|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.180.4.250
In Reply to: My POV posted by Jim Austin on March 21, 2007 at 13:54:18:
Jim, don't get yourself into more trouble. Look at JA's impressions of blind testing in the April issue of 'Stereophile'. Second, what do you know about ABX testboxes? Ever evaluate one? Third, it is the test itself that throws things off, much like May has tried to talk to you about. Fight or flight? You bet! Take the ABX test and see.
Follow Ups:
Yes, I tried. Been there, done that, worn the Tee shirt which says "I tried to explain to Jim Austin."
Jim replied to you regarding blind trials. He said :-
> > > "Yes, tests stress people out and makes them perform worse (believe me; I've experienced that). But that can be overcome" < < <.But I cannot understand how that 'stress' can be overcome if people are not aware of what can CAUSE that 'stress'. People who advocate blind trials obviously firmly believe that they can control every aspect of the trial and just change the one thing they wish to 'test'. Even after 25 years of research even WE do not know everything that could be having an effect !!
What we do know is that if you have a group (or even more than one person) listening in a room and one of those people tells a lie, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room - not just for the one person telling the lie !! If one of those people THINKS a lie, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room !! And the sound will not get back to normal until that person tells or thinks the truth !!
If you have a group of people, listening in a room, then that group will adjust their posture until a state of equilibrium (a state of ease) is reached. They will do this either by crossing their ankles - left over right or right over left. Or by crossing their knees - left over right or right over left. Or by folding their arms - left over right or right over left. Only when a state of equilibrium is reached, will the sound be at it's best. But, if any one person fidgets, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room and will not get back to the standard it had been until the group readjusts itself back to a state of equilibrium.
Even knowing these things does not really help because you cannot instruct people, involved in a test, not to tell or think a lie and not to fidget !!! Instructions such as those alone would cause enough stress to make the test worthless !!!
People, whether just a few or a larger group, are sensitive to other people's chemical reactions !!
Sound is not just the audio signal travelling through the audio system and is not just the acoustic air pressure waves in the room - sound is what the working memory constructs as a 'sound picture' from the information it eventually receives.I do not believe that I am telling you, John, anything you are not already aware of, nor do I think we are in a tiny minority (although it often appears so). What I think is that so many people are fearful of coming out of their 'comfort zone' - because it can be quite frightening.
Much easier to believe it MUST be "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing" !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
All we're talking about here is detecting the difference between 2 interconnects. Tubeguy thinks he can pass a blind (but not necessarily a rigorously double-bind) test, stress or no stress, as long as it's on his terms. So let's get on with it and go from there.The rest of this is just an attempt to discredit a legitimate testing procedure. It makes me wonder what you guys are hiding.
Jim,I've never actually did the test the way I proposed it be done. That proposition was made by myself as being a viable substitute for using an ABX/DBT. I attempted to do manuelly what an ABX does electronically, for those who ONLY accept an ABX/DBT as valid blind test.
The test I have passed on interconnects was to have a friend pick one of two ICs as he so chose. After he selected the IC a towel was hung in front of the system so I couldn't see which IC was being used. Using my stereo in my home I never got less than 8 out of 10 correct. Sometimes I get 10 out of 10 or 9 out of 10 correct. I don't know why but after 8 times it just gets more difficult for me. I don't know if it's listener fatigue, boredom with testing, stress as some claim or what. Perhaps it's simply I believe it's more difficult after 8 times so gets more difficult after 8 times!
In other people's homes the sucess rate would definitely correlate with how intimately familiar I was with the system in question. At my friend Rick's home the stereo (Counterpoint SA5000 preamp/SA 220 power amp, Meridian 808 CDP & all XLO Reference wires) which I was very familiar with, sometimes 7 out of 10, sometimes 8 out of 10, but never better than that. At other peoples homes whose stereo I didn't know & component quality wasn't as high as Rick and my own, sometimes it was even as low as 5 out of 10 which is like guessing. This is why I insist the test MUST be done on a system I am initmately familiar with. Also I'm assuming the naysayers would insist on my using wires that are only subtly different. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if the wires sounded substantially different the naysayers would insist one of the two ICs was "improperly designed". That seems to be an objectivist catch-all for when any audio component sounds different. They never believe it's evidence that components sound different, but rather it means one of the components is "improperly designed" or broken. What would be interesting would be which one of the two would be considered "improperly designed"?
