[Ableza]

^ Background processes shouldn't matter. If the bits get to the DAC in time to play them, and there aren't audio dropouts, nasty noises, etc, then the DAC and computer should be doing their jobs together to play music correctly. I haven't had anyone demonstrate to me a way to hear or measure a difference from system load, other than what I said above: Obvious dropouts or other audio problems.

I also haven't read anything that describes a way to hear or measure these differences. Because of lack of evidence and what I know about computers and audio, I'm more than a little skeptical of these claims.

Brian.

It's the same old story in the "audiophile" world: something exists therefor it MUST impact the sound, and SOMETHING must be done about it!  It never really matters if it MATTERS or not.

 

[deckeda]

^ Background processes shouldn't matter. If the bits get to the DAC in time to play them, and there aren't audio dropouts, nasty noises, etc, then the DAC and computer should be doing their jobs together to play music correctly. I haven't had anyone demonstrate to me a way to hear or measure a difference from system load, other than what I said above: Obvious dropouts or other audio problems.

I also haven't read anything that describes a way to hear or measure these differences. Because of lack of evidence and what I know about computers and audio, I'm more than a little skeptical of these claims.

Brian.

What I'm reading is, you just said that if something can't be measured or "demonstrated," it basically doesn't exist, to say nothing of potentially being better. Do I have that right?

 

[bgentry]

What I'm reading is, you just said that if something can't be measured or "demonstrated," it basically doesn't exist, to say nothing of potentially being better. Do I have that right?

Not exactly. It has to be something that can be DEMONSTRATED in some way. Hearing a difference is good enough, as long as others can *hear* that difference too. Measurement is better because we can assign values to things rather than just "it sounds different/better/worse".

In this particular instance, I'm saying that my knowledge and my logic tell me that this effect should not exist and therefor *probably* does not. So I need a demonstration or some type of other proof (documentation of others experiencing the difference) before I will put credence in these claims.

Would you immediately believe me if I told you that putting weights (or pebbles) on top of my DAC improved the sound? It's these types of claims that I'm talking about that definitely require proof because there's no basis for the claims in any kind of logic or science.

Brian.

 

[deckeda]

Well friend, we shall agree to disagree. I don't give a **** what someone else hears or doesn't hear. Their experience, or inexperience (as is often the case, quite frankly) doesn't impress me as truth or reality in any meaningful way. Enjoy! Or Not!

 

[taxiq]

  Well friend, we shall agree to disagree. I don't give a **** what someone else hears or doesn't hear. Their experience, or inexperience (as is often the case, quite frankly) doesn't impress me as truth or reality in any meaningful way. Enjoy! Or Not!

A big part of the difference could lie in how we perceive.   A quote:  "intuition can beat analysis, because your unconscious mind excels at pattern recognition.  If you stop and take the time to think, it is easy to lose the forest in the trees."  Grant, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World  (Chpt. 2).   I wonder how much ABXing evescerates by over analysis that unconscious pattern recognition experienced persons have.  

 

[bgentry]

Well friend, we shall agree to disagree. I don't give a **** what someone else hears or doesn't hear. Their experience, or inexperience (as is often the case, quite frankly) doesn't impress me as truth or reality in any meaningful way. Enjoy! Or Not!

I think you've misunderstood me. I was saying I wanted evidence. I don't blindly believe anyone who says "I hear X". My approach relies primarily on measurement, but stays open to things that are very hard to measure, or very hard to quantify, so hearing is always part of the overall analysis. All tempered by knowing how human psychology influences listening tests.

Brian.

 

[Argo Duck]

Nice posts above. I get what Brian is saying.

The dilemma: few or maybe only a single individual senses something others don't. Is there really something there - in which case consensus is irrelevant - or is a mistake? Not always easy to answer.

"In a steamy Eocene jungle, a newborn monkey opens its eyes for the first time. The world it sees is unlike any other known to its primate kin. A smear of red blood shines against a green nest of leaves. Unbeknownst to its mother, this baby is special, and its eyes will shape the human experience tens of millions of years in the future. Were it not for this little monkey and the series of genetic events that created it, we might not have the color vision we do: Monet’s palette would be flattened; the ripeness of a raspberry would be hidden among the leaves; traffic lights? They likely would never have been invented.

Like most other mammals, monkeys that lived 30 million to 60 million years ago had just two opsin genes encoding the photopigment proteins that tune cone photoreceptor cells in the retina to absorb light in a range of wavelengths. Then, an allele of one of the opsin genes mutated, producing a pigment protein that responded to previously unseen wavelengths of light. Later, a region of the allele duplicated and inserted, creating a third opsin gene" (see this link and/or work by Jay Neitz of the University of Washington concerning development of color receptors).

Of course I don't suggest some audiophiles have developed a 3rd or 4th ear.

What seems to happen - if anything happens at all - is that audiophiles and attentive listeners develop brain circuits that decode in different and more 'informative' ways the auditory sense data almost everyone receives. That is, we just do more with the data available for everyone.

This means at least some audiophile-type hearing is a learned activity. Someone describes hearing something and others try to hear it too. Anecdotally, there are things I have sooner or later 'come to hear' after reading descriptions on head-fi. And others I still don't!

Is there room for (unwitting) self-deception in all this? Certainly.
Should we be sceptical but open-minded as Brian suggests? Absolutely.
Does it matter? That's an individual decision.

And...evidence is not always easy to produce, witness our newborn monkey

 

[RCBinTN]

Cool post.  I learn so much on this site.  Thank you.  

 

[DougD]

  A big part of the difference could lie in how we perceive.   A quote:  "intuition can beat analysis, because your unconscious mind excels at pattern recognition.  If you stop and take the time to think, it is easy to lose the forest in the trees."  Grant, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World  (Chpt. 2).   I wonder how much ABXing evescerates by over analysis that unconscious pattern recognition experienced persons have.  

 
Anybody interested in perception vs measurement issues ... which includes a lot of Head-Fi-ers obviously .. really ought to own and study "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. 
 
The human brain does excel at pattern recognition. The fast-firing subconscious brain is fast because it maps a few points of similarity in the current situation to its store of experiences, and basically extrapolates the rest of the detail from the past over the present. This is an evolutionarily excellent response for dealing with (for example) possible lions lurking in the tall grass. But it also has a high (and often invisible) level of error compared to rational analysis. Kahneman explains it far better than I can, and with proof by experiments to support every bit of it. 
 
If you only read one book every five years, this should be your next read. It's that good, that informative. It will change how you think about your thinking, give you an increased understanding of the baked-in perceptual biases that we all have due to how our brains work, and how much (and when) you trust your instincts.

 

[RCBinTN]

Hi Mike,
@Baldr
I got folks recommending $350 power cords to improve the sound of my GMB.  Care to weigh-in on that idea?  Thank you.
 
RCBinTN

 

[US Blues]

  Hi Mike,
@Baldr
I got folks recommending $350 power cords to improve the sound of my GMB.  Care to weigh-in on that idea?  Thank you.
 
RCBinTN

You can get a good power cord that will improve your Gumby for less than half that price.

 

[RCBinTN]

Thanks.  Can you please specify?  I'm always interested in improving my Gumby!

 

[madwolfa]

You can get a good power cord that will improve your Gumby for less than half that price.

 
I'd say for like 2% of that price is good enough.

 

[US Blues]

 

You can get a good power cord that will improve your Gumby for less than half that price.

 
I'd say for like 2% of that price is good enough.

We all hear differently, some of us have had ear training in one way or another. Earlier in my life I sold audio gear for a living, and learned to listen well and make discernments with a lot of different gear and cables at my disposal. 

 

[rmoody]

 
We all hear differently, some of us have had ear training in one way or another. Earlier in my life I sold audio gear for a living, and learned to listen well and make discernments with a lot of different gear and cables at my disposal. 

And your conclusion was???