 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.177.255.124
The only reason I care about defending certain tweaks - such as in my response to Richard BassNut Greene about tweaking electronics - is so that others who might realize a nice sonic benefit from those tweaks aren't discouraged from trying them.When it comes to POOGE'ing, my belief system isn't affected by skeptics. I *know* that rebuilding my speaker crossovers with quality parts has made a very enjoyable difference in their sound. I know that putting sorbothane feet under my turntable has made it virtually impervious to the periodic 30mph full stop maneuvers that my English Setter occasionally makes when playing ball in the house. Building my own power cables, replacing opamps and caps and diodes in CD players, etc. has all been both fun and sonically beneficial. (OK, except when I would make the occasional cold solder joint and take a component out of circuit...)
So do I care whether Ethan Winer or Sam Tellig or anyone else agrees that these sorts of things can make a big difference in the sound, whether or not such a difference is scientifically measurable?
No - EXCEPT to the extent that these folks may be discouraging other audiophiles from trying things that might work for them. It's good to be skeptical, but it's bad to speak from a position of perceived authority and pontificate that (for example) biwiring speakers doesn't make any difference, given that many people feel that it does.
Regarding the extremists, it's easy (and sometimes entertaining) to make fun of them. However, if someone wants to pay $6000 for an interconnect, and they earned that $6000 lawfully and responsibly, and paid taxes on it, and their family isn't neglected in some way because of the expense, you know, it's a free country. If that person hears the difference, and feels it's worth it, and would rather channel those dollars to the cable manufacturer instead of going to a lot of concerts and helping support talented musicians, or even sending a poor kid to community college for a year - that's his right. At least the money is going into the economy, and not (say) to some Colombian drug lord.
For my part, when I post about something I've done that sounds great to me, my motivation isn't to convert the skeptic. It's to suggest to someone else who may have similar gear and similar tastes that here's something he may want to try.
So, here's a proposed 4-point audiophile philosophy:
1) Skepticism, measurements, tweaking, and listening are all good and are not mutually exclusive. They all add to knowledge over time. Debate, if polite and constructive and informed and leavened with a little humility, is a good thing, because nobody has all the answers.
2) Dogma is generally bad, whether it comes from the audiophile placing tiny adhesive dots in the corner of his windowpanes and insisting that everyone do likewise, or the skeptic pooh-poohing the exact same activity and insisting that nobody do likewise.
3) Believe what you hear, not what anyone says you should hear. Enjoy what sounds good to you, because life is short and you should not live it for others. Try new approaches if and when you feel like it.
4) Good music is what it's all about, so get out from time to time and support good live musicians by attending their performances.
Now I have to shut up and go hunting for some Vishay SMD resistors for the output stage of my SACD player. I'm curious to find out whether I'll be able to hear the difference. ;-)
Follow Ups:
The problem is when you expect or want that difference ( actual or imagined ) to be experienced the same way by others. Many people are not very descerning and can't tell siginificant measurable differnces because either they don't care or have limited experience.
To me, a reasonable compromise between objective measurement and subjective preference is a reasonable goal. Consumer Reports can objectively measure a car's performance but I drive my car,not a robot. A car might objectively handle less well than an other but FEEL less stable to me.
Humans have souls-letting subjective evaluations be a part of your life is what makes you human.
My goal is to help audiophiles judge components and tweaks more objectively.The "I know what I hear" high-end mantra is good for one's ego, but has been proven incorrect hundreds of times when audiophiles claimed to hear differences under SPL-matched sighted conditions that seem to "disappear" minutes later under SPL-matched double-blind conditions. Been there are done that many times under blind and double-blind conditions.
Yes it is embarassing to believe one has golden ears and then find out just how much what one believes about a component affects how one describes its sound quality.
As a speaker builder since the 1960's, I know there is strong bias toward believing one's own design is superior.
As a tweaker since the 1960's, I know there is strong bias toward hearing an improvement from one's tweak = "DIY bias"
I also know how easy it is to do a single-blind two-component comparison at home using one assistant and wire swapping -- that's great for comparing a borrowed component with your own component.