As far as using an ABX is concerned. "IF" I was allowed to live with one in my system and "IF" I came to believe it was indeed transparent, I'd consider allowing it's use. However anything I've read or heard about it from sources I trust leads me to believe it's not transparent.
In your own tests, in your own system, as you described them, are you hearing a particular quality to the sound that changes, differences in specific characteristics, or what? Is there a particular point in a particular recording where you can usually hear the difference?To me, this is really important. It's true, as JA (in the April Stereophile) and others contend, that the best way to evaluate the character and quality of a piece of equipment is to listen to it over time. But I think it's important for the credibility of our hobby that we be able to relate those qualitative changes to specific aspects of the sound that we can point to and say "see? that's different. It's the cymbals" or whatever. I'm not talking about relating it to something measured, but to something reliably and repeatably perceived. And, of course, it's important to be able to make a compelling case that we actually hear what we claim to hear--even if it's not lab-certified proof. (There's no such thing as a perfect experiment in science, and even good ones are hard to achieve. A lot of the work that moves science forward is good but imperfect, suggestive but not definitive.)
So--what do you listen for? Also, can you do this for any IC comparison? How many combinations have you tried?
Jim,I believe you're asking this question earnestly and so even though I'll probably be mocked for what I'm about to say, I'm going to answer you honestly. I MAINLY listen for a particular point in a particular recording where I can usually hear the difference. That's "IF" I'm trying prove I can hear differences in components to others. However to really know a component's true characteristics I'd like 30-90 days with it.
My favorite song for hearing differences in audio components is Aja, by Steely Dan. Towards the end of the song when the drummer is banging away he stops and clicks his drumsticks together twice. Once I've listened to an audio component's replication of that event and get familiar with it I can almost always differentiate between what component being used. For the sake of this post I consider wires a component as well, ok?
I also use Mark Johnson's CD entitled Deep Focus and the song I use is I Told You So. There's a part where he blows the sax and the music just resonates from deep within the sax, you can almost hear the air coming out of the horn, it seems difficult for most components as they tend to sound different on this.
I also like to use a CD called Jump In The Water by Jump In The Water. The song I use is It's Not for You. This is a great song for vocals. These guys can harmonize plus they're a a few feet behind the man singer who has a great voice himself. So I hear vocals and soundstaging. If you like stringed instruments you'd love these guys they play everything from lute, to mandolin, to guitar & everything in between. Everyone who's heard it loves it and believe it or not there's many of them used, like new on Amazon for $.01 I honestly don't know how to classify their music.
Of course I use some of my jazz ladies for vocals and piano and to listen to soundstage width, depth and height. I don't remember the song now but I used to own a CD by Dean Peer called Ucross. It was only him on a bass, but in one song he must have been sitting and then stood up while playing because you heard the music shift up about 2ft all at once! It was an incredible experience and proved a soundstage had height as well as depth & width.
I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. So I'm afraid most of my real testing has been done with things I and my friends can afford --- wires and tubes. Hopefully this answers your questions, if not I'll try to expound.
Thetubeguy1954
====================================================================
If Nature Abhors A Vacuum, Why Does Vacuum Tube Equipment Sound So Damn Good?
This is exactly what I was asking for and your description is very clear. I'm going to go try and find that Jump in the Water CD locally.I'm not talking about subjective evaluations--just hearing a change.
My point is that if you know exactly what to look for, and it's real, it's possible to know whether the change occurs or not (if not always easy). You've found a specific, repeatable difference; presumably, that difference is in some way related to the more qualitative things reviewers like to talk about. What exactly is different about the sound of those drumsticks? And how (if at all) does it relate to the subjective differences you notice in long-term listening? See, this is how we close the gap between subjective and objective. You don't have to be in either camp if you can hear repeatable differences of detail and relate them to subjective changes. Exciting stuff.
And by the way, since someone is bound to ask I'll go ahead and answer: I'm not sure I can do what you claim to be able to do (and by phrasing it that way I don't mean to suggest that I don't believe you; I do.) I once had my wife administer a similar test (I even used towels) and was absolutely sure of what I heard. The difference was beyond any question. And I got it exactly wrong. Twice. (I was trying to identify which cable was in the system, not just determine whether they had been switched or not).
