Biggest audio hoaxes


Often when people discuss audio, they talk about "snake oil" or "hoaxes."

It's pretty typical to use the term hoax as a tactic against another who disagrees with one, or holds an unusual opinion or vouches for something which has not been verified. That's not what I mean by a "hoax." 

By "hoax" I mean an audio product or claim which has been pretty definitively disproved. Maybe not to everyone's satisfaction, but to common consensus.

So -- with that definition of hoax in mind, what are some of the biggest audiophile hoaxes you've heard of?
128x128hilde45

Showing 14 responses by sugabooger

Graphene in drives makes sense. High strength in the necessary direction compared to weight. It is a good conductor along the grain. It is poor through the grain. That limits it's electrical usage.
I can't answer this question without upsetting tweakers.  So many things don't work as claimed, cannot work as claimed, and or make things worse. It will just turn into a p--sing contest to even mention them.
I may have to take my statement back and say what he wrote was more coherent than I first thought. Thank you for calling me out on it. 
#2 are Bose noise canceling headphones. In this case it’s not that the technolgy doesn’t work, it does, but that the R&D was paid for by you, the US taxpayer, to the tune of over $100 M dollars. Bose received a DoD contract to develop noise canceling technology, and after failing to deliver any usable device or technology the DoD pulled the plug. The $100M written off.

**************************************
Bose released their first noise cancelling aviation headset in 1989.

They started selling headsets to the military in 1993. Selling them, not starting R&D, but selling. The military started ordering an improved version in 1997.

Consumer noise cancelling by Bose was released in 2000.

I think we found what the hoax is here.  p.s. They employ 9,000 people and have sales of $3.5-4 billion. How much corporate, sales and income tax does that represent?
hilde45 OP1,954 posts05-18-2021 7:06amI would love to have some kind of noise cancelling system for a listening room. A bit pie in the sky, but people have spent a lot for what seems a lot less plausible.

*******************************************

Not that we got it to work very well, but I have my name on a patent for an outdoor noise cancelling system for road noise.
I think they already have that for yard machines. It is called battery powered. I don't have any wife audio stories, but my wife will cut the lawn with our Toro electric mower.
cleeds,


It is not my hoax to document. It was posted by someone else above. I was debunking it.
I am with stargazer3.  With the exception of speakers, and even then it is exaggerated, it is a wonderful hoax played on willing audiophiles, the whole concept of 100's of hours of burn in, especially on cables. All the suppliers are in on it and there is 0 benefit to them to admit it is a hoax. They will even charge you a premium to do it for you.  
Uh oh, did I touch on a sacred hoax?   Why are you not suggesting class action lawsuits for the other hoaxes mentioned. Are you in on it? Oh my my my. 
+2 djones51.   There is definitely a concerted effort to spread false information. It is similar to other industries which have been repeatedly debunked, but they still continue, many whose sales far exceed this little corner of the debunked world.


Similarly, though, those that should be most upset are the biggest proponents. Is this a misery loves company thing or an anti-authority thing

*******************
It is not a fraud, deception, or hoax to challenge, question, or refute
*******************

If you had stopped there, the overall validity of the post went way up.
*******************

arafiq
682 posts
05-18-2021 3:36pm
Biggest hoax >> ’wife who pokes her head into your listening room and proclaims she hears a difference when you have recently (unbeknownst to her) acquired some new component’.

^^^^^^^^ Today's winner ^^^^^^^^^^^
The speaker is going to move on its own due to mechanical force of the drivers if not opposed dual mounting. Locking into the concrete will reduce that movement. Thanks for posting another hoax.
This is a good time to use common sense. IF you believe your concrete floor is resonating, do you really think that the transference of those vibrations to the speaker is going to create more sound than what is already in the room?

Your speaker is already creating all kinds of frequencies at once. It is moving. Do you think that the very very high mass of the concrete floor (w.r.t. the speaker driver) is going to appreciably move?

Do you really think the small level of dampening material in an isolation stand is going to provide more dampening than huge amount of material that a concrete floor is sitting on?