Does Everything Make a Difference?

[COF]

That seems to imply you believe there is some test or some way to determine if audio thing X does cause a person to experience a deeper soundstage - to have a certain deeper soundstage experience. That there is an "objective" way or understanding about how X "ACTUALLY works" -- meaning independent of any one person's hearing -- to know if the listener is imagining a deeper soundstage or actually experiencing one. What is that test?

There is a way: blind testing. That at least can first establish that an audiophile is actually hearing a difference between A and B.
And then IF a difference is reliably detected, then it gets in to the stickier issues of "what are the characteristics distinguishing A and B?" It should at least be plausible. So if someone says "with one cable I can hear angels singing, and the other I can't" there could be some audible difference allowing the audiophile to successfully pass the blind test, but that in of itself doesn't verify it was "angels singing" (could have simply been an audible frequency response difference).

As to soundstaging and imaging, it's not like there is nothing known about that. There's quite a bit known about how our perception understands location, depth, width etc. And those could be played with in tests to get reliable results for changes in soundstaging depth, imaging etc.

So there are in principle more reliable ways forward in vetting such claims.

BTW, years ago I had a few different CDPs and a Meitner DAC. In sighted listening I had the impression the Meitner sounded a bit different, slightly more rolled off but also slightly more lush and slightly larger imaging/soundstage depth. I blind tested between the units and sure enough heard those differences and easily detected which was which, reliably. So at least that first stage to reliable knowledge was taken.

 

[PeterA]

Twitch wrote: this statement cries of 'expectation bias' just for the simple reason of the prefacing of 'audiophile' before power cords. IMO, the ONLY way said PC could make a 'huge' difference is if the previous PC was defective in some way.
[/QUOTE]

I owned various audiophile power cords and compared them to others in my system. They all sounded different. I then tried the stock power cords and preferred them. I now use inexpensive but well made black industrial cords. Like the stock cords, these do not seem to enhance the sound, and they sound balanced. Power cords can certainly sound different and they can make a difference. I just prefer ones that sound right and are not expensive.

 

[COF]

think this is a little condescending. This strikes me as a bit like defining "crazy" as "whoever is 10% more into it than I am."

My official view is that no matter how skeptical I am about a claim, and no matter how ludicrous I find an explanation, I steel myself against alleging delusion or bias of the reporter because of my view that just because I don't hear it and just because you don't hear it does not mean that somebody else doesn't hear it.

But if you have good reasons to be skeptical, especially to find a claim "ludicrous," why doesn't that give you good reason to doubt someone's claim?

If "Joe" tells a physicist that he built a perpetual motion machine in his garage, the physicist doesn't need to "experience it for himself." He has very firm grounds to conclude it is impossible and Joe has come to an erroneous belief.

Likewise, if someone says he can hear up to 200 kHz like a bat, there is no need to take such a claim seriously. We know quite a bit about the limitations of human hearing.

The same goes for if an audiophile claims to hear a difference between component A and B where the signal differences measure well below known human limits. If the audiophile claims to hear beyond well known limits, it should be up to him/her to at least establish this (e.g. take an audiology test).

I agree that we should have an open mind to a point, and certainly always be open to simply being wrong (and that includes being wrong about current science about human perception). On the other hand, a lot of stuff gets believed in the audiophile world on the "open mind" approach, and very often in the face of an implausible claim the audiophile will say "Well, science doesn't really know enough about this to shut the door on it" and that is often simply projecting their own ignorance of the relevant science. Just like someone not familiar enough with physics saying "we can't just dismiss Joe has a perpetual motion machine, science doesn't know everything."

went into my early power cord comparisons prejudiced and believing:

1) there shouldn't be a sonic difference, and

2) even if there was a difference to be heard I probably wouldn't be able to hear it.

I was wrong on both counts, unfortunately.

To me, that last sentence is very important: I was wrong on both counts, unfortunately.

I've seen many audiophiles say the same thing about items like cables "wish they didn't make a difference, but they do!"

So why is it "unfortunate?" Presumably because high end cables can be a significant expense, and introduce more variables to worry about in a system.

And that is precisely why some of us actually care whether such claims are true! We don't want to "unfortunately" spend money (and time and worry and fiddling) on something that doesn't actually improve the sound. That's where folks like Amir (disparaged as he might be by some) come in very handy - putting such claims to test. Many audiophiles have said "thanks, you've saved me time and money" on some of the gear he has tested.

From my own experience: I once had several Shunyata AC cables back when Shunyata had made a big splash in the audio world. I was skeptical...but open to trying. Well I didn't hear a difference with a couple of them, but ONE of the Shunyata cables seemed to make an obvious sonic difference in my system. I was quite surprised! I kept listening on and off for a week or two, and each time I swapped it out for the stock cheap power cable, I'd hear a change in sound.

Now, if I had stopped there I may well have come to a similar conclusion as you did: Well, looks like I found out these cables really DO change the sound.

But I didn't stop there: knowing the propensity for sighted listening biases, I had someone help me blind test between the Shunyata cable and the cheap stock cable. And once I didn't know which was which, guess what? No sonic difference! None of the "obvious" traits I thought I heard with the Shunyata were there to cue me - they sounded indistinguishable.

I took that (and other blind testing) as a significant lesson in just what it can fee like, in the usual audiophile listening scenario, to "hear" sonic differences that were not really there.

This is why I am not so fast to just accept another audiophile's anecdotal listening (or my own sighted listening) as determining the truth of the claims made for these products. And I put that together with the host of incredibly dubious claims made for cables by manufacturers and audiophiles. Even Shunyata, who some audiophiles think to have provided "objective measurable evidence" for their cables, don't seem to notice that Shunyata has done no such thing. Measuring changes in noise through a cable, or when plugged in to an electrical outlet, is NOT the same thing as measuring or demonstrating they actually have an audible effect on a music signal in a system! They never show that. They just put out some of their tests and leave the implication for the audiophile "see look at the noise going down" and so the audiophile can listen in sighted conditions and think "wow, I hear a difference, so it's all legit!"

Again, I don't think ANY audiophile has to bother with more rigorous testing. I'm only giving reasons why I (and not a few other audiophiles) have reasons to remain skeptical about a lot of these claims.

Cheers.

 

[COF]

Why do some feel that something needs to be explained in order to enjoy its benefits? If I try something in my system and I can hear an improvement then I am good. I don't need to know how it works. Just like I don't have to know how electricty works to flip the switch on the wall.

Because some people like to understand what's going on in their hobby. That's often the sign of an enthusiast. As I said: some audiophiles are incurious about audio gear, how it works. But why would someone be baffled as to why other people are interested in how it works?

Knowledge is power.

Knowing how something works, or doesn't work, allows someone more power to reach their particular goals. If one of those goals is apportioning their limit funds to get the best sounding system they can, then IF they learn a potential purchase of an expensive tweak won't actually improve the sound, THEN they can put those funds to where it will actually make more sonic difference (e.g. better speakers, or room treatment, or whatever).

You use the example of not caring how your light switch works. Well, shouldn't we be glad that there are people who DO care about how it works, who gained the knowledge, to make such things work, fix them, leverage knowledge of electricity for so many other benefits? Same with audio gear...

You of course don't have to be interested at all; but it shouldn't be a mystery why others might be interested.

 

[COF]

anecdotal information is never acceptable to unbelievers. period.

That depends on the unbeliever and what the claim concerns.

There are plenty of situations in which, yes, anecdotal claims are not reliable evidence. There's a good reason why anecdotal "I saw a perpetual motion machine" claims are far from reliable enough to establish known, reliable physics to be incorrect. There is a reason why science arose, don't you agree?

So it depends on how implausible a claim is. Or what level of confidence you are looking for in a claimed phenomenon.
Would you agree?

the human condition since time immemorial. whereas listeners crave listening feedback. and it's a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon.

It certainly can be a wide chasm. I've been fascinated by fringe or non-scientific beliefs for much of my life, what people believe, why etc, and there absolutely is a chasm that opens up between the purely subjective approach and objective. Purely subjective-based methods of coming to conclusions allow an astounding amount of dubious and contradictory belief systems to flourish.
And on the purely subjective method they are usually made unfalsifiable. So nothing the more objective based person can bring to the table can bridge that gulf.

everything matters when you trust your ears.....and respect that others do too.

As I mentioned, "everything matters when you trust your ears" is exactly what you would expect, since it allows for imagination and erroneous inferences. It's a specific case of the more general approach to "trust your feelings, trust your experience, and your own interpretation of your experience." It is the basis for religion, New Age beliefs, cults, dubious "alternative medicines," and countless other contradictory belief human belief systems.

None of which determines, in of itself, that any of YOUR beliefs about audio are incorrect.

But for me, I can't help noticing the similarities between a lot of what I see in the audiophile world to the thinking that underlies pseudo-science and many other indemonstrable belief systems.

 

[twitch]

Obviously, you haven't read my post properly nor the links in it, which I pointed out as being important.

wrong .............

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That depends on the unbeliever and what the claim concerns.

There are plenty of situations in which, yes, anecdotal claims are not reliable evidence. There's a good reason why anecdotal "I saw a perpetual motion machine" claims are far from reliable enough to establish known, reliable physics to be incorrect. There is a reason why science arose, don't you agree?

So it depends on how implausible a claim is. Or what level of confidence you are looking for in a claimed phenomenon.
Would you agree?




It certainly can be a wide chasm. I've been fascinated by fringe or non-scientific beliefs for much of my life, what people believe, why etc, and there absolutely is a chasm that opens up between the purely subjective approach and objective. Purely subjective-based methods of coming to conclusions allow an astounding amount of dubious and contradictory belief systems to flourish.
And on the purely subjective method they are usually made unfalsifiable. So nothing the more objective based person can bring to the table can bridge that gulf.



As I mentioned, "everything matters when you trust your ears" is exactly what you would expect, since it allows for imagination and erroneous inferences. It's a specific case of the more general approach to "trust your feelings, trust your experience, and your own interpretation of your experience." It is the basis for religion, New Age beliefs, cults, dubious "alternative medicines," and countless other contradictory belief human belief systems.

None of which determines, in of itself, that any of YOUR beliefs about audio are incorrect.

But for me, I can't help noticing the similarities between a lot of what I see in the audiophile world to the thinking that underlies pseudo-science and many other indemonstrable belief systems.

why didn't you also refer to this post? as you can read, i also think that not all subjective feedback is created equal. the reader has to do their part to investigate the value. but i'd rather hear about what people heard, than not. i'll take it from there.

and it encourages the sort of environment that i happen to enjoy.

 

[sbnx]

Because some people like to understand what's going on in their hobby. That's often the sign of an enthusiast. As I said: some audiophiles are incurious about audio gear, how it works. But why would someone be baffled as to why other people are interested in how it works?

Knowledge is power.

Knowing how something works, or doesn't work, allows someone more power to reach their particular goals. If one of those goals is apportioning their limit funds to get the best sounding system they can, then IF they learn a potential purchase of an expensive tweak won't actually improve the sound, THEN they can put those funds to where it will actually make more sonic difference (e.g. better speakers, or room treatment, or whatever).

You use the example of not caring how your light switch works. Well, shouldn't we be glad that there are people who DO care about how it works, who gained the knowledge, to make such things work, fix them, leverage knowledge of electricity for so many other benefits? Same with audio gear...

You of course don't have to be interested at all; but it shouldn't be a mystery why others might be interested.

I am pretty enthusiastic about this stuff. I agree that knowledge is power. The issue is incomplete knowledge. By this I don't mean my incomplete knowledge but rather incomplete knowledge overall. It is easy to get stuck on something that can't be rully explained scientifically. But that actually describes most of what we know about. Very little is completely explained by science. Although we like to think it is.

I fully (and I do mean fully) understand the physics of cables as taught in a textbook. However, none of that can explain or help me with my personal experience with how radically they affect the sound. One person on another thread posits that it is all just an LRC network and how that interacts with the output/input of the components. I am not so sure about this. But even if the LRC theory is all there is then all of the different cables have different L, R and C and different ratios of R/C, L/R etc. So they all sound different. Since nobody publishes these things and there is no guide I am still where I am with cables. Listen and decide for myself. For example the difference between Nordost Odin2 IC's and a pair of Analysis Plus Silver Apex is stark. No golden ears required. A couple weekends ago the Argento dealer replaced a pair of the Odin2's with Argento FMR IC"s. Again, huge difference in sound. I know there is lots of hyperbole. What is a huge difference? Well, by huge I mean that the sound difference between these three cables could not be mistaken. Blind AB all you want. Even non-audiophiles would pick this up easily. I don't think I need LRC nework knowledge to do this? It doesn't help me.

I actually found that my university knowledge got in the way of me trying things that improve sound. I was once in the camp of power cords can not matter etc. etc. All I needed was to experiment and trust my ears.

I understand you comment about funds. Everyone allocates funds where they think will make the biggest improvement. If I try something and it doesn't work then move on. It is best to have a relationship with a dealer that you trust who can help you. (help, no rob) A good dealer should be able to repeatably demonstrate that what he/she is selling actually works.

 

[PYP]

It is best to have a relationship with a dealer that you trust who can help you. (help, no rob) A good dealer should be able to repeatably demonstrate that what he/she is selling actually works.

A fundamental precept to finding one's way through this hobby.

 

[COF]

All I needed was to experiment and trust my ears.

Yes, that is exactly all you needed to do. ;-)

Which has been my point. It doesn't matter what knowledge someone has, or thinks he has. It's about the method.

Every audiophile tweak ever dreamed up was "confirmed true" by that method, trusting one's ears.
And as I said, it's a subset of the "trust yourself, you are the most reliable interpreter of your experience" mindset that produces endless contradictory human belief systems. This is what happens when you don't take the variables of imagination seriously in your method, which is why we devised the scientific method - it very wisely understands that our perception, and private inferences, are NOT that trustworthy.

So it's not remotely surprising that "everything can make a difference" with the "trust your ears" approach.

Again, no audiophile needs to practice rigorous methods in trying out gear. I often just "go by what I hear" just like you and many others. I try to keep that in perspective, though, with the above in mind. (Which is why once in a while I do tests were I am ACTUALLY just using my ears, and not my eyes.....)

 

[tima]

That seems to imply you believe there is some test or some way to determine if audio thing X does cause a person to experience a deeper soundstage - to have a certain deeper soundstage experience. That there is an "objective" way or understanding about how X "ACTUALLY works" -- meaning independent of any one person's hearing -- to know if the listener is imagining a deeper soundstage or actually experiencing one. What is that test?

There is a way: blind testing. That at least can first establish that an audiophile is actually hearing a difference between A and B.
And then IF a difference is reliably detected, then it gets in to the stickier issues of "what are the characteristics distinguishing A and B?" It should at least be plausible. So if someone says "with one cable I can hear angels singing, and the other I can't" there could be some audible difference allowing the audiophile to successfully pass the blind test, but that in of itself doesn't verify it was "angels singing" (could have simply been an audible frequency response difference).

As to soundstaging and imaging, it's not like there is nothing known about that. There's quite a bit known about how our perception understands location, depth, width etc. And those could be played with in tests to get reliable results for changes in soundstaging depth, imaging etc.

So there are in principle more reliable ways forward in vetting such claims.

BTW, years ago I had a few different CDPs and a Meitner DAC. In sighted listening I had the impression the Meitner sounded a bit different, slightly more rolled off but also slightly more lush and slightly larger imaging/soundstage depth. I blind tested between the units and sure enough heard those differences and easily detected which was which, reliably. So at least that first stage to reliable knowledge was taken.

Alas, blind testing will not tell us if a listener is hearing a difference or imagining hearing a difference. His response is based on what he hears or thinks he hears. In the end the issue of hearing a difference is not relevant. Whether comparing or not, introducing the notion, the scepticism, "did you really hear what you said you heard or did you imagine hearing it?" takes the discussion down a rabbit hole that reduces any forward movement toward resolution -- it is actually a corruption of discussion.

I agree that it is possible for someone to change his mind about what he hears. It is a common tale where an audiophile is enchanted by some new thing in his system and some time later is not so enchanted. "I liked it at first but after a month I took it out and now prefer my system without that thing." That does not imply that he imagined something he did not hear, he simply changed his mind or preference or came to know himself better. This is where having a reference can be very helpful toward making the right choice for him, although that is not infallible. Likewise it is worth taking some time when reviewing a product to shake out first responses or confirm them.

 

[Tangram]

Alas, blind testing will not tell us if a listener is hearing a difference or imagining hearing a difference.

I disagree. If the blind test is randomized, repeated a statistically significant number of times, and if the listener makes the right pick a statistically significant number of times, that’s a strong indication that he’s not imagining hearing a difference.

 

[Lee]

I have participated in several blind listening tests. In my experience, such tests often just find which participants have critical listening skills.

 

[Lee]

I am pretty enthusiastic about this stuff. I agree that knowledge is power. The issue is incomplete knowledge. By this I don't mean my incomplete knowledge but rather incomplete knowledge overall. It is easy to get stuck on something that can't be rully explained scientifically. But that actually describes most of what we know about. Very little is completely explained by science. Although we like to think it is.

I fully (and I do mean fully) understand the physics of cables as taught in a textbook. However, none of that can explain or help me with my personal experience with how radically they affect the sound. One person on another thread posits that it is all just an LRC network and how that interacts with the output/input of the components. I am not so sure about this. But even if the LRC theory is all there is then all of the different cables have different L, R and C and different ratios of R/C, L/R etc. So they all sound different. Since nobody publishes these things and there is no guide I am still where I am with cables. Listen and decide for myself. For example the difference between Nordost Odin2 IC's and a pair of Analysis Plus Silver Apex is stark. No golden ears required. A couple weekends ago the Argento dealer replaced a pair of the Odin2's with Argento FMR IC"s. Again, huge difference in sound. I know there is lots of hyperbole. What is a huge difference? Well, by huge I mean that the sound difference between these three cables could not be mistaken. Blind AB all you want. Even non-audiophiles would pick this up easily. I don't think I need LRC nework knowledge to do this? It doesn't help me.

I actually found that my university knowledge got in the way of me trying things that improve sound. I was once in the camp of power cords can not matter etc. etc. All I needed was to experiment and trust my ears.

I understand you comment about funds. Everyone allocates funds where they think will make the biggest improvement. If I try something and it doesn't work then move on. It is best to have a relationship with a dealer that you trust who can help you. (help, no rob) A good dealer should be able to repeatably demonstrate that what he/she is selling actually works.

This is a great point. While we should strive to find the scientific underpinnings of the differences we hear, we must recognize that in this hobby in particular there is a history of "science catching up" with what we hear.

For example,

1. THD metrics didn't capture everything well and fortunately led to Holt and Pearson starting high end audio.
2. Audiophiles heard differences in CD transports, Robert Harley and others found that jitter was the answer to these differences.
3. People heard differences among power conditioners. Finding out that there is much noise in the Mhz and Ghz range has led to cleaner sound reproduction via new generation power conditioning.
4. Julian Dunn initially thought microsecond differences could be heard in timing differences. Then he mathematically found jitter in 200 nanosecond range could be heard, then single digit nanosecond, then hundreds of picoseconds...now many I talk to believe single digit picosecond jitter can be heard.

Maybe "trust but verify" is a better stance with respect to science and audio.

 

[Al M.]

This is a great point. While we should strive to find the scientific underpinnings of the differences we hear, we must recognize that in this hobby in particular there is a history of "science catching up" with what we hear.

For example,

1. THD metrics didn't capture everything well and fortunately led to Holt and Pearson starting high end audio.
2. Audiophiles heard differences in CD transports, Robert Harley and others found that jitter was the answer to these differences.
3. People heard differences among power conditioners. Finding out that there is much noise in the Mhz and Ghz range has led to cleaner sound reproduction via new generation power conditioning.
4. Julian Dunn initially thought microsecond differences could be heard in timing differences. Then he mathematically found jitter in 200 nanosecond range could be heard, then single digit nanosecond, then hundreds of picoseconds...now many I talk to believe single digit picosecond jitter can be heard.

Maybe "trust but verify" is a better stance with respect to science and audio.

Indeed. Science has catch up to do. Those who invoke "science" as excuse to a priori dismiss certain audiophile claims (your historical list is a good one) are engaging in pseudoscientific posture.

It does science no favor, on the contrary, it gives science a bad name.

Of course, this is not necessarily a license for a free for all either. Some claims seem pure quackery indeed.

 

[Tangram]

I have participated in several blind listening tests. In my experience, such tests often just find which participants have critical listening skills.

It’s implicit that someone who successfully “passes” a blind listening test has the skills to do so. If someone “fails” the same test, this person likely does not. That doesn’t invalidate the test.

How’d you do?

 

[Lee]

How’d you do?

I did well. I have good critical listening skills.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Alas, blind testing will not tell us if a listener is hearing a difference or imagining hearing a difference.

If the protocol of the blind testing is acceptable and legitimate in advance to the tester and to the testee that is exactly what blind testing should tell us.

His response is based on what he hears or thinks he hears.

correct

In the end the issue of hearing a difference is not relevant.

huh?

"did you really hear what you said you heard or did you imagine hearing it?" takes the discussion down a rabbit hole that reduces any forward movement toward resolution

I think it's a perfectly valid topic for analysis. This thread is proof of that, at least by the people who are enjoying this discussion.

Putting difficulty of implementation to one side, the idea of devising a protocol which is acceptable and legitimate to both sides -- instead of the endless fencing by objectivists for quick A/B switching and subjectivists for long term listening -- is forward movement.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree that it is possible for someone to change his mind about what he hears. It is a common tale where an audiophile is enchanted by some new thing in his system and some time later is not so enchanted. "I liked it at first but after a month I took it out and now prefer my system without that thing." That does not imply that he imagined something he did not hear, he simply changed his mind or preference or came to know himself better. This is where having a reference can be very helpful toward making the right choice for him, although that is not infallible. Likewise it is worth taking some time when reviewing a product to shake out first responses or confirm them.

+1

 

[Kingrex]

For the most part, scientifically it is impossible to believe cables sound the same. Think about it. 14 awg vs 12 awg cable. Are they the same. Different insulation. Crystal count and grain length. Strand count. litz. Platings. Welds at terminations. Geomerty. There are so many variables that go into making a cable and every one of those variables has a easily measured influence on electrical current. And cable deniers want to say they all sound the same. What hogwash.

I will agree, $$$$ don't mean better. But to some degree they do. Lower crystal count cables are closer in conductivity to silver. Litz wire has far less capacitive coupling as the strands are not touching. The machines required to twist cost money. Maybe 4 or 5 hundred thousand to make a cable like Iconoclast.
Cable deniers need to accept they don't have the ears, dont have the equipment, have an inferior setup. Something is amiss if they can't hear a cable chage. Eapecially if the cables in comparison are quite different in all I noted above.