Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

Uh Oh......It's Getting Stronger, Now What?

68.222.70.199
Posted on August 24, 2009 at 20:29:16
Jon Risch
Bored Member

Posts: 6117
Joined: April 4, 2000
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 Much to the puzzlement of pharmaceutical experimenter's, the placebo effect seems to be getting STRONGER. ?????

See:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect

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

There is no hope for naysayer's now, Bwaa Haaa Haaa Haaaaaaa!
:-)
Jon Risch
Perhaps this means that the anticipation of hearing more..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 02:03:10
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 means you really do hear more!

Conversely, if you believe that all amps, wires, whatever sound the same or that the differences are inconsequential...guess what? You will hear less and won't hear signficant differences.

It would be belief affecting your mental state so that the acuity of what you hear is actually different. Blind tests would also be effected.

RE: mind's susceptiblity to suggestion, posted on August 28, 2009 at 11:36:56
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 "Perhaps this means that the anticipation of hearing more...means you really do hear more!"

Err no, it discusses the mind's susceptiblity to suggestion, a placebo provides nothing except suggestion and it's fair to assume that audiophiles are not immune from this effect which brings us back in a roundabout way to that forbidden term called 'blind testing'.

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"brings us back ... to ... 'blind testing'" - not really. It brings YOU back there,..., posted on August 31, 2009 at 07:52:18
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... which is not true either, because you've never really left there.

Everybody else, except for few well-known individuals, continue to steer clear from that irrelevant gimmick.

RE: mind's susceptiblity to suggestion, posted on August 28, 2009 at 13:54:21
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "a placebo provides nothing except suggestion "

Not true a placebo can actually affect changes in neurotransmitters, endorphins etc. This means that the placebo is far more than suggestion. If it happens to heighten awareness then you could have improved perception as well.

RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on August 28, 2009 at 15:42:11
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 m: Not true a placebo can actually affect changes in neurotransmitters, endorphins etc. This means that the placebo is far more than suggestion.

Tah: That's a bit disappointing coming from a practicing pharmaceutical biochemist. Suggestions are prompts, placebo are prompts (or stimuli) for the mind to act in a certain manner. Excerpts from the linked article illustrate the point very readily

"Healthy volunteers feel the benefit of medication plus a placebo boost. Patients who are unable to formulate ideas about the future because of cortical deficits, however, feel only the effect of the drug itself. The experiment suggests that because Alzheimer's patients don't get the benefits of anticipating the treatment, they require higher doses of painkillers to experience normal levels of relief."

"By definition, inert pills have no effect, but under the right conditions they can act as a catalyst ...It also works in reverse to produce the placebo's evil twin, the nocebo effect. For example, men taking a commonly prescribed prostate drug who were informed that the medication may cause sexual dysfunction were twice as likely to become impotent."


Then again, I am pretty sure you know all this as you work as a biochemist in a big pharma.


.


Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on August 30, 2009 at 12:56:12
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 THanks for quoting the report...but I already read it. Now what I said was that it CAN affect real chemical effects not that it always did. I am not quite sure where your going with your highlighted points. As is typical for you, clarity is not one of your strong points.

RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on August 30, 2009 at 13:52:12
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 M: "Now what I said was that it CAN affect real chemical effects not that it always did."

T: Hmmm...... I did not say "it always did." The highlighted text basically states that the placebo effect comes into play when the subjects have access to "information" and thats not unlike the typical audiophile overactive imagination in non-blind audio tests. Absent the additionai information (i.e. the cue) and the placebo effect disappears. In summary its not about greater antipication, it's about the susceptiblity to suggestion.



Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on August 31, 2009 at 00:40:01
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "The highlighted text basically states that the placebo effect comes into play when the subjects have access to "information" and thats not unlike the typical audiophile overactive imagination in non-blind audio tests"

"Patients who are unable to formulate ideas about the future because of cortical deficits, however, feel only the effect of the drug itself. The experiment suggests that because Alzheimer's patients don't get the benefits of anticipating the treatment, they require higher doses of painkillers to experience normal levels of relief."
"

That is not what this text is about. It is about people with DAMAGE to their brains not being able to self-geenrate a particular brain chemical reaction that a healthy brain would do from the expectation. Again, expectation, in a normal brain, CAN lead to real biological consequences.

"Absent the additionai information (i.e. the cue) and the placebo effect disappears"

Again, in a healthy brain, the expectation makes a real difference.

Unless you are suggesting that audiophiles are in general brain damaged there is no reason to believe that they would not also potentially benefit from expectation, resulting in perhaps heightened awareness.
RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on August 31, 2009 at 12:47:16
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 M: Again, expectation, in a normal brain, CAN lead to real biological consequences.

T: You are arguing a point that's not in dispute as well as trying your hands at a strawman, I am not disputing your assertion that placebo can lead to real biological consequences. You conveniently omitted the second part of my text that stated that "It also works in reverse to produce the placebo's evil twin, the nocebo effect....men taking a commonly prescribed prostate drug who were informed that the medication may cause sexual dysfunction were twice as likely to become impotent."

