Talk:High-end audio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Professional sound production WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Internal Nonexisting Links Are Being Added 2 Recording 3 Manufacturer's list 4 High End cables useless? 5 What about Harman Kardon? 6 "Audiophile Propaganda" 7 Koss? Bose?

[edit] Internal Nonexisting Links Are Being Added

People are adding internal links that do not exist in the Wikipedia. I'm not sure of the rules on this, but I will wait a week or so before considering these links to be inappropriate and deleting them. If you are going to add internal links-- make sure that an internal link exists- even if you have to create it and even though it may be just a stub.

I appreciate that you would like to create an entry which this page links to, if so please create it and make it a stub by inserting the code {{corp-stub}} into the article that you are linking to.

links deleted so far for failing to be acutal valid wikipedia links-

Wilson Audio

JMLab

Bowers & Wilkens

This is always a judgement call. If there's a liklihood that someone will create the article, then it's probably a good idea to Wikilink it now. One of the many meta-pages that can be accessed lists the various "red" links and people occasionally browse that list and create a missing-but-linked article or two. But if the Wikilink is to something that's very obscure (say, "Atlant's Audio Association" and no one is ever likely to create the article, then it's better to leave it unlinked.

By the way, you should always sign your "talk" postings. This can be most-easily done by including four tildes (~~~~) in your edit. When you save the edit, the tildes will be turned into a handy link to your username and timestamp showing when you posted.

Atlant 11:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the goal is to avoid having links to a bunch of articles that do not exist. So we should use judgment in deciding which ones to keep. And people can always add "external" links in the external link section (which is not being done currently). If there are no links on some of these obscure entries, then perhaps its better to change them to plain text rather than a link? Or perhaps put them in the external link category with weblink? Another option is to keep the internal link and have a description - "article needs to be created."

(thanks for the advice on the 4 tildes-- always wondered how you guys did that).

Lgreen 16:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not do this! List entries should not be deleted just because there isn't a Wikipedia article about them yet. There is a category (Category:High end audio) which includes all the Wikipedia articles, so there is no need to duplicate it with a "list of internal links". Mirror Vax 02:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. Lgreen 02:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. Incidentally, there might be some articles missing from the category - I'm not sure, since I created it a while ago and haven't checked it. Might be good to create subcategories, too, for speakers, electronics, etc. Mirror Vax 02:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recording

if someone with recording knowledge can polish up the 'recording companies' list it would be of great appreciation. I think this day in age there is certainly a demand for 'high end' recording. Add to the list and please add to their stubs, or simply create a stub.

Pro audio is not 'high end', by definition. 'High end' is a consumer market. (Of course some companies sell to both 'pro' and 'high end' markets - dCS is a good example). Mirror Vax 23:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Pro-audio (i.e. recording and broadcast) is a completely different field from high-end consumer audio. It uses an almost entirely different set of products from different companies, with relatively little overlap. --Spliced 11:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, when you get to the mastering end of things this is no longer true. Go to any high end mastering studio, and you will see speakers, amplifiers, cabling, and acoustic treatments pulled from the exact same pool as the high end of consumer audio.

The reason you don't see much overlap at the recording end of things is that the goals are so different. Even the gear that seems like it might be similar, like speakers, is designed for a different purpose. Studio monitors are not designed for enjoyment. They're designed for analysis. That being said, there is some crossover. Some audiophiles like the sound of near field studio monitors, and buy them for home listening. Other gear, like microphone preamplifiers, mixing consoles, compressors, parametric equalizers, limiters, microphones, etc. etc. have no home audio equivalent. There are a few companies that make gear for both recording studio and home use. They tend to be high end. Bryston and Manley come to mind; I'm sure you can find others.

[edit] Manufacturer's list

Hi:

If I'm wrong about this, please ridicule me mercilessly, but Sony's no longer making power amplifiers and has killed their Esprit line, which means they're no longer making audiophile equipment. I'm not saying like snobs we should pull them from the list of manufacturers of hi-fi audio, but ....

[edit] High End cables useless?

Are high end cables really useless as stated in this article? Im not an audiophile so I can't comment technically, but im sure they must have benefits?

Well, they have the benefit of returning a huge profit to their manufacturers and resellers. But's that's probably not exactly what you meant.

Yes, they're useless. With cables, the laws of physics and diminishing returns cut in pretty quickly, and there's really not much difference if your speaker is wired with 2 meters of 12 gauge lamp cord or that cable you paid $899 for. Same thing for signal cables; audio just isn't that hard to send through a cable at high fidelity. But P. T. Barnum called it right; there'll always be a market for those $899 cables.

Atlant 13:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Laws of Physics? The trouble is, no one knows what laws we're dealing with. I've had conversations with a couple of research psychologists who specialize in human psychoacoustics. They admit that they don't even know what they don't know when it comes to the intricacies of human hearing. One of them has worked with a physicist who studies signal dynamics. He confirms that beyond the very basics, there is essentially no hard research on the effects of signal wire on harmonically complex signals, especially with regard to human hearing. So when anyone with an electrical engineering 101 textbook tells you "that's impossible ... you can't be hearing that!" it might be prudent to be skeptical. It's true that most of the scientific claims made by cable companies are pseudo science. Less known is that the scientific claims made against these companies are pseudo science as well. The presumption that there are no significant factors besides resistance, capacitance, and inductance are just that--presumptions. They're based on nothing other than the fact that we don't know much else.

Personal experience: virtually all wires I've listened to sound different from each other. Some significantly, some not. There is very generally a correlation between price and performance, but there are dramatic (and embarrassing) exceptions. The wires I use now in my stereo replaced ones that cost twice as much. I have no experience with stratospherically expensive cabling; I have tested various wires from the radio shack level to ones that cost in the $20/foot range. This could be considered low to middle end, but the middle end would seem outrageously expensive to someone accustomed to mass market equipment. I do not pretend to understand the physics behind the different sounds, even if the manufacturers often pretend.

At the very least, it should be noted that this is a subject of some contention. Personally, I would dismiss the views of anyone who has not listened seriously to cables. Good scientists do not dismiss ideas based on prejudice; they test them.

Yes, laws of physics. Lots of people know exactly which laws we are dealing with. And these laws predict that expensive cables, as long as they are competently designed, will probably sound no different from their competently-designed inexpensive counterparts. The way to verify this claim is through double-blind tests. And, yes, double-blind tests have shown that there is no audible difference if measurements predict that there should be no audible differences when listening to music. Please see the Wikipedia article "Audiophile" for the links.

Your point about how humans hear is a red herring. While it is true that psychologists do not know all there is to know about how humans hear, they know enough to apply double-blind tests to validate or invalidate claims made by cable vendors. If you are truly sceptical, you would put your trust in evidence instead of aural illusions. If objectivists say that expensive cables should be able to consistently pass double-blind tests for difference before they pass tests for preference, where does pseudoscience come into play?

Does your personal experience include the ability to consistently pass double-blind tests? If it does, then you would be the first person in the world to be able to consistently pass these tests. This is a contentious subject like a flat earth is a contentious subject. Personally, I would dismiss the views of anyone who claims to be able to hear differences in cables without providing any evidence. Good scientists do not dismiss ideas based on prejudice; they test them. Double blind. Again, disinterested readers should examine some of the links in the "Audiophile" article. William Greene 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Soon, it'll all be digital audio over optical fibers and "bits is bits", no matter what Monster or any other overpriced cable vendor claims. ;-)

Atlant 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about Harman Kardon?

Why isn't this venerable high-end manufacturer represented in the article? Also - how about some more down-to-earth explanations about what makes a good audio system? RCSB 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold and update the article!

Atlant 13:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Audiophile Propaganda"

"Audiophile Propaganda" - that's a nice, flame-baity way for me to put it! :-)

I've noticed, on Wikipedia, that a number of articles have come under the influence of - how shall I put it? - "audiophile propaganda". I've noticed it particularly with claims made in relation to valves, where there'll often be a brief claim of 'sonic superiority', or the like. But it's not just valve stuff. Here, in this article, there's the "Debate" section, which doesn't really seem to really belong, or need to be, in this article. (Such things would be better placed in, say, the audiophile article.)

The thing that really struck me about the "Debate" section is the last line of the following (emphasis mine):-

At the core of much of this debate is the limit of human hearing. While it can be clearly shown with basic electrical engineering that accessories such as analog audio cables (which we will focus on for this discussion) do modify the signal going through them, some argue that the modifications to the signal cannot be heard. At the center of this issue are a limited number of experiments that have been performed in attempts to determine limits to human hearing. The results from experiments that have been performed generally come up with different limits to human hearing that vary based on the test variables. These experiments generally do not deal with complex signals (such as music) and thus are not valid for extrapolation to this debate.

I've also noticed the comments on this talk page, by someone anonymous, on the issue of cables. That commenter says, "At the very least, it should be noted that this is a subject of some contention." Yes, and so is the issue of the shape of the earth (flat-earthers).

There really is no reason why what I've rudely called "audiophile propaganda" should be treated any differently to, say, pseudoscience. Golden-ear myths have already been debunked, and the rejections of such debunkings are recognisably typical of psychoceramics.

So, I'm deleting that section of the article.

Simon G Best 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Simon! Anoneditor 04:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

High-end audio and subjectivists have given me much more laughs than Monty Python. It is incredible to observe how blinding the ego can be. Rather than accept evidence and admit that one has been take in by some very slick snake-oil sellers and hype magazines, subjectivists would rather go on blithely reinforcing myths. A snake-oil seller's most dangerous enemy is a person who has the ability to do critical thinking and not let his ego get in the way. William Greene 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koss? Bose?

Of course it differs in opinion as to whether Bose is "high-end audio" or not (see links on the Bose article), but the company Koss is listed in this article. Maybe I haven't heard the right product, but everything I know that Koss makes is low-end junk of the Behringer type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.191.179.114 (talk • contribs) .

I can't speak for Koss nowadays, but they certainly used to be viewed as a "high end" provider of headphones. I still have my second pair of Koss Pro-4AA (IIRC) headphones and, while the second pair wasn't as good as the first pair (owing to obvious cost reductions in their manufacture such as no liquid-filled earcups), they were nice enough.

Atlant 12:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding in Bose. See links and citations in the Bose article, as well as the discussion page. ASH1977LAW 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)