Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: For The Record....

> I guess I've only gone to the extent of "put A in the system, sound is X -
> put B in the system, sound is Y - therefore A sounds different than B".
> Typical for most consumers.

Indeed and no problems until you start to state why and get it wrong. This is what distinguishes audiophiles from normal consumers.

> When we're discussing sonic differences in electronics, I'm getting the
> impression you're thinking I'm comparing tubed electronics to solid state.
> I'm not. I'm talking about two solid state amps with identical
> measurements. Just checking to make sure we're on the same page here.

I am not bothered about the components particularly but mainly the difference between sound and sound perception. In this we are not on the same page.

> Perhaps the large cable companies feeling it's not worth bothering about is
> the reason they have not shown a single example.

That is not a sensible answer and I suspect you know it. The markup on cables is very large, the research and development costs effectively non existent with the only big item being the marketing costs. Marketing is the only way to distinguish the product from the competition and is consequently vital for success. The notion of not bothering in this area is almost absurd.

> But do check the archives for JNeutron's IID discussions. I'd be interested
> in your feedback.

I have no great interest in such discussions but had a quick look. I am not sure what you think is there of relevance but nothing struck me in a 5 minute browse.

> Critical listening is for when my mind is unencumbered with outside
> influences.

And when you are critically listening do you consider yourself to be able to perceive the same sound when it is repeated with a signficant gap? The mapping from sound impinging on your ear to perceived sound is not affected by vision, expectation, emotional response, etc... in the usual manner?

> I think sometimes audiophiles want to hear differences, particularly when
> blind testing. BassNut has brought this up many times. Sometimes they are
> pressured into it, either by themselves or others.

You have not answered the question whether you consider the perception to have genuinely occurred. Nor have you said whether you consider yourself imune from this or that you consider I am imune from it. If it helps, in my experience I am not imune and I like to consider myself to be strongly unaudiophile.

> Finally, you say that we project our impressions onto the hardware. While
> that's true to a degree (certain components have sonic signatures) I think
> we're all pretty careful to say that it's dependant on the rest of the
> system, the room and the individual.

It is very much dependent on what is going on in your head when it concerns components that are changing the sound by less than the threshold of audibility. It also seems to involve a degree of classifying problems with the equipment and/or environment as sound quality (clipping, stability, interference, etc...) rather than as problems as an engineer would. And as for the notion of audiophiles being careful! The only way audiophile are able to hold audiophile beliefs is by jumping to all sorts of baseless conclusions (albeit prompted by the audiophile industry).

> As I've said before many times, I'm the student, not the teacher, and it's
> particularly true in this area. Are you going to do as many have done
> before and tell me to do my own research or are you at least going to give
> me some hints as to what to look for???

Perhaps I have let the prodding patronising tone slip a bit too much. I am interested in audiophiles and their beliefs and so if you start dropping yours then you will be of limited interest to me. So of course I am going to tell you to do your own research, training people is hard work and I do it when I am paid. Nonetheless:

I assume we can discount your learning a bit of science and how audio equipment, sound and sound perception works. This is by far the most reliable and effective way forward but is understandably impractical for many.

Consequently you are left with choosing between conflicting explanations from the audiophile industry and from science. In order to appropriately weight their reliability I suggest the following:

* google "scientific method" and read about how and why science works. It will only take 15 minutes or so and is nontechnical and easy to understand.

* find out about what happened to the home audio industry after the boom and why companies that adopted the current audiophile approach prospered while those that continued to try to sell their products in some volume based on technical merit went to the wall.

* talk to people with scientific knowledge about audio. These people do not exist in audiophile circles (except with a vested interest on the supply side) and so you will have to look further afield. Some still post on usenet but the noise is high.

* not a single person with a reasonable grasp of audio, sound and sound perception holds audiophile beliefs. Establishing the truth of this would help you a lot although how to do it for someone starting from your position I do not know.

* if we consider Peter Aczels 10 lies, which are all lies even if he wobbles a bit on some of the details, the best way to make progress is not to work away at the ones you may find easiest to accept but the ones you disagree with most strongly. Shift a few of these and the rest will follow.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]