[含原文] 音响界的十大谎言! The Ten Biggest Lies in AUDIO!

e3po

愚弄听众100年!音响界的十大谎言!
作者：Peter Aczel (CK编译)  

引用林肯(Abraham Lincoln，美国第16任总统)的名言：你可能在某些时候愚弄了一些人，但不可能永远地愚弄所有人！ 这句话似乎用于Hi-End音响十分适合。

我真的很怀疑，现在的人似乎比我年轻时代的人更好欺骗。我们不会往我们的鞋子里放磁铁。Police也不会用通灵术来寻找失踪的人。自希特勒之后不再有国家元首聘用占星家。我们绝大部分人都毫无保留地相信科学。当Hi-Fi的时代来临之际，Paul Klipsch，Linclon Walsh, Stew Hegeman等等工程师是我们的音响资讯的来源。那些不知道e的x次积分为何物的无知怪异的评论家依旧活在黑暗的未来。在现有的知识图谱里，今天的音响科学比起最初的年代，明显进步多了。在时代的这端有不少精明的从业者却远比奠基者出类拔萃。然而在黑暗的那端，一个无知迷信和欺诈的时代却掌握了统治权。为何和如何会这样，已经在我们以前出版的文章中有完全的阐述。现在我们就重点说说那些容易使人掉进陷阱的谎言。



1. 关于线材的谎言
　　逻辑上不应以此谎言来作为开头，因为线材属于配件，不是主要的音响部件。不过这却是最巨大、最卑鄙、最令人气愤、最侮辱人智慧的谎言，而且还是发烧领域中最骗钱的谎言。所以我必须把这个放在最前面来说。



音响线材　　这个谎言就是：高价喇叭线和信号线比标准或一般的线材有更好的声音。这个谎言已经在阳光下被诚实的权威人士一次又一次地戳穿、耻笑和驳倒。但许多无辜者却无从分辨。


高级音频线　　最简单的事实就是：阻抗(R)、感抗(L)和容抗(C)这三个线材的参数，是唯一能够影响在声波频率范围内的性能的参数。信号根本不知道自己是被天价线材还是被便宜线材传送着。当然，你还要为一个做工良好的插头、屏蔽处理和绝缘处理等等付出一些代价，以保证线材能够可靠和稳定工作。还有就是你要注意线材不宜过长，避免阻抗过大，信号衰减过多。然而，在基本的导电性能中，一对优质的衣架刮掉两端拉直后，一点也不比价值2000美元的神奇线材差。18美分一尺的 16号电灯线也是如此。天价线材是电子消费品中的一个最大的骗局。看到几乎所有的音响出版物都胆怯地向线材商投降，真的令人感到沮丧。


天价音频线　　一家名叫梨子（Pear Cable）的发烧音频企业推出了名叫Anjou的顶级音箱线，12英尺（约3.5米）要价7250美元，即使是超级发烧友对这样的价格也要吓一跳。

　　James Randi（上图左）之前是一位著名魔术师，现在则专门揭露各种伪科学或灵异事件、超能力人物，99年国内的司马南悬赏特异功能人士就是同他的基金会合作。这次，他再次悬赏，称有人能够在盲测中证明这款天价音频线能够带来比普通“怪兽线”（虽然我们认为怪兽线已经够昂贵了）更好的音质，就能够拿走100万美元。

　　有消息指出，梨子公司已经接受了这次挑战，参加测试的人员将是一位发烧音响杂志写手Michael Fremer。Pear Cable公司CEO Adam Blake（上图右）表示，是这位Michael Fremer首先联系接受挑战，如果拿到悬赏获益的也是他。但是，最终结果如何呢？我只能告诉大家，这个挑战无疾而终，报道仅仅到此为止。有点虎头蛇尾吧，而针对于盲测的问题，之后几点中我们会继续为大家介绍这个更离谱的骗局。


2. 关于电子管的谎言
　　这个谎言也是属于周边问题，因为在这个硅矽时代，电子管已经与主流不相干了。在Hi-End音响市场里，这是一个普遍深入的谎言。数一下高端音响杂志里面的胆机广告的页数所占的比例，难以置信啊，但事实就是如此。当然，里面的观点就是：在音响应用中胆机比石机更高级。你可别不相信哦。


电子管功放(胆机)晶体管功放(石机)　　电子管对于无线电发射和微波炉等来说是非常合适的。不过，在这个时代的转折点，对于某些产品来说则不是这样说。例如：功放、前级和CD机DVD机等。
     那电子管有什么问题吗？没有，真的……镶金牙有什么问题吗？那怕是门牙？没有，这只不过是另一个较具有吸引力的选择而已。


电子管　　在一个音响设备里，电子管能够做到的，晶体管也同样能够做到，而且可以做得更好，代价更低，可靠性更高。即使是世界上最好级别的胆机放大器失真度也比同等级别的晶体管放大器要高，而且机子寿命期中，胆机需要的维护更多(更换管子，调偏置电压等)


晶体管功放　　那些8瓦特单端三极电子管放大器这种白痴设计就不算在内了，因为他们没有相似的晶体管设计相比较。
　　关于胆味，这种故意的染色，晶体管系统也能够很容易模仿这种失真的声音，如果设计师想要这样做的话。当然，确实存在一些久经世故的音响设计师会考虑使用电子管，不过这种少数的又成功的特例难以完那些劝你购买陈旧技术的电子管商人的谎言。



3. 关于反数码的谎言
　　你可能经常听到有人说：“数码声比模拟声差太多了。”“数码化音频就像一幅粗劣，由一个个粗点组成的报纸图片。”“奈奎斯特采样定理完全行不通，那个CD的 44.1KHz的采样率不能够解决极高频段的问题，因为只有那里的一个周期仅有两三个采样点。”“数码声音，即使在最好的状况下，也会发干发刺。”诸如此类，等等。


数码的声音难道真的如沙粒一般吗?　　这实属无知胡言和故意误导。谎言在主流中很少得到支持，因为数码科技已经获得了完全的认同。不过这个谎言却依然在一些音响世界的非主流，未获重生的Hi-End音响沙龙和各种各样的刁偏的听音室里流传着、延续着。


TEAC HI-END级SACD播放机　　最可笑的反数码谬论的表现竟是：喜欢LP多于CD，而不是喜欢模拟母带多于数码母带。模拟母带与数码母带之间的争辩还未知谁胜谁负。吱吱声、噼啪声、爆豆声胜过背景宁静的数码信息坑？这是一个对客观事实的变态抗拒。

　　这里有一些读电子工程二年级学生也能给你证明的事实：数字音频是百毒不侵的，但模拟音频永远做不到，0和1在信号路径中决不会像模拟音频那样被改变。即使是今天音响发烧中最低端的44.1KHz的采样率。也能够分解所有的声音频率，不会引起任何音频范围内的信息损失。那些两个采样点如何能够还原20KHz的疑问是幼稚的曲解奈奎斯特采样定律的行为。


哈里·奈奎斯特　　至于为什么有些模拟录音听起来更好呢，最主要的原因在于录音师的功劳。在麦克风摆位，声音电平，平衡度和均等化处理上做得很好。还有就是录音的地点非常符合听觉声学。


麦克风的摆位是很有学问的　　某些早期的数码录音也确实是硬和刺。但这并不是因为它是数字音频，而是工程师还在思考模拟方式，修正预先估计但其实不存在的损失。当今最好的数码录音是有史以来最好的录音模式。公平起见，我们必须承认最高技术的模拟录音和最高技术的数码录音师可以相媲美的。尽管如此，在专业领域里模拟录音的拥护者正迅速较少。



4. 关于听音测试的谎言
　　本刊的普通读者都知道如何反驳那些对ABX测试持相反意见的老烧的谎言。大致的方法如下：
ABX 方法需要A设备和B设备在电平匹配度在正负0.1dB内，你可以随意听A和B，你想听多久都行，如果你认为他们有不同，你可以要求听X, 而X其实就是A或者B的其中一个（这是由双盲系统随机决定的），允许你随时对A/X或B/X进行比较。随意多少次都可以。然后决定X=A还是X=B。


听音室　　因为如果是完全靠瞎猜，命中率会在50%左右。为了统计的正确性最少要测试12次。(16次更好，20更加好)。没有比这个更好的科学方法来测试你是在听不同的东西还是在听同一个东西的了。那些偏执的烧友会告诉你双盲测试完全行不通，因为每个人都知道Krell比Pioneer好声。


HiFi听音室　　但如果他们在双盲测试中无法分辨的话。那么ABX方法就会被认为是行不通的，这就是他们的理论。

　　如果每个人都知道Joe比Mike高，但如果他们测出身高都正好是5尺11又1/4寸的话， 那么尺子肯定有问题，是吧。
　　最通常的反驳意见就是：ABX测试方法压力太大，如果你说：让我们来看看你能听力有多好吧。他们也许会说，没时间，因为要测16次。或者说所需太多的设备等等。