> > I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. < <
You would probably be surprised.
Thanks again.
Jim,Thanks I appreciate your candor. FYI Jump In The Water is an extremely difficult CD to locate. I've always been happy with my purchases of used CDs on Amazon, so I recommend you buy one of their "like new" copies for $.01. With shipping it will probably be less that $3.00
To be honest with you Jim at one time I didn't even realize there were objectivists & subjectivists. Many years ago when I first started getting serious about audio I believed wires couldn't possibly make a difference. I also believed tubed equipment was an obsolete technology. Yet at the same time I heard differences in amps and preamps etc. I guess I was an objectivist who demanded proof that wires effected the sound or that tubed amps weren't obsolete and easily bettered by solid state amps, but I listened subjectively or however you'd classify one with the beliefs I had at that time. I was quite taken aback when I joined the Asylum and felt animosity expressed by objectivists towards anyone who listened subjectively. Up till then in all my experience I had never met anyone who didn't believe audio components couldn't or shouldn't sound differently but I digress.
Getting back to when I listen for differences between components. When I first detected differences in the sound of the 2 drumsticks struck together I attempted to determine which I believed was the most realistic replication. When I made my choice later that same day I actually went and bought a pair of drumsticks to hit together and compare. IMHO what I selected as being the more accurate replication was indeed just that. What really surprised me is just how dynamically limited most audio systems are! I needed to hit the sticks quite a bit less hard than the drummer on Aja or else it was too damn loud.
Jim you mentioned when you attempted to detect differences in two IC's you were wrong both times. It's my contention that when people test to hear differences they listen to way too much info. Testing one's hearing acuity & listening to music are two completely different functions. Hence they need to be done completely differently. Try doing what I did concentrate on something simple like the drumsticks in the end of Aja being hit together. You want to listen for about 30 secs when testing, it way to easy to overload yourself with too much info. I honestly believe, and I AM NOT trying to toot my own horn, that I can teach ANYONE who doesn't have a hearing disability, and who truly wants to learn, how to differentiate between audio components withing an hour or so.
In any event these days I'm a subjectivist who believes there should be a measureable reason for everything we hear. The main problem I have with objectivists, at least the vocal objectivists here on PHP, is that they believe todays measurements are sufficient and complete within themselves. Then in order to make their religous dogma work they need to come up with statements like this idiotic remark from Peter Aczel "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own." Thus following their belief if an amp does indeed sound different that simply means it's not "properly designed"! I often wonder how they'd react if an amp was reviewed by Aczel that sounded completely different from all his previously accepted "properly designed" amps. Being that this new amp sounded different from all Peter's previously accepted "properly designed" amps would mean it couldn't possibly be a "properly designed" amp. But what if this new not "properly designed" amp sounded almost indistinguishable from live music? Would they still reject it as being not being "properly designed"? That would be an interesting dilemma no?
The reality is today's accepted audio measurements do not correlate sufficinetly enough with what we hear! That belief on my part doesn't mean I think all measurements are useless as more than one objectivist here has suggested. Rather it means I realize that scientists and audio manufacturers haven't yet discovered exactly what traits in live music the human ear/brain uses to determine it is live music and not recorded. Once these measurements are discovered and implemented, we'll close the gap between all subjectivists and objectivists who honestly want to know the truth about whats happening in audio. Unfortunately those who simply want to be correct at all costs will find someway to claim these new measurements are bogus or wrong...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
...as I'm always looking for objective evidence of change.One track I like to use for this is "Symbol In My Driveway" from Jack Johnson's "On and On" title. The first 30 seconds or so of this track is all I usually need to spot resolution and soundstage changes. Sometimes change is subtle and requires repeated listenings to determine if ANYthing worthwhile occurred. Other times, changes can be quite dramatic.
Geoff Kait's Brilliant Pebbles accessory situated on ceramic tile 'tables' in the 'right' locations is an example of dramatic. Thought I'd squeeze in a little advertisement for Geoff here. ;-)
but in a most uncareful way, wellfed. Don't worry you are in no danger of becoming a "scientist" :).