In otherwords, the placebo (and nocebo) effect comes into play when subjects have some prior knowledge. The situation is not unlike typical audiophiles in a non-blind audio tests. Their expectations and consequent response is influenced by prior knowledge.

M Unless you are suggesting that audiophiles are in general brain damaged there is no reason to believe that they would not also potentially benefit from expectation

T: That's an excellent strawman.



Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on August 31, 2009 at 13:04:07
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "M Unless you are suggesting that audiophiles are in general brain damaged there is no reason to believe that they would not also potentially benefit from expectation

T: That's an excellent strawman."

Not at all. It was simply VERY unclear what you were trying to say. Now you have said it more clearly and I see your point; however, it is still unclear what the implication is for the audiophile. Does the expectation mean they really hear more because of enhanced biochemical activity or imagination or both??

RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on September 1, 2009 at 05:24:03
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 M: however, it is still unclear what the implication is for the audiophile.

Well....IMO, the relative poor performance of audiophiles in blind tests vis-a-vis non-blind tests suggests there is an implication.

M: Does the expectation mean they really hear more because of enhanced biochemical activity or imagination or both??

T: If enhanced expectation is a result of prior information, does it really matter which combination of the two stated phenomena is employed?

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on September 1, 2009 at 08:21:40
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "If enhanced expectation is a result of prior information, does it really matter which combination of the two stated phenomena is employed?
"

If it is enhanced ability vs. imagination then I would say it matters.

RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on September 2, 2009 at 08:05:51
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4438
Joined: January 16, 2003
 "If enhanced expectation is a result of prior information, does it really matter which combination of the two stated phenomena is employed?
"

If it is enhanced ability vs. imagination then I would say it matters.

T: Fairpoint, that said, if you have be to informed to become aware of the presence of a given phenomenom then imagination is a key factor.

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
RE: mind's susceptibility to suggestion, posted on September 2, 2009 at 08:24:56
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "T: Fairpoint, that said, if you have be to informed to become aware of the presence of a given phenomenom then imagination is a key factor.
"

Is it? I don't see that one necessarily follows from the other. Maybe the imagination is stimulated by the observation of more information? My guess is that they are inextricably bound together.

RE: Perhaps this means that the anticipation of hearing more..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 18:17:06
Jon Risch
Bored Member

Posts: 6117
Joined: April 4, 2000
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 This is very much a possibility.

The "reverse placebo" effect has been known for a long time:
if you don't _want_ to hear any differences, then you surely won't.

If the placebo effect is getting stronger, then it follows that the reverse placebo effect is too. Hmmmmmmm.

That could explain a lot of the vitriolic comments and attitudes around here, couldn't it?
Jon Risch
I've Been Talking About This For Years But Objectivists Here Simply Ignore The Truths They Can't Refute, posted on August 28, 2009 at 13:44:23
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Hi Jon,

I've been talking about these facts for years here but, the objectivists ignore this truth. On December 14, 2007 I posted the following of which is just a portion of the entire post.

This is an attempt to fight fire, with fire. From what I've noticed some people attempt to justify their audio POV, with science. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. However one cannot "cherry-pick" which parts of science they'll accept and which one they won't. Either you embrace scientific studies or you don't. This thread isn't directed at any one specific person, but rather I'm attempting show things some objectivists choose to ignore, even though they're based apon the same scientific methods they so dearly claim to embrace. For Example:

1) They ignore the fact that "expectation bias" works negatively too. What this means is "if" someone honestly believes that a subjectivist only hears a difference because they expect to hear a difference, then the science this person embraces also states they must also believe with equal conviction that the only reason an objectivist doesn't hear a difference is because they don't expect to!

2) They ignore the fact that the "placebo effect" ( Placebo = Latin for "I shall please")works negatively too. When the "placebo effect" is working negatively it is called the "nocebo effect" (Nocebo = Latin for "I shall harm). This works very similair to "expecation bias" above and essentially boils down to what to what you believe will happen is what will usually happen, either postively/placebo or negatively/nocebo. Whether your consciously aware of your beliefs or not, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Good examples of a placebo would be when a person is given a sugar pill and reports feeling better. A good example of a nocebo is when a person dies after being bitten by a non-venomous snake.

3) They ignore that there are vast differences in how a medical DBT and a home audio DBT is carried out. Yet they want others to accept the usage of DBT's in medicine as being all the proof required that a DBT's usage in home audio has been proven as being scientifically valid. However the reality is that medical and audio DBTs differ completely.

If anyone wants to read that entire post click the link below.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~


RE: Perhaps this means that the anticipation of hearing more..., posted on August 27, 2009 at 04:19:13
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 Yes it could. Also, old age seems to harden whatever effect is, well in effect. My guess is that most of the posters here are not so young...

Terrific article, thanks...(nt), posted on August 25, 2009 at 21:23:09
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

LOL! We should learn to embrace the placebo effect and if you can afford it the price effect too!, posted on August 25, 2009 at 20:53:32
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 nt - LOL!

I'm there., posted on August 26, 2009 at 06:41:38
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Ever since reading the article my sound's better, computer faster, hair fuller and brain smarter. But the coffee doesn't taste good this morning.