But with tweaks, you may have to rely on your audio memory after the "original" component has been modified and is no longer available for a single-blind comparison with the modified component. That puts one at risk for the "new is better" bias and the "DIY bias".
The last sentence in my original post "defended" tweaks by saying even if there was no audible improvement, at least not much money was wasted. The audio hobby started with DIYers and tweakers in the 1950's.
Compare tweaking your component with buying a $2000 solid state amplifier only auditioned in an audio store -- take it home and there's a good chance of absolutely no audible difference under single-blind conditions unless the old amp was audibly clipping and the new amp does not clip.
A misapprehension that I’m afraid is all too common here is the “audibility” of amplifier circuit differencesDouble blind A/B/X testing has established thresholds for minimal detectable differences in level and frequency response – ignore these conditions and limits and you are not advancing your own or anyone else’s understanding
Without measurement and matching of level and frequency response differences WILL be perceived that have little to do with the amount or location of global/local feedback, flavor of output device or presence of plastic sleeves on ps caps – near the limits even experienced musicians and sound pros cannot reliably correctly attribute the cause of the perceived differences to specific level or fr differences
Known perceptible variables must be controlled for before useful correlations can be drawn from subjective evaluations – too many subjective difference reports here could be explained by simple level differences and expected loudness curve related perceptual frequency response variations - we have no idea of the comparison conditions
Even leaving psychoacoustics and perceptual limits aside, as a professional electronic designer I have serious doubts about many diy builders reports of subtle audible differences even being based on a fully engineered, debugged and verified working circuit implementation – I know how many errors creep into my circuits/prototypes at work and are only found by disciplined testing and debugging long after the prototype first appears to be working – measurements may not tell you what sounds good but without them you can’t even tell you’ve built what you intended
In my view subjective evaluation only comes after extensive measurement and validation of the circuitry, and multiple amps with only one difference (and at least 2 with no differences as controls) can then be evaluated – I would apply at least a 90% discount to the reliability of reported audible differences on a single prototype made with the smell of solder flux still in the air
"Hearing differences" is easy but audio engineering can only advance with the aid of meaningful perceptual evaluation
First off, I agree with much of what you say.However: you did say in your earlier post that experience should guide audiophiles "away from electronics upgrades" and I felt that that might ward some folks off. So I felt the need to share my own experience w/electronics upgrades, which has been almost uniformly positive. And, as you point out, not all that expensive (as long as you don't put a price on the time required!).
Also, sure, the "DIY bias" does exist, and I've caught myself in it. But I don't think that when I do hear an improvement, I'm always fooling myself to give my ego a boost.
What I hear some folks saying (here at AA and in magazines like Skeptic) is that we tweakers are engaged on a quaint but decidedly unscientific journey of self-delusion. To which I say: No way, man!
I've got good ears, if not golden ones, and yes, most of the time I do "know what I hear." That OPA2604 *was* boomy in my CDP. Caulking the seams in my speaker cabinets *did* tighten up the sound. Etc.
And I wouldn't much care who believed me, except for the fact that I truly believe that other people might enjoy trying a lot of the component upgrades I've done, most of which I learned at AA in the first place. Which was my main point here.
I should end this by thanking you for your many very informative posts esp. on subwoofers, I've learned a lot from them. My own sub is a little AudioPro that is surprisingly bighearted for its compact size. All it needed was a little tweaking (in the form of a custom-built voltage splitter). ;-)
If the Philistines were content to listen to their Bose-grade audio equipment and continue on with their meaningless lives without influencing our music, then we would not care.However, many of them have infested the whole chain, from the design and construction of recording studios through to the manufacture and sale of reproducing equipment. Their inability to learn ensures the perpetuation of mediocre performance at every stage.
This is a general gripe, as the same situation exists in every form of human endeavor. Music should be a respite from the general idiocy, but it seems we have to fight for good sound just as hard as we have to fight for clean air, nutritious food, safe transportation, helpful medical care, etc., etc.