I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status. So I don't do DBT's; whoopdedoo! You quote/unquote scientists can have them, and take your so-called placebo effect with you. ;-)
"I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status"
The scientist is a lover of truth for the very love of truth itself, wherever it may lead. — Luther Burbank (1849-1926), American plant breeder, botanist, naturalist.Not the other kind. ;-)
Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Not the other kind. ;-)"Sorry, Wellfed, there is no other kind of scientist...at least not early in their career. Later with age all people become more conservative but that doesn't mean the new ideas don't get through! Just more likely that the new idea is really something good and hype.
"Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Again, I just don't think you get this really. Whereever it may lead is coming from the fact that often an unexpected result of an experiment is more interesting than if you get an expected result. However; once an anamalous observation is made, every effort is then given to make sure that it wasn't a failure, bias, or artifact in the experiment itself first, then to try to reproduce it (under CONTROLLED conditions). If it is reproducible under one set of conditions then what about other conditions. Determining the boundaries as it were. If it passes these tests then an attempt to determine what it means can be undertaken. This is what "whereever it may lead" means.
So while you have the intent of exploration you are not really approaching it with the skeptical mindset of a true scientist. Of course they too get excited by new results...and then they sober up and find out if the observation was really the result of something new or if it was a flaw in the experiment somehow. Face value is not an accepted aspect of exprimental science.
...while there's an emergency going on.We better turn our attention to the science used in the following post.
Looks like libel to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
I don't follow your conclusion at all.In what way is "Scientific Method losing ground" ?
Hi John. I appreciate your point of view, but for what it's worth, I'm not too worried about getting myself in trouble, whatever you might mean by that (Do you mean with JA? I doubt that's a concern; anyway, I'm not concerned).For what it's worth, I've thought a great deal about blind tests, and I've probably read (and retained) everything JA ever wrote on the subject, and much else. Yet I also know how to think for myself. Your idea that "it's the test itself that throws things off" is, if the subjectivist equivalent of the objectivist insistence on pure, perfect methodology--that is to say, whether it's intentional or not, it's a way of creating a divide that can't be crossed. And I think crossing it isn't only possible; it's the right thing to do.
John, there's absolutely nothing about a proper test--the CONCEPT of a test--that causes fundamental problems. Yes, tests stress people out and makes them perform worse (believe me; I've experienced that). But that can be overcome. Let's face it John; either you hear it or you don't, and if you really do hear it, reliably and consistently, you can learn to hear it under stress. I'm not talking about deciding which is better, or making judgments about audio quality. I'm only talking about learning from practice that something--one thing, anything, on the track of your choice using your choice of equipment--has changed. If you CAN'T pass a test like that, then just how important could these differences possibly be?
If JA has a problem with this opinion--which I seriously doubt--I'm sure he'll let me know.
Give it up Jim, you don't know the first thing about ABX testing, except what you have read. Give it a good honest try!
That's a pretty weak argument John.
We have been trying, debating with the proponents, and actively discussing privately between ourselves, ABX testing, and other double blind testing for almost 30 years. You will find my first input, (after sincerely trying a test box, unlike you) in 'The Audio Amateur' back in 1979 as an LTE directly aimed at Dr. Lipshitz.
If you look at the articles in the 'TAA' in 1979 and 1981, by Rod Rees, you might get further insight in the problems of ABX testing.
You know way, way more than I do about audio, okay? No reasonable person could doubt that, and I certainly don't. You've forgotten things I may never learn.I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations, which, frankly, make the industry and hobby seem tired, tradition-bound, the last refuge (along with cigars, Bordeaux, and other luxury consumer items) of over-privileged old white guys (a description that would fit me pretty well except that I'm only modestly over-privileged and I'm not particularly old, though I'm not young either.)
John, you're royalty in this world; I bow down before you. But that doesn't make you right. And that's what makes it fun.
> > "I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations," < <I would go along with and be quite OK with your description of a "fresh perspective" and "a refusal to accept these status-quo explanations" if I did not see you being HIGHLY SELECTIVE in this "refusal to accept these status-quo explanations".
You see Jim, I do not see you challenging John Atkinson's use of the Myrtle Wood Blocks. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "vibrations" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Wes Phillips use of the Shakti Stone. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "electromagnetic field" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Michael Fremer's use of the Furutech or Acoustic Revive de-magnetisers on vinyl records. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "magnetism" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Nordost and their liquid which they suggest people apply to the LABEL side of a CD and to the outer insulation of all cables. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "static" - a word you have heard of before in science ?"
