1. To be honest, it does seem to be well beyond the ability of most audiophiles. Many/Most audiophiles don't even seem able to level match when they're comparing different gear, so a Null (or pretty much any objective) test is beyond them. In practice it's not difficult but you do need an ADC, although it doesn't need to be an expensive ADC and once you have one, you can do a Null Test on just about any piece of gear. Once you've recorded the input and output, you then just need a couple of pieces of free software, which firstly automatically time aligns and level matches the two recordings (to eliminate these differences) and secondly, automatically "nulls" them (sums them together with a flipped polarity), analyses and displays the differences. You can even get some free DAW software and spectrally analyse the difference (see what specific frequencies are different). This all sounds more complex/difficult than it is.
2. Yes and not only is it true but it's been true for many years, even going back as far as the 1980's.
2a. Your "notion" is supported by a great deal of scientific evidence. When we say "audible difference" we mean a difference in the sound waves that are entering your ears which is at or above the threshold of what is humanly "hear-able". It's of paramount importance that we differentiate an "audible difference" from a "perceivable difference" because if, for example, our eyes see a difference, our brain expects a difference and will alter what we think we're hearing in order to satisfy that expectation. In other words, given the right circumstances (a conflict between what we see and what we hear, for example) we can/will "perceive" a difference where there is provably no audible difference. Not understanding, accepting or appreciating this fact is the root cause of many/most of the conflicts between audiophiles and science/the facts and as bigshot stated, is the area exploited by audiophile marketing. A particularly good/obvious and enlightening example of the brain creating a difference in aural perception, where no audible difference exists, is the "
McGurk Effect".
G
1. Speaking only for myself, I often don't bother level matching or doing blind tests for a few reasons: first, it's so infrequent that I buy new gear that it hardly seems worthwhile to bother figuring out how to set it up. I very rarely switch gear. Second, I don't particularly favor one "signature" over another and I buy more for features than anything else, so so long as whatever I'm buying has the features I want and people are more or less in agreement that it sounds good, then I trust those opinions. Third, when I read science-y (yes, "science-y." I'm not always as discerning as I wish I were) things, I generally think
sounds legit and then leave it to the experts. Fourth, I often think science is kind of hard and doing science-like things are kind of beyond my purview, so, again, I leave it to the experts. I just don't know how to do it. So I do sighted tests that aren't perfectly level matched and I realize that, e.g.,
256kbps MP3 and ALAC are close enough for my purposes, and I leave it at that. Oh yeah, and sometimes I even think I might possibly hear slight, subtle, might-be-imaginary-but-might-not-be differences between cables.
I guess this is a longwinded way of saying that I probably fit with the "many/most audiophiles" you describe, but it's not because it's (totally) beyond or below me.
Although... Now that I know something about null tests... I do "need" (as much as an audiophile ever
needs anything) to get a new portable headphone amp/DAC... and I
do happen to have an ADC for ripping my vinyl... do you happen to know if you can do null tests in Audacity? I'll look into it...
2 and 2a. (By the way, I like your way of numbering your points in your replies, so I'm stealing it from you. At least when I reply to you. You pack a lot of info into your answers!) I think one of my main points is that I wonder if hearing and perception (and our biases) are really separable? I know that in theory there's a difference between an "audible difference" and a "perceivable difference," but does it really make a difference in practice? It seems to me that the theory of that difference operates on the assumption that we can separate ourselves from our biases, that we can somehow operate in a perceptual vacuum.
I feel like there's some aspect of the argument that I'm probably missing here, but... well... I'm missing it.
3. Another basic question!
Is there such a thing as "as the artist intended?"
Dr. Dre said it about his Beats and the audiophiles all scoffed and laughed in unison; Neil Young said it about the Pono Player and everybody oohed and aahed. Like "transparent," it's a term that's applied to a lot of things, and, in fact, in some cases the terms are probably interchangeable... but I don't think the concepts are quite the same. Is there any one sonic vision that an artist (whoever that may be) has that can be replicated by the listener?
PS— I can't tell if the first half of this post comes across as me being defensive, but I'm too tired to try to fix it right now. I'm not feeling defensive. Trying to explain and defend myself, yes; offended by what you said, not at all.
PPS— Heeding
@bigshot's advice, I changed the title of the thread. No longer stupid. Now Basic. Like a Pumpkin Spice Latte.