Audiophile Placebo Test

[Eaglerino]

Has Linus ever done a blind test for different audiophile grade equipment, using both self proclaimed audiophiles and random people off the street? What I mean is has he sat people down, blindfolded them, then played FLAC vs MP3, $2000 vs $200 headphones, DAC vs no dac, and so on?

Because if he hasn't, I feel like his latest video on his headphone wall is the perfect setup for this. I'd love to know if all that actually matters, or if it's placebo for people wanting their $3000 audio setup to sound better with their 50 petabyte FLAC files. I can barely afford my $60 headphones so I myself have no way of knowing, but testing both random people and self proclaimed audiophiles, and seeing if they can point out which file is FLAC or MP3, would be good enough for me.

[themctipers]

There's always a tiny difference you can probably hear given the right equipment, but is it really worth it?

 

its like 16x msaa vs 8x, there's a difference but it's not worth it. 

 

I would say that a good compressed OGG at 320kbps would be enough for most, if not all people (in terms of audio quality for the present and maybe a decade in the future)

[zMeul]

you can make a FLAC out of a 8bit chiptune - doesn't make it audiophile

 

when it stops being distinguishable by your own ears, it stops worth the money

[Automobili3XF]

3 hours ago, zMeul said:

you can make a FLAC out of a 8bit chiptune - doesn't make it audiophile

 

when it stops being distinguishable by your own ears, it stops worth the money

Wow, this made me remember Logan's self proclaimed "audiophile tests" with his own music.

You can, sometimes, depending on the audio gear and sources, hear the difference between FLAC and MP3, but not with 8bit chiptunes...

[Zodiark1593]

I've heard 320 kbps .mp3 files that should terrible (from a very big vendor, no less), and 128 kbps .mp3 files that sound reasonable. 

 

Nowadays, FLAC has become fairly practical to use on mobile devices, and most certainly on PCs. I would like to see more vendors offer the option to download a lossless version of a track, and let the consumer decide how to encode it for their devices, or listen to it as is. 

[Automobili3XF]

Audiophile placebo tests are veeery polemic.

Its not as simple as just selecting a random song on CD, ripping it to FLAC and MP3 and expect significant results.

The only thing i noticed an average person can notice in sound quality is 320kbps MP3 vs. CD vs. SACD, but the test has to be carefull, the equipment has to be correct in order to reproduce the full fidelity of the source, this is not even counting the original mastering of the song...

[Automobili3XF]

11 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

I've heard 320 kbps .mp3 files that should terrible (from a very big vendor, no less), and 128 kbps .mp3 files that sound reasonable. 

 

Sometimes its not the file, but the mastering of the song itself.

Not being artist selective here, but if you listen to a 256kbps Mp3 of Diana Krall's "The Look of Love", for example, you can be satisfied, it still sounds good.

And then you listen to a fully fledged FLAC file of Drake's "Fake Love", it will still sound wrong, because the mastering is not decent enough...

[Guest Kloaked]

4 hours ago, themctipers said:

There's always a tiny difference you can probably hear given the right equipment, but is it really worth it?

 

its like 16x msaa vs 8x, there's a difference but it's not worth it. 

It doesn't work 100% like that in my experience, at least to an extent because there is probably a point of horrible diminishing returns, much like your example.

 

To give an example, my first "audiophile" headphones were the HD 280 that I bought like 10 years ago or something around that. When I first got them, the sound threw me off because I was so used to Skullcandy and such. Even though I ran professional sound equipment from time to time (Peavey loudspeakers and subs, and stuff like that) I wasn't aware of how audiophilism (if that's a word) worked. The HD 280 gave me way better clarity in everything, and even had better bass extension, so I felt like what I was listening to was completely new. Then when I went back to my Skullcandies to compare, they sounded like absolute horse shit. No clarity, harsh highs, lack of bass extension with too much boost to 60-100Hz.

 

I have since bought the Philips SHP9500, the Fidelio X2 and more recently got the HD 650. The HD 650 being the best sounding one in my taste thus far - the SHP9500 is a close match to how the HD 650 sounds though. The SHP9500 does have a wider sound presentation to me at least, but the HD 650 does everything the SHP9500 does frequency response wise way better - the HD 650 has more low end extension, the harsh treble frequencies are rolled off just right, and the mids are way more clearer. Only thing I hate about the HD 650 is the comfort, but hopefully soon I can fix that.

 

But I said all that to say that because the "worth" of this stuff is subjective, and how small or large of a difference can vary depending on taste or the equipment. I would gladly buy the HD 650 again even with my minor criticisms about it just because it's really close to my perfect sound signature.

 

With the MSAA comparison, I do think there comes a point where you're overspending on headphone equipment for minor differences if at all, but it just depends.

[Aphexxis]

FLAC is overrated, 48 bit 320000hz FLAK is where it is at.

 

I can truly hear the music with this file, with FLAC i could not hear anything.

[Volbet]

I don't think Linus (or anybody else for that matter) should do a video about this. 

The so-called audiophile community tend to believe what they want to believe and a video showing a blind test won't change that. 

Just look up any video that tackles this issue, and you'll see that the comment section is more cancerous than a PS4 Vs. Xbox One debate and nobody is changing their mind based on the video. 

 

Also, if Linus was really to tackle the audiophile placebo effect he wouldn't be testing amps, DACs, headphones and/or audio formats.

He would be testing stuff like power cables, USB cables or pebbles.

That's the type of stuff a true audiophile will claim makes all the difference.

 

4 hours ago, themctipers said:

There's always a tiny difference you can probably hear given the right equipment, but is it really worth it?

See, this argument is really intersting, since it's a basically setting a goal without setting the goalpost. 

It always warrants the excuse "Well, you need better equipment". You can use $100.000+ worth of equipment and still get that excuse. 

I have tried blindtesting audio formats with a wide range of people on equipment ranging from a few hundred Dollars to equipment costing a couple of hundred thousand Dollars, and I've never gotten a reliable result. 

 

12 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I wasn't aware of how audiophilism (if that's a word).

I always prefered audiophilistinism, but that's just my grumpy ol' self yelling at the kids. 

[TetraSky]

I don't call myself an audiophile, far from it(heck I use 128kbps mp3 files most of the time). But better hardware does make a difference.

I went from a $200CAD soundcard (Xonar STX, currently selling it on Ebay to get some extra funds to buy a new PC) to the onboard audio of my motherboard, the difference in sound quality is like day and night.

There's next to no bass(not a big loss to me) and vocals sound muffled somewhat (which I care a lot about). Maybe the end result for me is wrong in the first place since I went from a relatively good soundcard (IMO, I'm sure an self titled audiophile out there is ripping their hairs out for that) to the craptastic onboard instead different soundcard/audio solution like a DAC.

You don't "need" to have $500 headphones(probably helps though) to be able to appreciate good audio from a good source. I use $60CAD headphones (superlux hd-660) and they sure as hell sounded better than any other pair of headsets/headphones I've owned in the last couple years when paired with my STX(siberia v1, corsair hs1a and a few others).

[Ithanul]

4 hours ago, Chevy_Monsenhor said:

Sometimes its not the file, but the mastering of the song itself.

Not being artist selective here, but if you listen to a 256kbps Mp3 of Diana Krall's "The Look of Love", for example, you can be satisfied, it still sounds good.

And then you listen to a fully fledged FLAC file of Drake's "Fake Love", it will still sound wrong, because the mastering is not decent enough...

Yep, most forget about the mastering.  If the mastering is crap, then no amount of high quality file format will save it.

 

I remember getting the first E Nomine songs then later getting the remastered CD.  Holy cow, the difference a good mastering makes.

[themctipers]

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

I don't think Linus (or anybody else for that matter) should do a video about this. 

The so-called audiophile community tend to believe what they want to believe and a video showing a blind test won't change that. 

Just look up any video that tackles this issue, and you'll see that the comment section is more cancerous than a PS4 Vs. Xbox One debate and nobody is changing their mind based on the video. 

 

Also, if Linus was really to tackle the audiophile placebo effect he wouldn't be testing amps, DACs, headphones and/or audio formats.

He would be testing stuff like power cables, USB cables or pebbles.

That's the type of stuff a true audiophile will claim makes all the difference.

 

See, this argument is really intersting, since it's a basically setting a goal without setting the goalpost. 

It always warrants the excuse "Well, you need better equipment". You can use $100.000+ worth of equipment and still get that excuse. 

I have tried blindtesting audio formats with a wide range of people on equipment ranging from a few hundred Dollars to equipment costing a couple of hundred thousand Dollars, and I've never gotten a reliable result. 

 

I always prefered audiophilistinism, but that's just my grumpy ol' self yelling at the kids. 

I am talking about music formats

 

for speakers, it depends what type of music you listen to, and what frequencies you prefer being louder and quieter

2 hours ago, Ithanul said:

Yep, most forget about the mastering.  If the mastering is crap, then no amount of high quality file format will save it.

 

I remember getting the first E Nomine songs then later getting the remastered CD.  Holy cow, the difference a good mastering makes.

when most of the music you listen to has inexperienced producers that sometimes have headphones with no highs

 

1. highs are way too loud and drown out everything loud while making your ears bleed

2. peaking everywhere

3. master is compiled at 128kbps mp3, or that is the only version that exists on the internet

 

[Dackzy]

I agree with Volbet, I don't think anyone should make a video about this. Anyone can call themselves for audiophiles. TBH I don't really see myself as an audiophile I am more a sound geek. People call me an audiophile and I don't really mind it, as long as I am one of the good ones.

 

I think people should do their own AB testing with some help from friends, I think that gives a much better picture of if the extra cash is worth it to you.

 

I am a bit of a weird case, I am very sensitive to audio and I pick up mistakes in audio very easily plus I have tinnitus. Yes it sounds weird that I got great hearing yet I have tinnitus, but I am born with the tinnitus. So for me personally I think a lot of the more expensive gear is worth it, simply because I pick up on the little differences very quickly and good audio helps me "forget" about my tinnitus, but would I ever recommend my normal friends to run out and buy 1k headphones and a 400$ DAC amp combo? Nope, because the chance of it being worth it for them is very slim.

 

My entrance to higher end audio was very weird. I have always been around fairly good audio equipment and I have bought many different headsets throughout the years before I really got into audio. My first big wow moment was when I tried some older Sennheiser headphones that happened when I was 12-13 years old. I then spend a year where I was buying and returning headsets before I bought the ATH-M50 which at the time blew me away and I used them for about 1½ years as my main headphones. I then bought the K612 and they also blew me away, and I started to notice how bad/meh the M50s really were for the price. Now we are here, I have bought semi-expensive speakers with a semi-expensive receiver and I own a pair of HE 560s and I have a DAC and amp upgrade on the way soon.

Was/is it worth it to me? Yes, very much so, I love my K612s and my HE 560s and my m50s will have a special place in my heart for bringing me further into the audio world.

 

Sorry for rant 

[anothertom]

1 hour ago, JayKay3000 said:

Flac is simply an un compressed format that will keep to the original source. Technically mp3 should be of inferior quality because it's compressing the file similar to a .jpg that takes away parts of the image, but most of the time you can't tell unless you have the best equipment to view that image.

FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is compressed, but in the way a zipped folder still contains the full information of all the files in it. Any .mp3 is of inferior quallity, it's just how obvious and easy to identify the compression artefacts are. An uncompressed lossless format would be a wave (.wav) file.

 

Having also been an owner of the HD202's I feel they're much overlooked due to their position between the HD201 and HD205, both of which sound very much worse.

24 minutes ago, themctipers said:

3. master is compiled at 128kbps mp3, or that is the only version that exists on the internet

[unless you're referring exclusively to bedroom producers] have you tried buying your music on these nice round shiny things we call CD's? They're generally the highest quality you'll find outside of a studio workflow.

 

 

On the subject of testing audiophile vs non-audiophile setups, any test needs to be double-blind, or at the least blind, to reduce the impact of external interference in the subject. For testing audio file formats, this can be quite simple, as the subject doesn't need to change their environment and the change can be concealed easily by having someone in the room to control the music selection. However, testing hardware can be incredibly subjective once the subject has the most basic interaction with equipment, due to influence from visual and sensory information. You also run into the issue of variance between people both in preference and physical hearing differences, so it's difficult to objectively declare one high end (A) headphone better than another (B) without upsetting a bunch of other people where for them B is better than A.

 

What testing on this has shown, is that it's a curve of diminishing returns, where people can easily tell the difference to start with but after a point become almost indistinguishable. If Linus (or any other youtuber) were to do such a test, there would have to be such a level of precision with any interaction with the subject that it would be difficult to verify any results as reliable. The setup in the video would be a very sub-optimal place for any testing as there's a very high level of user interaction with equipment.

[Volbet]

42 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

TBH I don't really see myself as an audiophile I am more a sound geek or audiophilistinism as Volbet puts it.

Not to sound like an asshole, but I think you should look up what "philistinism" means. Calling something audiophilistinism wasn't meant as a positive thing.

[themctipers]

48 minutes ago, anothertom said:

FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is compressed, but in the way a zipped folder still contains the full information of all the files in it. Any .mp3 is of inferior quallity, it's just how obvious and easy to identify the compression artefacts are. An uncompressed lossless format would be a wave (.wav) file.

 

Having also been an owner of the HD202's I feel they're much overlooked due to their position between the HD201 and HD205, both of which sound very much worse.

[unless you're referring exclusively to bedroom producers] have you tried buying your music on these nice round shiny things we call CD's? They're generally the highest quality you'll find outside of a studio workflow.

 

 

On the subject of testing audiophile vs non-audiophile setups, any test needs to be double-blind, or at the least blind, to reduce the impact of external interference in the subject. For testing audio file formats, this can be quite simple, as the subject doesn't need to change their environment and the change can be concealed easily by having someone in the room to control the music selection. However, testing hardware can be incredibly subjective once the subject has the most basic interaction with equipment, due to influence from visual and sensory information. You also run into the issue of variance between people both in preference and physical hearing differences, so it's difficult to objectively declare one high end (A) headphone better than another (B) without upsetting a bunch of other people where for them B is better than A.

 

What testing on this has shown, is that it's a curve of diminishing returns, where people can easily tell the difference to start with but after a point become almost indistinguishable. If Linus (or any other youtuber) were to do such a test, there would have to be such a level of precision with any interaction with the subject that it would be difficult to verify any results as reliable. The setup in the video would be a very sub-optimal place for any testing as there's a very high level of user interaction with equipment.

I am talking about bedroom producers

[Dackzy]

9 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Not to sound like an asshole, but I think you should look up what "philistinism" means. Calling something audiophilistinism wasn't meant as a positive thing.

 

oh shit thought it meant something else  

[SSL]

I'll add my two cents to all the gassy pontification going on in this thread.

 

If you really want to know if it "makes a difference", try it yourself. Buy an amp and DAC from Amazon or somewhere with a trial return period, go to local audio meets, hi-fi shops, and so on. If you don't hear a difference, great. Move on and save money. Audio is a stupid hobby that is like a black hole for cash. Consider yourself lucky if gear differences aren't audible or are not audible enough to matter to you.

 

12 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

I can barely afford my $60 headphones

 

Then why worry about it? You won't be able to afford anything more whether it makes a difference or not.

 

Being a "true audiophile" should be about having fun. It isn't about enjoying music the Right Way.

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, SSL said:

I'll add my two cents to all the gassy pontification going on in this thread.

 

If you really want to know if it "makes a difference", try it yourself. Buy an amp and DAC from Amazon or somewhere with a trial return period, go to local audio meets, hi-fi shops, and so on. If you don't hear a difference, great. Move on and save money. Audio is a stupid hobby that is like a black hole for cash. Consider yourself lucky if gear differences aren't audible or are not audible enough to matter to you.

 

 

Then why worry about it? You won't be able to afford anything more whether it makes a difference or not.

 

Being a "true audiophile" should be about having fun. It isn't about enjoying music the Right Way.

agreed,

I have met many self proclaimed audiophiles

put expensive stuff in front of them and they think its worlds better until you tell them that was actually played on the another device behind it

 

[Ithanul]

2 hours ago, anothertom said:

[unless you're referring exclusively to bedroom producers] have you tried buying your music on these nice round shiny things we call CD's? They're generally the highest quality you'll find outside of a studio workflow.

Yeah, I was talking about a remaster on a CD.  Not crappy online music format.

I'm still a bit old school.  Prefer buying CDs.

[spwath]

4 hours ago, SSL said:

 

Being a "true audiophile" should be about having fun. It isn't about enjoying music the Right Way.

what do you know, your just a hd650 f@g / [poor] redditor.

 

but seriously, this topic has been done many times by many people, and certainly should not be covered by linus.

and like ssl said, It's about having fun, and enjoying it for yourself.

also, @volbet only some audiophile communities, such as head fi, are in such a state of denial that they refuse to listen to the truth (while heavily censoring anything against them or their sponsors)

[Volbet]

14 hours ago, spwath said:

also, @volbet only some audiophile communities, such as head fi, are in such a state of denial that they refuse to listen to the truth (while heavily censoring anything against them or their sponsors)

I am aware that it's a minority, but unfortuinatly, it's a rather vocal and loud minority. 

It's also not just limited to Head-Fi. In some cases, Head-Fi can be considered rather moderate on this issue. 

If you ever want to see an audiophile circlejerk that makes Head-Fi look reasonable, you just have to look at groups like r/Vinyl. 

And it just seems like every video trying to dispel audiophile myths will unleash and unite all the worst elements from every audio community out there.

 

I should probably clarify my position on this whole audiophile thing. 

I'm not in any way against having audio as a hobby, hell, I consider audio one of my greatest hobbies.

I also have nothing against having fun with your hobby. For example, I have just bought a Schiit Bifrost Mulitbit becuase, well, I wanted to know what it sounds like (money down the black hole, I guess) and I have a draw full of vacuum tubes becuase I enjoy tube rolling on my Citation V. 

But to me that doesn't descibe an audiophile. That descibes an audio geek or sound enthusiast. It's all a question about semantics.

 

I grew up reading Hi-Fi magazines, and the people featured in those are people I would considere "audiophiles". 

People that would suck out any fun this hobby has the potential of creating. People that would spend $1.000.000+ on a sound setup and then only listen to test records, and then proced to tell other people that they shouldn't listen to actual music LP's becuase "They're not good enough for my setup". 

People that will tell other people that vinyl is the only way to enjoy music, oh, and don't forget,  you can't enjoy your music unless you spend atleast $100K on your sound setup.

To me, this is an audiophile. It's a person that sucks out all enjoyment of the group their in, and they'll do this by being complete philistines, hence why I felt the need to coin the the term "audiophilistinism". 

 

So to summarize:

When I attack audiophiles, I don't attack the the enthusiast. I would never attack the person that loves his expensive equipment but have no problem recommending $50 headphones.

I will attack the person that claims a $10.000 power cable is necessary, the person that will tell you "if you don't have $100.000 setup you can't truely enjoy music". and the person that will tell you that you can't enjoy music coming through Spotify.

[Dackzy]

@Volbet I agree, but I think there is two types of "audiophiles" the good and the bad kind. The good kind have no problem recommending 50$ headphones and knows what they are talking about, and then bad kind that are stuck on Vinyl is the only way to enjoy music and you need these rocks because they make the signal cleaner and any headphones under 1000$ are trash.

I mainly think this because people keep calling me an audiophile and I don't want to be in the same booth as the rather "insane" (lack of better word)people.

I personally think that audio should be fun and enjoyable. The moment you stop having fun or enjoying audio is the moment you fucked up.

 

I personally don't think audio is a black hole, as long as you get something from it. A black hole would rather be something you keep spending money on while not getting anything in return.

[Volbet]

10 hours ago, Dackzy said:

@Volbet I agree, but I think there is two types of "audiophiles" the good and the bad kind. The good kind have no problem recommending 50$ headphones and knows what they are talking about, and then bad kind that are stuck on Vinyl is the only way to enjoy music and you need these rocks because they make the signal cleaner and any headphones under 1000$ are trash.

I mainly think this because people keep calling me an audiophile and I don't want to be in the same booth as the rather "insane" (lack of better word)people.

I personally think that audio should be fun and enjoyable. The moment you stop having fun or enjoying audio is the moment you fucked up.

If these two kinds of audiophiles exist, then wouldn't that speak for distinguishing the two?

For all I care, the people who buy $100 power strips power "conditioners" and only listen to reel-to-reel tape in a room pointing directly at magnetic north can have the title of "audiophile". 

What we end up calling the people who are left I don't really  know, and I don't even know if I care all that much. 

 

And I would agree that you have fucked up, if you're not really enjoying the hobby you're doing. 

If the simple act of listning to music becomes a tedious process, then you should probably find something else to do. 

 

Like, I've spend the entire day today doing garding work while listning to a 192kbps internet radio stream on a Bose Soundlink Mini (awesome Bluetooth speaker, by the way), and I had a blast while doing so. 

My musical enjoyment is rarely linked to the actual quality of the music, aslong as it's somewhat audible.

There are probably people out there, that would see me as nothing less than a heretic for saying that. 

 

10 hours ago, Dackzy said:

I personally don't think audio is a black hole, as long as you get something from it. A black hole would rather be something you keep spending money on while not getting anything in return.

But are we really getting something out of it? Will there be an audible difference between the Modi 2 Uber I'm using now and the Bifrost Multibit?

I might just end up hooking the Bifrost up to an oscilloscope, checking the waveform of the audio output, and then rock back and forth in my corner, muttering: "There is a difference!

 

Although, the argument could be had the enjoyment doesn't necessarily come from having an audible difference.

The enjoyment might just come from having nice equipment.

For example, is there a major reason why I needed a 4K TV in my living room? Probably not, but it's very nice to have. 

 

Man, if anyone wants to enter into audio as a hobby, then please don't. It will suck the money out of your wallet.

You end up buying a $600 DAC "because.... Maybe there's a difference?". You start out saying "I'll just buy my favorite albums on vinyl" and you end up with 800 records and you buy shit you didn't even know existed.