|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.92.120
Have you ever convinced yourself that you heard something in your audio system only to decide or admit later on that you were hearing nothing significantly new or different?After a period of confusion and/or denial, you finally admitted the truth. Maybe it was something that you thought *should* be or was *supposed* to be audible, but in fact was not audible (to you). Maybe you wished to hear a thing because hearing it would lend credence to an idea, theory, or technological platform that you were enthusiastic about. Or maybe you just wanted to feel like you were more "golden-eared" than you really are. In the end however, you repented and recanted...
Here are some possible examples:
- Everyone told you that direct-drive turntables were inherently "noisy" or that DD mechanisms "blurred" microdynamics, etc... You listened for it and initially thought that you heard something. Later on, you admitted that, to your ears, direct-drive created little (if any) sonic signature of it's own.
- Cables? You spent a wad of dough on expensive cables and really wanted to hear a difference, so at first you heard a huge difference. Later on, you humbly admitted to yourself that the differences you heard were actually pretty tiny or even negligible ones. Perhaps you admitted to yourself that you "heard" because you wanted to justify your purchase, or something similar.
- Differences between DACs or CD players. "At first I thought I heard it, but later on I wasn't so sure..."
- Differences between preamps or amplifiers. "I think I can, I think I can..."- "Perfect Polarity"...?
- Etc, etc, etc..?
The list might go on and on, or it might not. Maybe you've always been totally honest with yourself, maybe every purchase you've ever made resulted in an audible change or improvement in sound. That said, admitting that you do have a problem is the first step towards recovery. And recovery is what AA is (or should be) all about. Please come forward.
Edits: 09/11/14 09/11/14Follow Ups:
.
.., and I have no problem staying regular.
Put a pair of expensive NOS Siemens 6922's in my Blue Circle FtTH (years ago) and everything got better. Came back a few weeks later and put the stock Sovteks back in to remind myself of how brilliant a move it had been and everything got better again.
> > and everything got better again.
I hate it when that happens!
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
More often than not, for me, things either get worse; I can't tell if there's a difference; or I can tell there is a difference, but i don't know if i like it, or not.
I usually go with the last one.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
when I bought my second DAC, I thought it sounded much better than it did. Or if it did indeed sound better I got used to it.
There's burn-in and burn-out to consider. I'm sure it's one of those two things.
If you plug the old one back in you can compare directly.
I had some new cables I was certain were much better on first hearing.
Later on, I tested this by placing the old cables back in. Sure enough I was amazed at how shitty those old cables sounded.. And amazed I could even stand them.. Like 'what kind of fool was I to have praised those old cables for so long' (the new ones are far far better.)
Check your DAC for yourself.
I A/B all the time, one sounds synthetic, one sounds natural. I need two DACs with my setup with all the digital sources I have.
I tend to prefer the 2nd. I think I am used to it, the good sound.
I tried to fool myself that I couldn't hear the bells ringing. Ultimately I failed every time.
Interesting as my Duos used to ring especially on piano notes but a change of amp cured them.
Plus, they disappear in the room like mini monitors.
It's all about the right amp, the right listening position and good music.
Ok, I know that's quite demanding but a great setup pair is stunning.
just thinking of them. I'm sure they sound good somewhere, just never where I've been...
It seems I hear people react to speakers like these in so many different ways. Some say they do not sound overly bright at all, while others say the opposite. Klipsch is another example, described as sounding "mellow" on top or as strident screechers.
Regardless of the conjoining system, you never know how someone might perceive a thing.
I'd love to hear a pair of those speakers. What amp was running them when you heard "the bells ringing"?
In my world refering to one in any way with Quasimodo is meant to be demeaning. Think in your case you didn't mean it that way, but still ain't settling too well with me.
As to the speakers, heard in Dozen or more different setups. Only ONCE in those dozens of time did they not leave me more than cold. That was with Glass Audio Pre and Amps and even with those the bells still contributed. And I truely tried to fool myself that all was good, and past experiences should not cloud judgement.
My favorites were with the Viva....
Only once did I find the AvanteGaarde's annoying, and that was with a Wadia 301 as a source, seemed to impart too much surface noise of the disc through the system.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
looked more impressive than they sounded to me. Best horns I've heard which isn't very many. Like most anything I listen to I always want a better bigger image than they gave. I heard them with two different amps both tbe, one was a SET.
I liked them but wouldn't spend the money if I had it for them
ET
Where they really shined, (in my mind), was with Classical music: a really lovely sense of dynamic range. Never wanted to own them for their size, and domination of the planet: (ie listening room). {Although the white ones might've matched nicely with my cat, and my Euro-trash cycling attire}
I don't remember imaging being an issue, - but maybe I was blinded by their dynamics.
Just my dumb opinions........
Cheers Awe.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Image wasn't bad just wasn't big like their price. I still like them a lot. Speakers that cost that much need to do more than that for me. Again I couldn't afford them now anyway.
ET
It's just that I was reminded of... well, you know - "The bells, the bells...!"
No more wisecracks from me from now on...
I'm glad you began this conversation, because I think it's very important. I have noticed seemingly big differences in the sound of my components from day to day when nothing has changed--same sources, components, room, listening position, etc. One evening I'll hear a hard over crispness that seems to vanish the next listening session. Surely our hearing mechanisms vary slightly day-to-day with our physical state, the temperature and humidity in the room, etc. that can affect what we hear.
As you suggested, expectations of what we are likely to hear affect our perceptions too. Lately, out of curiosity, I bought some "exotic" speaker cables and interconnects. I bought used stuff not wanting to spend too much money on this experiment. The cables cost on the order of 100 times the cost of the Radio Shack interconnects and inexpensive stranded copper from the big box home center I used and, while I could hear differences, they were very minor, certainly not so significant that I was encouraged to look at even more costly components.
Good topic!
Best,
George
"they were very minor, certainly not so significant that I was encouraged to look at even more costly components."
There you go!
For decades I have been saying that if you have to sit on the edge of your seat and scrunch up your face and you still get a "now I hear it now don't" feeling it simply is not worth pursuing, it simply is not there.
Which brings me to another notion that holds that one tiny difference may have no significance in and of itself but that many such tiny differences could aggregate to a more appreciable difference.
Now one can think about the distinction between "difference" and "improvement" for a mighty long time.
At any rate no component can be evaluated subjectively on its own and only entire systems should be judged as they are just that: "systems".
Bottom line: subjective reviews as we know them are entertainment and not valid evaluations of what we all listen to: a sound reproducing system.
If subjective evaluations were to be of any real use, the variables would have to be taken into consideration and they are not. All you get are rank amateurs on line writing too little and "pros" in magazines writing too much.
It's all willy-nilly, it's all entertainment, it's all low quality information, but it's so much fun!
Hey middleground, that was well-written and spot-on.
I especially like your reminder that these are "systems". All too often, people have a mindset that you can simply swap one component for another, with disregard for how it interacts with the components it's connected to. I remember John Meyer (Meyer Sound Labs) telling me way back in 1974: "It's a SYSTEM", and emphasizing the importance of matching components to each other. There has been good progress over the past 20-30 years in general thinking and understanding when it comes to matching amps and speakers, but much less in matching electronic components with each other.
Synergy matters!
:)
I've had experiences similar to yours.However, I don't regret spending the relatively modest amounts I've spent on better interconnects and powercords because they are sturdier and better connectors than any stock cables I have on hand. The sonic improvements are pretty subtle ones, at least to my ears. I like the budget interconnects from Audioquest and Kimber. PS Audio's entry level powercords are very nicely made and I'm not tempted to pay a lot more for the higher models.
Edits: 09/12/14 09/12/14
I was using a DSP parametric to integrate a sub , I was fiddling with the centre freq , gain and slope by ear till I got it just right..problem is , I wasn't actually running thru the EQ.... I would have sworn BLIND that I heard the effects of my "fiddling"
Rodney Gold
Were the effects quite as dramatic when the EQ was finally hooked up?
Well, we did blind interconnect cable tests here and found that they made very clear audible differences...I preferred Goertz silver ribbon cables and stuck with them ever since.
We did blind preamp tests and found HUGE differences between them. Couldn't afford the winner so I "settled" for 2nd place :).
I have returned of sold off gear that I found didn't sound so good when at first it seemed promising but often a final opinion takes longer than a short audition you get when deciding whether or not to purchase. Lately, I have bought a number of items without hearing them first and that has been a mixed bag.
Tricking myself doesn't seem to be much of a problem because I am not in love with any set of ideas so I can remain relatively objective about my subjective opinion (i.e. I don't muddy it up further by bein "in love" with a piece of gear's design, looks, snob appeal or whatever). Being a reviewer for some years helped with that.
Long term listening always prevails.
How long? Very Long!
Amen to that. I bought and sold a lot of used, well-regarded speakers over the last ten years. EVERYTHING sounded "better" at first. I found it took a minimum of 2-3 weeks doing a lot of A/B-ing and careful listening as well as careless background listening before a more reliable opinion could be formed.
George
The "30 day in-home trial" thing is a wonderful idea.
I bit on Geoff Kait's Intelligent Chip..... I once thought a change was miles better, only to realize no change was made..... I used to post rave reviews at first listen (link), only to come to the realization later that the product wasn't all that hot.... I can go on for hours with such experiences.
Never underestimate the power of placebo effect.
We so desperately want our systems to sound better ...
I have long felt that the placebo is just fine, until you realize it does not work. You did enjoy the "effect" and ended up learning from the experience.
.
"You did enjoy the 'effect' and ended up learning from the experience."
That's "experiences".... Plural.... [-;
I was a sucker for hearing a difference, and then thinking I might have discovered the Holy Grail.........
Wasn't the link supposed to be for the IC?
"Wasn't the link supposed to be for the IC?"
Nope.... I wanted to state several different occasions....
BUT....
You ask, you get... Here's a link to my initial comment on the IC.....
Just curious, does the Ack still sound any good to you?
"Just curious, does the Ack still sound any good to you?"
Don't know.... Sold the unit about 8 years ago.
A "real" factor, in nearly ever part of life.
But hey! If it sounds (feels, tastes, looks, heals, etc) good to you --- go with it!
8^)
;-)
Anyone who things they hear objectively, doesn't understand how the nervous system works. There is no objective reality that we can perceive.
Well, there must be something like objective reality. I think what you are trying to say is that the objective and the subjective are sometimes intertwined in our minds.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There is perhaps something objective outside of our heads, but we have no direct access to it as it is always translated into neural signals and influenced/modified by our brain before even getting to cortical processing centers.
You tell me if it's "subjective" or "objective."
Two people would perceive that kick in different ways. A masochist would perceive it differently than do I.
A kick in the ass is just that. If you like it or not is another question.
As Samuel Johnson said a few centuries ago, you can argue about a salt-shaker upon a table, whether or not it really is there, but there it is. And also, (paraphrasing, again): all argument against it, all belief for it.
I don't know the point of separating phenomena from experience. How else can it exist to a person? It resembles the "angels on the head of a pin" thing.
Edits: 09/12/14
Philosophers, traditionally, had no access into the nervous system that provides us our perception of reality. The neural perspective fundamentally changes the argument about objective vs. subjective. This isn't an argument about whether an object exists; it's an argument about the interpretation of sensory signals from said object.
example, though you might argue we'd disagree about "concrete?"
If you look at the processing of any sensory information in the nervous system, you see that the brain is sending fibers to the earlier processing stages, modifying that information before it even gets up to the cortex. In the auditory system, there are fibers from the brainstem, for example, that project out to both the middle (auditory ossicles) and the inner ear (Organ of Corti), shaping the information at the point of transduction. In auditory processing, there are half a dozen relay nuclei throughout the brainstem (e.g., cochlear nuclei, superior olivary nuclei, nucleus of the lateral lemniscus, inferior colliculi), each of which receives descending information from the cerebral cortex or other more rostral structures. As such, before auditory information even makes it to the cortex for processing, the cortex has influenced that auditory information. The auditory information we thus perceive "consciously" has already been shaped (and colored) by our brain before we even process it.
Our internal state (including emotional factors) and our expectations thus affect what we hear--and that issue seems to have been brought up several times in response to the original post.
I wish I had been tuned into this discussion as it developed, but as I read through the exchanges, I realized that there was nothing* I needed to add. Knowing how you 'earn your keep', that came as no surprise, but it still would have been fun to join the argument from the neurological perspective. Your final (thus far) post in this discussion shovels the last load of dirt on top of the notion of objective perception.If anyone is interested in learning more about how they perceive the world, I still think one of the best launching points is Donald Hoffman's Visual Intelligence .
*Edit: Actually, I do have something to add. There is also the chemistry of the brain to consider, and dopamine ramps up in anticipation of reward. Ergo, simply expecting something to be more pleasurable can make it so, in a very real sense.
Edits: 09/13/14
Ah yes, without dopamine, music is rather worthless! This is what makes Maggies the best: you can hang an IV L-dopa drop from them because they are so tall! :)
Any worthwhile music will have me in a different emotional state at the end compared to the beginning. Audio memory is notoriously unreliable, so those two things together make it impossible for me to play something, make a change, then play it again to evaluate the difference. Unless of course, the difference is huge, i.e., something's broken!
Unfortunately, that's the highly flawed method just about everybody uses.
Some would hardly perceive the kick at all, judging by the size of their buttocks.
True, but so long as our senses can verify the existence of forms or sensations that are believed to exist and so long as the *character* of our observations remains fairly constant, we can indeed form a reference of sorts.
Yes, but the reference for each individual is specific to that individual's perception of that reference. What we have is a shared, consensual "objective" reality.
Yes, and I thank you for sharing!
Heh, heh, heh.... There are at least a few hundred reasons this happens & in at least half of these instances you may have actually heard what you did, but you "caved" & talked yourself out of trusting one of your involuntary senses.
We're not talking about "Myth Busters" level subject matter here , just some personal perceptions that we are'nt sure about.
Don't be so quick to trust self skepticism , no one keeps score on these things !
I certainly don't trust self skepticism... At least, I don't think I do!
Sometimes after an audiophile modification job is completed, an initial euphoric moment can be experienced at the start of an unfolding evaluation process. The response can be so misleading as to elicit confusion as to what one is actually hearing. The level of excitation may be so intense that double checking can prove that nothing at all was actually done. I've experienced this enough to know that proper evaluation takes more than just an initial response based on expectation, one way or another. I don't find the phenomena any more beguiling than non-audiophile evaluation processes that take a goodly amount of time to get a grip on.
It is difficult to deceive oneself on a longer term basis. This brings back my efforts to convince myself that a certain CD Player I purchased at retail (many moons ago) was the Cat's Meow. However it was a futile effort, I recall deferring the inevitable conclusion by mostly ignoring the darn thing (and CDs). :(
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
Edits: 09/11/14
Howdy bjh,
BTW, since you did not care for the low-cost Supra LoRad power cord, you might venture to try the low-cost DH Labs Encore power cord with the low-cost Valab AC connectors...
See link:
A DAC which was raved about in both main magazines. Was nobetter than my cheap old one. Returned it.
Then a cable which 'everyone' said would 'break in' It did not. I also returned that one.
So far I am batting 1000.
Bat on!
The premise of your question is flawed.
OP has a torch to burn
I'm into data collection. I'll continue to leave the torch-burning to you.
your surveys, be sure to correlate the responses with respondees with the responses for your other "surveys"
.
I service a lot of equipment and often am sure I hear a difference between amps and such. In every single case, when I track down level differences and other such minutia, the difference disappears. I recently did the same thing with cables. I was 100% certain that I heard a difference, but when I improved the test it turned out I was just fooling myself. Measurements were far more sensitive at differentiating things than ears. I can actually just listen to something and intentionally convince myself there's some difference. The fact is that anybody who uses the "I listened, then made a change and listened again" method, is kidding themselves. There are too many things out of your control that sabotage the method. Everybody is subject to these biases, but many simply refuse to admit it.
What we hear or perceive to hear is influenced by so many factors from moods, stress, state of mind as well as sight bias. Even sight bias changes depending on state of mind. Its very subjective from that point of view.
The problem with subjective results is that the listening process may not be repeatable with the exact same influencing factors. Therefore, I tend not rely on subjective claims as fact that there are differences between components. I don't doubt that the listener who claims to hear differences did perceive differences at that time but what were the influencing factors at that time? Can they be consistent enough to come up with the same results? IHO, I don't think so.
Yup, that's it.
I knew pretty much that I had it on POCD (Plain Old CD), but on my mini-vacation to Portalnd Maine this week I bought the XRCD version of Dexter Gordon's "Doin' Allright" at Bull Moose (great store BTW, shit I said something positive, sorry about that...)
I am now entirely ready to delude myself that the $24.00 XRCD sounds way better the $9.00 Rudy Van Gelder remaster.
Two different masterings will probably sound different
Alan
Please expound.
...the flaw to which he referred is the word 'ears'. We can't fool our ears, nor do we hear with our ears. We hear with our brains, which can easily be 'fooled'. Perception is a brier patch.
Oh well, I guess it's "twiddle-dee & twiddle-dum" time again...
No, but I have heard new things in my system initially when I changed a new component. It changed the sound of my system and latter I didn't hear it anymore because my ears adjusted to the differences....
Yes, I'd say that's possible!
My Mapletree Audio 2A SE preamp can use 6SN7 or 12SN7 tubes, depending on an external switch setting. (Love this flexibility – can save money and more tube possibilities.) While evaluating a pair of 6SN7s I decided I instead preferred the previously installed 12SN7s. So swapped out the 6SN7s and put the 12SN7s back in. Yuk! Dull, lifeless, meh.
After scrambling a bit to decide what else I might need to upgrade in my system to restore its wonderful sonics, I finally realized … Stupid me! I forgot to flip the switch! So I was allowing only 6 volts to the 12 volt tubes! Doh! Ugh! Just glad it wasn’t the other way around or I might have blown the 6SN7s with 12 volts. (Not sure this would have happened, but glad I did not test out the assumption.)
.
Do you think these are wired up and functional?
Depends how much time you spend in the Tweaks Forum perhaps...
I'm in Arizona and I never believed this allowed for a "manual override" of the traffic signals.
What I thought they did was allow for extra time for pedestrians to get across the road.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
If there is a car waiting for that same red light, then there's no time advantage to pushing the button.
The light will go green.
On the other hand, if there's no car waiting and you don't push the button the light my never go green.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Yep I think you are right - I think most streets into my neighborhood are like that. They don't change unless traffic is waiting or a pedestrian wants to cross.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
I thought they just caused the "Walk" light to come on when the light turns green, not change the time.
In other words, if you didn't push the button the "don't walk" light remains lit even after the light turns green.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
One needs to be very careful or we'll spend all our time and all of our money chasing our own tails for nothing.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Yeah but t=some of the episodes are patently rigged
That's doesn't change the fact that we humans are easily fooled and we need to be careful or we can fool ourselves.
I have fooled myself even while being careful.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Most recently, I was forced to put back in service a pair of speakers I had replaced twice but never sold. When the most recent ones went into the shop, I put the old ones back, just to have something to listen to. They are now CLEARLY better sounding than their two predecessors. This, after a 10-year Rip Van Winkle snooze.
But of course, after that disturbing epiphany, I don't trust what I'm hearing NOW :-)
...The biggest variable in one’s sound system is, the individual.
Smile
Sox
Hope I haven't asked you this already, Dave, but what is the reason you bought the Gallo satellites & sub as opposed to the 3.5's? I still remember being very surprised at how good the original 3's sounded when I heard them at a show in NYC years ago. Are the sats & sub even better?
The combo of Strada/TR-3 sub use exactly the same superior-sounding drivers as the Gallo Reference 3.5. Advantage for me is that the subs are self-powered, so all the precious 12 watts per channel provided by my SET monoblocks can be directed to the mids and upper frequencies while the low end gets 300 wpc from the built-in sub amps.
Yes, and this is why I now NEVER sell anything until I've had enough time to determine the new component is actually better. Got burnt more than once by selling off the "old" to finance the "new"... only to find out I should have kept the "old". Now when I sense that "new" component is missing something after a few weeks of listening, I'm able to slip the "old" back in to compare. I'd have to say, the "old" has won at least half of these acid tests and ends up back in the system.
...But I'm not OCD about my system.
I hear what I hear.
The variables from hour to hour and from day to day are endless.
I'm not a machine and as such I don't expect things to be always the same, especially with hearing.
Smile
Sox
Or, hardly ever?
...I hear what I hear.
I either hear a difference or I don't. For me it is easy. I don't need to explain it or verify it, the only person I need to satisfy I hear something or like something is, myself. I don't even follow this stuff about fooling one's self into hearing something that supposedly they are not hearing. (think about that for a moment, I am well aware of the placebo effect but I don't believe I am affected by it, I buy stuff I like, not stuff somebody else tells me I will like)
There are two sounds systems set up in identical rooms. The systems can not be seen by the listener. 99 people prefer system 'A' and 1 person prefers system 'B'. Which system will I like?
d:o)
Smile
Sox
And if you're like me, it's psychological variables which are the most important of all. ;-)
A black box with a power switch off is inserted into a wall outlet in a room where there's a fantastic system. The stereo is powered up and the listener establishes a frame of reference. The black box is turned on and suddenly the systems sounds much better. The box then turned off and the stereo sounds worse.How is this listener being fooled and what can he do to prove it?
This actually happened to me. And BTW you aren't being fooled if you don't know it.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Edits: 09/11/14
Based upon the the info you provided it would be impossible to say how you might have been fooled or to suggest a way of proving it.
Please provide some more details about the system and the black box.
You're fooling yourself if you think you need something more to figure it out.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Based upon your response, I now believe that I would need to hear the system (and try to hear the black box in the system) for myself before drawing any conclusions.
Edits: 09/11/14
Unplug the black box.Sure as heck powered off the device made the system sound worse. Powered on it sounded just as good as it did with the black box unplugged.
I actually heard improvements with the intelligent chip. However when I attempted to objectively prove my conclusion I proved my self wrong. However the disks I chose as being the treated disks (but weren't) still sound better to this day. And amazingly the treated disks sound better too!
Another one - a CD comparison where when I inserted a new much more costly CDP into my system it sounded much much better. I was about ready to pop for the new CDP when I decided to give the old one a listen and found it sounded almost as good. I passed on the purchase. From this though I discovered I can upgrade my CDP a couple of times a year just be disconnecting and reconnecting the interconnects.
One time I spent more than a grand on a half-meter interconnect because it sounded best. Yes it sounded much much better than any other interconnect I tried. To bad when I dumped my speakers this wire between my amp and pre amp became worse than the low cost interconnects (kimber pbj) I had laying around.
And I've said this a 100 times or more - only a fool believes spending more money means better stereo - in fact often it can mean worse. On the other hand better stereo does cost more and there's an application for even the most expensive of equipment.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Edits: 09/11/14
Above, you stated something to the effect that "we are not being fooled if we don't know about it".Ever heard of the phrase "He was in denial"? Even though our fantasies or denials might be temporary ones, they can be surprisingly effective darkeners while still in effect.
Edits: 09/11/14
I believe that the question is the experiment's validity, not the causation.
Rick
Twiddle-dee & twiddle-dum.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: