Talk:Audio woo

CD or not CD?
bbc discussion board

Just bronze?
I think we should consider this article for a higher rating and/or frontpage. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It could do with a thorough review and fact check - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems excessively technical.

As a general comment 'no matter how good, expensive or 'technically complex' the equipment it will not make bad recordings/music sound good. (Ditto TV programs - 'whatever low lines early TV was' versus UHDTV.

And what about the Mistpoufers? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Excessive explanation?
The first footnote explaining the meaning of "sound science" seems a bit much.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 12:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The advantages of vinyl
... are, in part, the usual ones of physical items over digitised materials and links.

And should 'positive feedback' link to ? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dental fillings and picking up radio channels
There are various references on the internet and word of mouth - should there be a mention here, or where? Anna Livia (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Although it is technically feasible (one guy simulated a tooth filling sensitive to RF - by placing a diode on his tongue) the unique conditions required and the rarity of those conditions occurring naturally makes "tooth fillings picking up radio stations" more of a busted urban myth than an actual phenomena. Leuders (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Weird things do happen' - and sometimes eg a humorous comment ('You have so much metal in your mouth you could pick up radio'/'a dentist used amalgam to solder a loose wire in his radio' etc) gets transformed into 'fact.' (I have made up both statements purely as examples).
 * What is the history of the idea - and does it link with James Bond and other 'fancy spy devices'? Anna Livia (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This is about audiophiles, not ultrasonic pest control
This is a bad merge and really should be reversed - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Self-referential joke
'Audio woo is not sound science.' Anna Livia (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Any joke which needs a footnote to explain itself is not much of a joke. Although does it need a footnote? --Annanoon (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Playing on 'sound' having two meanings - 'the science of sound' and 'valid science.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Vinyl and Loudness Wars
One way to make sound seem louder is to just increase the gain on the recording itself. But I differ from other explanations as to the ***reason*** that such simple manipulation seems louder. As long as the tracing velocity on vinyl or the values for digital are still within maximum limits, just adding gain to increase tracing velocity or digital values will result in the end user turning down the gain on his equipment such that the loudness is in general keeping with other recordings played back. In that kind of loudness manipulation by simple gain increase on the recording itself, it is the act of the end user ***turning down*** the playback volume control that gives the end user the impression that this is a loud recording. A minute or so after turning down the playback gain, the end user will forget that the recording itself was loud.

However, loudness wars are not about simply turning up the gain while mastering a vinyl or digital recording. The way loudness wars work is through dynamic range compression of the recording. This actually gives the sensation of being loud, even after the playback volume is turned down. But dynamic range compression also makes it ***easier*** to fit the signal onto vinyl, even when the peak tracing velocity is less than that of other vinyl records. Due to the smaller dynamic range of the signal before applying it to cutting into the master lacquer, the ***average*** loudness is higher, which in turn gives that impression of being louder on playback, while at the same time masking the vinyl playback surface noise.

This is why I think it is wrong to say the qualities vinyl protect it from loudness wars, when in principle a loudness war on vinyl actually helps to mitigate vinyl surface noise, while at the same time lowering the peak tracing velocity. Upon listening to many 45s I also highly suspect that loudness wars did indeed start on vinyl where its impression of loudness was added to the further dynamic range compression by radio studio equipment. Ohgddfp (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally think part of the reason vinyl was "more exempt" from the loudness wars half because of traditional target audience reasons, not necessarily for physical reasons. There is actually a practical reason for the "loudness war" beyond psychological effect: A) to have the music be playable on shitty equipment that can't handle dynamic range very well, and B) to be more listenable in noisy environments like cars. Vinyl releases tended in the past to target listeners with home stereo systems (once CDs got going, in fact, vinyl was pretty much the domain of the "audiophile market"), or club DJs. In both cases, the equipment can usually handle dynamic range, so ideally you wouldn't want to compress that much (particularly any bass heavy music -- bass suffers the most with compression, and the modern effect to both squash the music and handle bass -- sidechain compression -- just isn't the same).


 * Unfortunately, this is "personal observation" from an amateur musician and not something sourced. also mentions that too much DRC caused unplayable vinyls, probably because that's what the sources typically say (although none of the sources I can find have a good technical explanation why this is so). Too much needle movement can cause playback damage (this is why  exists) but as you said, DNR should minimize those problems, not enhance. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the observation that part of the loudness wars is to make listening more practical in noisy environments. Can someone find a source? Ohgddfp (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes "right"
In the section, Sometimes right--About: "Over very long lengths, cables can affect audio quality if the gauge of the wire is insufficient. Thin speaker cable at lengths of maybe 50 feet [note 28] or more will show a noticeable drop in quality.[29] Similarly digital cable over very long lengths will show noticeable signal degradation." Here in the last sentence I will refer to "...show noticeable signal degradation."

The above paragraph starts by mentioning "audio quality", and then at the end talks about "noticeable signal degradation". It's not clear in the wording and context if the "degradation" in the "signal" translates to "degradation" of the audio quality. If the degradation in the audio quality is in the form of loud pops, noises, and outright sound interruptions, which is the only kind of problem that can arise from bad or too long digital cables, this is simply operational failure, and therefore should not be conflated with "audio quality". Indeed, bad digital cables cannot affect what what audiophiles are listening for in audio quality. They either work perfectly, or are plagued with operational failures. Ohgddfp (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Therefore, since the paragraph is referring to "audio quality", and digital cables, good or bad, cannot affect audio quality even in the slightest, any mention of "digital" should not be included in this paragraph. The new version of the quoted sentences should read:

"Over very long lengths, analog cables can affect audio quality if the gauge of the wire is insufficient. Thin speaker cable at lengths of maybe 50 feet [note 28] or more will show a noticeable drop in quality.[29]"  (The part about "digital" is removed.) Ohgddfp (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Good point, I made this change. I turned the part about digital cable into a corrected note rather than dropping it entirely. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)