[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rover This image illustrates how brains can fool you

It seems to me that this illustration can be used by either camp. An objectivist might say the brain is easily fooled, so cables make no difference and your brain is tricking you into thinking you hear a difference. On the other hand, a subjectivist might say that if the brain can be tricked into thinking white is really black, then the brain can be tricked into thinking the bass has improved. If your brain hears more bass and that is what you want, then you hear more bass and you are happy. For example, I want to "see" a checkered pattern on my wall. Through the artifice in this example, my brain now "sees" it. Who cares if I see it only as a result of an artifice, and if I separate the squares and test them individually, they are the same color? Everytime I come into my house and look at the wall, the thing looks checkered to me and I like it. Unless there is a cheaper or alternative way to achieve the result, I am better off. Similarly, everytime I listen to my system with my new cable, or whatever, it has more bass and sounds better to me and I am happy.

To put it another way, the brain is a complicated device and we don't understand a lot about it. It's too facile an approach to say that if our brain is being tricked, then we're just stupid and should realize that, and should keep telling ourselves that the wall is really not checkered or the system doesn't have more bass, or whatever. If you see it, it's there in a real sense, and if you hear it, it's there, and vice-versa.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory All of the "conditions" you've listed are artificially imposed, and are not required by an ABX test. You can ABX in the privacy of your own home, by yourself, taking weeks for a single comparision if you so choose.

Sort of. It's hard to take a blind test in such a manner, but I've done testing over weeks (and even did it blind by accident on one occasion), and found noticeable differences in interconnects, power cords, tubes, and burn-in (at least as to headphones), among other things. (My point was that the published tests generally involve the "conditions" I listed.)

 

[Kai Miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGhostWhoWalks I would just really hate to think that I've spent all this money on a system when it's all just been a big trick that's been played on me thanks to my brain. :/ I just know everytime I listen to another system I can't help but think how crappy it sounds compared to mine. Then I go back to mine and I feel truly happy. And, really, isn't that what it's about?

Hey, if it makes it so that you enjoy things all the better, why not? If the placebo makes you better, then by all means take it!
I choose not to spend tons of money on audio stuff.

But I'm exactly the same:
I go to church.

(tee-hee)

 

[Wmcmanus]

With the possible exceptions of his #4 lie: the listening test lie and, his #10 lie: the golden ear lie, all of his lies are lies!

I do agree that, at times, simple A/B testing can do a lot of good, for me anyway. (His lie #4, as I read it, is that there are audiophiles who would have us believe that it does no good to do any A/B testing). Sure, there are controls missing from the simple tests that I do (often all by myself), but my ears simply tell me what they tell me... and A/B tests (even poorly controlled ones at that) are often enough to help me to form impressions of various bits of gear, and even cables! So if I'm reading what he's saying correctly, I kind of agree with this one. Yet, a lot of times the critics are right about this, and we do tend to deceive ourselves into believing that we can hear subtle differences that may or may not exist. The bottom line is that I think he's got it at least half right on this one.

I also agree that the "golden ears" thing is overrated. While I'm sure there are those RARE FEW among us who have an especially well developed "sense of sound" (from years of experience as an audiophile, and in particular the professional reviewers and others who have auditioned a LOT of gear)... it still remains true that the older you get, the more your hearing slips away. So for this reason, I think he has, again, at least a 1/2 a point with #10.

The other points that he makes, in my observation, are "lies" about the lies. Cables do make a difference, as do tubes, and there is a distinct difference between analog and digital. Likewise, power conditioning (generally) makes a difference, as does bi-wiring and bi-amping, as do CD treatments, and on and on (at least in my experience).

It's always a simple matter to pick on those things, that at least to SOME observers, make SUBTLE but audible differences, and suggest that they DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES matter at all. But to go down the path of defense yet again about something like this article seems rather fruitless... let him believe what he wants to believe.

By the way, room treatments don't ever matter either. Anyone who tells you different is a liar!

 

[Uncle Erik]

One of the things about cables, tweaks, et al., that I've always found curious is how sound quality is always directly proportional to price. What makes a manufacturer's $100 cable sound "worse" than their $1,500 one? Where is the point of diminishing returns?

And if there are differences, do they actually make enough of a difference for you to hear? What drove that point home for me was building a pair of ribbons. Ribbons are notorious for having a narrow "sweet spot" as well as being sensitive to placement. I've spent far too many hours repositioning them, and have learned that things like moving a chair, having another person in the room, the temperature, etc. will change the sound. My point is, how do you know that slighlty moving, say, a bookcase didn't affect the sound when you installed the $1,500 interconnects?

To elaborate on that point, moving the ribbons indeed changed the sound. But I learned that unless I put them in a really bad position, they sounded good most of the time. Different, slightly, but still good. The point here is that spending 1 hour on placement versus 100 hours of placement yielded good results either way. There wasn't much payoff, if any, gained from hours and hours of labor. That is, I think, analogous to how much you spend on the peripherals.

Back to the point of diminshing returns. Since sound is dependent on so many variables, the most logical standpoint is to buy something of reasonable quality at a reasonable price with no obvious flaws. Maybe the $10,000 power cord makes a 0.0001% difference. But putting a blanket over the back of the sofa makes a 0.002% difference, cancelling the benefit and making it sound the same as a $20 power cord. Further, that either setup, with or without the blanket on the sofa, sounds pretty good. And your listening room will *never* be the same from day to day. Temperature changes, humidity changes, barometric pressure changes, not to mention the stack of books and magazines you brought in to read while you're listening. Same thing with musical instruments; they change by the minute. See what I'm getting at?

You might be able to pin down a minute difference, but does it really matter anyway? Odds are, you're going to get good sound if you took care in selecting good components. Anything more than that is pure waste. There are too many other variables to consider. And beside that point, it doesn't really matter anyway. Whatever benefit you gain from oxygen free stranded silver cables could be negated (or enhanced) by a low pressure system over your city. Heck, solar cycles make a difference too. Listen to HF on a ham set and see what I mean. When you look at it that way, the decent $25 cable in the color you like is the right one.

As for my background, I've played brass and woodwind in a variety of groups over the past 25 years. My relative pitch is good and I can easily pick out musical and recording flaws. And I build my own gear. I've just never heard the difference between various cables, and buy high quality non-audiophile components. Tight tolerances and temperature stability are key, not much else matters.

 

[PhilS]

Moving bookcases or putting blankets on the sofa doesn't affect the sound of my headphones.

Also, I think the vast majority of audiophiles would NOT say that the sound of cables is directly proportional to price, especially insofar is it concerns synergy with their particular system. I have found $90 cables to sound better than a $300 cable in my system, and so I returned the latter.

It's impossible to quantify differences (such as saying they are .01% or .001%) as there is no way to measure this and no measurement standard.

Also, a very slight improvement to you might be very meaningful to me, and an improvement in sound you would not pay $10 for, I might pay $100 for. In other words, "diminishing returns" is different for everybody. And nobody has any basis to say what is "right" for anybody else.

Finally, neither solar flares, the relative humidity, what I had for breakfast that day, how work was going, nor my biorythms, etc., etc., have made as much difference as changing out the power cords in my headphone system. I listen to my system everyday and it sounds virtually the same everyday, whether it is sunny out or not, except when I change something like a cable, a tube, etc. It may be a subtle change, but it is there. Of course, whether YOU would notice it or whether YOU would consider the change worth paying for I can't say. I only know what I hear, what I value, and what it is worth to me.

 

[PhilS]

Duplicate post. (Head-Fi acting funky again.)

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1likesme actually in my experience a good fountain pen ALWAYS improoves my handwriting, because there is slighltly more resistance than with a ballpoint

With a GOOD fountain pen, there is less resistance. They just glide over the paper!

Gosh, we can't even agree on this!

 

[stormuk]

Fountain pens need refilling a Bic you throw away and get a new one - they both can leak.

End of the day I think its what sounds good to your ears, people may mock some of my gear but as my hearing deteriates as I get older what is the point in going for better. I know I can't hear above certain frequencies and I can still hear/feel the bass so I'll stick to what i've got.

 

[familyman]

what the heck? lol. i read the first part of this thread and realize it's old, so i go to the last page to see what's up, and you guys are talking about fountain pens?

only on head-fi....

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by familyman what the heck? lol. i read the first part of this thread and realize it's old, so i go to the last page to see what's up, and you guys are talking about fountain pens? only on head-fi....

Actually, I think the fountain pen thing is some sort of code.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Actually, I think the fountain pen thing is some sort of code.

Yes, it must be. Do you have your secret decoder ring...er...pen?

 

[lowmagnet]

Note to people who "tried ABX but... (exceptions, exceptions, exceptions)": please actually read up on what an ABX test is. Read up on what a double-blind test is, and really try it.

For example, an ABX test requires a comparator circuit, matching within 0.1dB between sides, and actually doing the test. You can go A/B all you want, but when test time comes, you have to have someone else performing the switches, and you much identify 'X'. Take all the time you want, but the goal here is to get something more than random chance out of the comparison.

Another test is an A/A test, which often catches people who claim to have a 'golden ear'. On A/A tests, the number was something like 59% split, even though BOTH sources were the same.

There was also a famous incident where they pretended to swap cables, and a whole room of audiophiles claimed they heard a difference.

Some people argue 2+2=5, some argue 2+2=4, and some argue that maybe bothe 'sides' are right, and 2+2=4.5 (to paraphrase an old essay)

I find myself purely in the 2+2=4, and there I remain.

 

[Drag0n]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGhostWhoWalks Got into an argument with a guy about my audiophile hobby and he sent me this (It's in PDF, you have to download it and use Adobe Acrobat to view it): http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf Can anyone flat out disprove any of this? I'm not so much up on the technical aspects in audiophilia. I've done blind tests and passed them with flying colors, and I use my own two ears as guides and I can tell when cable A sounds better than cable B. If it didn't I wouldn't be blowing this much money on this stuff and I would still be listening to my old all-in-one DVD/CD player (which I still have to watch movies actually).

All i wanna know is if they still make "Digital Ready" Headphones?
I want to listen to them while playing with my Pet Rock.

 

[Ferbose]

This article in Audio Critic has been discussed quite a few times.
As time goes by, I agree less and less with the article.
The deeper I go into the audio hobby the more I realize that many small things can indeed make a difference.
With more and more listening excercises (such instant A/B and tube rolling), I am also getting better at differentiating certain types of subtleties.
Although small things can make a difference, the difference is often small as well. In the end I simply decide to forget about some of them.
I concur with what Uncle Erik has said, there is no need to worry about a lot of small things incessantly.