I do not see you challenging Sonus Faber and their 'special lacquer' which they apply to their speaker cabinets and which they describe as 'friendly to audio'. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "resonance" - a word you have heard of before in science ?I do not see you asking John Atkinson "By what mechanism are the Myrtle Wood Blocks altering the audio signal ?" "Why do the Myrtle Wood Blocks have to be used in threes and why do they have to be the shape of the Golden-section ratio 'magic' dimensions ?"
I do not see you asking Wes Phillips "By what mechanism is the Shakti Stone having an effect ?"
I do not see you asking Michael Fremer "By what mechanism is the de-magnetiser altering the information stored on the vinyl record ?"
I do not see you asking Nordost "By what mechanism is your liquid affecting the sound ?"
I do not see you asking Sonus Faber "By what mechanism is your 'special lacquer' affecting the sound ?"I, personally, can accept that all these things affect the 'sound' because we (Peter and I) have been there, done similar things, heard the effect !!
In an earlier reply you stated that you thought that Richard Feynman would yes, probably, have been curious enough to have tried many of the things referred to as 'changing the sound' in audio, might have heard an improvement in the sound but then, eventually,
"would have concluded, after further investigation, that this was still more evidence for the power of suggestion and the fallibility of human perceptions. And he would have found it fascinating. He might even have tried the photo-in-the-freezer thing...but it would have been, for him, an experiment in the freakiness of human perceptions and the power of suggestion. And he would have found that no less interesting than if the effect had been real."
My understanding of Richard Feynman would suggest otherwise. That he would have gnawed at it like a dog with a bone, then, still not able to come up with an explanation would have placed the problem 'on a shelf', but would have returned to it again at some later time, taking it down from the shelf, dusting it off, looking at it again, because it would have niggled him !!!
It would have niggled him that he did not have an explanation - because this is what good scientists feel !!My reading of Richard Feynman is that he would not have so readily dismissed so many diverse people's observations as "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing." I see him as too great a scientist as that and too great a teacher of science as that.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May. There's a lot here to reply to. I probably won't have time to deal with all of it, but I'll give it a try.Please understand that when I say I have a fresh perspective, that's not some schtick I have adopted. Not unlike your theories, it's an after-the-fact observation, a tentative, interim assessment.
Your list is a curious mixture of things that make no sense--for which no mechanism is conceivable--and things that are fairly reasonable from a mechanistic perspective--which is to say that a lot of scientists wouldn't believe it would be audible, but most would acknowledge that there's a chance because potential mechanisms DO exist. So what you dismiss with a sneer as "my having heard the word once in science" (which if I were more sensitive I would find offensive, having spent many years struggling to understand the theories--by Feynman and many others--that you have encountered, if at all, only rendered into prose accessible by people who haven't paid their technical dues. But I digress) is in fact an awareness that, though it would require further study to determine whether the effect is real, there are cases in which it is at least POSSIBLE that it's real, and then there are the utter absurdities, like the chip and photos in the freezer and generalized, ethical "threat fields" that work the same way for chemicals as they do for e/m fields.)
If you think I'm intentionally avoiding offending anyone, I'l dispense with that right now.
myrtle wood blocks: may high-end manufacturers incorporate anti-mechanical-resonance technology in their designs, most often a big chunk of metal. A lot of attention is paid (by more skilled designers) to where their circuit boards are supported (i.e, whre you put the screws). Why? Because (as is well established and not the least bit controversial) mechanical vibrations do affect the performance of electronic circuits. I think people would find that those designs that pay the most attention to vibration control are improved the least by wood blocks (myrtle or otherwise). Supporting a component on wood blocks is a vibrational band-aid, and a reasonable ones. Does the type of wood matter? That seems a lot goofier, but I defer judgment on that out of respect for the accomplishments of Charles Hansen. "Golden ratio" dimensions? I don't believe this makes any difference at all. Marketing. And yes, I know about the Cardas connection, and their cables. (BTW, I bought some Jenga blocks a few weeks ago and tried them out. My son loves to play with them, but I haven't heard any effect in my system.)