Well, this is a big issue that you raise, and it goes way beyond tweaking.I think you're right, music is no different than anything else in that it is dominated by mediocrity. But it is also no different than anything else in that you can find quality if you look for it.
I just picked up Mark Knopfler's "Shangri-La" DVD-A. It included videos of the musicians working in a California recording studio, everyone playing at the same time, on great high-quality vintage equipment. The album sounds wonderful.
There will always be great musicians and talented engineers who are dedicated to producing great sounding, high quality music. Show me an Ashlee Simpson or a Britney Spears and I'll show you a Shawn Colvin or an Aimee Mann. And you don't always have to hunt for it; the new batch of RCA Living Stereo SACD's was front and center in the classical room at my local Tower Records last week.
I think the best thing we can do as consumers is vote with our dollars and support quality wherever we find it, keeping niches of excellence alive in this Wal-Mart world.
Now if you *really* want to talk about the general public settling for mediocrity, we could get into politics. But we'd have to take that discussion "outside." ;-)
Finally! Someone used the "T" word...Isn't the idea of truth it's own reward? We're supposed to ignore the other side (whichever side you happen to be on makes no difference)in this debate simply because it's ok to scam people or it's ok to be completely closed off to new ideas?
truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.Az
Suppose that 'tweaking' to you (Audio Amateur Reader/faithfull) means adding a couple of pounds of electronic components to yr Whatever.. then 'believing' that it sounds better?
Seriously, I never did read Audio Amateur, but I love the acronym: Progressive Optimization Of Generic Equipment. There's a profound philosophy of life in that funny little acronym.
Mouser Electr. carry the Vishay SMD R's.As for the meter readers & "scientists" may they continue to measure their equipment(most of them don't have any) rather than listen to it. I remember when : there were 98 elements; an element could not be created; an element could not be changed to another element, then they learned that Radium decomposes and becomes lead (Pb); the bumblebee, according to aeronautical engrs., could not fly because its' wing area was too small for its' body mass, then later discovered the principle of the vibrating wing and then the bumblebee was permit to fly. All of this with straight faces and absolutely no embarassment, of which I don't believe they're capable. I say let them continue to measure the crankshaft journals of car engines with yardsticks, saying there's no difference in any of them and stuff cotton in their ears as the engines blow up on the test dynamometers.
Happy Listening and Tweaking !
I am doing this for myself - could care less about the folks who think I am weird and believe in some sort of magic. However, the same folks will come and ask me if I knew why their cable TV picture gets bad once they put the cable modem splitter in the line...Back to my soldering iron :)
Peter
From a pragmatic view, openmindedness leads to suceesses. Failures too but those are obviously discarded, we keep the winners. With this outlook, it is easy to see how the openminded (and diligent) listener will have a superior system to one who "knows" that no tweaks will make any difference. I challenge this listener to a duel of the systems! (unless his budget is much bigger than mine) :)
...and as observational listeners we are attempting to define real audible differences for the scientists to try to measure.Sure, everything we hear CAN be measured, as long as you know what to look for and what to try to measure. But even the measurers are clueless about the ear/brain interface and the fact that we process music differently than test tones.
Music has an emotional component that we, as music lovers and audiophiles, are trying to maximize. Until the measurers can get inside our brains to measure, their measurements will always come up short.
...and as observational listeners we are attempting to define real audible differences for the scientists to try to measure.
But your subjective perceptions alone do not necessarily prove that there are real audible differences. We know this because we know humans can perceive differences even in the absence of any real differences.
Until that ambiguity can be accounted for other than by vanity and ego, then there's not much point in measuring.
Someone may subjectively perceive some difference. And someone else may be able to objectively measure some difference. But that won't necessarily mean that what was measured was responsible for what was perceived.
Sure, everything we hear CAN be measured, as long as you know what to look for and what to try to measure.
And as long as you know that what's perceived is actually due to some audible difference produced by the equipment.
