[Skin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes -- but does that really speak for DBT? .

sure it does. the point of DBT is to remove the element of hearing the price tag, which so often happens, as opposed to the simple audio quality.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skin /img/forum/go_quote.gif sure it does. the point of DBT is to remove the element of hearing the price tag, which so often happens, as opposed to the simple audio quality.

Up to now I have not heard two identical sounding DACs or amps -- and my sonic preference wasn't correlated to the price tag. I can imagine the differences (which are very real to me) to disappear in a DBT, though.
.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Up to now I have not heard two identical sounding DACs or amps -- and my sonic preference wasn't correlated to the price tag. I can imagine the differences (which are very real to me) to disappear in a DBT, though. .

Again, I think it is important to stress that DBT is reserved for sound components (in the case of audio) that are technically the same. I would expect that different DACs sound different because they ARE technically and objectively different.

If Grado made two headphones with identical drivers and identical casings and tried to pass them off as different, you have a case for DBT. I would reckon in this case, that a number of people would insist that the "higher end" Grado sounded better, despite their being no significant difference.

It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of expensive cables (which all conduct the necessary quantities more than adequately), offer no difference when DBTed. This is merely an example.

 

[gregorio]

I find it a little strange when I hear someone saying they know what they are hearing. What you hear is completely dependent on how your brain perceives the electrical signals transported down the aural nerves. This electrical information is added to the electrical information from your other senses, influenced by past experience and then your brain creates an image. The appreciation and understanding of this process is what allows us to create believable soundtracks to films. Very little of a film soundtrack is "real", it's nearly all manufactured in post-production well after the film has been filmed. If we weren't able to fool the brain into believing what we are doing sounds real, we'd all still be watching silent movies.

My profession absolutely depends on the fact that not only does "placebo effect" exist but that it's relied up extensively. Without the "placebo effect" very little of the audio you hear would work, it's a basic tenet of audio production.

G

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find it a little strange when I hear someone saying they know what they are hearing. What you hear is completely dependent on how your brain perceives the electrical signals transported down the aural nerves. This electrical information is added to the electrical information from your other senses, influenced by past experience and then your brain creates an image. The appreciation and understanding of this process is what allows us to create believable soundtracks to films. Very little of a film soundtrack is "real", it's nearly all manufactured in post-production well after the film has been filmed. If we weren't able to fool the brain into believing what we are doing sounds real, we'd all still be watching silent movies. My profession absolutely depends on the fact that not only does "placebo effect" exist but that it's relied up extensively. Without the "placebo effect" very little of the audio you hear would work, it's a basic tenet of audio production.

It doesn't sound real, at best it sounds as real as real sonic events played back through sound transducers. As a spectator/listener, you have to adapt yourself to this precondition, after that you're ready to take the sounds for real -- for the sake of entertainment, not in the sense of your hearing getting fooled. This scenario has nothing to do with the placebo effect.

Of course you claim for yourself to be able to judge the reality of the sonic differences you encounter during your professional occupation (e.g. by changing microphone placements) -- I can't imagine a sound engineer who constantly questions and DBTs his experiences.

The occasions in which I've been fooled by placebo effects usually have disclosed themselves soon enough, mostly after minutes. I don't believe in life-long placebo effects. If a sonic difference shows up constantly and uniformly during days, weeks or months, it is real in my understanding.
.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, I think it is important to stress that DBT is reserved for sound components (in the case of audio) that are technically the same. I would expect that different DACs sound different because they ARE technically and objectively different.

Actually some «objectivists» question sonic differences between DACs and amps (apart from some exotics) and refer to corresponding DBTs. You could even find a blind test where the public wasn't able to identify the live orchestra against the speaker reproduction.

IMO it's justified to treat simple devices (such as cables) and complex devices (such as DACs and amps) the same: for as complex as electronics devices are, their output signals look virtually the same when measured (almost zero distortion, 20 Hz-20 kHz with no significant drop-off...). In my case I do this by auditioning them under real-world conditions, i.e. sighted in my familiar setup and my usual environment.


Quote:

It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of expensive cables (which all conduct the necessary quantities more than adequately), offer no difference when DBTed.

Whenever cable DBTs are mentioned in this forum, the exclusively negative results so far get pointed out. I don't have any differing source at hand. One reason could be that DBTs are usually claimed for and accomplished by objectivists, whereas subjectivists usually don't care for them. Personally I have attended one single cable blind test (not DBT) and «succeeded» with 9 right guesses out of 12. My eyes were blinded, but I could hear the advices (hence could have unconsciously catched some hints). That said, I believe in cable sound anyway.
.

 

[Omega]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find it a little strange when I hear someone saying they know what they are hearing. What you hear is completely dependent on how your brain perceives the electrical signals transported down the aural nerves. This electrical information is added to the electrical information from your other senses, influenced by past experience and then your brain creates an image. The appreciation and understanding of this process is what allows us to create believable soundtracks to films. Very little of a film soundtrack is "real", it's nearly all manufactured in post-production well after the film has been filmed. If we weren't able to fool the brain into believing what we are doing sounds real, we'd all still be watching silent movies. My profession absolutely depends on the fact that not only does "placebo effect" exist but that it's relied up extensively. Without the "placebo effect" very little of the audio you hear would work, it's a basic tenet of audio production. G

Your statements are contradictory. You assert that there is a real physical neurological mechanism for aural processing. Then you assert that very little of aural processing would work without placebo effect.