* Shakti stones. Having played with these literally for years (along with the onlines) I'm a bit less charitable about these--but, again, theres a clear and obvious mechanism. They're a poor value, but they DO work. They don't do anything that (eg) a big glass of water wouldn't do, but who wants to put a big glass of water on top of their expensive preamp? (probably there are other materials that work just as well) Again, it's a band-aid. Well designed equipment is, well, probably not completely immune to RFI, but mostly immune. Do they work? I've never concluded that they affect the sound in my system--and I've listened to A LOT of different stuff, but they certainly reduce RFI, if only by a very small amount. Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio.
Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong.
A special lacquer on a speaker cabinet shouldn't make any difference except for speakers (like, I think, those Bosendorfer thingies--are they still around?) where the cabinets are SUPPOSED to vibrate as part of the characteristic sound. I've not listened to Sonus Faber speakers to any significant extent, but my impression is that their cabinets are very solid and non-resonant. If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference. I suspect this is a marketing claim, intended to exploit an implied connection to the fine Italian string instruments some of their speakers are named after. Notice that "friendly to audio" is pretty vague. An empty claim.
Nordost liquid? Never heard of it, never tried it. A static charge on speaker cables could affect the sound in principle, but I doubt it.
As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. I'm pretty sure, though, that he would not have shared your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason. You seem not to understand--even after I (and no doubt others) have explained it repeatedly, that it's uncontroversial and (in human terms) universal. Feyman would, I'm sure, have had far less trouble than you accepting this. If you could only get past this, you would see that the mystical explanations you dream up are unnecessary. Feynman would have seen that right off.
> > As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. < <Actually Jim, we have a pretty good idea...
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."
- Richard Feynman
A very quick reply Jim.
With reference to what you call my snide remarks. I USUALLY try to cover my tracks to avoid any misrepresentation of my comments by saying "I am exaggerating here merely to make a point". I apologise for forgetting to do this.
Re Shakti Stones:-
> > "Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio." < <I made the point of stating that I accepted and believed that all the people I mentioned HAD heard what they said they had heard. I have no doubts about that - so I do not challenge their descriptions.
> > "Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong." < <I don't think Michael IS wrong about what he heard. I just don't think that the demagnetising is altering the information on the vinyl record. I think there IS something else going on. I believe that the improvement in the sound (the additional information Michael heard) was already in the room - that demagnetising the vinyl record changed the environment which allowed Michael to 'hear' (resolve) that information better !!! You say you haven't given it a lot of thought. Why not ? It is to do with audio and sound - the very subject you write about !! Aren't you the teenyist, weenyist bit curious ? I disagree with you about Feynman. HE was the most curious scientist I know - about anything and everything !!!
Regarding the 'special lacquer'. > > "If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference." < <
THAT is IT - That is the crucial sentence. And, if you WERE 'stunned' when you discovered that a special lacquer DID make a difference to the sound - what would you do ? Ignore it ? Dismiss it as 'suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing' ? Or, would you carry out some experiments ? Would you try to find out why ? Would you look for an explanation ? If you could not find an explanation from within the conventional electronic or acoustic theory text books would you look elsewhere for an explanation or would you give up ? If you found that you could apply this 'special lacquer' to the central heating radiator in the listening room, to the wall lights, to the piano, to the perspex lid of the turntable - to this, and to that, and gain improvements in the sound each time - and be even FURTHER 'stunned' to the state of being devastated by what was happening - what would you do then ? After spending 30 years of your life making state of the art speakers and headphones, working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories - what would YOU do ? Keep absolutely silent for fear of being ridiculed or would you tell other people involved in the world of audio ? To see what they made of it all ?
> > > "Regarding your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason." < < <
No, Jim, I don't think it is me who has the blind spot. Nor do I believe that what we have discovered is akin to a religious belief or conversion.
I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do - so if you do not reject it, then neither do I. I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. How I wish that 'suggestion etc and effective marketing' were that powerful.
Regards,
May Belt.
> > I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do...I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. < <On this at least we can agree. The difference, I think, is that I believe, from experience, that the exceptions are very rare, and you believe, from experience, that they are very common. I think you credit people's experiences too much, and you think I credit them too little. That's an interesting difference.
Who is demanding the status quo? I am up to learning new things, not being told that I don't know what I am doing or hearing by someone who hasn't even tried yet to try the same things that I have tried.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: