. Rather than focus on my own opinions—which matter little—I am trying to objectively describe what knowledgeable audio professionals and engineers of a skeptical—or just plain scientific—mindset believe about these issues.

I’ve come to understand that much of what is purported as truth in the audio industry is as objectively false as the alleged facts used to peddle most vitamins, new age mysticism, and cuckoo conspiracy theories. I find it baffling how much useless information there is online about audio issues, much of it written by professional writers or even recording engineers. (To paraphrase audio expert Ethan Winer, being a recording engineer is nothing like being virtually any other kinds of engineer, who might be responsible for, say, designing an airplane to carry hundreds of people over an ocean. Perfectly competent recording engineers often possess a minimal amount of education and may be wholly ignorant of the deeper science involved with what they do.)

To me, an “audio skeptic” is roughly synonymous with an “audio objectivist.” An “audio objectivist” believes that controlled experiment (e.g. double blind) offers the only effective method for getting around confirmation bias (similar to the placebo effect). This understanding can create doubt about most of what is written about audio products even by professionals. Unfortunately, it can also make one come across as rather arrogant, especially when interacting with individuals who adamantly insist that upgrading to an exotic brand of audio cable did, well, anything at all. Skeptics tend to favor legitimate science—with published studies and peer review—and distrust junk science. Skeptics debunk—sometimes gleefully—and in the audio world, there’s no shortage of easy targets. (Here and here are overviews of the subjectivist vs. objectivist holy war. Here and here are lists of double blind audio tests.)

But dude, how are a bunch of eggheads going to tell ME what sounds good to MY ears? This is a valid point, and of course everyone has preferences about what sounds good, and there are many areas where experts vehemently disagree. However, the assertions made here have nothing to do with preferences. No one legitimately prefers the sound of a one speaker cable to another, because barring some gross defect, those cables do not have their own sonic signature. The harsh truth is that when someone pays thousands of dollars for a speaker cable and then hears an “obvious” sonic improvement, they are deluding themselves, which can be easily demonstrated under bias-controlled conditions and also deduced using the laws of physics.

My audience is someone like myself a few years ago first getting into this stuff and ignorant about all issues or controversies related to audio. I’d long ago worked out how I felt about homeopathy or astrology, but I was clueless at how skepticism might relate to audio issues. Perhaps if I’d read something like this it would have prevented a few expensive detours.

Again, these ideas don’t come from me. I am attempting to distill what the majority of credible professionals think about audio issues. I believe that most individuals of a skeptical mindset who get into this stuff will come to all the following conclusions:

1. Exotic cables, interconnects, or power cords don’t make your system sound better. Not even a little bit. And bi-wiring simply doesn’t make sense.

2. It is unlikely that expensive CD players or DACs improve sound quality. Many of the claims these manufacturers make do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

3. Under normal conditions, virtually all audio amplifiers/receivers sound the same (sans EQ). They do not have their own sonic signature that must be carefully paired with speakers.

4. “Burn in” factor—the idea that speakers or electronics sound better after X hours of use—is likely a delusion. Though slight measurable differences may occur with speakers, far more likely is that perceived change is the brain acclimating to speaker.

“Capacitors polarize within seconds of applying voltage. Beyond that, I dare them to explain what will change in an opamp, cable or PCB as the result of applied voltage and signal. Rubbish.” – Audio Myths & Marketing Tricks: Burn In @ ColdCraft

“Running your components and cables for some arbitrary length of time when they are first purchased isn’t helpful.” – The Mythical Burn-In Period @ eCoustics

“In this article we’ll look at a typical electrodynamic driver’s operation as seen largely from the mechanical side, with a view to assessing the validity of various claims frequently made regarding driver break in. We’ll also see why it’s in a manufacturer’s best interest to ensure their products are broken in long before leaving the factory warehouse and how that bears on subsequent attempts at burning a driver in.” – Speaker Break In: Fact or Fiction? @ Audioholics

“Our audio memory is notoriously short, and it is simply impossible to hear a change that takes weeks to occur. What really happens is that we become ‘acclimatised’ to the sound – there is rarely any significant change at all. This is doubly true of cables – there isn’t any reason whatsoever to break-in an interconnect or speaker cable, because they don’t change enough to create a measurable change, let alone one that’s audible.” – Audio Myths by Rod Elliott

5. Expensive vacuum tube electronics may add “character” (i.e. distortion) to your system, but if clarity (less distortion) and reliability is what you’re after, stick with transistors.

“As a general rule, tubes for mainstream audio folks are not inherently bad (though perhaps a bit high-maintenance). However, while tubes are very popular in guitar and other instrument amplifiers due to their unique sound (even-harmonic distortion resulting from asymmetric soft clipping), they are unnecessary in playback amplifiers. Skeptics of tube amplifiers argue that audiophiles prefer the inherent distortion provided in the antiquated technology while paradoxically claiming the sound is purer and more perfect.” – Audio Woo @ Rational Wiki

“Where do vacuum tubes come in? Nowhere, unless you are a tweako cultist. There is nothing in audio electronics that cannot be done better with solid-state devices than vacuum tubes…. Yes, there exists some very nice tube equipment, but the solid-state stuff is better, cheaper, and more reliable.” – Paste This in Your Hat! (What Every Audiophile Should Know and Never Forget) @ Audio Critic

“Even if you prefer the sound of tubes, please understand they simply cannot restore any quality that was lost earlier in the recording process. All a tube preamp can do is add an effect that you may find pleasing. Studio monitor amplifiers should never have a “sound;” if they do, they are in error. Tube circuits can affect the sound in a way that is similar to analog tape recorders, and you may in fact find that pleasing.” – Dispelling Popular Audio Myths by Ethan Winer

“Purely audio considerations aside, many audiophiles prefer the aesthetics of a ‘warm,’ artistically designed (perhaps handcrafted) amplifier over the usual ‘high-tech’ appearance of most solid-state amplifiers. And many of us enjoy the ‘legacy’ feel of the equipment setup when operating vacuum tubes are visible. These are valid reasons to buy hollow-state equipment, if it appeals to you.” – Differences in Amp Sound: What’s the Truth? @ audioeXpress

6. The look and feel of CDs or computers can’t compete with vinyl, which can sound amazing for what it is. But there is no music lost “between the bits.” High quality digital formats are sonically superior to vinyl in every measurable way.

7. “Audiophile” hi-res audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.

See also my article on what DOES make a difference in audio: A Brief Guide to Audio for the Skeptical Consumer: Part II