General: Ridiculous Audiophile Equipment
May 13th, 2008
I need the best quality in the world to get all the juice out of my 128 kbps torrented mp3 files!
There’s plenty of absurdly ridiculous equipment aimed at audiophiles who ‘feel’ their ears can outpass the natural capacities they have. Most audiophile marketing strategies tap-dance on the line where science and ignorance meet. Hardcore audiophiles get stuck in-between placebo effects, pseudo-science, dubious claims and a lack of understanding of the human body. They also have a fat wallet, so this means a lot of costly useless shit is targeted to them.
One of the biggest enemies of audiophiles are EMI and RFI. Both are pretty much the same: it’s an electromagnetic radiation from an external source that influences how electrical circuits work. It will often affect the good signals from AM radio, to a lesser extent FM radio, and devices like a cellphone. Small effects can be heard in other devices; some guitar pickups will capt the signals from a TV remote being used nearby, although this would depend on the pickups and remote themselves.
Devices with integrated circuits (like computers, TV, monitors, etc.) are more likely to be sources of EMI and RFI than receptors. Real ways to protect one’s device against electromagnetic radiation are usually things like Faraday Cages or shielded cables.
There are other things audiophiles want to block out, like the disgusting solid-state amps, or mostly anything that is not themselves. Let’s just skip through it and get to the cool devices they have to help themselves.
Beating laws of physics at their own game
Some products offered will give this subtitle all its meaning. First, let me show some of them:
The Marigo Labs Signature 3-D Mat
This is a small mat to put on a disk, inside a CD player, for $200. The review claims some major differences in sound quality after application, like changing the reverberation feeling of the songs listened, adding ‘mass and weight’ to the music (better bass and percussions), better sounding triangle (the instrument), better highs and more overall quality to the sound. The site also claims it helps DVDs having a better image.
The claims made about the Mat are about the EMI and RFI, with the pretension that the bits of woven silver within the thing, when spinning fast, act like a shield (possibly some kind of aforementioned Faraday Cage?). Except it would only protect one side of the disc, would act in no way on any other piece of equipment and there’s only doubt to be had about EMI and RFI causing a real interference with the red lasers used in CD players.
The Shakti Hallograph
They’re pieces of wood on a stick used in pairs that are supposed to make your room a better place for music. The manufacturer pretends this makes the bass better, lets the speakers be heard at their full potential and whatnot. And all of this for $999 a pair!
News: They are pieces of wood. Changing the position of a chair or where YOU stand in a room will have a bigger effect on the music. We’re not talking of putting carpet on your walls, which would absorb sound and have some effect, but of putting some kind of fake candlestick in the corners of your room to enhance the sound. There’s not even more explaining needed, and I cry for the people who apparently bought it. But there’s even worse, coming from the same kind of audiophiles:
Acoustic System Resonators
Here’s how it works according to the review:
To recap, the Acoustic System resonators get excited by acoustic waves in the room. They sympathetically resonate at specific frequencies and thus add their output to the sonic event. This adds new direct sound sources to those represented by the loudspeakers and their early reflections[...] The listener’s brain is tricked to experience the room rather differently than without the resonators. These tiny cups with their high pitch trigger our attention in a subtle way. It seems that in place of the resonator, there is something more. More space?
$2380 for the best models. Nothing more to say. The above photo shows a display of many of them. They’re supposed to resonate with the music and add to the overall feeling. I can only scratch my head trying to understand how anyone could want this, especially given the price.
Speaker wires
Speaker wires are an absolute can of worms. Outrageous prices can be asked for a piece of metal which somehow makes electrical current travel better under some conditions, like when they don’t touch the ground: This is where the Cradles of Silence kick in. Apparently, electrical current and sound quality is affected by how the wires are touching the ground and picking up its vibrations. Never mind the fact air also vibrates, the fact that the speakers and the amplifier themselves are touching the ground.
The cradles of silence are wrong on so many levels. Walking on a floor will create more sound to your ear than what any wire will pick up. There is also the fact that vibration may as well propagate better in a suspended wire than when it’s just laying flat on the ground. The saddest thing is that, according to the website, they’re sold out.
In fact, there’s still worst than that. Misconceptions about wires are so bad some people manage to sell wires for $7250, or even $43000. Welcome the Anjou speaker cables and the Opus MM SC. The picture on the lower right is the Transparent Cables Opus MM SC price list taken from the .pdf file on their website.
What these cables can try to do can be done as efficiently for way lower prices: insulation is covered by the shielded cables mentioned earlier, and then the different factors that influence sound quality are not really relevant to the price.
The main physical aspect helping a wire sending a good signal is the resistance. To make things simple, the lower the resistance, the better the signal from the amplifier. The shorter the cable, the lower the resistance. The bigger the gauge, the lower the resistance (and the loss of signal over distance). Speakers are low-impedance devices. The lower the impedance, the more important the resistance is. Simple enough? You need low resistance for better sound, and the other factors are mostly unimportant in comparison, and usually only take effect under unusual lengths or conditions.
Normal cheap speaker cables are good for that. This is where most audiophiles will argue. What THEY hear is not what science says.
That’s the beauty of double-blind tests: the idea is to take a bunch of people, have them sitting in a room, and make them listen to the same song twice, but with different equipment (or lying about the equipment used), without them knowing. You then ask them to say if there’s any difference and if they can spot which is the hi-tech audiophile equipment and which one is the normal wire. Usually, double-blind tests reveal roughly 50-50 ratios. This means people can not make the difference.
To prove this point, The Consumerist reported a home experiment where 12 audiophiles could not make the difference between high-end Monster cables and a coat hanger in terms of audio quality.
More reading
Back in 1999, the New York Times published an article about how high-end speaker wires are bullshit:
Mr. Dunlavy has often gathered audio critics in his Colorado Springs lab for a demonstration.
“What we do is kind of dirty and stinky,” he said. ”We say we are starting with a 12 WAG zip cord, and we position a technician behind each speaker to change the cables out.”
The technicians hold up fancy-looking cables before they disappear behind the speakers. The critics debate the sound characteristics of each wire.
“They describe huge changes and they say, ‘Oh my God, John, tell me you can hear that difference,’ ” Mr. Dunlavy said. The trick is the technicians never actually change the cables, he said, adding, “It’s the placebo effect.”
If you really feel like investing in audio equipment, by God, do it on real hardware, like the amplifier and the speakers themselves rather than tweaks and investing on non-essential equipment.
The one part that can (but not necessarily will) make a difference is the last part - cabling. Arguably, the ones here will be of a copper so pure that the price might be warranted, but in saying that they look pretty thin. Whether having purer copper actually makes a difference is another matter.
My favourite is the CD cover - changing the analogue properties of a digital signal sure sounds feasible ;)
It’s possible purer copper may warrant higher prices, but certainly not the thousand dollar bullshit (not that I’m saying you’re defending it).
I’ll just quote the NY Times article:
I didn’t read all the post (you know, being lazy or something like that, I don’t want to research this on google) but I saw all the photos, and I stole the credit card of my parent (or was it a homeless?) and brought everything. Let’s hope your post was about how good they are. OR ELSE!
In my opinion, this post should be a low quality podcast.
I wonder how can a 42k wire can create a better sound in a 40$ walmart speaker. Do the other way around. 42k speakers using 40$ wires… even Cher would sound awesome.
Hmmm. Overall nice post. I really enjoy this sort of thing.
I’m an audiophile. Guilty. But hopefully not an “audiofool.”
Please allow me to present a little of the other side of the argument. Before I do, let me state: I BELIEVE THAT THESE PRODUCTS ARE GROSSLY OVERPRICED, AND I WOULD NOT BUY ANY OF THEM.
Of course, the individual buyer can make that determination for themselves. I simply don’t believe that they provide good value.
But let me briefly make a case for each.
The Marigo 3D Mat: The reading of a CD by a laser is an analog process (not withstanding the digital error correction that may occur after the A/D’s). Many modern CD’s are translucent (hold them up to a light, esp the unpainted ones), and the laser beam can scatter and/or the analog reflection can be weakened. A disk or coating on the back reduces this effect. It also adds rotational inertia, making the RPM-hold more precise. Audibly? Not by me.
Shakti Candlesticks: Many (some would say all) rooms have points in space where sound waves at multiple frequencies are gathered, mixed, and reflected. This mixing produces intermodulation distortion. The human ear hates this. Placing an object at this point in space can break up the reflections and prevent them from reaching the ear. (So far all science.) The “candlesticks” can serve this purpose. Audible? You bet. A big improvement in sound quality? Sometimes. Will almost any object suffice for this task? I believe so.
Acoustic Resonators: OK, you got me there. I know of no reason why this would work, let alone do anything beneficial.
Expensive cables: A comprehensive treatment of this topic would involve a long explanation (about complex impedances, RF, geometry, and more). Let me just offer without proof that - despite the results of double-blind testing - cables can and do alter sound quality. However I have found very little correlation between ’sound quality improvement’ and price. In fact, often the correlation is negative! And sometimes two cables of very different construction sound nearly the same.
OK, that’s enough. I feel better.
Peace,
Bob
One last thing: Spending money on components - and understanding and maybe treating the sonic characteristics of your listening room - provide much more bang for the buck. A speakers are the most flawed link of the chain, and are therefore the first place to look for improvements.
I would tend to agree with you, Bob.
Overall, it’s not that most of these items are based on fake facts, but just that their effects coupled with the claims they make just become pseudo-science. Eating better will sure make you healthier, but it will not cure cancer.
As for the Mat, it’s possible it’ll help the light reflection; I considered it while writing the article, but I got some doubts. Consider a window at night. When the lights are on at one side, you can see through it, and the other surface becomes like a mirror. In my understanding, most CDs inside players are in a dark environment, which would reduce the effect.
Although there could be some merit to the disk, I can only be skeptical when they claim to shield the components and the laser from RFIs and EMIs. That’s the part I specifically attacked.
As for the candlesticks, you’ve said it yourself: mostly anything could do the job. As for breaking reflections, most recording rooms I’ve seen just use carpet, concave surfaces or some spongy material on the walls (even curtains in some halls) to stop the reverberation of sounds. I believe those are way better at enhancing acoustics than $999 candlesticks made out of wood.
I agree with the cable bit, and most of what you said. I don’t consider you to be an audiofool either.
This post was more about how some normal science can do as good as all this technology for a lot less money (see cable shielding, instead of super expensive cables). Most of these products claim exagerated results at an abobinable price.
Cool. Sounds like we’re in violent agreement!
Bob
Thank you Parseidon for starting this discussion. We shouldn’t take it as bushing any specific products although some names have been called :) More importantly it points in the right direction that there is no substitution for good engineering and solid science. For example, Faraday Cages and shielded cables are the only scientifically proven way to protect audio signal from EMI and RFI. After 20+ years of R&D we at Teresonic (www.teresonic.com) understand this quite well and therefore have designed fully shielded audio cables.
Interestingly enough there are additional benefits of shielding. It actually works two ways. On one hand it protects audio signal from external interferences. On the other hand it doesn’t allow dissipation of the audio signal outside the cable hence preserving the energy of the signal traveling between the two points.
Finally, using air as insulator (dielectric) enables very high signal speeds of up to 98% of the speed of the light. Many cable manufacturers use other dielectrics such as PVC, Teflon etc. as an insulator between wires which increases capacitance and makes cables behave as “filters”. That may have a positive impact :) on the sound in certain systems but should certainly not be the goal for cable designers. In addition, using such dielectrics reduces the speed of the signal inside the cable – often down to 70% of the speed of the light, varying at different frequencies and creating further changes in the audio signal.
We believe that our goal as cable designers is to preserve the audio signal and deliver it intact - without any changes. A lot can be accomplished by using solid science and good engineering and it doesn’t need to cost an arm and the leg. Back to your point.
Mike
It’s neat to have someone representing a manufacturer right here on the blog. Thanks for the science details, I’m pretty sure other readers will enjoy them too.
I went around your website, and while I think your science ‘doesn’t need to cost an arm and the leg’, it sounds like it still costs an arm, if I can say. Your cables still come out at over $120 per foot.
In no way I want to come off as attacking you, but you’re there to answer, so I’m asking: How would you describe the raise in quality your cables give? Say I get a cable at $12/foot, will your cables make the sound quality better by a similar ratio?
I guess it’ll be more fair to ask who you’re targeting; studios, pros, audiophiles who can pay a lot (relatively) for a given raise in quality? (I mean, this visibly doesn’t target college students)
Again, I don’t want to come off as aggressive, but you sound like the best person to ask.
My comments seem to have caused a fervor in certain audiophile circles, so let me be more explicit:
I have not heard the MARIGO MAT, and base my “not by me” comments on experiences with two similar products (incl Marigo’s first version). I heard no difference. Perhaps my player has excellent correction?
I have heard the SHAKTI’s do good things. I have also listened to them in other venues, and not heard any differences. Why? The acoustics of rooms vary widely.
Nor have I heard the acoustic RESONATOR. But I don’t claim to have heard it, and only commented on the underlying principle.
I have heard lots of CABLES (but not the ones in the article). My overall observations stand.
It’s tough getting a handle on audio “tweaks” - everybody’s ears, hearing proficiencies, and systems are different.
We can only try to be as concise and consistent in our observations and comments as we can. That’s what I have tried to do here. YMMV.
First, let me say that we believe the best cable is one you don’t need at all. For example, choosing an integrated amp instead of a preamp+power amp components eliminates the need for a set of cables. It’s not good for the business but is certainly good for the sound :)
Same applies to choosing an integrated CD player instead of player+DAC components. All the money saved on cables can be invested in buying better (sounding) integrated components or better cables (ones that can’t be avoided).
You may notice that I believe in ‘simplicity’ in audio. Fewer components in a system usually mean easier matching, less cost, easier setup and troubleshooting, etc. that leads to a better sound and more time to listen to your favorite music. After all, isn’t that the goal of this passion?
Not sure how to put dollar value on the sound quality, but if you are asking if spending 10X per foot of cable would result in 10X sound quality (however you describe it), the answer is - most probably not. On the other hand the same question applies to other components. Is spending $1,000 on an amplifier, instead of spending $100, going to improve your sound 10 times?
In audio as well as in many other product areas when you reach a point of some average quality doubling the investment doesn’t bring anywhere close to doubling the quality. One can argue that audiophiles are (sometimes) willing to pay twice the price to get an extra 10% improvement. Is an additional 2% worth it? Not in my book but some people would (rightfully) disagree.
Now on Teresonic cables (and pricing without getting defensive :). If you look at what constitutes the cost of making shielded cables like Teresonic’s you will find that a huge part goes on material itself. True ferromagnetic shielding (special high-tech shielding also used in airplane cockpits) is quite expensive as well as pure copper and pure silver (in interconnect cables) wires, not to mention top quality (24ct gold plated) German made spades that retail for almost $200 for a set of eight. It’s harder to justify years of R&D expenses, and manufacturing costs – all our cables are handmade. Most importantly, these cables favorably compare to 5-10X more expensive products with added benefits of 100% EMI, RFI and mechanical! shielding you can’t find elsewhere – that I’m aware of. Sorry if this sounds like marketing but didn’t know how to answer the question any other way.
Mike
Lets keep in mind that 1. Some snake oil manufacturers haven’t a clue why their product sounds better, so they make up something that makes sense to them. 2. costs are more expensive when something is handmade vs something which is mass produced and folks can justify that price for it. It may or may not produce better sound but the extra price is certainly justified. 3. If a manufacturer knows why something sounds better but are reluctant to tell the truth, is is sometimes easier to sell it with a fabricated story which also helps prevent easy and cheap copies of it. Case in point: if a CD mat improves the sound by adding inertia and damping, then why publish it? Anyone can make that home brew and other manufacturers can copy it too since the “science” is there to read. Rather, blame it on EMI, RF, conduction, energy loss, or something hard to define and measure.
I have a Meridian G08 CD Player and a Meridian 598 DVD player…and the 3-D v2 Mat DOES MAKE A LARGE, AUDIBLE and VISIBLE DIFFERENCE to the players, an incredibly cheap upgrade for $199 compared to the new retail prices of both pieces of equipment (I only ever buy second hand, nearly new). I’m not joking when I say the clarity immediately improves in the music, and this is not a BS tweak that I’ll use for a while, it’s in the system full time because it works, both for music and DVD imaging, there is an unmistakable difference before and after. This is not some “can you hear the difference” kind of tweak, you WILL hear the difference.
The resonators however must be total rubbish. Logic deletes their entire reason for being and you’d be far better off investing in bass traps to remove resonation.
Candlesticks, well they will change the sound, but so will any object stuck behind a speaker, and all they are is a glorified diffusor. $1000? Diffusors are much cheaper.
And on the speaker cables, I run MIT Shotgun 750 cables, very expensive but the difference between those and $125 per metre Kimber cable, is truly a system upgrade, and I thought upgrading from $20 per metre to $125 per metre was a big upgrade. The better your equipment, the more YOU WILL HEAR after each upgrade. Running Shotgun cables on $500 speakers is a waste of time and also a waste if your source is low quality but you wouldn’t partner a Meridan G08 with $50 speaker cables, you’d miss out on so much music from the player. Everything is relevant, you don’t run cheap tyres on a Ferrari, right? You’d feel the difference between expensive and cheap, same thing with cables. Believe what you want, believe what you read if you’re guillable, but most of all trust YOUR ears. The 3D mat works 100%, try it, you’ll see.
Trusting your senses is not always the best solution out there. Things like the placebo effect exist for a reason. So do optical illusions.