I disagree. Having played with the effects of signal delay, reverb, direct vs. reflected sound, timbre, harmonics, and validated them in a blind enviroment, I believe that these things are not due to placebo effect, but rather are mechanisms by which our brains can localize and characterize sounds. If a physical mechanism (e.g., tuned neuron) exists to operate on a real physical phenomenon (e.g., signal delay)...then this is not a placebo effect. A placebo effect would be mapping a perceived thing (e.g., expensiveness) to a neurological response.

 

[spanimal]

My car stereo sounds good on Friday afternoons, better than my main system on a Monday morning. This is due to the cosmic alignments of the Sun, Moon and stars and the resulting energy fields that can severely compound audio fidelity.

It is of my opinion that there are many well respected and knowledgeable individuals in this field, right here in this forum even, that testify to being able to distinguish various components by sound which others may not. I believe these individuals are reasonable and intelligent enough to be able to consider the possibilities of placebo when deriving their conclusions.

On a personal level, I have dreaded the effort and resource consuming activities that occur when differences can be perceived. When I first came across cryo-treatment, I was certain members of this forum had crossed the borders of sanity. With more competent equipment and experience now, I cannot declare this phenomena with certainty a placebo. I have never heard or compared cryo and non cryo'd equipment, I hope I never will (for fear of being able to differentiate and plunging me further into this black hole) - For those that have, I have no problem accepting that their hearing is better than mine, or they have superior equipment. I do believe that there will be numerous individuals in existence that have inherently vastly superior capabilities than myself - even in my chosen field. In relation to cables - as a percentage to target market - the numbers are high enough (maybe 50-50) for believers for me to rule out placebo. In stark contrast to alternative therapies - which the percentage of the target market (general populace) is quite low (I presume).

 

[Skin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe these individuals are reasonable and intelligent enough to be able to consider the possibilities of placebo when deriving their conclusions.

Well you'd be wrong. As i said most people hear the dollar value first and thats precisely what DBT is suppose to eliminate. What i mean by that is they hear what they want to hear especially when they see the source being swapped from something that costs 2k to another that costs 20k. Honostly, when was the last time you ever read about a high value upgrade gone bad? It basically never happens. Often the upgrade is hailed as the best thing ever.

Also many comparison threads are flawed right off the bat as often times people do not retain the equipment they're comparing said new aquirement too meaning they're automatically biased.

Audio, perceivable audio quality in general, is incredibly easy to manipulate when the price tag is high. People simply dont want to hear this and get incredibly defensive anytime its brought up. Who wants to be told they got ripped off? Even better is whos going to admit it?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Honestly, when was the last time you ever read about a high value upgrade gone bad? It basically never happens. Often the upgrade is hailed as the best thing ever.

Happens all the time. There are lots of reports on this forum about people preferring the less expensive alternative, whether it be headphones, amps, cables, whatever. Among other things, there are quite a few reports of people not liking a more expensive silver cable over a less expensive copper cable, and I also had that experience. (I guess the placebo effect was my subliminal desire to save money?)

I'm not saying placebo is not a factor, or that people actually heard differences in every instance in which they prefer the less expensive product. Rather, my point is that it is not correct to say that everybody always prefers the more expensive product and it is because it's more expensive. Such a conclusion is too facile or superficial in light of the complexities of the issue.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

Honostly, when was the last time you ever read about a high value upgrade gone bad?

About the same time you heard about something sounding worse after it has burned in

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif About the same time you heard about something sounding worse after it has burned in

Yeah, another example is shoes. People always say they're more comfortable when they're broken in, and we all know that's baloney. Surely some of the time they feel better when the leather and soles are stiff and unyielding.

 

[spanimal]

Do you mean burn-in with headphones. The above example of shoes is spot on. They do the same for race engines - they must be run-in to achieve optimum efficiency. A headphone is a mechanical device with motion and inertia - I don't understand how people cannot believe in headphone burning in. Why would AKG lie about the K701 needing so much burning in. I am listening to them now and I think I am still burning them in - but they are definately on a elevated level of clarity as opposed to when new. If inertia is reduced on any moving part this means there will be less effort required to control the movement - does this not make sense?

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif About the same time you heard about something sounding worse after it has burned in

Yes, look up W5000. Some claim that they sound the best between 60 - 80 hours.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

I don't understand how people cannot believe in headphone burning in. Why would AKG lie about the K701 needing so much burning in. I am listening to them now and I think I am still burning them in - but they are definitely on a elevated level of clarity as opposed to when new. If inertia is reduced on any moving part this means there will be less effort required to control the movement - does this not make sense?

Sure burn in exists in headphones, but it is is not the night and day difference everyone claims it to be. I am not just talking about headphone burn in, people around here talk about burn in for everything and it is the common reply given out if someone does not like the sound? "Oh you need to burn it in for 200+ hours, before it sounds good"

A lot of times, burn in is placebo for someone getting more used to the sound of new gear.

AKG is not lying, it is called marketing. Yes their headphones do break in, and the sound may change some, but it makes sense for them to tell you this in case you do not like the headphones when you first get them. Give it time and they will grow on you and you won't want to be bothered trying to return them.

Shoes do break in a lot more than cables. Shoes have 100s of pounds of weight on them and they are moving around constantly. Cables have electrons flowing through them and that is about it.