专业的听音室     教你一个方法如何揪出一个反对以及混淆ABX测试的伪君子：如果你问他们相信其他AB测试的方法吗，他们可能会说相信。然后你问他到底靠什么办法分辨：1.用不同的电平？2.还是偷看？然后你就等着他们如何恼羞成怒吧：)。


5. 关于负反馈的谎言
　　在放大器或者前级中使用负反馈？太糟糕了! 完全没有负反馈？真不错！这种误导被广泛地流传着。负反馈其实是一个在电路设计中很有用的工具。它能够减少失真提升稳定性。只有在晶体管放大器设计得的铜器时代，早在60 70年代，负反馈的使用不得当，效果很不理想，而且会遇到很多问题。这就是迷信无负反馈的起源。在80年代初期Edward Cherry和RobertCordell在质疑的阴影之下，使其真相水落石出。负反馈只要严格遵守其基本准则来使用，完全是有利无害的。时至今日，现在的那些唯无负反馈至上者，要么是撒谎，要么是无知的。


6. 关于煲机的谎言
　　这是一个被广泛地反复地宣传的谎言，使你相信各种音响设备甚至线材，煲机一段时间后，例如一天，一个星期，一个月后，声音会更好。这纯粹是屁话。开机后电容会在几秒钟内充电，偏置也会在数分钟内稳定。在一个设计正确的放大器或者前级或者CD机，它的开机第一小时的表现和使用1000小时后的表现，是没有分别的。至于线材就更不用说了。我们现在跟音响发烧友讨论的这些是玄学，而不是科学。


一对煲机不当损坏的大音圈低音单元
线材也需要煲吗?　　不过，喇叭等设备的确是需要一段时间运作以达到最佳表现的（详细请点击C音频入门必看 教你如何煲出好音质），这是因为它们是有运动构造部分的，是需要外力驱动的机械设备。这跟汽车的引擎和活塞等是一样的道理。但这并不意味一个好的喇叭刚开箱的时候声音就会很差。打个比方：一部才开了10公里的新车，会很不好开？会比旧车差很远？


7. 关于双线分音的谎言
　　即使老烧也有不少人掉进这个陷阱里。音箱制造商则是设置这个陷阱的参与者。他们会告诉你双线分音的效果是跟双放大器分音的效果一样的。甚至有不少音响界德高望重者向这份利益的大餐卑恭屈膝，向市场的现实投降，他们应该感到罪过。


双线分音　　而事实上：双放大器分音在某些情况下是有意义的，即使是使用被动式分音器。但双线分音则纯粹是骗人的巫术。如果你把一对喇叭线的末端接在另一对喇叭线连接的地方，在电子原理上完全没有改变，物理学称之为叠加定理。叠加定理规定：在整个网络同时施加许多电压期间，流过线性网络中某点的电流等于各个电压单独作用在该点产生的各个电流分量之和。类似地，在同样条件下，任意两点之间的电压等于各个电压单独作用在该两点之间产生的电压之和。


双线分音四接线柱结构　　无论是音响销售员和音响发烧友，只要谁能够证明出相反理论的话，都应该去获得科学奖项和学院荣誉。
　　不过我们也得公平地说一句：双线分音其实也并无什么害处，只不过它其实并不能起什么作用而已。就好比在鞋里面装一块磁铁。


8. 关于电源处理器的谎言
　　这个标题所要说的话，都在Bryston的产品手册里面都说了：所有Bryston放大器的电源供电方面都包含了一个精心设计的高质量专用电路，以防止无线电波，线路穿刺和其他电源线等问题。Bryston的功放不需要特别电源处理器，只需要把插头直接插到墙插上就可以了。


电源处理器　　他们所说的这些，其实也是所有设计优良的放大器所具有的特点。他们可能不一定跟 Bryston具有相同的PSRR和性能。不过他们做到能够直接插到墙插上而不需要其它特别的电源处理。如果你能够买得起一个高价的电源处理器，你也可以买得起一个设计优良不需要特别的电源处理的放大器。电源处理器对你毫无作用。（请注意，我们不是在谈论给电脑设计的浪涌保护设计的开关电源，它们可比 Tice 音响魔盒便宜得多，而且它们会比这个音频设备受到更多的电源干扰，例如打印机等外围设备）


电源处理器　　关于“干净”电源，其中最大和最愚蠢的的谎言就是：你需要一个特别设计的高价电源线来获得可能是最好的声音。所有额定处理内部交流电压和电流的电源线的性能与其他电源线都一样，天价电源线是一个欺诈，你的音响电路并不知道，也不需要关心在变压器的交流端用什么电源线。它们所需要关心的是直流端所需的电压。想想吧，你的汽车需要关心用什么管子来给它加油吗？


9. 关于CD处理的谎言
　　我们暂时把思想回朔到聚乙烯年代，当我们用各种神奇的液体喷撒在LP碟上的时候，会产生一些提升回放的效果，特别是当喷出来的气压清理掉某些凹槽中的残渣的时候。商业逻辑学则继续往前推进，在上世纪80年代和90年代，某些供CD使用类似的神奇产品诞生了。


CD
黑胶盘　　问题出现了，没错CD和LP都具有同样一个面可以让你喷撒一些粘液。但CD的表面与LP却是相距甚远的。它那微小的凹坑并没有跟模拟波形相对应，仅仅是携带了一些由于0和1组成的数字代码。那些0和1不可能被弄得更好也不可能弄得更差。而LP则可能会使轨迹变得更顺滑。他们读取的仅仅是0和1。你是不是也会把一个一块钱硬币擦得蹭亮，避免收银员把它当成一毛钱硬币呢？

10. 关于金耳朵的谎言
　　这个包罗万象的谎言，也许应该把它排到第一，不过也可以作为一个总结性的结尾。“金耳朵们”要你去相信他们的听力是多么的犀利和敏锐。他们可以听到重播中的任何细微的声音，与我们与众不同。这绝对不是真的，任何人如果没有实际的听力损伤，可以听到他们所能听到的声音，不过有一点，那些经过训练和有经验的人知道那些声音是由什么组成的，知道怎么去解释和表达出来。所以，如果一个喇叭的频响在3kHz的位置有一个巨大的低谷，那么任何耳朵听起来，不论是金耳朵还是木耳朵，那声音听起来绝对不会像频响平直的那样。只不过，有经验的人能够很快地识别出是什么问题。就好象一个汽车机械师单纯靠听引擎的声音就能够很快知道汽车有什么问题。他的耳朵可并不见得比你的好。他只不过知道要去听些什么。其实你也可以做到，如果你也像他那样处理过那么多的引擎的话。


金钟奖征寻观众"金耳朵"　　最糟糕的部分来了，那些自命为“金耳朵”的偏激的主观评论者，Hi-end音响沙龙的销售员和音响俱乐部的主要成员等等，当他们比较两台放大器的时候，经常使用他们那虚伪的高手般的听力来胁迫你：“你听到了没有？” 你好像必须要听出那两者有巨大差别，而其实金耳朵自己都听不出有什么差别。他们就是说他们听到了，他们知道你信赖他们的金耳朵。感觉太糟糕了。
　　对金耳朵最好的反驳就是双盲测试。这是区分他是否真的能听出两者区别的最好方法。不过实际上，极少有这种情况发生。即使有，那些金耳朵也会在第一次蒙对之后溜走。


曾经流行的“金耳朵”CD结语：
　　在音响界中，除了上述的十大谎言，其实还有更多。不过留待一些下次再谈。但音响工业不应该受到责备，而是那些疯狂的消费文化和被广泛接纳的玄学。音响工业，特别是高端音响部分，只不过是响应主流的气候而已。
　　总而言之，所有文化气候都会得到他们所应得的趋向。



下载
      http://jls.aqsiq.gov.cn/jldt/gg/200811/P020081125383106593237.doc



~论坛文宣~

这是系列贴的一部分， 大家可以结合起来看。



[含原文] 音响界的十大谎言! The Ten Biggest Lies in AUDIO!
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-133296-1-1.html

介绍一个音频测试软件 ARTA 可以用来测试耳机的频率响应等
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-280921-1-1.html

卖音响架子的也找到理论依据了
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-642875-1-1.html

谎言终结者实验 -  你是木耳他不是 ?
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-619690-1-2.html

谎言终结者实验 -   电脑直推耳朵不给力?   证据篇
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-626403-1-3.html

谎言终结者实验 -  电脑直推耳朵不给力？
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-549551-1-1.html