But even the measurers are clueless about the ear/brain interface and the fact that we process music differently than test tones.
The ones who are clueless about the ear/brain system are those who deny very well known and well established phenomena regarding the ear/brain system and who insist that any subjectively perceived difference must be due to some actual physical difference in the audio system.
Until the denial ends and the horse is put before the cart and actual audible differences are established, all this is moot.
se
It is well documented that certain individuals experience what is called "synesthesia." That is, they perceive a stimulus in one sensory organ as also a stimulus in another sensory organ. The most common synesthetic effect is that people perceive sound as color (they also hear it as sound, like everyone else).A number of intrepid experimenters of my (Boomer) generation also determined that synesthesia could be produced in non-synesthetic persons with the assistance of . . . um . . . "certain substances."
Now, from this person reporting synesthesia are we to conclude that the loudspeaker is doubling at as lightbulb?
And, if so, why does the light from the bulb change colors all the time?
;-)
It is well documented that certain individuals experience what is called "synesthesia." That is, they perceive a stimulus in one sensory organ as also a stimulus in another sensory organ. The most common synesthetic effect is that people perceive sound as color (they also hear it as sound, like everyone else).A number of intrepid experimenters of my (Boomer) generation also determined that synesthesia could be produced in non-synesthetic persons with the assistance of . . . um . . . "certain substances."
Now, from this person reporting synesthesia are we to conclude that the loudspeaker is doubling at as lightbulb?
And, if so, why does the light from the bulb change colors all the time?
;-)
Hehehe. Hey, let's give it a try! I was passing through this cow pasture the other day and found some interesting looking mushrooms growing on some of the cow pats.
Would you like yours raw or satueed in butter? :)
se
I doubt that everything we can hear can be measured. There are still orders of magnitudes of things that "science" is unaware of and does not know how to measure or quantify. The thing I find to be totally sophomoric (i.e. wise fools) is that most of the so-called scientists, who are actualy pseudo-scientists, totally reject empirical knowledge. A true scientist that is confronted with a repeating phenomena does not toss it aside because the current "truths" of "science" deny its' possibility. Rather, he continues to investigate the phenomena until he can at least evolve a "working hypothesis", which is what most of "scientific knowledge" really is (I once had a chem prof. who used to say "You are right, but for all the wrong reasons"). That's how real discoveries, like penecillin, etc., ame about. Certainly not by throwing the petri dish away saying "That's simply not scientifically possible". Keep on POOGEing (Progressive Optimization Of Generic Equipment)Happy Listening !
pkell44's posting above could not have been more eloquently put - particularly the part which says "a true scientist continues to investigate the phenomena until he can at least evolve a working hypothesis". I would also add, relating to the world of audio, that things which go wrong i.e cause the sound to be worse can give as many significant clues as things which go right i.e give an improvement in the sound. Also things which happen by chance can force people to sit up and take notice if, as the well known saying goes, the mind is prepared to take notice.Compare pkell44's and David Aiken's flexible minded responses with Steve Eddy's reply to pkell44's sentence "I doubt that everything we can hear can be measured. There are still order of magnitudes of things that "science" is unaware of and does not know how to measure or quantify".
Steve Eddy's reply is
"Are you suggesting that sound is caused by something other than changes in air pressure versus time ?"Our answer to that question Steve is Yes, in our opinion (Peter's and mine), there is more to the perception of sound than just changes in air pressure versus time. The processing of the received musical information by the brain is extremely relevant.
And, in another posting, in reply to chris_w regarding 'is the test gear good enough?' Steve's reply is
"Suffice to say that I'm not aware of anything at this point which has been established to actually be audible which has escaped measurement."Is that really true Steve ? Have you never, ever, really been 'knocked back on your heels' by changes in the sound which could not be measured ?
This is my first 'posting' on audio asylum. I had intended my first posting would be a reply to another issue regarding cables i.e. the thread which started "Who is right" by Mert in the General Asylum section but my registration was rather late for that particular thread.