I guess there's always a side effect...

Rick

My blind testing with the intelligent chip convinced me on the power of suggestion!, posted on August 26, 2009 at 08:56:17
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 I chipped 1 of 3 CDs I was very familiar with but I didn't know which one. One of them sounded significantly improved to my ears so I picked that one as being the one that had been chipped. But lo and behold it was the wrong disk. Then I began to notice how much better the disk that was actually chipped sounded and to this day I believe it actually sounds better and so does the disk that I originally picked.

It's only been in the decade or so that I've attempted to employ longer term listening sessions and blind comparisons whenever possible. It very much amazes me how many audiophiles hold tweeks in such high level of disregard. IMO BFD if someone spends $100 or two on a bottle of marbles and believes it makes a difference - so what if that difference is only in his mind. What disturbs me is when the same audiophile whose displayed such distain for tweeks then turns around and spends thousands of dollars on upgraded equipment and justifies the purchase based on the exact same "belief that it sounds better" reasoning the tweek purchaser applied bolstered further by the assumption that more expensive sounds better.

I guess my point here is that its "chic" for audiophiles to point out the placebo effect when referring to tweeks, however it becomes a war if someone has the audacity to suggest the influence of price when it comes to expensive purchases.
RE: My blind testing with the intelligent chip convinced me on the power of suggestion!, posted on August 27, 2009 at 04:22:02
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "What disturbs me is when the same audiophile whose displayed such distain for tweeks then turns around and spends thousands of dollars on upgraded equipment and justifies the purchase based on the exact same "belief that it sounds better" reasoning the tweek purchaser applied bolstered further by the assumption that more expensive sounds better.
"

Well, new electronics may or may not sound better but I would wager that it really does sound different at least...with the tweaks the effect is solely in the mind.

A very reasonable post. We'll be keeping our eye on you. nt, posted on August 26, 2009 at 09:35:33
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 nt

RE: My blind testing with the intelligent chip convinced me on the power of suggestion!, posted on August 26, 2009 at 09:26:13
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "I guess my point here is that its "chic" for audiophiles to point out the placebo effect when referring to tweeks, however it becomes a war if someone has the audacity to suggest the influence of price when it comes to expensive purchases."

Boy do I ever agree. Clearly many posters on AA believe that there is but one specification that counts and that one is price. It's also pervasive in reviews.

I'd never thought about the double standard with respect to tweeks, but now that you point it out, it's so true. Hmmmm, I only got half of the piano puzzler on the radio just now, undoubtedly that's due to only having $2/ea invested in my home-brew interconnects.

Rick

RE: Uh Oh......It's Getting Stronger, Now What?, posted on August 25, 2009 at 13:15:10
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 There are a number of interesting implications here.

The human body has amazing capacities for self-healing, and it has been known for years that these capacities seem to correlate with a positive mind set. Happy, optimistic people heal faster, live longer, and get sick less often than gloomy pessimists.

If a sick patient BELIEVES that the administered medication will be effective, the patient's self-healing mechanisms may be activated simply by this belief, even if the "medicine" is only a sugar pill. Religious faith healing, when it works, may work the same way.

This suggests that gullible, suggestible people may be more likely to respond positively to a placebo than skeptical types, just as they are more suceptible to hypnotism and con games (in which category I include politics and religion).

You can work out the implications of all this for the "audibility" of non-rational audio tweaks for yourselves.

P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute." Given the cited statistical increase in the effectiveness of medical placebos, maybe that's down to one every 48 seconds.

"non-rational audio tweaks" - time for some examples, don't you think?, posted on August 25, 2009 at 14:39:41
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Let me start, to show that subject is not foreign to me:

One of the most irrational audio-related tweaks I know of is convincing yourself that nothing matters to sound quality, except for speakers. It's even more irrational, when you take into account the fact that sub-par electronics don't actually allow speakers to perform to their full potential."

Feeling like joining the conversation yet?

OK, I'll bite, posted on August 25, 2009 at 20:31:22
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 And I agree with you 100% that source components and amplification matter nearly as much as speakers and room acoustics. "Better" electronics exhibit lower noise and lower distortions of ALL kinds. They preserve more of the integrity of the original waveform -- the output more closely resembles the input. Or else, they introduce particular sorts of distortion that some listeners find pleasing -- think of SETs with their high level second harmonics and rolled-off frequency extremes. More powerful amplifiers -- even at moderate output levels --sound more dynamic (on uncompressed recordings, anyway) because they have more headroom. Start to crank the level into typical low efficiency, low impedance audiophile speaker loads, and the difference between a powerful amp with plenty of current reserves and a wimpy one becomes glaringly obvious. Cables SHOULDN'T make a difference, but some of them (including expensive "audiophile" varieties} are so darn inductive that they roll off the high frequencies well within the audible spectrum. Power treatments that exclude EMI and RFI can improve apparent focus and resolution, especially at low playback levels, by reducing noise and distortion. Damping shelve, pads, and feet that reduce component vibration may reduce audible buzzes and rattles.

All these things are measurable AND audible. They have been widely measured, and widely heard.

Magic pebbles, pucks, cones, spheres, and whatevers that have no measurable electrical or acoustical effects whatsoever are bogus. Their "audibility" to those who believe in them is placebo effect in its purest form. If such devices introduce distortions that shouldn't be there (think of resonating bowls placed around the room, ringing at one frequency, or a jar of shiny pebbles rattling on top of a subwoofer), they are worse than bogus. And attributing their operation to forces unknown to physics, or to being blessed by an ooga-booga priest, doesn't increase their credibility.

There's nothing "magic" about isolation devices - and that includes cones., posted on August 26, 2009 at 08:33:58
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Or, for instance, rollerblocks under CD palyer or transport. You wouldn't think it's "non-rational" tweaks, after hearing the difference in resolving system. I don't honestly know if that can be measured, but if not - that only means we don't know what to measure, or don't have right equipment to do so.

I see..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 06:05:29
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "Magic pebbles, pucks, cones, spheres, and whatevers that have no measurable electrical or acoustical effects whatsoever are bogus..."

So as that would appear to cover isolation devices as well (e.g. "pucks, cones") I imagine all you'd need is a set of measurements demonstrating an effect for at least one such to crawl back your bold statement.

So tell me, how much research have you done on the topic?

LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: I see..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 08:35:18
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 The effect of TRUE isolation devices, used to damp out mechanical resonances or conduct them away from a component, can be measured quite readily with an accelerometer taped to the surface of the component being isolated. "Before" and "after" measurements will tell you whether the device is doing anything or not. Sorbothane feet or mats under components, spikes under speakers, sand-filled speaker stands, stacks of heavy books on top of a subwoofer cabinet -- these things work quite measurably to reduce vibration.

But little wooden blocks, metal cones, etc., of insufficient mass to have any measurable damping effect, placed on TOP of speakers and components, or randomly around the room? At most, they will rattle, contaminating the sound with their own noise. Yeah, I fiddled with such things a bit when I first heard about them, and could hear absolutely no difference in the sound of my system (except when they rattled). But of course these were just pieces of wood and metal I had lying around, not expensive audiophile versions backed by fantasy physics and blessed by an ooga-booga priest.

The burden of proof is upon he who makes the assertion. Let the manufacturers, dealers, or enthusiasts of such gizmos publish objective measurements demonstrating their effectiveness. Put up or shut up.

Some will say that their effects are unmeasurable, unquantifiable, and unexplainable, but still somehow audible to certain golden-eared individuals who believe in them. I think this is where the placebo effect comes strongly into play. You just dropped a few hundred bucks on some little piece of polished wood or metal, you have a strong incentive to imagine you hear some benefit from it.

I wonder if the psychologists have come up with an objective scale for measuring gullibility? They could call it the "sucker index," with points assigned proportionally to the amount of money someone is willing to spend on something that does nothing.

Pssst, hey . . . I gotta nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale, I'll cut you a good deal on it. It'll sound even better with strategically placed mpingo wood pucks and aluminum beaks all over it.
Bring on the data..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 15:36:14
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "these things work quite measurably to reduce vibration."

I'd love to see the data that you have found or generated and the test procedures along with the correlation of same to sonic perception or electrical output. It sounds like you have done the work or found the information and it could save me a lot of time if you could point me to it or send it.

I disagree with you on is the burden of proof, it certainly doesn't apply to the user. I appreciate folks passing along what they did and what they experienced. If it looks interesting I might try it and if it works well may dig into it. Or not, that's the beauty of a hobby.

As far as the manufacturers, distys and dealers go, I part way agree with you in that the manufacturer should publish specifications to help the user estimate their product's performance, albeit roughly, and understand the differences between their offerings. Estimating is about all anyone can do be they users, dealers or manufacturers. Whether it, whatever it is, makes a beneficial difference in a particular system to a certain person is difficult to predict, to say nothing of whether it's worth whatever time and money it cost. Sadly trial and error rule the day.

Looking forward to seeing measurements of the difference Sorbothane sheets or feet make to the electrical output of a component.

Rick

RE: Bring on the data..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 16:51:55
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 Greater or lesser degrees of vibration in a component case or chassis can be easily measured with an accelerometer system, as used by JA in all his Stereophile speaker tests. More crudely, but still empirically, you can feel the greater or lesser degree of vibration with your fingertips, just by touching the component, rack, speaker, etc. A component may vibrate in response to internally generated vibrations (from the drivers in a speaker cabinet, a cooling fan, a shuddery disc drive, or a noisy transformer), or in response to airborne or rack-conducted external vibrations from the speakers, when you crank up the volume.

Why is vibration bad? On the grossest level, hearing things rattle and buzz in the room while you listen to music is NOT a good audiophile experience. Since I put foam on the back of all my wall-hanging pictures, and weather stripped all room, closet and cupboard doors in the house, these structural rattles have been silenced. Rattles and buzzes from component cases (often undamped flimsy steel in more affordable products) are lower in level, but may still be audible and annoying. Severe enough vibrations may also cause a disc transport to skip, or at least add jitter to the digital stream. By keeping externally generated vibrations from reaching the component, or damping them out when they do, and by minimizing internally generated vibrations (usually by damping them out), you reduce the background noise in the room.

As far as the effect of vibrations on electrical signals, nearly all electrical components are somewhat microphonic, and some are extremely so. Turntables and vacuum tubes are probably the worst, and if they pick up excessive vibration, you definitely get an audible feedback loop going. Mechanical damping of the components in question can reduce the microphonics problem.

Electrical isolation (from both line-borne and airborne EMI/RFI crud which gets past the power supply and contaminates the signal) is a whole 'nother can of worms. Isolating power conditioners, well-shielded cables, and ferrite beads on cables can all produce a measurable (and audible, when listening at low levels) reduction in background noise. In extreme cases, you might just be tempted to build a Faraday cage around the whole darn system!

Sorry, not too much data here ('cuz I'm too lazy to dig back through all my old Audio, Audio Amateur, Speaker Builder etc. mags right now), just common sense and replicable empirical observations.

RE: Bring on the data..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 20:22:59
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 "Sorry, not too much data here ('cuz I'm too lazy to dig back through all my old Audio, Audio Amateur, Speaker Builder etc. mags right now), just common sense and replicable empirical observations."

OK, no data it is... Just checking and hoping as I almost certainly have you beat in the laziness department. What you have so far is technically called 'arm waving'. Not wrong, just lacking in specificity. And by George I'm all for it, it's just that you need to realize when you're doing it.

Sure Vib., shock, EMI, ESD, corrosive atmospheres, fire, flood and famine can potentially cause problems. And that ain't all... But the question isn't can they, it's are they, and if so how? The magic key to that door is finding correlated measurements and hopefully identifying the underlying mechanisms. If we were to focus on that approach and eschew poorly supported conclusions we could move right along with fewer endless arguments.

Fortunately a lot can be done empirically especially when tweaking a single system, it just isn't very transferable.

Rick

"The magic key to that door is finding correlated measurements ..." Good luck with that!, posted on August 26, 2009 at 23:08:06
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 We don't even have measurements which will answer simple questions like "Will this be a good sounding amplifier?"

For example why does a Bryston 4BSST have an annoying electronic sheen? It's got great (standard) measurements after all!

And then to make matters worst one find day (well evening actually) at an audio get-together a particular aftermarket power cord is tried on a 4BSST (replacing another aftermarket power cord) and suddenly it's Ah F!, I'll have to now identify a new my most hated amplifier!

Go figure...

:)
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: "The magic key to that door is finding correlated measurements ..." Good luck with that!, posted on September 1, 2009 at 08:44:15
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 "For example why does a Bryston 4BSST have an annoying electronic sheen? It's got great (standard) measurements after all!
"

Look at distortion vs. frequency for a starter. The Bryston has a much higher distortion at 5Khz than at 500Hz and this is at least some of the reason why most SS amps ruin the highs. You are starting to see their true distortion climbing out of the negative feedback where it is no longer sufficiently compensating. Of course it is not only higher distortion absolute it also contains high order harmonics...not good as these are preceived as being louder and this completely screws up imaging and soundstage.

Many tubey sound tube amps can also be linked to distortion vs. frequency because they have a large increase in bass distortion. Makes everything sound a bit blubbery.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/amplifiers/belles_sa30/

Note: the distortion spectrum is measured at 1Khz and not really where the distortion is rising with frequency.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/bryston_4b_sst/
Not as severe perhaps but there nonetheless.

This sounds dreadful IMO:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/psaudio_hca2/
as does this
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/linn_klimax_twin/
and this
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/flying_mole_dad_m100pro_ht/
oh and this too!
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/classe_ca2200/
This one sounds dreadfully boring.



Here is a good sounding amps curves
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/lamm_m12_reference/


Note that the distortion with frequency rises only significantly at high power and even then only a factor of 2 or so. Also, note that the damping factor doesn't change with frequency, which indicates there is not much negative feedback in this design.

This also sounds good:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/lamm_ml11/

and this
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/monarchy_se160/

While this is by no means conclusive there is an apparent trend in behavior that separates good sounding amps from whatever sounding amps.

RE: "The magic key to that door is finding correlated measurements ..." Good luck with that!, posted on August 27, 2009 at 09:15:50
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Yea, the amplifier thing is a real poser. A lot of work has been done and we know a great deal about many of the subtle factors that used to be overlooked and yet I'm not aware of a general test procedure or limits that will predict either 'good sound' or indistinguishably. A sorry state of affairs.

But if the cord has that much effect that would be a good starting point. Especially if the cords can be swapped to and fro and the problem follows then it shouldn't be very hard to probe around and figure out what's happening. Please forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but the key to making progress on a problem is usually getting a handle on it. Whether it be hardware, software, marital, automotive or medical, if you can invoke the problem at will you are a long way towards understanding it.

It would also help if we would pay more attention to the context, the system. For instance, changing the cord really helped in the system you were listening to that evening. Now the question is would it have the same effect in six different systems or even in the same system with different interconnects or...

If I may speculate there are likely just a few things wrong with extant measurements: in band the wrong test signals are used and not enough analysis occurs of the of dynamic conditions which may cause the LTI assumptions to fail part of the time. Out of band susceptibility and emissions tend to be ignored. And, both in and out of band, the effective (lack of) isolation of unbalanced inputs and power systems aren't characterized.

It wouldn't be hard in my estimation to do a hell of a lot better but I sure don't see anyone leading the charge. If customers would quit screwing around with crap like outlets and plugs and return equipment affected by them as defective (which they are from a design standpoint) I think you would see some action mighty quick and some meaningful specifications. I've spent a lot of my career designing consumer electronics and I can tell you one sad thing: the squeaky wheel gets greased. As long as the return rate and brand loyalty are acceptable, TaDa! The somewhat recent notion in these parts that sensitivity to cables and powerline perturbations is desirable and a sign of high resolution must just be killing the livers of manufactures as they toast to their profits and the mass gullibility of their customers. This is something that could never have been pulled off from the other end of the supply chain, what a trip.

Rick

Seems like . . ., posted on August 26, 2009 at 18:03:50
Frank E
Audiophile

Posts: 643
Joined: May 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: September 8, 2000
 . . a pretty subjective position.

Ah huh...?, posted on August 26, 2009 at 10:01:16
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 So what it comes down to is that in lieu of objective measurements your natural hubris and sloppy thinking (masquerading as scientifically oriented skepticism as has already been witnessed with respect to your fanciful placebo effect/gullibility connection) leads you confidently to declare things as bogus.

Hmmmmm...? just another loud mouth upstart!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
"blessed by an ooga-booga priest" - not bad. However, I still don't think you're qualified..., posted on August 26, 2009 at 08:54:57
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... for our temporary opening.

A little bit more extremism is the order of the day.

Let the manufacturers, dealers, or enthusiasts of such gizmos publish objective measurements", posted on August 26, 2009 at 08:42:57
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 And I suppose you'd believe the manufacturer's published objective measurements. Boy, are you gullible!

:-)

RE: Let the manufacturers, dealers, or enthusiasts of such gizmos publish objective measurements", posted on August 26, 2009 at 11:29:27
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 "And I suppose you'd believe the manufacturer's published objective measurements. Boy, are you gullible!"

Heh heh. I guess I'll qualify that to say I'd believe such measurements IF the testing regimen was described in enough detail to be replicated, and IF an independent lab did in fact replicate the test and obtain the same results.

The trouble is, how do you test something that operates (if at all) on ephemeral principles? You can test vibration of various components, you can test frequency response from the listening position, you can test for noise and distortion, you can test for electronic interference, you can test the LCR and electrical transfer function of cables, and the impedance and phase of the speakers. If the tweak in question alters any of these measurable variables (for better or worse), then you can say it does something. If it doesn't, then what? We don't know how to measure changes in astral, ethereal, or psychotronic fields because we can't even prove such things exist, and those who believe can offer no proof except faith.

But hey, don't let the grumblings of an old infidel upset anyone's religious convictions. Believe whatever you want as long as it keeps you happy and docile. (I draw the line only at belief systems that advocate violence and conquest).

RE: "But hey, don't let the grumblings of an old infidel upset anyone's religious convictions.", posted on August 26, 2009 at 15:32:12
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 "The trouble is, how do you test something that operates (if at all) on ephemeral principles?"

By ephemeral principles I suppose you mean ones you're unfamiliar with or ones that haven't been provided to you.

"If the tweak in question alters any of these measurable variables (for better or worse), then you can say it does something. If it doesn't, then what?"

But if you hear lower distortion and better SNR and dynamic range plain as day then what?

RE: "But hey, don't let the grumblings of an old infidel upset anyone's religious convictions.", posted on August 26, 2009 at 16:06:12
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 "By ephemeral principles I suppose you mean ones you're unfamiliar with or ones that haven't been provided to you."

Yes. Please familiarize me with these principles. Please explain how a little light block of wood or a metal doodad, sitting on TOP of a component or speaker cabinet several hundred times its mass, or placed elsewhere in the room, can have any effect whatsoever on the performance of said component or the acoustics of said room. Keep it within the realm of known physics if possible, or resort to fairy dust if you must, but by all means, please explain.

"But if you hear lower distortion and better SNR and dynamic range plain as day then what?"

Why then, we would have no difficulty whatsoever consistently identifying these "plain as day" improvements in a double blind listening test! We would also be able to measure these improvements in known and measurable variables with good test instruments. If you or I or anyone else CAN do that, then obviously something real is happening, and we need to figure out what it is, how to quantify it, and how to consistently replicate the effect.

RE: "Keep it within the realm of known physics if possible, or resort to fairy dust if you must", posted on August 26, 2009 at 16:35:23
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 "Please explain how a little light block of wood or a metal doodad, sitting on TOP of a component or speaker cabinet several hundred times its mass, or placed elsewhere in the room, can have any effect whatsoever on the performance of said component or the acoustics of said room. Keep it within the realm of known physics if possible, or resort to fairy dust if you must, but by all means, please explain."