谎言终结者实验 -  音箱用的功放不能接耳机？
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-630019-1-1.html

耳朵线材盲听的统计学基础以及简单实施方法
http://bbs.mydigit.cn/read.php?tid=865509

调音：怎么把垃圾耳机调出高大上的音？  
http://bbs.mydigit.cn/read.php?tid=1065439

只靠3张图告诉您  煲耳机没有用
http://www.crystalradio.cn/thread-632701-1-2.html

发票 打开脑放的利器 空气 不只是皇帝的新装
http://crystalradio.cn/thread-644231-1-1.html

耳朵偏音怎么办？ 怎么测？
http://crystalradio.cn/thread-650188-1-1.html

特快

看过至少五遍了。

e3po

原帖由 3141 于 2010-8-6 23:23 发表
看过至少五遍了。

        包括原文么?



The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio
-----------------------------
By PETER ACZEL, Editor
ISSUE NO. 26 • FALL 2000 THE AUDIO CRITIC

The punch line of Lincoln’s famous bon mot, that you cannot fool all the people all of the time, appears to be just barely applicable to high-end audio. What follows here is an attempt to make it stick.

I strongly suspect that people are more gullible today than they were in my younger years. Back then we didn’t put magnets in our shoes, the police didn’t use psychics to search for missing persons, and no head of state since Hitler had consulted astrologers. Most of us believed in science without any reservations. When the hi-fi era dawned, engineers like Paul Klipsch, Lincoln Walsh, Stew Hegeman, Dave Hafler, Ed Villchur, and C. G. McProud were our fountainhead of audio information. The untutored tweako/weirdo pundits who don’t know the integral of e^x were still in the benighted future.
Don’t misunderstand me. In terms of the existing spectrum of knowledge, the audio scene today is clearly ahead of the early years; at one end of the spectrum there are brilliant practitioners who far outshine the founding fathers.

At the dark end of that spectrum, however, a new age of ignorance, superstition, and dishonesty holds sway. Why and how that came about has been amply covered in past issues of this publication; here I shall focus on the rogues’ gallery of currently proffered mendacities to snare the credulous.



1. The Cable Lie
================
Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list. The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents can’t distinguish it
from self-serving charlatanry.
The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below
radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock
bottom for decent plugs, shielding, insulation, etc., to avoid reliability problems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In
basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz
miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18¢ a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in consumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publications to the pressures of the cable marketers is truly depressing to behold. (For an in-depth examination of fact and fiction in speaker cables and audio interconnects, see Issues No. 16 and No. 17.)

2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie
======================
This lie is also, in a sense, about a peripheral matter, since vacuum tubes are hardly mainstream in the age of silicon. It’s an all-pervasive lie, however,
in the high-end audio market; just count the tube-equipment ads as a percentage of total ad pages in the typical high-end magazine. Unbelievable! And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applications—don’t you believe it.
Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!)
digital components like CD and DVD players. What’s wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. There’s nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper
incisors (that Mideastern grin); it’s just that modern dentistry offers more attractive options. Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment,
solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability. Even the world’s best-designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion
than an equally well-designed transistor amplifier and will almost certainly need more servicing (tube replacements, rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idiotic designs such as 8-watt single-ended triode amplifiers are of course exempt, by default, from such comparisons since they have no solid-state counterpart.) As for the “tube sound,” there are two possibilities: (1) It’s a figment of the deluded audiophile’s imagination, or (2) it’s a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way. Yes, there exist very special situations where a sophisticated designer of hi-fi electronics might consider using a tube
(e.g., the RF stage of an FM tuner), but those rare and narrowly qualified exceptions cannot redeem the common, garden-variety lies of the tube marketers,
who want you to buy into an obsolete technology.

3. The Antidigital Lie
=======================
You have heard this one often, in one form or another. To wit: Digital sound is vastly inferior to analog. Digitized audio is a like a crude newspaper photograph made up of dots. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is all wet. The 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the compact disc cannot resolve the highest audio frequencies where there are only two or three sampling points. Digital sound, even in the best cases, is hard and edgy. And so on and so forth—all of it, without exception, ignorant drivel or deliberate misrepresentation. Once again, the lie has little bearing on the mainstream, where the digital technology has gained complete acceptance; but in the byways and tributaries of the audio world, in unregenerate high-end audio salons and the listening rooms of various tweako mandarins, it remains the party line. The most ludicrous manifestation of the antidigital fallacy is the preference for the obsolete LP over the CD. Not the analog master tape over the digital master tape, which remains a semirespectable controversy, but the clicks, crackles and pops of the vinyl over the digital data pits’ background silence, which is a perverse rejection of reality. Here are the scientific facts any second-year E.E. student can verify for you: Digital audio is bulletproof in a way analog audio never was and never can be. The 0’s and 1’s are inherently incapable of being distorted in the signal path, unlike an analog waveform. Even a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, the lowest used in today’s high-fidelity applications, more than adequately
resolves all audio frequencies. It will not cause any loss of information in the audio range—not an iota, not a scintilla. The “how can two sampling
points resolve 20 kHz?” argument is an untutored misinterpretation of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. (Doubters are advised to take an
elementary course in digital systems.) The reason why certain analog recordings sound better than certain digital recordings is that the engineers
did a better job with microphone placement, levels, balance, and equalization, or that the recording venue was acoustically superior. Some early
digital recordings were indeed hard and edgy, not because they were digital but because the engineers were still thinking analog, compensating for anticipated losses that did not exist. Today’s best digital recordings are the best recordings ever made. To be fair, it must be admitted that a state-of the-art analog recording and a state-of-the-art digital recording, at this stage of their respective technologies, will probably be of comparable quality. Even so, the number of Tree-Worshiping Analog Druids is rapidly dwindling in the professional recording world. The digital way is simply the better way.

4. The Listening-Test Lie
==========================
Regular readers of this publication know how to refute the various lies invoked by the high-end cultists in opposition to double-blind listening tests
at matched levels (ABX testing), but a brief overview is in order here. The ABX methodology requires device A and device B to be levelmatched within ±0.1 dB, after which you can listen to fully identified A and fully identified B for as long as you like. If you then think they sound different, you are asked to identify X, which may be either A or B (as determined by a double-blind randomization process). You are allowed to make an A/X or B/X comparison at any
time, as many times as you like, to decide whether X=A or X=B. Since sheer guessing will yield the correct answer 50% of the time, a minimum of 12
trials is needed for statistical validity (16 is better, 20 better yet). There is no better way to determine scientifically whether you are just claiming to hear a difference or can actually hear one. The tweako cultists will tell you that ABX tests are completely invalid. Everybody knows that a Krell sounds
better than a Pioneer, so if they are indistinguishable from each other in an ABX test, then the ABX method is all wet—that’s their logic. Everybody
knows that Joe is taller than Mike, so if they both measure exactly 5 feet 11&1/4 inches, then there is something wrong with the Stanley tape measure, right?
The standard tweako objections to ABX tests are too much pressure (as in “let’s see how well you really hear”), too little time (as in “get on with it, we need to do 16 trials”), too many devices inserted in the signal path (viz., relays, switches, attenuators, etc.), and of course assorted psychobabble on the subject of aural perception. None of that amounts to anything more than a red herring, of one flavor or another, to divert attention from the basics of controlled testing. The truth is that you can perform an ABX test all by yourself without any pressure from other participants, that you can take as much
time as wish (how about 16 trials over 16 weeks?), and that you can verify the transparency of the inserted control devices with a straight-wire bypass.
The objections are totally bogus and hypocritical. Here’s how you smoke out a lying, weaseling, obfuscating anti-ABX hypocrite. Ask him if he believes in any kind of A/B testing at all. He will probably say yes. Then ask him what special insights he gains by (1) not matching levels and (2) peeking at
the nameplates. Watch him squirm and fume.

5. The Feedback Lie
====================
Negative feedback, in an amplifier or preamplifier, is baaaad. No feedback at all is gooood. So goes this widely invoked untruth. The fact is that negative feedback is one of the most useful tools available to the circuit designer. It reduces distortion and increases stability. Only in the Bronze Age of solid-state amplifier design, back in the late ’60s and early ’70s, was feedback applied so recklessly and indiscriminately by certain practitioners that the circuit could get into various kinds of trouble. That was the origin of the no-feedback fetish. In the early ’80s a number of seminal papers by Edward Cherry (Australia) and Robert Cordell (USA) made it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that negative feedback is totally benign as long as certain basic guidelines are strictly observed. Enough time has elapsed since then for that truth to sink in. Today’s no-feedback dogmatists are either dishonest or ignorant.

6. The Burn-In Lie
======================
This widely reiterated piece of B.S. would have you believe that audio electronics, and even cables, will “sound better” after a burn-in period
of days or weeks or months (yes, months). Pure garbage. Capacitors will “form” in a matter of seconds after power-on. Bias will stabilize in a
matter of minutes (and shouldn’t be all that critical in well-designed equipment, to begin with). There is absolutely no difference in performance
between a correctly designed amplifier’s (or preamp’s or CD player’s) firsthour firsthour and 1000th-hour performance. As for cables, yecch… We’re dealing with audiophile voodoo here rather than science. (See also the Duo-Tech review in Issue No. 19, page 36.) Loudspeakers, however, may require
a break-in period of a few hours, perhaps even a day or two, before reaching optimum performance. That’s because they are mechanical devices with moving parts under stress that need to settle in. (The same is true of reciprocating engines and firearms.) That doesn’t mean a good loudspeaker won’t “sound good” right out of the box, any more than a new car with 10 miles on it won’t be good to drive.

[ 本帖最后由 e3po 于 2010-8-7 01:03 编辑 ]

e3po

原帖由 stopyoucat 于 2010-8-6 23:44 发表


偶没数过看过多少遍.除电子管的音色偶喜欢.其他的赞同.

这文章是鬼佬作者10年前写的了.



7. The Biwiring Lie
=====================
Even fairly sophisticated audiophiles fall for this hocus-pocus. What’s more, loudspeaker manufacturers participate in the sham when they tell you that
those two pairs of terminals on the back of the speaker are for biwiring as well as biamping. Some of the most highly respected names in loudspeakers
are guilty of this hypocritical genuflection to the tweako sacraments—they are in effect surrendering to the “realities” of the market. The truth is that biamping makes sense in certain cases, even with a passive crossover, but biwiring is pure voodoo. If you move one pair of speaker wires to the same terminals where the other pair is connected, absolutely nothing changes electrically. The law of physics that says so is called the superposition principle.
In terms of electronics, the superposition theorem states that any number of voltages applied simultaneously to a linear network will result in a current which is the exact sum of the currents that would result if the voltages were applied individually. The audio salesman or ’phile who can prove the contrary will be an instant candidate for some truly major scientific prizes and academic honors. At the same time it is only fair to point out that biwiring does no harm. It just doesn’t do anything. Like magnets in your shoes.

8. The Power Conditioner Lie
============================
Just about all that needs to be said on this subject has been said by Bryston in their owner’s manuals: “All Bryston amplifiers contain high-quality, dedicated circuitry in the power supplies to reject RF, line spikes and other power-line problems. Bryston power amplifiers do not require specialized
power line conditioners. Plug the amplifier directly into its own wall socket.” What they don’t say is that the same is true, more or less, of all well-designed amplifiers. They may not all be the Brystons’equal in regulation and PSRR, but if they are any good they can be plugged directly into a wall socket. If you can afford a fancy power conditioner you can also afford a well-designed amplifier, in which case you don’t need the fancy power conditioner. It will do absolutely nothing for you. (Please note that we aren’t talking about surge-protected power strips for computer equipment. They cost a lot less than a Tice Audio magic box, and computers with their peripherals are electrically more vulnerable than decent audio equipment.) The biggest and stupidest lie of them all on the subject of “clean” power is that you need a specially designed high-priced line cord to obtain the best possible sound. Any line cord rated to handle domestic ac voltages and currents will perform like any other. Ultrahigh-end line cords are a fraud. Your audio circuits don’t know, and don’t care, what’s on the ac side of the power transformer. All they’re interested in is the dc voltages they need. Think about it. Does your car care about the hose you filled the tank with?

9. The CD Treatment Lie
========================
This goes back to the vinyl days, when treating the LP surface with various magic liquids and sprays sometimes (but far from always) resulted in improved
playback, especially when the pressing process left some residue in the grooves. Commercial logic then brought forth, in the 1980s and ’90s, similarly magical products for the treatment of CDs. The trouble is that the only thing a CD has in common with an LP is that it has a surface you can put gunk on. The CD surface, however, is very different. Its tiny indentations do not correspond to analog waveforms but merely carry a numerical code made up of 0’s and 1’s. Those 0’s and 1’s cannot be made “better” (or “worse,” for that matter) the way the undulations of an LP groove can sometimes be made more smoothly trackable. They are read as either 0’s or 1’s, and that’s that. You might as well polish a quarter to a high shine so the cashier won’t mistake it for a dime. Just say no to CD treatments, from green markers to spray-ons and rub-ons. The idiophiles who claim to hear the improvement can never, never identify the treated CD blind. (Needless to say, all of the above also goes for DVDs.)


10. The Golden Ear Lie
========================
This is the catchall lie that should perhaps go to the head of the list as No. 1 but will also do nicely as a wrap-up. The Golden Ears want you to believe
that their hearing is so keen, so exquisite, that they can hear tiny nuances of reproduced sound too elusive for the rest of us. Absolutely not true.
Anyone without actual hearing impairment can hear what they hear, but only those with training and experience know what to make of it, how to interpret it.
Thus, if a loudspeaker has a huge dip at 3 kHz, it will not sound like one with flat response to any ear, golden or tin, but only the experienced ear will quickly identify the problem. It’s like an automobile mechanic listening to engine sounds and knowing almost instantly what’s wrong. His hearing is no keener than yours; he just knows what to listen for. You could do it too if you had dealt with as many engines as he has. Now here comes the really bad
part. The self-appointed Golden Ears—tweako subjective reviewers, high-end audio-salon salesmen, audioclub ringleaders, etc.—often use their falsely assumed superior hearing to intimidate you. “Can’t you hear that?” they say when comparing two amplifiers. You are supposed to hear huge differences between the two when in reality there are none—the GE’s can’t hear it either; they just say they do, relying on your acceptance of their GE status. Bad scene. The best defense against the Golden Ear lie is of course the double-blind ABX test (see No. 4 above). That separates those who claim to hear something
from those who really do. It is amazing how few, if any, GE’s are left in the room once the ABX results are tallied. There are of course more Big Lies in
audio than these ten, but let’s save a few for another time. Besides, it’s not really the audio industry that should be blamed but our crazy consumer culture coupled with the widespread acceptance of voodoo science. The audio industry, specifically the high-end sector, is merely responding to the prevailing climate. In the end, every culture gets exactly what it deserves.  

By PETER ACZEL, Editor
ISSUE NO. 26 • FALL 2000 THE AUDIO CRITIC

[ 本帖最后由 e3po 于 2010-8-7 00:50 编辑 ]

杨英颢

在2009-06-05  翻译来的外文原作，这文章片面性较强，没有广义的具体分析，读者需结合自身理解接受能力来理智对待、、、、
在下玩音响20多年，胆石都有玩、、、、、最心得就是【盲听】

我做过的分立元件BTL电路几乎比得赢所有的功放，包括大多数胆机。

资深的发烧友、并且懂得技术的、、、都经历过胆石之争之类的时期、、、、、、、、、各种概念、理论、出处复杂得很、、、、、、读者理智理性的对待才能比错求证、得到真髓、、、、、、片面理解与接收只会把自己带入歧途、、、、、、

特快

原帖由 e3po 于 2010-8-6 23:40 发表



        包括原文么?



.................

我洋文不好，看不懂的。

e3po

原帖由 3141 于 2010-8-7 00:02 发表

我洋文不好，看不懂的。

原文附在上面了,  写得不错的.  特别是插图很传神.

杨英颢

说谎的匹诺曹鼻子长啦、、、、、、、、、、

我的理解就是发烧者不要像木偶一样被人操控着干嘛干嘛的 ，别做榆木疙瘩、、、、、、

[ 本帖最后由 杨英颢 于 2010-8-7 00:09 编辑 ]

旧灯泡

以鬼佬说法,不如说中国的拖拉机时至几十年也没有进步过,不改进,就如回到石器时代,音响也一样,但音响介确也有一些是骗钱害群之马.

1a5gt

不管十大还是更多大，好听，适合自己的耳朵，大多数发烧友就是一根筋

longshort

俺从不相信有什么“金耳朵”。但是特定个体的听觉中对于音频高中低频段不同的敏感度，则是有比较显著的不同的，一个人的生理状况也会显著或不显著地影响到听力。例如，俺现在对较高音频的感觉，就比十年前要明显地迟钝。

chenxiliang110

新世纪的十大谎言必然有开关电源和工频变压器之争

蓝色DIY

很老的文章了，是非曲直自有公断

杨英颢

争得越激烈越不好，发烧方面分歧越多代表门派 越多，实质上和纯净水与矿泉水之间有着微妙的关系、、、、、、、、、、、、

黄杲树

顶一把! 发烧要理性.
要分辩这些谎言,也要知识和逻缉........不然商家骗你没商量