# Zaph Audio - Snake Oil and Lies



## Sonnie

I was plundering around the Zaph Audio site, mainly snooping for Zaph's measurements... and ran across his "About Me" page. Pretty interesting stuff:



> Audiophile Snake Oil. Wild and unverified claims in advertising literature and magazine reviews. The wannabee audiophiles who try to believe it. I have feelings about it.
> 
> I used to have several all-out rant pages. I was harsh, brutal, and unforgiving. I made enemies and I made friends, I helped form sides for the believers and non-believers, all in the quest to dispell snake oil. Some people would defend snake oil as if they were defending their religion or political views.
> 
> Well, I took my old rant pages down because you just don't go and tell someone their god isn't real.
> 
> Welcome to the new and improved less offensive rants page. I'll just summarize my views with one-liners:
> 
> 
> I think that CD's sound better than vinyl. I realize both formats have problems.
> 
> I am strictly a two channel Audiophile, even with video sources. I hate 5.1 setups.
> 
> All single driver crossoverless systems sound terrible. They exist because people fear crossovers.
> 
> I think that for a given price point, solid state amps are generally better than tube amps.
> 
> I believe there is no substantial difference in high end speaker cables or interconnects.
> 
> I do not read audio magazines because the reviewers are as inventive as they are clueless.
> 
> I've never let an audio salesperson talk me into buying something. Commission = pushy.
> 
> "Service" is never an excuse for higher prices at local dealers. Never pay list price.
> 
> I hate ridiculous pricing. People are starving. Don't buy a $12k 8 watt tube amp.
> 
> Half the high end companies are pushing products that are not worth a fraction the price.
> 
> I think vintage audio is a waste of money and can't even match the sound of today's mid-fi.
> 
> People who use the term Pace, Rhythm and Timing (PRAT) completely fail to impress me.
> 
> I despise the current state of car audio. High SPL doesn't trip my trigger.
> 
> Big dollar crossover components are a waste of money and offer NO improvement in sound.


----------



## eugovector

I don't know what this means:

"I do not read audio magazines because the reviewers are as inventive as they are clueless."

Are they Inventive and Clueless, or neither? Do they invent because they are clueless?


----------



## Sonnie

DS-21 said:


> '"Service" is never an excuse for higher prices at local dealers."
> 
> I'm willing to pay more for service in general.


I firmly believe in shopping for the best price, but in some cases I don't mind paying for service, depending on what service it is. As far as home theater products go, which I assume he is referring to audio, video, etc., there is not much service from a dealer that I see any need to pay extra for. I suppose if we had local dealers here where I live and they could do warranty repair work, it might be a benefit to shop there. I'm just really not sure what else they could offer that would make it worth paying more for, but I'm probably missing something. 




DS-21 said:


> "I despise the current state of car audio. High SPL doesn't trip my trigger."
> 
> There are plenty of subcultures in car-fi, including several focused on everything but thumping SPLs at stoplights.


Agree... when I was younger, it was all about SPL, but after only a few years of that I started working more towards sound quality. Sure there are quite a few SPL'ers out there, but I'd say there are just as many or more looking for SQ. 




eugovector said:


> I don't know what this means:
> 
> "I do not read audio magazines because the reviewers are as inventive as they are clueless."
> 
> Are they Inventive and Clueless, or neither? Do they invent because they are clueless?


I think he means that they invent things to write about when they are actually clueless about whether it's the truth or not. 

I'm not sure I would agree that all reviewers are this way. I suppose I'm not educated enough to know when some things are accurate or invented, but there is no doubt some reviews are full of snake oil and lies.


----------



## Lucky7!

It's sad that this isn't still featured on Zaph's site, nor the older version which was even better, but as he is now selling drivers and designs, it's probably better he doesn't upset a goodly percentage of his potential sales base.

He has a newer Evaluation page up that's worth the read.

Generally I agree, except for these:*
Half the high end companies are pushing products that are not worth a fraction the price.* - 'Significantly more than' should be added to the start.
*I am strictly a two channel Audiophile, even with video sources. I hate 5.1 setups.* - I love good surround for movies and music DVDs, and I think most of us here do too, and finally
*People who use the term Pace, Rhythm and Timing (PRAT) completely fail to impress me.* - I feel those that use the term PRAT as though it has a real meaning _are_ prats. English and Anglo's will probably get the slang term.

Sorry to have dug this up from the archives, but I found it linked from another thread (10 Biggest Lies) and I'm still thinking about my reply to that one.


----------



## lcaillo

Sonnie said:


> I firmly believe in shopping for the best price, but in some cases I don't mind paying for service, depending on what service it is. As far as home theater products go, which I assume he is referring to audio, video, etc., there is not much service from a dealer that I see any need to pay extra for. I suppose if we had local dealers here where I live and they could do warranty repair work, it might be a benefit to shop there. I'm just really not sure what else they could offer that would make it worth paying more for, but I'm probably missing something.


You may not be missing anything, but not everyone has the desire nor experience to sort out many of the complexities of consumer electronics like you do. What dealers can offer (not that many are very good at it) is the assurance that things will work as expected, the management of those expectations, and some degree of knowledge that most consumers just will never achieve. For you and me, there probably is not any reason to pay retail at a local or any other dealer, because we could probably teach them about what we are buying and doing. Most consumers are quite clueless, however, which is why many dealers get away with things that give people a very bad taste for retail.

I think that zaph and his generalizations do little to really advance anyone's knowledge. Some of his opinions are near correct, most start with a grain of truth, but ultimately you have to look a little deeper than yelling "snake oil" to be really informed.


----------



## Toby Jack

I wonder where all this anxt is really coming from...


----------



## looneybomber

Too bad someone doesn't have a saved HTML version of his old rant page. I'd like to read it. So far I'm in the same boat with him on nearly everything he's said.



Toby Jack said:


> I wonder where all this anxt is really coming from...


Where all the _what_ is coming from?


----------



## robbo266317

looneybomber said:


> Too bad someone doesn't have a saved HTML version of his old rant page. I'd like to read it. So far I'm in the same boat with him on nearly everything he's said.


Have you tried searching "the way back machine" for it?

Go to www.thewaybackmachine.com and do a search on his name or website.


----------



## Toby Jack

Where all the [i said:


> what[/i] is coming from?


Ha ha! Sorry, I meant "angst". I knew that looked wrong.

From the few years I have been involved in the home theater universe, it seems to me that a large majority of the audio veterans seem embittered by the rampant ignorance that pervades the industry. I know it can be frustrating when people make bogus claims based on flawed knowledge. I also understand how aggravating it is when manufacturers take advantage of these inaccuracies to pad their bottom line. But what I don't get is why these seasoned experts share an general attitude of contempt towards those of lesser knowledge about this hobby that brings us all such joy. I personally love offering help to the new-comers of home theater realm. I would think people would want to share the excitement they receive from jaw-dropping sound & a pristinely accurate picture. It's not like we are a part of some elitist club.

There is obviously something to be said about accuracy & truth regarding home theater but if Billy Joe goes home with his Cerwin Vega's & is overjoyed with the depth & clarity he hears, who are we to tell him he is wrong or that his ears are not as attuned to quality audio? The bottom line is, the home theater hobby is about entertainment & fun. When we get people's face & tell them how stupid they are, or how little they know, we are doing nothing but making the world of home theater unapproachable. 

So to all you audiophiles of old (just the bitter ones), start sharing the cinema love!


----------



## lcaillo

I got started in the audio business before there was such a thing as home theater, and what I have noted for years is that the vast majority of those promoting and buying what many consider "snake oil" actually firmly believe that what they hear and what they attribute it to are in fact physical effects. While much of it can be explained with placebo and expectation bias effects, there are differences that the science and technology have not sufficiently explained. My position has always been that we should not assume that we know all that we don't know, nor that what we experience is not affected by biases on perception. We also need to be careful about accusations of intent, because while many out there are happy to take advantage of these effects, many, if not most really believe in what they are selling. That belief may be mistaken, it may be naive, or it may be manipulated by others, but most are people trying to make a decent living. The opposing opinion is often just as much based on belief with insufficient evidence to support the position that is often promoted, and zaph is a perfect example of this. 

The pursuit of knowledge and understanding informs opinion. Opinion stated with disdain for others and their beliefs is pointless blather, IMO, that does more harm than good.


----------



## Toby Jack

lcaillo said:


> I got started in the audio business before there was such a thing as home theater, and what I have noted for years is that the vast majority of those promoting and buying what many consider "snake oil" actually firmly believe that what they hear and what they attribute it to are in fact physical effects. While much of it can be explained with placebo and expectation bias effects, there are differences that the science and technology have not sufficiently explained. My position has always been that we should not assume that we know all that we don't know, nor that what we experience is not affected by biases on perception. We also need to be careful about accusations of intent, because while many out there are happy to take advantage of these effects, many, if not most really believe in what they are selling. That belief may be mistaken, it may be naive, or it may be manipulated by others, but most are people trying to make a decent living. The opposing opinion is often just as much based on belief with insufficient evidence to support the position that is often promoted, and zaph is a perfect example of this.
> 
> The pursuit of knowledge and understanding informs opinion. Opinion stated with disdain for others and their beliefs is pointless blather, IMO, that does more harm than good.


Wow—well said. I completely agree.


----------



## looneybomber

robbo266317 said:


> Have you tried searching "the way back machine" for it?
> 
> Go to www.thewaybackmachine.com and do a search on his name or website.


I can never remember what that site is called. Thanks.



Toby Jack said:


> Ha ha! Sorry, I meant "angst". I knew that looked wrong.


 Ohh. I read it and thought you meant "annexed".


----------



## lcaillo

Anxt would have been a great name for a 90's Seattle rock band.


----------



## JoeESP9

It has been my experience that those screaming the loudest about "snake oil" have never tried any of the products or tweaks they protest so very much about. When asked why they never tried "xyz" their response usually involves an "I know what I'm talking about about" stance with no proof whatsoever. Sometimes I think they are partially motivated by cheapness and partially by ignorance. Either one separately is a bummer. Together they're just boring.


----------



## eugovector

It's tough to bring yourself to try out the products when they are so grossly overpriced. If you'd like to send my any of these cables, cd pens, or magic glass bead, I'd be happy to try them out, but I'll not be the fool paying money for them.


----------



## JoeESP9

The green CD pen is available at most art supply stores under the name Uni-Posca. I costs about $3. If anyone still has some old 5¼" floppy disks the actual disk inside the sleeve when cut down makes a good CD mat.


----------



## villastrangiato

I think Mr. Krutke deserves our respect and thanks. It is not always easy to strike the proper balance between being factual and insulting to those who practice more religion than science. John Krutke at least has taken a stand - backing up his strongly held views much of the time with facts. He stands alone in this industry in terms of the dedication and attention to detail he brings to conducting exhaustive tests and posting them for the benefit of others. I have found most if not all of his observations/opinions to be well supported by actual measurements - not mere conjecture or speculation. It's really easy for us to shy away from controversy - keeping the measurements and "facts" to ourselves to avoid diplomatic meltdown and distasteful situations. Egos are a sensitive issue and trying to maintain respect for one another when we disagree technically is easier said than done. John may have come across as rough around the edges in the past. His self imposed censorship though should not necessarily be seen as a virtue. If we all go to the extreme of clamming up to maintain civility and superficial respect - no real information gets exchanged. If anyone truly expects to learn anything from discourse, they have to begin the process with the understanding that they can and sometimes will be wrong. Those that feel they have nothing new to learn inevitably prove that they have the most to learn. It's all about striking a good balance. And before we castigate John Krutke for the balance he has struck in the past - we should look carefully at ourselves to see if we've individually done a much better job.


----------



## JoeESP9

How do you measure soundstage? What parameters are important? What are good "numbers"? What are bad "numbers"?

That question was only to illustrate that there's more going on in this field than numbers alone. Sometimes you have to trust your own ears and gut instinct. As an Electrical Engineer I was taught to rely on measurements and numbers. As I have matured I have learned we may not know what to measure or how as in "Soundstage". Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. 

Check the link below for measurable differences in speaker cables.

http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/201807390


----------



## villastrangiato

JoeESP9 said:


> How do you measure soundstage? What parameters are important? What are good "numbers"? What are bad "numbers"?
> 
> That question was only to illustrate that there's more going on in this field than numbers alone. Sometimes you have to trust your own ears and gut instinct. As an Electrical Engineer I was taught to rely on measurements and numbers. As I have matured I have learned we may not know what to measure or how as in "Soundstage". Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Check the link below for measurable differences in speaker cables.
> 
> http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/201807390


I'd evaluate "soundstage" with a couple key measurements - frequency response at various points around the room and impulse response (time domain rather than frequency domain) in the same locations. These two will reveal what the amplitude uniformity and phase coherence is of the speaker in question. Good performance in these realms is required for a speaker to "image" or "soundstage" well. If it underperforms in the frequency and time domains, it is highly unlikely that it will project a reasonably accurate "image" or "soundstage". Certainly our listening impressions should not be discarded - but neither should the above measurements. I'm sure we all agree on that point.

As for the article you posted on speaker cables, I don't think we really disagree on much. Fifty meter cables (about 150 foot length) is an extreme case that will very definitely result in *measureable* increases in capacitance and resistance which will most certainly affect the sonic outcome. In fact, I'm surprised that the results obtained weren't more severe than that which was posted. 

More importantly, I wasn't trying to suggest that John Krutke struck the most perfect balance in discussing these topics where his level of tact is concerned. Everyone, myself included, should be judged or evaluated on the balance of what we contribute overall. No one is perfect, certainly not me or John Krutke. On balance though, I think John's (Zaph's) contributions overall have been very positive for people in this community and we should be careful about criticizing him - lest we have the effect of stifling further contributions from this generous,knowledgeable, and talented individual.


----------



## DougMac

*Cheap, Ignorant and Boring*



JoeESP9 said:


> When asked why they never tried "xyz" their response usually involves an "I know what I'm talking about about" stance with no proof whatsoever. Sometimes I think they are partially motivated by cheapness and partially by ignorance. Either one separately is a bummer. Together they're just boring.


I fit the skeptic description. It's nice to know I can be dismissed as cheap, ignorant and boring all at once.

There's just some things in life that can be deduced without having direct experience.

My limited knowledge of science and physics leads me to believe that sticking my hand under a running lawn mower is not a good idea. That same type of knowledge leads me to believe that a $130 jar of pebbles will have no effect on the sonic qualities of my listening room.


----------



## mdrake

*Re: Cheap, Ignorant and Boring*



DougMac said:


> My limited knowledge of science and physics leads me to believe that sticking my hand under a running lawn mower is not a good idea. That same type of knowledge leads me to believe that a $130 jar of pebbles will have no effect on the sonic qualities of my listening room.


:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## villastrangiato

*Re: Cheap, Ignorant and Boring*



DougMac said:


> I fit the skeptic description. It's nice to know I can be dismissed as cheap, ignorant and boring all at once.
> 
> There's just some things in life that can be deduced without having direct experience.
> 
> My limited knowledge of science and physics leads me to believe that sticking my hand under a running lawn mower is not a good idea. That same type of knowledge leads me to believe that a $130 jar of pebbles will have no effect on the sonic qualities of my listening room.


Perhaps you're not using the pebbles correctly.....:bigsmile:

Maybe you're supposed to rest the speakers on their back panel before you pour your pebbles into the woofer cone.......

It's a common mistake, so don't feel bad. If you got your pebbles from Stoned Audio, they've been sporadically shipping some of their woofer conditioning pebbles without instructions. I downloaded their owner's manual though and it says to make sure your woofers are facing up before commencing the conditioning process.....


----------



## JoeESP9

*Re: Cheap, Ignorant and Boring*



DougMac said:


> I fit the skeptic description. It's nice to know I can be dismissed as cheap, ignorant and boring all at once.
> 
> There's just some things in life that can be deduced without having direct experience.
> 
> My limited knowledge of science and physics leads me to believe that sticking my hand under a running lawn mower is not a good idea. That same type of knowledge leads me to believe that a $130 jar of pebbles will have no effect on the sonic qualities of my listening room.


The point of the article was that in real world situations the load a speaker imposes on a cable makes them sound different. 

FWIW: I agree with you about "brilliant pebbles".


----------



## lcaillo

*Re: Cheap, Ignorant and Boring*



DougMac said:


> I fit the skeptic description. It's nice to know I can be dismissed as cheap, ignorant and boring all at once.
> 
> There's just some things in life that can be deduced without having direct experience.
> 
> My limited knowledge of science and physics leads me to believe that sticking my hand under a running lawn mower is not a good idea. That same type of knowledge leads me to believe that a $130 jar of pebbles will have no effect on the sonic qualities of my listening room.




I am a skeptic as well. I am just as skeptical of objectivist assumptions that they understand the variables involved well enough to deduce that there are no possible differences in specific cases. My experience is that there are far more differences than many would like to acknowledge and far fewer than the other side suggests. The variance in response between amplifiers, even with essentially resistive loads is far greater than most assume. What is suspicious and disappointing to me is that with modern technology making measurement so easy and cheap, with tools that could not have been imagined 30 years ago, we still see virtually no documentation of many of the claims of the high end audio manufacturers.


----------



## JoeESP9

*Re: Cheap, Ignorant and Boring*



lcaillo said:


> I am a skeptic as well. I am just as skeptical of objectivist assumptions that they understand the variables involved well enough to deduce that there are no possible differences in specific cases. My experience is that there are far more differences than many would like to acknowledge and far fewer than the other side suggests. The variance in response between amplifiers, even with essentially resistive loads is far greater than most assume. What is suspicious and disappointing to me is that with modern technology making measurement so easy and cheap, with tools that could not have been imagined 30 years ago, we still see virtually no documentation of many of the claims of the high end audio manufacturers.


When I graduated from college with a EE I was a strict objectivist. I then married a woman who could walk in the front door and hear that I had changed an IC. This forced me reevaluate my thinking. Since then I've been a confirmed fence sitter. Some things I know I can dismiss (Brilliant Pebbles). For many others I'm usually quite sceptical. However, I try to evaluate them with an open mind and ears. I chimed in on this thread because many times devices/products that sound different or make a difference get unfairly branded with the "snake oil" award. A good example of this is spikes under speakers. I've been around long enough to remember when spikes were called snake oil. Today the benefits of spiking speakers is a non-issue.

I've learned that new or different products are best approached with an open mind. As J.B.S. Haldane said "The universe is not weirder than we think. It's weirder than we can imagine".


----------



## lcaillo

I would generally agree. I am less convinced of the efficacy of spikes, as I have not been able to measure a difference with them. This should be an easy one to assess. Do you have some documentation of the effect?


----------



## JoeESP9

What can I say? I first tried them more than 15 years ago. They are on my ESL's which came with spikes. I'm inclined to agree with the speaker manufacturer. I would have thought the question of spikes on speakers was settled. Most of the "decent" speakers and stands I'm aware of come with spikes or threaded holes for them. They are a cheap enough tweak that trying them is not a budget buster. To my ears they make the bass cleaner.


----------



## lcaillo

This is a very good example of why such claims gather such controversy. Evaluatiing bass response, in a number of ways, is quite easy. I have never seen, however, any measurements that support the idea. I suspect that there is some validity to the claims of better coupling, as those forces are clearly greater, but like other factors that start with some validity, what has not been addressed in an objective manner is the effect on the sound. At the same time, expectation bias is well understood to affect every bit of our perception. Prior knowledge, assumptions, expectations, all effect filters on what we take away from any experience.

I do not deny that you hear an effect. I am simply curious as to its explanation.


----------



## paulspencer

The way back machine is here:
http://web.archive.org

But you won't find Zaph audio on it. He's used a robots.txt exclusion. If you don't want your website to appear in it's previous versions, then you can have your site excluded with a simple text file. John obviously doesn't want people to use the archive to view the old stuff via a cheat method like that.


----------



## mor2bz

I sure do agree with Zaph's appraisal of cables and mags. I love what he says about PRAT! too funny.
like one speaker or amp isn't going to play a 3 minute song in 3 minutes. 

Not so sure about what he says of SS over tubes. I think that tube amps are a better value at the lower 
end of the spectrum. I think my $700 tube amp sounds much better than most $1200 SS gear. 

Not so sure about his view on vintage stuff. Alot of the vintage stuff I have bought has small transformers,
and even after recapping I have been unhappy with the bass. But the new Class D stuff I don't think it is
the last word on bass either. Give me some vintage SS with heavy iron for bass quality.

Can't agree with him on not paying for service or assuming that any price in a store is too high.
I have seen dealers give away stuff at cost just cause it has been there too long. And I got to hear it 
first too and not have it damaged in shipping.

All in all, I think this guy has alot to say that is right on.


----------



## mor2bz

Also, regarding cds and vinyl, I find that the vinyl kills cd on system over about 1k. this assumes the
best recordings in either format. It is strange to me however that records can be preserved intact on cds.

Regarding X-over parts, I have to agree. I have wasted good money on fancy caps and have heard no
improvements. I have used iron core inductors with great success in certain applications, while some people
claim they should NEVER be used.

As to the 2 channel vs. 5.1 debate, I a firmly a stereo man and shall remain so. 

I wish I knew 1% of what Zaph knows, and I applaud his effort to share what must be just a fraction of
his knowledge. I have learned alot by studying his (very complete and polished) speaker plans he publishes for everyone's benefit. At the same time, I think one should beware of experts, and take care that when looking for
Mr. Right, one should make sure his first name is not Always.


----------



## bambino

He certainly knows his stuff and also has his opinions as to what is good and bad through his tried and true methods, he's also not afraid to voice his opinions either. I like him allready:T.


----------



## Sir Terrence

mor2bz said:


> Also, regarding cds and vinyl, I find that the vinyl kills cd on system over about 1k. this assumes the
> best recordings in either format. It is strange to me however that records can be preserved intact on cds.


While vinyl may be pleasing to the ears, it is far from accurate in representing the recorded event. Doug Sax, Bernie Grundman, Bob Katz and several other award winning mastering engineers have said this, and based on my experience mixing audio, I have to agree. Even Wilma Cozart Fine, the lead engineer of the Mercury Living Presence series of recordings (and former VP or Mercury records) has said the series CD reproduction was much closer to the original tapes than the vinyl is. 

I always find it ironic that folks who make these comparisons always choose the lowest resolution of digital (16/44.1khz bit and sample rate), and compare it against the second best way of reproducing analog sound. Why don't folks make this comparison with 24/88.2 or 24/176.4khz bit and sample rates?




> As to the 2 channel vs. 5.1 debate, I a firmly a stereo man and shall remain so.


I love stereo as a listener, hate it as an audio engineer. I do not like to have limitations placed on my sound systems. I can easily play a stereo recording on my music leaning 7.1 system, but a two channel system can never play a multichannel recording 



> I wish I knew 1% of what Zaph knows, and I applaud his effort to share what must be just a fraction of
> his knowledge. I have learned alot by studying his (very complete and polished) speaker plans he publishes for everyone's benefit. At the same time, I think one should beware of experts, and take care that when looking for
> Mr. Right, one should make sure his first name is not Always.


Well said:clap:


----------



## class a

Sonnie said:


> I was plundering around the Zaph Audio site, mainly snooping for Zaph's measurements... and ran across his "About Me" page. Pretty interesting stuff:


Intresting list but in some cases a bit to dogmatic for me. 
A. CD vs Vinyl. It all depends on the mastering of the music. Many CDs are recorded w/inferior
 masters and are peak limited to the extreme. On the vinyl side especially from the late 80's
on quality vinyl went down hill with the rise of digital. Also comparing analog tape recording to 
digital is completly different process what you prefer is purely subjective.

B. I enjoy the mags for what they are which is a great source of information on whats new.
Even though I can't afford $180,000 speakers I enjoy reading abouth them just like a $100,000 
Corvette.
C. Vintage audio I'll put up my Threshold and Forte amps up against anything out today. Quality
electronics will always stand out. Afterall has anyone amended Ohms law recently?
D. Pricing. I'm a free market guy. If you want to make a $12,000 8 wpc amp good luck. A person 
buying this probably is not worried about next months car payment. Years ago I had a friend in 
Florida that was in the Yacht building industry. Overpriced boats for the rich. Well when they
put an extra tax on the yachts the industry collapsed and the average Joe that built the boats
lost their jobs. Why do we always want to punish companies that make high-end products?
E. This hobby is all about entertainment and fun. Sometimes I think we take it to serious. 
Suggestion turn down the lights get your favorite beverage and enjoy some tunes. Isn't that 
what we're all looking for in the end???:sn:


----------



## GranteedEV

While I don't disagree with Zaph on a lot of things, I'm of the opinion that everything should be put to the objective tests - both measurements and blind listening. If a correlation cannot be found, it shouldn't be claimed. 

The website I find myself visiting most for information is 

http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm

because I think his articles are very informative.

If a person truly believes that his cable or pre-amp or what have you sounds different, I would always

1) Ask them if they can hear this difference when the biases of sighted listening are eliminated
2) If so, wish to measure the product and see just why it's sounding different. Our knowledge of these sort of things is great enough that the measurements will reveal the difference IMO.
3) If there is a difference, is it truly a positive one? Have we accidentally sacrificed fidelity?
4) If there is a difference, is it financially proportional to the difference between something which in my experience always makes a huge difference (Room, Speakers, and Sufficient Amplification)? "Was it truly worth it"?

And after all that, instead of an enlightening discussion, usually attacks on my hearing ability, my financial situation or the resolution ability of my own system. And that's fine. But this to me reveals a far deeper issue:

Is high-end audio less about enjoying what we wish to enjoy, and more about ostentatiousness? Is that what audiophilia is? Is mid-fi just the same? Is there any way to remove this constant disdain between the two parties? One party refuses to try hearing the lack of a difference, and the other party apparently lacks the ability to hear the difference. Stalemate.

So my ultimate conclusion is that... on paper, we all need to learn to hold our breath when people disagree with us. In my experience however, I do feel inclined to tell a person about to spend $2000 on cabling or power conditioning to rethink his/her position and do the research necessary. To spend $100 on measurement gear or something to know whether and why it would have a difference. Or to find third party measurements of the product and see what exactly it does. And if the justification is more..paranormal than that... to at least _audition blindly_, with a close family member doing the blind switching. While I believe in double blind and ABX, I believe level matched, single blind, with a trusted person switching, is far less convoluted and more likely to get you the results you as an individual desire.

I do believe measurements are almost the end-all-be-all as the well documented psychoacoustic researches have shown much correlation between them and what we perceive. I also believe that 99% of the time, what measurements we have are extremely INSUFFICIENT. And I also believe that a lot of us, myself included, haven't thoroughly enough actually read all of that psychoacoustic research that will help describe to us how we do or don't acheive the desired feelings and emotional connections.

But that's complacency, and in my opinion acceptable because it means we are happy. At the end of the day, despite all the shortcomings, I think many of us can still enjoy music through the lowest-fi systems as long as it does not extremely sound well off and distorted. 

The alternative is insecurity and constantly switching out components which do or do not get us closer to our end goal. Is that happiness? Personally, in correlating my subjective experiences with objective knowledge of others, I feel secure about my money having been well spent. At the end of the day it brings me happiness.

Maybe a cable really does change the sound at 14khz ever so slightly. But because I'm not bothering with the ever-so-slight "maybes", I feel content and feel my money can be put to less slight, less "maybe" things.


----------



## jinjuku

Zaph has a section at the bottom of his site:


*
Evaluation Myths Busted

Subjectivity vs objectivity 


subjectivity
noun: judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts

objectivity
noun: judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

For those who are not familiar with the usage of these terms in the audio world, subjectivity is an interpetation of performance using ears and music while objectivity is proof of performance using as many scientific measurements and methods as required to make a point. 

This is going to be the part of this article that hurts some the most: In a situation where proven methodology and technology exists to do objective testing, people will side with subjectivity when 1)objectivity does not give them the answers they want to hear 2)they have an agenda or interest to protect, or 3)they are incapable of executing objective methods or reading objective results. Why do I never discuss this issue on the forums? Because there's no winning an argument with someone who is stubborn and uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. (ouch, but I can't think of any less harsh terms at the moment) 

Don't let a proponent of subjectivity tell you that the right measurements don't exist to properly describe performance. That is a wrong statement, occasionally stated unknowingly but more often stated blatantly on purpose. The right measurements do exist and it's time for people to get with the program. The field of audio is very well known and has been for 50 years. My advice to those who say the right measurements don't exist: Get a decent measurement package, start measuring some drivers, and then start listening to them, in different applications and without filters, alone and in systems with other drivers, just so you can hear exactly what you see. In time, understanding will come. 

Beware the subjective speaker review. Anything subjective is likely full of vague useless verbage and is open to very different interpretation by anyone. It's also open to omissions because the review material will always be limited. And, as mentioned above, there's a good chance it's just not true. 

A speaker can't be evaluated like a painting. The nature of a painting forces subjectivity while a speaker *can* be objectively tested. Don't forget that a painting is a production conveying the emotions and ideas of the painter, while a speaker is a device for reproduction. There is no room for emotion (or distortion) in a reproduction. A reproduction is judged by one thing: accuracy compared to the original. People shouldn't put on purple sunglasses when going to an art museum. 

The objectivity of measurements leaves nothing to the imagination. Issues can not hide or be neglected, intentionally or unintentionally. So obviously, the moral of this story is that objective measurements should be used whenever possible, and subjective reviews should not be accepted or at least considered with a grain of salt. 

How often has someone said "Forget the measurements and tell me how it sounds." Or "Learn to listen with your ears." Well I hate to say it, but stubborn and uninformed is rearing it's ugly head again. A lack of understanding without an open mind leads to a refusal of the facts and an embrace of whatever view happens to further that individual's cause. Or worse yet, it may lead to a view that's simply an attempt to make a knowingly guilty person appear smarter or more interesting than they actually are. 

All the answers are in the measurements
I mean ALL the answers. Some people don't know how to interpet the measurements. Some don't want to know all the answers. The mysticism of not knowing how a speaker sounds before trying to use it might make for an interesting, though lengthy design session. That's fine. If that's the route chosen, so be it and enjoy the design process. It would be wrong however to say that's the only route to take. The sad part is that the less technical "guessing" route is the one that's more likely to lead to failure. 

The performance of a driver can simply be broken down into two types of distortion
linear and nonlinear. Everything is a subset of that. It's beyond the scope of this article to describe how types of distortion are categorized. As far as the measurements posted on this web site, don't assume that if one type if distortion isn't tested for, something is missing. The linear distortion in the form of frequency response, and non-linear distortion in the form of harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion are the factors that make up 95% of a driver's performance. For example, I don't show "the rise and fall time" of a driver because it's just a derivative of the response curve. It's all in the impulse. 

Ears cannot be trusted 
Those who don't measure, don't know. Period. They can pretend they know, but rest assured they don't. The human ear, as it is connected to the human brain, is not very smart and easily fooled. If something is wrong with a speaker, people have a hard time telling what it is. Using ears only, the quality of a speaker can only be described in extremely subjective terms. Treble is often described as bright, dull, edgy, recessed, etc. Bass is often described as warm, boomy, deep, lean, tight, etc. But without any accurate basis of comparison, comments like that are meaningless. Don't even get me started by describing how many "veils have been lifted" from the music or how a speaker's "pace rhythm and timing" is affecting the sound. Those vague, meaningless statements are made by people who lack the proper technical vocabulary to describe a speaker's performance. In summary, a driver should be fully measured before a person is qualified to comment on the sound of that driver. 

Look at it this way: who is more believable, the guy who says "This tweeter sounds edgy" or the guy who says "This tweeter has moderate 3rd and high 5th order harmonic distortion." Again, who is more believable: the guy who says "This tweeter sounds dull" or the guy who says "The average level of this tweeter is 1.5 dB lower than the woofer above the crossover point." So, while "this tweeter sounds dull" does imply that something might be wrong, there is absolutely nothing there to say what is wrong or even offer any proof that something actually is wrong. 

To make a point, some statements could have many different translations. Here's a bunch of examples. We'll start with a single statement made by folks that have been listening to . 

This tweeter sounds dull. Translation: "I've been listening to a speaker without baffle step compensation for 10 years, and this new design sounds different than my personal standard." 

This tweeter sounds dull. Translation: "My last system had Dynaudio D21 tweeters, and now anything without a peak at 10kHz sounds recessed and doesn't have sizzle I need." 

This tweeter sounds dull. Translation: "My current speaker has a woofer that did not have the breakup node properly filtered, and now I've accepted that type of sound as normal." 

Then we'll try the statements made by folks with well trained ears but other problems. 
This tweeter sounds dull. Translation: "I misunderstood the crossover diagram, hooked the tweeter up with the polarity reversed and now I have a broad 40dB null at 2.5kHz." 

This tweeter sounds dull. Translation: "My living room is very sound absorptive, and any system with a flat response just isn't enough to overcome the lack of room reflection." 

This tweeter sounds dull. Translation: "Oops, my kid pulled the treble knob off my preamp, put it back rotated 45 degrees to the right, and then adjusted it so it visually centered." 

Go ahead openly laugh at that last one... but it has happened. Here we have addressed about 1% of the potential reasons why a tweeter may sound dull, and we have not even considered that there may be a problem with the design or an out of spec driver. And good lord, "this tweeter sounds bright" has a potential 500% more translations. Obviously, words can't cut it. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but in a case like this, an actual measurement is priceless. 

All that said, it's not impossible to speak in terms of distortion types when listening with ears. But be aware that it takes years of working with real distortion measurements before types of distortion at various frequencies can be properly identified using only ears. Enough said. 


Drivers cannot be evaluated in a system 
I see this all the time. Statements like "I used XXX driver in my last YYY design and it sounded ZZZ." Replace X, Y and Z with anything. It doesn't matter what, because statements like that don't have any merit. When a driver is used in a system, only the system as a whole can be evaluated. (and even then, as mentioned above, not without measurements) Of course the drivers are making sound, but what you really hear is the crossover, design choices and the listening environment. So many people evaluate drivers while they are in a poorly designed system and then blame the result on the drivers themselves. Only individual and extensive driver measurements are acceptable in evaluating an individual driver. 

If distortion measurements aren't part of the first step in selecting and using a driver, the system "tweaking time" will multiply exponentially as the designer struggles to find a configuration that helps hide a driver's faults. All drivers have faults. Without distortion measurements, improper usage of a driver may cause a person to simply give up and come to the wrong conclusion that a driver is a poor performer. In a case like that, the only poor performer is the designer who failed to work around a driver's faults. 

Where subjectivity actually works 
During the driver evaluation process, any sort of subjectivity is a bad idea. But on the other hand, subjectivity during the system evaluation process is going to be required. At some point, a designer has to decide on tradeoffs. That could mean deciding what types of distortion are more annoying to the designer personally. For example, what sounds worse: a broad, large increase in even order harmonic distortion in the lower midrange and bass or sharper but narrow band odd order harmonic distortion in the upper treble? Sound familiar? It's the old metal vs paper cone debate and it comes down to personal preference. The choice is a subjective one. Some prefer metal cones while many others prefer paper or poly. That's OK. Measurements can tell the truth about a driver but remember that they can't tell you what you like. 

When a proponent of subjectivity repeats what I just mentioned above, I'm not going to dispute it. Many things in the end come down to personal preference. A system design decision can be subjective, but testing and evaluating drivers individually must remain objective. 

Detail is a word 
This is a word that is used by people who don't know how to properly describe a speaker's performance. It is merely a vague indicator that something sounds pleasing, and it means different things to many different people. It could mean more distortion or it could mean less. Detail is an audiophile "power word" that means nothing but sounds good rolling off the tongue. It sure sounds better than just mumbling "I like it" every time a speaker impresses. 

I might advise substituting two different words that work a little better: clean and smooth. Clean can mean low non-linear distortion. It would mean a lack of harmonic frequencies that are different from the fundamental frequency reproduced. Clean can mean hearing only what's in the original music and nothing more. Smooth can mean low linear distortion. Of course this could mean a smooth frequency response, but it also means low energy storage which is directly related. Rise and decay time are all related to frequency response smoothness. 

The words and phrases list 
Aside from the word detail, there are a lot of other audiophile wannabe "power words" and phrases. All are vague, non-descript and useless. Some phrases are deceiving, such as soundstage width, depth, or height. What people are really hearing is a system's power response and it's interaction with the room. Open up a Stereophile and read a page to obtain a plethora useless audiophile terms. Some of the offending single-words might be transparency, image, bite, snap, grain or resolution (in reference to anything analog) and so on. 

Multi-word phrases are even worse
Veils have been lifted gets a special achievement award for overused bad cliche. It doesn't end with phrases like pace, rhythm and timing and black spaces between the notes. Any description of music played during evaluation or any description of cables or interconnects used during evaluation also fall under this category. I won't go on for fear that I might cause nausea. Just be aware that there's a lot of it out there. Some of it is obvious and some is not. 

Common system comparison errors 
Non-linear confused with linear distortion
For those who are not familiar with the terms, non-linear distortion is any type that adds additional frequencies to the original fundamental frquency. Linear distortion is anything related to deviation from flat frequency response. Harmonic distortion by it's nature can make a speaker seem to have a bright tonality. It might measure flat, but upper harmonics not in the original recording can change perception of the tonality. It takes a deep familiarity with a reference recording and a keen ear to be able to tell the difference between linear and non-linear distortion. 

Woofer issues confused with tweeter performance
Related to the above, a poor choice of a crossover point on a woofer (too high) can often lead a person to believe there is a distortion or level problem with a tweeter. A woofer could be generating harmonics well into the range that the tweeter is covering. When a listener declares that they don't like a tweeter they heard in a system, 90% of the time it's the woofer and the design that's actually the problem. 

Low end distortion is not good bass
Smallish woofers often trick people into thinking bass performance is good. There's a mindset that more is better, but when listening to tiny woofers trying to reproduce the bottom three octaves, you're not hearing "more" bass, you're hearing "different" bass. Bass distortion causes audible harmonics above the fundamental. On a small scale, this sounds like a warm tonality. On a large scale it can't be any better described than aural mud. Be carefull before declaring a woofer as having good bass. If a person is unfamiliar with what good bass is, they could just be hearing muddy distortion. 

Dull or veiled vs vibrant or exciting
When comparing the sound of two systems side by side, the first impression is often that the more distorted speaker seems more detailed, and the more accurate one seems dull or veiled. A speaker could often be described as vibrant or exciting by ears that are unfamiliar with clean sound. Even when set to the same level, the more distorted speaker will seem louder, and louder immediately seems better. Eventually, the distortion that causes "vibrant and exciting" will turn to listening fatigue, but it happens slowly. It's usually too slow to make quick A-B comparisons useful. If you really want to compare speakers with your ears, you had better live with them for a good long time. Otherwise, take some measurements to get the truth right away. 
The fact that listening fatigue takes a long time to set in does not bode well for making comparisons on a showroom floor, or at a DIY event for that matter. The favorite of a DIY event is most likely not the best performing speaker. On the showroom floor, it's a well known fact that some speakers are intentionally inaccurate to help them stand out. The unknowing consumer then takes home a poor performing speaker only to realize days or weeks later that this speaker doesn't sound as good as they thought. The DIY'er building a project they heard at an event is often disappointed with the result after living with it a while. 

*

I tend to line up with Zaphs objective view point. I've been in two cable burn in threads now where I have offered to send the subjectivists two sets of cables two burned in and two not, randomly labled. So far at differing forums they won't do it.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Zaph is my new hero, I could not agree more with his comments. He takes all of the high end voodoo out of audio and makes it plain and simple. I love it:T


----------



## jcandy

Sir Terrence said:


> Zaph is my new hero, I could not agree more with his comments. He takes all of the high end voodoo out of audio and makes it plain and simple. I love it:T


I have so far built three of his designs, and a minor tweak of a 4th.  I think in terms of a knowledge base, nothing even comes close to his site. Its too bad he is no longer updating his database of driver reviews. I bet one good word about a particular driver from Zaph will lead to a massive spike in sales.

And about his criticism of audio subjectivism, its excellent. I continue to be shocked at the ridiculous things people believe, the utter refusal to acknowledge expectation bias, and the arrogance that accompanies it all.


----------



## Theresa

Very true. I think it was his site that made me long for the ScanSpeak 7" slit cone paper woofer. He doesn't consider active crossovers as worthwhile though and I feel the opposite. Its sad he quit adding to his driver database.


----------



## chashint

I am always surprised by the number of electrical engineers that buy into the snake oil and apparently forget everything they know about orders of magnitude and the relative affects of changing something that is 2 to 1000 orders of magnitude lower than the next higher value in the audio signal path.


----------



## b bos37

I'll would go with all of it except for the part where cd sounds better than vinyl.


----------



## Theresa

There are other things I disagree with him about, like the disdain he has for active crossovers/speakers. I would have agreed with him 10 years ago but to my ears at least dsp based crossovers now sound better than passive one's. Then there is his dislike for home theater. But his is still my favorite site and I have spent much time studying his driver evaluations and his commentary.


----------



## chashint

CD does sound better than vinyl


----------



## Theresa

Some cd's sound better than some vinyl, and vice versa. Then there's hd, as from HDTracks which I think makes both sound poor in comparison.


----------



## eugovector

One of the big things that give CDs a bad rep is the loudness war.


----------



## soulsky1986

Very nice...........

:clap:


----------



## sparkysanspiano

I was looking forward to reading this as it brought to mind one particular hi-fi component reviewer who suddenly became all 'mystical' in his use of cables, removing one screw from a driver, 'decoupling' one of the feet of each component, and using elaborate knots for all the system's cables. And then came the sound-enhancing 'stick on pad' that cost an arm and a leg - all of which he claimed offered an audible improvement. 

This was back in the late 80s in the UK and, with hindsight, seems to have been a weird hi-fi forerunner of feng shui.

Unfortunately, the original posting above detailed his opinion on various things, rather than highlighting dubious practices and/or products. 

I think the 'vinyl vs CD' debate will go on for as long as there remains a platter upon which to spin a disc, as will the 'tube vs transistor' sound-off. 

As a long-time listener of music I have bought terrible sounding CD versions of things I have on disc. Of course, this is a technical problem - and one usually associated with the early era of digital convertors, but the argument is given that digital removes the 'soul' of music and this is where taking sides becomes only a subjective matter. I doubt an oscilloscope would help change minds!

As a musician (guitarist) the recording world is lit up with discussions surrounding the merits of analogue tape versus digital computer recording; analogue hardware (compressors and preamps and effects) versus their computer 'plug-in' replicas; tube outboard equipment (microphones, for example) versus their solid state equivalents. And don't get me started on 'boutique' guitar amplifiers!

Again, these arguments invariably become ones of subjective 'preferences' as some things do, indeed, sound 'different' - but who's to say one is 'better sounding' than another?

I liked the subtle wording regarding comparing the sound of cables: I would hardly expect much difference in sound between two expensive cables, but I would expect to hear a difference between a cheap cable and an expensive one. (Of course, then comes the subjective part of deciding which sound I prefer).

Finally, into all of this needs to be placed our ears. What we hear -and then interpret - is, of course, subjective. But there is such a phenomenon as 'golden ears': musicians, producers, mastering engineers - and even some hi-fi reviewers - people whose ears are able to notice the slightest nuance (the aural version of a wine taster who, after one sip, can tell you the grape variety, vineyard, and year of that particular bottle), and whose opinions are worth noticing. I wish I could hear what they hear, as they hear it - but then again, perhaps I would hate the experience.

Snake oil salesmen and charlatans - yes, of course they exist - even in the worlds of audio and video. But please do try and differentiate opinion for fact, otherwise you just become the purveyor of a different kind of snake oil.


----------



## td04ep82

I agree with most of all said by John im just going to give some info of what I have learnt experimenting with crossovers, speakers, designs, enclosures, car audio, home hi fi, home theatre, cables installations.

I first worked in hi fi in 1997 I worked selling hi fi/home theatre entry/midrange - most expensive speakers we had were about 12k hi fi pair amps and speakers were mainstream. Hi fi and home theatre up to about 7k per amp max.

I progressed through to a bit of speaker building, selling speaker parts, speakers, car audio, spl, sq, basically getting into the middle ground of all audio but not all the way to the end...I did not have the spare funds to spend on equipment, or the free time requird to invest to really go all the way audio was always a hobby - this is where zaph audio has helped me bridge the gap of what I know and dont - the data on the site has been invaluable to me piecing together information to helping me understand and find the audio truth.

This is for me (everyone has different ideals) search for the most accurate reproduction of the original source being played as possible ie: most accurate true speaker. If i know the drivers im playing with are not an accurate reproduction of events (which can be easily heard when u know what you are really hearing) I start changing things to correct it. When I get to a stage where I cannot improve the sound any furthur...I know I am mainly at the limit of the drivers.

In saying that...well matched drivers do not require megabucks to sound like a 20k set of speakers...

There are a handfull of (what I call cheap drivers) under $125 (strong bass drivers will be more) that I use and matched in a nice 3 way or used in their optimum bands could sound as good as a 20k pair of commercial speakers and almost as good as the top scan drivers but just...not quite there.

So I can understand where Zaph audio is coming from...how much does the consumer have to be ripped off their money for something that is...well...sonically less true to reproduction of the original recording especially when it is not that difficult or expensive to design and build the...opposite? 

ie:it is worse at the job it has been designed to do in the first place.

Not that all commercial speakers are overpriced because thats not the case...I have heard some VERY good value comercial speakers but how is a consumer to know the truth if...their eyes are covered up or havent heard the truth?.

I am fortunate however due to selling speakers some years ago to have a collection of tweeters and woofers (scan revelator slit cones, scan illuminator ring radiator, sb acoustics woofers/sb29's, peerless exclusives and hds/hds tweeters, scan 9500s, vifa xt25's/dx25's, vifa pl17's, some focals, seas, scan illuminator tweeters, a handfull of different vifa & sb neo tweeters the list goes on. I have "played" around extensively with all of these which has helped my understanding of what is accurate and where speakers tonal characteristics come from. 

I too thought that active crossovers should be much better some years ago for many reasons however when actually playing with them without any shaping passive circuits found they werent all they were cracked up to be...then if the drivers to be used require passive shaping circuits as well (which is most of the top end drivers) whats really the point? Plus how to hit a precise custom rolloff actively and...how much is all that going to cost?

I have done back to back tests of my own and shop gear in the past including cables where I switched between $400 interconnects and $30 interconnects I made, and I heard no difference. Speaker cables $4 to $50....all sounded the same.

Amplifiers, CD players and speakers have always had an audiable difference...

sometimes slight but noticable.

I understand people (as in everybody) has there own perceptions and preferences as to what they like the sound of however I dont believe people should be kept 'ignorant to reality' by the perceptions of media, manufacturers, reviewers or whoever it is saying whatever their saying...which may well be true or may be not and applaud zaph audio for all his work and efforts helping the audio community with truth and facts not found elsewhere and with the things hes done.


----------



## jcowling

I have learned a lot from Siegfried Linkwitz's website (linkwitzlab) about objectivity versus subjectivity.
He is an engineer with a keen ear and in depth understanding of audio. Most interesting to me are his discussions of psychoacoustics and how the research influences his designs and advances the knowledge of acoustic measurements. 
He is a skeptic that is open to new ideas. He just tries to measure it and apply physics and psychoacoustic principles. 
He does note something that is often overlooked: even if it can be measured, it doesn't matter if the difference would not be audible. For example, a properly designed amp or preamp can handle some measurable fluctuation in AC power and reject some RF interference. Just because a power conditioner can smooth power fluctuations and reject RF in a measurable way, does not mean that there will be any audible difference in the audio system.


----------



## MikeBiker

One's beliefs can greatly affect you one perceives what they experience. Tube amps do sound different than solid-state amps. Whether the sound is 'better' or not depends upon the listeners past experiences. 

Anyone selling magic beans should have the data that shows the exact changes that the beans make to sound waves being heard.


----------



## climber07

Toby Jack said:


> I wonder where all this anxt is really coming from...


Go to audioholics forums. There are some very knowledgeable people there, but most are arrogant, self absorbed, know-it-alls who are glad to spread most of these 10 lies... LOL


----------



## climber07

MikeBiker said:


> One's beliefs can greatly affect you one perceives what they experience. Tube amps do sound different than solid-state amps. Whether the sound is 'better' or not depends upon the listeners past experiences.
> 
> Anyone selling magic beans should have the data that shows the exact changes that the beans make to sound waves being heard.


Excellent statement. Just as some solid state amps sound different. Some amplifiers will make music sound bright and crisp, some others will give it a warm feeling, and others may do all of this well... All on the same speakers. Really high power applications do benefit from tubes (i.e. concert audio upwards of 1000s of watts).


----------