Easy. They act as "resonators" that convert unwanted mechanical or acoustic energy to heat. First Law of Thermodynamics, right? There, glad we solved that one. Next?

"Why then, we would have no difficulty whatsoever consistently identifying these "plain as day" improvements in a double blind listening test! We would also be able to measure these improvements in known and measurable variables with good test instruments. If you or I or anyone else CAN do that, then obviously something real is happening, and we need to figure out what it is, how to quantify it, and how to consistently replicate the effect."

If you or anyone wishes to perform double blind tests, then by all means. I have no problem with that. And you're free to measure any device, or have someone with the equipment you think necessary do the measuring. "Known and measurable variables" - now, that might be a problem. All depends. Tube traps, for example, should be easily measureable. And "resonators" such as bowls. Even tiny ones. But other things like Schumann frequency generators, ion generators and demagnetizers, and perhaps Mpingo discs, might be more, uh, problematic. Not sure anyone has ever actually tried. Measuring is like the weather, everyone talks about it but noone ever does anything about it. :-)

Of resonators, dampers, diffusors, etc., posted on August 28, 2009 at 09:19:58
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 "Easy. They act as "resonators" that convert unwanted mechanical or acoustic energy to heat. First Law of Thermodynamics, right?"

Hey, we agree on something! We agree that it is desirable to minimize (by damping, conducting away, or dissipating) unwanted resonances and vibrations.

I just prefer a more heavy-handed approach to the problem. To wit:

Speaker cabinets that are extremely non-resonant to begin with. This requires heavy-duty construction and/or exotic materials. High end manufacturers have used everything from machined thick aluminum (Krell, YGA) to granite (Eggleston) to dense composites (Wilson) to sand-filled panels (Wharfedale) to achieve this goal. I get pretty good DIY results with "constrained layer" double-thick panels of dissimilar materials (MDF inner shell/birch ply outer, laminated with soft glue) and lots of internal bracing. A properly built box will absorb/dissipate far more energy than any little thingamabob you put on top of it.

Sand-filled steel stands for stand-mount speakers.

Heavy, non-resonant equipment racks, with heavy, non-resonant shelves isolated from the rack--and components isolated from the shelves--with vibration-absorbing feet of soft silicone rubber.

Heavy, padded, absorbtive objects on TOP of components. Which will work better in this application--a 15 pound slab of marble on a dense closed-cell foam pad, or a little block of exotic hardwood? Webster's unabridged dictionary, or a 6-ounce piece of machined aluminum? When you can feel a significant reduction of vibrations with your fingertips, you know it's doing something real.

Getting rid of room reflections and modes that definitely constitute "unwanted acoustic energy." Tube traps, corner bass traps, various diffusers and absorbers all have strong audible and measurable benefits in this arena -- and you can DIY them at a fraction of the cost of commercial products. More ordinary things -- heavy wool drapes on the window, wool rugs and tapestries (backed with foam or rockwool) hanging on the walls, shelves of books and LPs along the side walls, big boxes of magazines in the corners (the crudest of DIY corner traps), thick carpets on the floor, acoustic ceiling tiles, overstuffed furniture around the room -- can all make a positive acoustic difference. And don't forget to pad all the doors, cupboards, pictures on the wall, ornaments on the mantle, etc., that buzz and rattle when the bass gets rolling.

You could really go nuts modifying the structure of the room itself, if you have the time and money. Double-thick walls stuffed with fiberglass, extra supports under the floor joists -- the mind boggles at the possibilities.

Some of the other things you mention, I dunno. You don't want things that resonate AUDIBLY -- like little copper bowls -- 'cause they're putting acoustic energy at the wrong frequencies back INTO the room. Air ionizers are very bad for things made of natural and synthetic rubber -- like speaker surrounds -- and besides they make noise of their own.

But hey, this is supposed to be FUN, right? You go ahead and play with your little gizmos and doohickeys all you want, and enjoy their tremendous imaginary benefits. I'll stick to the tried-and-true, brute-force methods that provide gross, obvious benefits. And we can both enjoy our music and be happy.

RE: "Play with your little gizmos and doohickeys all you want, and enjoy their tremendous imaginary benefits", posted on August 28, 2009 at 11:52:29
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 Why do I get the nagging feeling you do not employ any of the heavy- handed approaches you so strongly tout? And why do I also get the nagging feeling you haven't actually measured tube traps, various diffusors or anything else you tout. But you *imagine* someone has. Someone must have, right?. :-)

Ah, but I DO employ those approaches, posted on August 28, 2009 at 13:38:39
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 In my DIY equipment rack, framed in 2x4 and 2x6 lumber, with MDF/closed cell foam laminate shelves, with soft rubber footers floating the shelves on the frame and the components on the shelves.

In my DIY speaker stands, with sand-filled posts.

In my DIY subwoofer stand, consisting of stacked concrete pavers separated by layers of dense closed-cell foam.

In ALL my DIY speakers, the smallest of which (7"w x 10"h x 9") weigh 15 lbs apiece. (my big floorstanding towers are well over 100 lbs apiece).

In the marble slab atop my CD player.

In the Sorbothane mat and record clamp on my turntable.

In the pile of heavy books atop my subwoofer.

In the weather stripping applied to all doors in the house, so they won't rattle.

In the arrangement of rugs, curtains, wall hangings, bookshelves, and fabric-covered rockwool panels in my living room.

True, some of it is a bit unaesthetic (polite term for "butt ugly"), but I'm generally happy with the sonic consequences.

And yes, I DO measure in-room frequency response from the listening position after each addition/change/rearrangement. It's taken some time to get everything dialed in, but I now have reasonably flat in-room response +/-5dB) from the mid-treble down to 25Hz. Getting rid of the huge room boom at 78 Hz was a bear, because the room is PRECISELY 1 wavelength wide at that frequency -- I finally had to cheat and do it with phase cancellation by setting the mains/sub XO at that frequency and inverting polarity on the sub. And there's some rolloff above 10kHz -- I maybe overdid the absorbtive wall treatments a bit -- but I prefer that sound with most CDs, which are typically too bright anyway.

Anyway, I'm getting bored with the Argument Clinic. I'm off to the Bureau of Silly Walks. Ta ta.

RE: Ah, but I DO employ those approaches, posted on August 28, 2009 at 13:45:05
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 Ah, finally a man with all the answers.

:-)

RE: "Measuring is like the weather, everyone talks about it but noone ever does anything about it. :-)", posted on August 26, 2009 at 20:41:45
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Nice turn of phrase!

That's the second time in about as many years that you have made me chartreuse with envy by trotting out something that I wish I had said. Grit,grit,grit. Unfortunately it's not just clever, it's all too true...

Rick

Ok, posted on August 26, 2009 at 09:00:17
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 Non-official scorer gives Geoff a point for that one.

Fanciful suggestions!, posted on August 25, 2009 at 14:28:46
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 > This suggests that gullible, suggestible people may be more likely to respond positively to a placebo than skeptical types, just as they are more suceptible to hypnotism and con games (in which category I include politics and religion).

The article says nothing to support such an interpretation and yet you jump from that to "You can work out the implications of all this for the "audibility" of non-rational audio tweaks for yourselves"!

Cute, but I think it says more about your inclination to jump to unsupported assumptions than anything else.





Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: Uh Oh......It's Getting Stronger, Now What?, posted on August 25, 2009 at 12:08:40
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 It is the 'New Coke', 'Old Coke' blind comparison problem. The test procedure obscures small, significant differences. Get me off of Prozac and find out what happens. It often occurs, over the years when I forget to take it, or decide to ignore it. My friends jump in and tell me: "Have you forgotten to take your Prozac?" And they are dead right, every time.
For me to think of it as a placebo would be foolish. I know better, from experience, just like I know audio differences.

RE: Uh Oh......It's Getting Stronger, Now What?, posted on August 25, 2009 at 12:20:10
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 The article is well worth reading IMHO, quite interesting and with good summary of the history of drug testing.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Well, let's see now. We've been pointing out the placebo effect for ages . . ., posted on August 25, 2009 at 07:30:53
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 so how is this supposed to contradict a rational approach to audio?

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Depnds on what you find rational to be - not the same for us all...(nt), posted on August 25, 2009 at 13:42:39
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

You are simply avoiding the problem., posted on August 25, 2009 at 13:57:50
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 What do the results have to do with the efficacy of blind tests in audio?

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Perhaps you are the one with the problem...(nt), posted on August 25, 2009 at 18:20:24
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

Perhaps not, too., posted on August 26, 2009 at 06:59:49
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 You still haven't bothered to show what connection the results of the medical DBTs Jon linked have to do with the validity of audio DBTs.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
You have a point...., posted on August 26, 2009 at 11:28:21
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...there is very little audio DBTs have in common with the scientifically validated medical DBTs.

For one, in the medical use of this testing mechanism, the subjects' experience, training and abilities don't affect the results.

Two, posted on August 26, 2009 at 14:31:27
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 The testing procedure is fully documented. Real science is based upon experiential confirmation - or refutation (cold fusion in a bottle?) - which is only possible if the testing methodology is provided. Real scientists don't blow a gasket when such information is requested or ask stupid questions like "why do you think that matters?".

rw

RE: Perhaps not, too., posted on August 26, 2009 at 08:45:11
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "You still haven't bothered to show what connection the results of the medical DBTs Jon linked have to do with the validity of audio DBTs."

Any intelligent person should be able to see the connection on a number of different levels. No great subtlety here, and ease to see unless one's mind is mired in dogma.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Poor Pat, zero sense of humour! nt, posted on August 25, 2009 at 08:26:06
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 .

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: Uh Oh......It's Getting Stronger, Now What?, posted on August 24, 2009 at 21:18:52
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Well at the very least any self-respecting naysayer will be more careful about bringing up the golden standard for DBTs that are said to effectively defeat the placebo effect (bias) ... DBTs in the pharmaceutical industry.

Oh wait, scratch that, "self-respecting naysayer", an endangered species at best, most likely extinct or perhaps purely imaginary in the first place. Of course many believe themselves to be such but that's likely explained by the placebo effect.

LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

Page processed in 0.190 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]