May Belt.
Because I do think you'll be able to add to discussions here, in a good way.Some folks here may become quite confrontational, so please bear with 'em, and feel free to cheerfully ignore any flames.
Regards
Compare pkell44's and David Aiken's flexible minded responses with Steve Eddy's reply to pkell44's sentence "I doubt that everything we can hear can be measured. There are still order of magnitudes of things that "science" is unaware of and does not know how to measure or quantify".
Steve Eddy's reply is
"Are you suggesting that sound is caused by something other than changes in air pressure versus time ?"Our answer to that question Steve is Yes, in our opinion (Peter's and mine), there is more to the perception of sound than just changes in air pressure versus time. The processing of the received musical information by the brain is extremely relevant.
Great.
However your answer is within a context other than that of my comment.
I was speaking strictly of sound, i.e. the stimulus side of the equation, not the brain's subsequent processing in response to the stimulus.
Certainly in the broader context the brain's response is relevant as it's the brain's response which can bring about different perceptions to identical stimulus and can leave us with ambiguities when trying to determine actual audibility.
And, in another posting, in reply to chris_w regarding 'is the test gear good enough?' Steve's reply is
"Suffice to say that I'm not aware of anything at this point which has been established to actually be audible which has escaped measurement."Is that really true Steve ? Have you never, ever, really been 'knocked back on your heels' by changes in the sound which could not be measured ?
But that presupposes a change in sound. Sound and perception are not always one and the same as we may have different perceptions to the exact same sound. And of course if the sound is the same, there will be no difference to measure with respect to sound.
While I've been knocked back on my heels from my perception of sound, I don't always assume that my perception was entirely due to the sound itself.
se
A true scientist knows that replicating actual listening conditions is important. Audiophiles do not make measurements when listening and hopefully do not bias their auditions by examining measurements in advance. Measurements may later explain what was heard, or may contradict what was heard.The listener gains no additional knowledge from knowing the brand and model of component being auditioned, or comparing two components when one component plays louder than the other.
To reduce possible bias from pre-existing beliefs, the brand and model must be hidden.
Both components being compared must play at exactly the same SPL so that minor SPL differences are not mistaken for meaningful sound quality differences.
Both components should be compared in your own listening room to eliminate differences caused solely by the listening room.
While amplitude response and timing can be measured, our ears do smooth frequency response with a one-third octave smoothing effect and room reflections cause huge timing errors that could easily mask timing errors of the equipment.
The stereo image and soundstage are completely internal within our brains -- no measurements I know of correlate with them.
Audiophiles are strongly biased to avoid saying "I can't hear a difference" or "I don't know", especially when the brand and model of the component being auditioned is known.
Hiding the brand/model during auditions makes it much more likely that sound quality differences are real rather than imagined.
If one honestly writes down what one expects to hear before a sighted audition, one will find later that the sound quality "heard" during the audition often matches the pre-existing expectations.
If the brand and model of component is hidden, you can only base your preferences on what you hear -- but isn't that what you wanted to do?
Or is it just as important to buy the "proper" brand component currently favored by high-end audiophiles, or the component that looks the coolest?
Hi RichardI would take issue on what you say in only one small respect
you said:
> Both components should be compared in your own listening room to > eliminate differences caused solely by the listening room.The above assumes that your listening room has good acoustics!
If it doesnt then a good revealing system may sound worse than a Bose Wave Radio or a getto blaster.But as i have said before and elsewhere:
It is possible to easly hear differance especailly with loudspeaker colouration with just a cord or two.
I would like to see some sort of highly sensitive signature analsys tools be developed to quantify what we think we hear. But the biggest problem to date is that the human ear is not a microphone -its this single fact that imho prevents the quantive correlation with perceptions. Its a bit like looking for an elephant with a microscope, or a flee with binoculars
If one honestly writes down what one expects to hear before a sighted audition, one will find later that the sound quality "heard" during the audition often matches the pre-existing expectations.Indeed. I have been most surprised when I went into a comparison presuming that I would detect no differences - and yet I did. Or hearing two equally astronomically priced amplifiers that should both be "good enough" and clearly preferring one of them. Having said that, there have been a number of times when I tried a tweak purported to make some sort of improvement and heard none.
rw
I would love to have a real digital high fidelity signal from the recording venue to compare with what is in the room on reproduction to compare. I find it very difficult to believe that there would be nothing evident in an analysis of this to recommend certain tweaks over others. I think this is what is at the root of why people talk about having a revealing system.Of course, there would be many obstacles to the fidelity of this as dacs would be needed and the quality of the microphones and everything after this would make the signal different, but the tweak's effect should also be evident.
I doubt that everything we can hear can be measured. There are still orders of magnitudes of things that "science" is unaware of and does not know how to measure or quantify.
Are you suggesting that sound is caused by something other than changes in air pressure versus time?
The thing I find to be totally sophomoric (i.e. wise fools) is that most of the so-called scientists, who are actualy pseudo-scientists, totally reject empirical knowledge. A true scientist that is confronted with a repeating phenomena does not toss it aside because the current "truths" of "science" deny its' possibility. Rather, he continues to investigate the phenomena until he can at least evolve a "working hypothesis", which is what most of "scientific knowledge" really is (I once had a chem prof. who used to say "You are right, but for all the wrong reasons"). That's how real discoveries, like penecillin, etc., ame about. Certainly not by throwing the petri dish away saying "That's simply not scientifically possible".
Fair enough.
But by the same token there are those on the other side of the argument who totally reject that which is well known and well established.
That gets us nowhere either.
se
"...and as observational listeners we are attempting to define real audible differences for the scientists to try to measure.But your subjective perceptions alone do not necessarily prove that there are real audible differences. We know this because we know humans can perceive differences even in the absence of any real differences.
Until that ambiguity can be accounted for other than by vanity and ego, then there's not much point in measuring…"
It's very true that there's not much point in measuring based on only one person's report, but I think that situation changes when there's large numbers of people making similar reports. Large numbers of people doesn't guarantee that the observations are accurate, but it's a lot better indication that there MAY be something going on than the observations of only one person and at some point it becomes simpler and quicker to make the measurements than it is to question every individual making a report.And, of course, there are a few other things that may explain the ambiguity in some cases a lot more accurately than "vanity and ego". As an exhaustive list or an indication of where the problem might lie, the choice of those 2 options as the only options presented is a little perjorative.
David Aiken
The phyological differance between people, not just the psycological ones. Everybody has almost unigue hearing devices, no two ears are exactly the same phyically.what we are talking about is trying to quantify the almost unquantifable.
But lets not stop trying. Once we can define what is, then only the unknown remains, -that may turn out to be not be unknowable.
It's very true that there's not much point in measuring based on only one person's report, but I think that situation changes when there's large numbers of people making similar reports. Large numbers of people doesn't guarantee that the observations are accurate, but it's a lot better indication that there MAY be something going on than the observations of only one person and at some point it becomes simpler and quicker to make the measurements than it is to question every individual making a report.
Oh I agree that the large number of empirical observations can indicate that there MAY be something going on. And I wasn't suggesting that the answer is to question every individual making a report.
I'm simply saying that I think our time and resources would be better spent attempting to first establish actual audible differences. When you do that then you clear the ambiguity off the table and you now have a known point of reference to do the subsequent work.
And, of course, there are a few other things that may explain the ambiguity in some cases a lot more accurately than "vanity and ego". As an exhaustive list or an indication of where the problem might lie, the choice of those 2 options as the only options presented is a little perjorative.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
The ambiguity I was speaking of is the fact that humans may perceive differences even in the absence of actual differences. And by vanity and ego I was speaking of those who either refuse to even acknowledge this possibility or who acknowledge it but insist that they're somehow immune to it.
se
"'m simply saying that I think our time and resources would be better spent attempting to first establish actual audible differences. When you do that then you clear the ambiguity off the table and you now have a known point of reference to do the subsequent work."I wonder whether our time and resources is always better spent trying to establish whether there is an audible difference.
No doubt there are times when it is, and I think the "Intelligent" chip is one of those — IF you wanted to do any testing in relation to the claims made for it. The explanation given for it doesn't make sense based on current knowledge and there is no obvious way in which it could do anything at all. Attempting to find out if it actually does something by starting to investigate all of the possiblilities that exist for making an audible difference is simply too expensive and time consuming so conducting listening tests to find out whether it produces a repeatable and reproducible difference makes a lot more sense.
On the other hand, there is an awful lot of dispute about listening tests and they can be time consuming and expensive to conduct. If the "item" under consideration is one that is supported by a sound and plausible theoretical explanation, and if the nature of the claimed physical/electrical results appears to correlate well with what observers report, then simply testing to see whether or not it actually delivers the claimed physical/electrical results may be quicker, simpler and cheaper and may satisfy everyone, simply because if those tests show that it does do what is claimed, the way it works conforms with current theory, and the perceptions that people report do correlate well with what is known of other devices producing similar physical/electrical effects, then there's nothing questionable about any of the claims.
I just hate seeing people wanting to test every claim in exactly the same way, regardless of the nature of the claim. It simply doesn't make sense, especially when research resources are scarce and expensive. Some claims are simply totally implausible so why test? Put the onus of proof back on the claimant rather than try and do their work for them, unless of course there is something really interesting and potentially useful in the claim that merits actually spending the time and effort on it, and that probably means that the claim has to have value above and beyond 'mere' audio uses. Other claims really do demand listening tests to determine whether people actually do hear a difference if we're going to start anywhere at all, and still others are plausible enough that it should be sufficient to verify that the 'item' actually works as claimed in the physical/electrical domain.
Sorry about the misunderstanding on the "vanity and ego" bit. I don't think it's clear in your original post that that is what you meant because that passage occurs in your initial response that subjective perceptions are not always associated with actual differences. Your comments about people who refuse to acknowledge this actually occur a little later in response to a different point.
David Aiken
I agree that perceived differences in sound are not *always* necessarily due to changes in equipment. There have been a few times when I have heard things that I wanted to hear, then later proved myself wrong. A humbling experience!But that doesn't mean that perceived differences in sound are *never* due to changes in equipment, either. Nor does it mean that those differences aren't *usually* due to changes in gear.
So I don't think it's true to say that "there's not much point in measuring" just because we can't always be 100% sure that what we are trying to measure is actually an equipment change rather than a perceptual change. Seems to me the way to learn is to keep listening, keep measuring, and see what parallels can be drawn.
The fact that you can read hundreds of postings on this board by tweakers who have made changes that they *didn't* like, strongly suggests that the natural human tendency to like something that we are predisposed to like, is not necessarily the dominating factor.
I agree with mkuller's posting, which I take to mean that we keep observing (listening), keep measuring, and keep looking for parallels and patterns - and that's how knowledge advances, in this field as in any field, even if the process is not perfectly deterministic.
I agree that perceived differences in sound are not *always* necessarily due to changes in equipment. There have been a few times when I have heard things that I wanted to hear, then later proved myself wrong. A humbling experience!
Yes, it is. But unfortunately for some egos win out over humility.
But that doesn't mean that perceived differences in sound are *never* due to changes in equipment, either.
Certainly. And I wasn't saying or implying otherwise.
Nor does it mean that those differences aren't *usually* due to changes in gear.
No. But by the same token, you're not going to know what's usual or unusual until you know what's actually going on.
So I don't think it's true to say that "there's not much point in measuring" just because we can't always be 100% sure that what we are trying to measure is actually an equipment change rather than a perceptual change. Seems to me the way to learn is to keep listening, keep measuring, and see what parallels can be drawn.
But parallels don't always tell you the truth either. In other words, correlation is not the same as causation. You can spend considerable amounts of time finding correlations just to end up right back where you started and you've only learned that you haven't learned much at all.
Seems to me the way to learn is to work on eliminating ambiguities.
The fact that you can read hundreds of postings on this board by tweakers who have made changes that they *didn't* like, strongly suggests that the natural human tendency to like something that we are predisposed to like, is not necessarily the dominating factor.
Well there's much more to our tendency to perceive differences even in the absence of actual differences than simple predisposition. Some of it hasn't anything at all to do with individual predisposition or expectation, such as the way our ear/brain system is hard wired to over detect. Or simply changing attention.
se
You are right that correlation does not equal causation. However, if it's tough to determine causation right off the bat, correlations can often provide useful clues about what's going on.For example, if A correlates with B, but A doesn't cause B and B doesn't cause A, then maybe there's a C lurking in the woods that is causing both A and B.
If the kids in a particular town do unusually poorly in school, and adults seem to have an unusually high rate of cancer, those two observations appear to be correlated - by location and by time. The cause of both might be a third, unobserved phenomenon - polluted drinking water, for example.
Also, it's fair to note that when there is a cause-effect relationship, the correlation doesn't indicate the direction of the cause-effect arrow. If we notice that tide patterns seem to coincide with the phases of the moon, that doesn't necessarily tell us that the tides are affecting the moon, or that the moon is affecting the tides. But the correlation does suggest a course for future investigation.
So I don't think correlations generally make us end up where we started. They often lead us to further inquiries that *do* detect cause and effect. And, to come full circle to your main point, correlations often help us remove ambiguities.
Not that we ever want to remove all of them! What fun would that be? ;-)
Personally, I'm really grateful that I do not have to go inside your brain and attempt to figure out what's going on. I am not a medical professional or your significant other.
The Ever Evil Doctor Steel
and lead salts were thought good medicine. There are other citizens who firmly believe in UFOs but reject the theory of evolution. Physics used to hold that empty space was filled with Ether and before that that fire was the expression of a subtle substance called Phlogiston, cobalt was believed to be a demon that lived in copper and made it unworkable, epilepsy was the result of a "folly stone" stuck in the forehead of the sufferer, cats were the agents of the devil, men wearing opals would probably get shot in the trench wars of WWI, there are secret formulas for beating slot machines, penis pills work if you take the right ones.... common knowledge itself is a mixture of fact and fantasy.
Damn
I'm doomed forever...
...that dreary bog of sullen inertia and prejudice.A typhical example of this is the reaction to a mainscable of unusual construction when the commonsensical retort is "but what about the miles of cable before the outlet", surely the last meter or so can only make a minimal change.
While this may make common sense, the fact is that anyone who has managed to pass EE101 under my professor could suggets a number of reasons why 1) the wire up to the distribution point does not matter and 2) mains cable physical construction may make a difference that is measurable and may be audible.
Ciao T
The coffee I drink in the morning may have travelled thousands of miles in dusty bags, but it still tastes better when brewed through a clean coffee maker rather than a dirty one.Maybe not a perfect analogy, but enough to refute the idea that the final step of a long journey can't possibly make a difference.
There's the obvious thing about noise cancellation. The kimber mains cables cancel out some of the noise already there and prevent backwash noise, from say a CD player, getting into the preamp or amp. Even just a screened or ferrite clamped mains cable can help here.
I hadn't read the word "phlogiston" for 30 years! Thanks!You have to be a little surprised, and amused, by some of the outlandish "facts" that people have believed through the years.
Yet on the other hand, in a way, you can admire the imagination and creativity of some of these concepts.
I wonder how many facts we hold today as obvious will be ridiculed in the future as amusingly naive fantasies. Probably more than we'd like to believe.
Well, as "Texas" John Connally used to say "That's a true fact". I used to laugh at that, but no more. I now understand what he meant, and he expressed it very succinctly. Gentlemen, it's a sorry waste of time to debate the Meter-Readers. They are totally immune to enlightment. Let them peacefully continue to revel in their dream world.Happy Listening !
nt
they aren't ???
.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
