Any evidence wire is less than fully transparent at audio frequencies?

[Teresa]

Dear Teresa,

 

Bravo. I, too, feel the need to chime in as you. Your post is cogent and illuminating. If there is an expectation bias, I have no expectation that any well formed response to the drone that pervades this thread might make a difference absent a desire to enter a common ground and explore what the possibilities before what anyone relates gets twisted into the already listening responses. The exchanges here might even be evidence for what might explain the reason that one out of two marriages end in divorce.

 

Sorry your health issues tax you. But apparently not your spirit and love of the enjoyment of music. My prayers Re with you. Thank you for your contributions to this Forum.

 

Enjoy the music,

Richard

 

Thanks for the kind words Richard, sorry I'm late responding but I'm not posting much anymore. I did read your post the day you wrote it but it's hard for me to post often, however I read Computer Audiophile everyday. I’ve spent several days writing this response to everyone in this thread and apologize it is so long, but the thread kept growing as I kept thinking of the correct way to respond.

 

Looking for evidence that wires lack transparency when used for audio.

 

I should have said this earlier about your original post, but I believe you are making the wrong request and evidence acceptable to objectivists will never exist on much of anything audio related as this and other threads have proven. So I have an alternate avenue for you to try. If you really are curious about the sound quality of different cables and if cables make a difference in your system, check out a loaner or buy with a satisfaction guarantee. Don’t let other people listen for you, listen for yourself. After all it is you who listens to music in your system. Personally anything that produces music, I want to listen to music through it myself and see if I enjoy music through it more or less than what I have now. Sounds simple to me.

 

Believing is science is anti-progress?

 

No letting restrictions of current scientific theory restrict one’s enjoyment of anything, stifles progress. The Wright Brothers didn’t believe science when it said man couldn’t fly. Test pilots bet their lives that the speed of sound could be broken even though the scientific establishment said it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound.

 

I don't think you understand what expectation bias is.

 

As loosely defined in this thread, it is when one expects an outcome based on external factors such as brand name, or expecting a better reviewed or more expensive product to sound better.

 

As I said in Post 362, "the only expectation bias I may be guilty of is expecting 16/44.1kHz PCM to sound poor before I even hear it, I cringe before the music even starts expecting the worst and 99% percent of the time my fear is justified as the resulting sound is terrible to me. But there have been a handful of exceptions. One person said my fear of 16/44.1kHz PCM stems from my awful experience with Sony’s first CD player, the CDP-101, I purchased in 1983 and hated the sound of so much I quit listening to music for over a year!

 

However, with equipment and authentic high resolution recordings I am often very surprised by what I hear and never know what to expect before I hear it so I keep an open mind, always. And I love giant-killers, well made affordable products that sound way better than I expect them to."

 

So to clarify, with 16/44.1kHz I expect the worst before the music even begins which could cause premature listener fatigue. However as I said I have found a handful of exceptions that don’t adversely effect me. It is possible if I have waited 10 or more years to buy my first CD player, perhaps my experiences with CD might be better with less adverse expectation bias.

 

And as far as the accusations of expectation bias, how do you explain when less expensive components sound better than more expensive components? Or how some things sound “almost” the same? Or how things that measure the same with one being unlistenable and the other sounding so sweet it draws you right into the music so well it’s hard to do anything else?

 

I only accept expectation bias from the objectivists side, as they expect nearly everything to sound the same, so they reject differences they cannot explain scientifically as expectation bias. It’s an poor excuse to not trust one’s ears in my opinion.

 

Your choice, of course.

 

As I said I do trust my ears and my ears only, they get whatever they want, if I can afford it. I can’t imagine accepting anything less especially for music one enjoys.

 

The best method I know of it take a good long time to come to a decision, spending a good deal of time listening. Something that sounds amazing initially may, over time, wear on you to the point you do not like it at all. While yes, ears can easily be fooled over a short period of time, over extended periods of time, that is much less true.

 

And, if over time, you find you still like the sound of something, regardless of anything else, even if your ears are "tricking" you, so what? You know you will enjoy the sound over a long period of time. I am not sure that would qualify as a "trick" though.

 

-Paul

 

Agreed, long term listening is the key, that is why I always buy with a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. For me the newness wears off in about a week of listening. At that point I’m sure I’m actually hearing the “true sound” of the component and at that point I can decide if I like it or not, and if I do it usually gets even better as it burns-in more. Other than the “temporary” thrill of a new purchase I don’t think ears ever fool the listener.

 

Anybody who relies purely on instrumentation is a fool. Our senses such as sight and hearing may not be 100% reliable, but they are a very worthwhile addition to instrumentation, and that includes audio measurement instruments.

 

Alex

 

Agreed.

 

I'll point out that I described to you performing exactly that type of test in my home (with 4 cables), where my conclusion was that I liked the most expensive cable least by a long shot, and the least expensive cable (1/4 the price of the most expensive one) was a strong second.

 

It is another dimension of expectation bias; when we compare two things we are biased to find a difference. So, it is not just about a bias to pick the nicer packaging, the cooler looking cable, the one with better reviews, the one with good word of mouth, your brand preference,the more expensive product, etc. The very process of doing a comparison tells your brain to expect a difference.

 

VandyMan read Jud’s post 393 again, he said that the least expensive cable out of four came in a strong second place with more expensive ones in third and fourth place, I believe that destroys your accusation of expectation bias. A listener never knows what they will like until they actually listen to music!

 

....an HONEST answer as to why you hear these significant differences where I do not is needed.

 

I am curious why? It is not Alex who listens to your stereo, but you. I can’t speak for anyone else, but what other people do or do not hear is not important to me. What is important is does the thing under consideration make music more enjoyable or less enjoyable to me. Anything else is unimportant!

 

My response to all the subjectivists and objectivists.

 

Now that we are up to page 22 and this thread is starting to get very tedious and I’m starting to be disappointed with both subjectivists and objectivists in this thread. I just have a few questions for both sides.

 

Why are subjectivist in this thread (and others) trying to appease objectivists demands? Why does any subjectivist care what an objectivist thinks as there is very little common ground between the two?

 

Objectivists why do you care how subjectivists listen to music or what equipment, formats, codecs, etc. they prefer? Why do you always demand proof of their listening experiences? Subjectivists never demand proof of your listening experiences.

 

It’s the music and only the music for me. What makes music more enjoyable is good, what makes music less enjoyable is bad. As long as I can audition with 30-day satisfaction guarantee before committing to purchase I’m happy as I can actually hear what something sounds like, in me room, with my system and with my own ears? I don’t trust anyone else to tell me what I should and should not like! And yes, I do want my equipment to meet its published specifications, but that is not the basis of my purchasing decisions, its all about how music sounds.

 

Subjectivists don’t let objectivists push you around, say no way, it’s none of their business what I like. Why try to present them with any evidence at all? Let them do their own research and make their own buying decisions.

 

Objectivists quit letting numbers tell what you can and cannot like, listen for yourself and pick what you actually like the sound of. Don’t be afraid to enjoy the music.

 

Finally, in medicine placebos sometimes have a therapeutic effect fighting off a disease or ailment as the patient believes the medicine is working, but it’s their body that is subconsciously fighting off the disease, it just needed outside encouragement. As far as I know our ears/brains don’t have anything like that, if one puts a high-end manufacturer logo on a Radio Shack speaker, it will still sound like a Radio Shack speaker. Seems our ear-brain system is not as good as our antibodies.

[esldude]

 

I should have said this earlier about your original post, but I believe you are making the wrong request and evidence acceptable to objectivists will never exist on much of anything audio related as this and other threads have proven. So I have an alternate avenue for you to try. If you really are curious about the sound quality of different cables and if cables make a difference in your system, check out a loaner or buy with a satisfaction guarantee. Don’t let other people listen for you, listen for yourself. After all it is you who listens to music in your system. Personally anything that produces music, I want to listen to music through it myself and see if I enjoy music through it more or less than what I have now. Sounds simple to me.

 

Actually, there is lots of evidence for things that people hear in audio. Lots and lots. Things they do hear, things that do sound different. Far more than things that evidence says sounds the same.

 

As for listening to myself, and trying out things I have years of experience doing that. Possibly more years than you have.

 

Your idea to listen and see if you enjoy music more or less works fine when there are really differences. But sometimes, we are prone to hear differences that aren't there. In those cases, it is not simple it is unintentionally deceptive to our senses. I believe these situations have become so pervasive in the audiophile world they are deflecting money and interest away from real issues that could be improved for better musical enjoyment. Instead we get these situations where placebo effects make everyone feel better for a bit, make money for lots of companies, but actually don't move the market in directions that improve sound in our home. As long as the market for ineffective products is a big money maker, there is not the market pressure to fix the room or improve speakers more or just generally make real gains in things that are still audibly imperfect.

[Jud]

Why are subjectivist in this thread (and others) trying to appease objectivists demands? Why does any subjectivist care what an objectivist thinks as there is very little common ground between the two?

 

Objectivists why do you care how subjectivists listen to music or what equipment, formats, codecs, etc. they prefer? Why do you always demand proof of their listening experiences? Subjectivists never demand proof of your listening experiences.

 

It’s the music and only the music for me. What makes music more enjoyable is good, what makes music less enjoyable is bad. As long as I can audition with 30-day satisfaction guarantee before committing to purchase I’m happy as I can actually hear what something sounds like, in me room, with my system and with my own ears? I don’t trust anyone else to tell me what I should and should not like! And yes, I do want my equipment to meet its published specifications, but that is not the basis of my purchasing decisions, its all about how music sounds.

 

Subjectivists don’t let objectivists push you around, say no way, it’s none of their business what I like. Why try to present them with any evidence at all? Let them do their own research and make their own buying decisions.

 

 

Hi Teresa, hope you are continuing to enjoy music and reading the forum here (the latter, for some value of "enjoy" more or less equalling passionate involvement).

 

I wanted to respond to the part of your post quoted above.

 

I'm not trying to appease anyone's demands other than my own. I've always been intensely curious about many things, and one of them is how to get closer to the music. I get quite a thrill from being able to hear more, almost 50 years later, in Beatles songs that first blew me away as a 10-year-old. I never thought I'd be able to hear John and Paul's voices, separately and in harmony, George's guitar, Ringo's drumming, so well.

 

One of the ways I got to that place was by trying to learn more about what makes for better, clearer sound, and I certainly don't want to stop now. Unlike people who think of science or objective inquiry as something soulless, I think of it as a way of trying to achieve goals, including subjective ones like the excitement of listening to well-reproduced music, more often and more reliably. At the same time, I don't at all discount the value and just plain fun of anecdotal listening impressions in trying to gain improvements. (The value in scientific terms is at the stages of observation and forming potential hypotheses to explain what one believes one has observed.)

 

I don't think there's a tremendous divide between "testing" and just listening to music for enjoyment. I'm sure most of us have experienced the former turning quickly into the latter when we hit on something that sounds really good. So it isn't as if I'm trying to prove anything to anyone when I try out different stuff in my system, I'm just enjoying myself; and if some of the new pieces sound better to me and increase my enjoyment of the music over the long term, so much the better.

[Jud]

Now.....myself, Dennis and others who share the same...em...viewpoint......I think have been asking the wrong question.....which is please prove what it is you hear is real and back it up with known science or measurements. We all know as of this time within the current bounds of technology, neither is possible. Instead, the question I pose (as I did to Alex) is to explain why you hear what you hear. What makes this more acute sense possible?......and if needed....plausible?

 

While answering such a question may seem to presume, the presumption has already been made now hasn't it. Audiophiles have been making the assumptions since the inception of the hobby. Think about that for a second......or a minute. Have you bought or sold your passion? ....which does not intend to insult you, or anyone......but instead hopes for the individual to try and answer the question. The hardest person to be honest with is one's self.( I often have trouble with this one myself. Lol

 

Nice post. Personally, I dislike blanket explanations - all subjectivists have more resolving systems (or objectivists less), all subjectivists have 'golden ears' (objectivists not), all objectivists are less credulous (subjectivists more gullible), and so forth. None of these sorts of blanket explanations ever, in my experience, holds up to examination. What I think does hold up to examination are *differences* - differences in our systems and the environments surrounding those systems (electrical power and wiring, listening rooms, etc.), differences in what our experiences have sensitized us to, differences in our hearing. Sometimes I think it's a wonder there's as much commonality as there is.

 

To give a specific example, let's talk about phase for a moment. I've owned Vandersteen speakers (2Ci then 2Ce) for 25 years. One of the company's design goals is "phase alignment." The driver location and crossover design are supposed to result in music that's in proper phase when it gets to the listener. I've also played a fair bit with digital sample rate conversion software adjustment between "minimum phase" and "linear phase," which has given me some practice in hearing what phase differences sound like, apart from any difference in frequency response. So perhaps with my system and experience I might be more sensitive to phase changes. On the other hand, I don't think the power to my house is especially pristine, and I know our home wiring wasn't done extraordinarily well. (In fact we know of several code violations that we have had or are having rectified.) So perhaps I might hear more changes to do with power (noise from the power leg of a USB cable?) than someone with cleaner power.

 

Of course this isn't to say I'm immune to any number of psychological factors; I'm sure they affect us all to a greater or lesser extent, and are an element of the differences between listeners, just as are physical factors like the industrial hearing damage sandyk referred to.

[lfs]

Teresa,

 

Regarding your posting #551, very well said. It could have been (should have been?) a fitting ending to this thread. Unfortunately, I feel it is just 'falling on deaf ears'. Anyways, thank you.

 

Best wishes,

Larry

[mayhem13]

Thanks Jud. The last week here in CA has been a bit exhausting with some of the back and forth which led me to the last few posts looking for answers to much more difficult questions. If we consider why we partake in this hobby when the vast majority or humanity is just fine with earbuds, boomboxes and MP3, there's a few explanations and each audiophile or hobbyist will identify more with one than the other. The answers lie here, and not in the power of expectation bias or AB comparisons and testing.

 

One things been nagging at me more and more lately....in general, not just as it relates to this hobby and forum is that we like being marketed to. What's not so clear is why some prefer to conform while others go out of they're way to be different.

[Paul R]

Oh dear - I am in almost certain fear of heart failure - I agree with pretty much everything you said in this, and what very little I disagree with is of the nature that leaves me respecting what you say/think/believe, even when I am slightly in disagreement.

 

Don't go away mate!

 

-Paul

 

 

Well the bottom line of all of this for me is I'm extremely happy with my current system and thoroughly enjoy listening to my extended collection from iTunes in a recreational format. While of course one would always appreciate some improvement, the differences or improvements spoken about here as of late are IMO of little or no value. If one must concentrate heavily in a controlled environment to actually hear these improvements, this type of listening shifts to effort or work, especially if performed in this manner often. I would also submit that given the nature of music, and the value of time such exercises are actually more costly than simply sitting down and enjoying some C.S.N , Floyd, Miles, etc.

 

Is all of this effort to discern a difference really worth it? When considering the constraints of having to listen to the same familiar tracks as a baseline, I find it doubtful. When considering the point, I think of all the great time discovering new music and revisiting classics lost to controlled analytical sessions.

 

Now I purposely don't talk much about my system as I don't want to get into a discussion of ' you need this or that an this ' to hear these conditional results. I would instead add that as someone who's worked professionally in the music and entertainment industry dependent on high quality sound reproduction, I'm pretty sure my practical knowledge and experience more than qualifies me to know what sounds good.....and in many cases I would add I'm more qualified than most on this forum. Add in my experience with speaker design and acoustics....well.....let's just say I'm comfortable in my auditory abilities.

 

Even if I completely absorbed myself in many of the task oriented listening sessions presented here on CA, I dont think I could develop such strong conclusions as many report here, which instead of questioning my own abilities ( practically proven) I'm forced to conclude something else.......in that my motivations are....em....different?...than many who post here regularly.

 

That being said, except for blatant BS posts, I'm going to reduce my posting in these debatable threads considerably as I can no longer find value in it for either myself or the CA community. Convenience and usability is what brought me to CA in the first place.....I was always satisfied with what I heard....but instead wanting more in how i went about it.

 

Thanks to all for the discussions. Many were fun, .....some not so much.

[Paul R]

..an HONEST answer as to why you hear these significant differences where I do not is needed. This isn't a 'personal' inquiry, but at this juncture good manners demands it.

 

Well, this is my take on it:

 

(1) I may be trained to listen for, or sensitive to, audible cues you are not.

(2) You may be trained to listen for, or sensitive to, audible cues I am not.

(3) Our brains may interpret the same physical signal differently, emphasizing one thing for me that your brain minimizes, or vice versa.

(4) The physical environment we listen in may be very different (near-field vs. distance vs. headphones vs. whatever)

(5) The equipment we listen on may impart different characteristics, emphasize or de-emphasize audio cues that one or the other of us is more sensitive to, etc.

(6) Our memory of and past experiences with the music may be affecting what and how we listen to it.

(7) The different gut bacteria in out intestines may be effecting our brains somewhat differently

 

A bunch of things like this, separately or in combinations.

 

-Paul

[mayhem13]

Well, this is my take on it:

 

(1) I may be trained to listen for, or sensitive to, audible cues you are not.

(2) You may be trained to listen for, or sensitive to, audible cues I am not.

(3) Our brains may interpret the same physical signal differently, emphasizing one thing for me that your brain minimizes, or vice versa.

(4) The physical environment we listen in may be very different (near-field vs. distance vs. headphones vs. whatever)

(5) The equipment we listen on may impart different characteristics, emphasize or de-emphasize audio cues that one or the other of us is more sensitive to, etc.

(6) Our memory of and past experiences with the music may be affecting what and how we listen to it.

(7) The different gut bacteria in out intestines may be effecting our brains somewhat differently

 

A bunch of things like this, separately or in combinations.

 

-Paul

 

While I certainly appreciate the time you've taken to read my posts and compile a response, I can't say I honestly agree with your assessments as to why yourself or others hear differences or improvements where I do not. I do hope to examine this farther in a seperate thread at some point....in a much more analytical and psychological fashion. Now please don't be alarmed or angered that here goes another take on the same arguments, as my intent is not to assert that you, or anyone else is mistaken or delusional. Taking a more extreme case, no one is going to convince someone who witnessed a UFO that UFO's don't exist......but maybe instead examine why they experienced a UFO sighting in the first place. That being said, you, myself and everyone we know has beliefs that drive them. To say that these beliefs don't contribute to influencing their perceptions would be the real delusion.....and unfortunately many delude themselves within this internal conflict. Of course physical constraints enter into the discussion as well as certain demographic indicators. Those who have worked in or understand marketing already know where this is going so I'll hold off on any further explanations or assumptions.

 

Again....thanks for reading and considerations.

[Paul R]

My disagreements would be along the lines of "why yourself or others hear differences or improvements where I do not." As far as anyone knows, you may be hearing the same things as everyone else. What you call an "improvement" may not be to someone else, and vice versa.

Then there is this line - "Taking a more extreme case, no one is going to convince someone who witnessed a UFO that UFO's don't exist......but maybe instead examine why they experienced a UFO sighting in the first place."

You need to rethink the "why" above and perhaps change it to a "what." Examine exactly what they saw.

 

Almost every UFO sighting ever recorded has been actual.

 

Joe Smith or Janey Jones *did* see an Unidentified Flying Object. Doesn't mean that it is a flying saucer from the other side of the universe filled with little green men or any of the other fanciful explanations that have been come up with either.

 

Most of those sightings are easily explained -once the environmental facts are fully recorded and understood. Until that is true however, those sightings remain unexplained.

 

This is very relevant to the audio discussion, as people who report hearing differences, even when clearly reporting they do not understand why they hear a difference or what exactly the difference is, are often dismissed in the same ways as UFO sightings, or, more commonly, even worse.

 

The explanation for hearing audio difference most often offered is imagination, marketing driven or not. Dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon or put out in plain English. it sill boils down to someone who did not hear the difference, and probably has no concept of the environment it was heard in, adjusting it as imagination.

 

Like in most UFO sightings, imagination has very little to with what was actually seen or heard. The explanation might have a lot of imaginative input though.

 

It is a lesson that some might learn, UFO sightings are usually real events, though the explanations of what exactly was sighted can be more than a little fanciful.

 

Same is true of audio gear - reported audible differences are usually real events, though the explanations of what exactly caused that difference can be fanciful.

 

Has very little, if anything to do with marketing, marketing pressure, or even whether or not the Rabbit ever gets his Trix.

 

-Paul

 

 

While I certainly appreciate the time you've taken to read my posts and compile a response, I can't say I honestly agree with your assessments as to why yourself or others hear differences or improvements where I do not. I do hope to examine this farther in a seperate thread at some point....in a much more analytical and psychological fashion. Now please don't be alarmed or angered that here goes another take on the same arguments, as my intent is not to assert that you, or anyone else is mistaken or delusional. Taking a more extreme case, no one is going to convince someone who witnessed a UFO that UFO's don't exist......but maybe instead examine why they experienced a UFO sighting in the first place. That being said, you, myself and everyone we know has beliefs that drive them. To say that these beliefs don't contribute to influencing their perceptions would be the real delusion.....and unfortunately many delude themselves within this internal conflict. Of course physical constraints enter into the discussion as well as certain demographic indicators. Those who have worked in or understand marketing already know where this is going so I'll hold off on any further explanations or assumptions.

 

Again....thanks for reading and considerations.

[Superdad]

Good morning everyone:

 

First, I just want to extend kind thoughts and wishes for the all the people in Illinois, Michigan, and elsewhere affected by the tornados and storms which have devastated many communities. I just made a Red Cross donation (to Philippines too), and encourage others to do whatever they can.

 

It is amazing how much fascinating discourse has gone on in this thread in just the 12 hours since I last posted. I have very little to add. Mayhem did mention something which I want to comment on:

 

...It's important to remember (and I'm sure you do) that this hobby is retail driven and as such there's a market for our passions.......and that's the gist of the problem. This is NOT to say that every manufacturer is a crook, theif, lacks integrity and so on and so on......BUT and if could type it bigger I would.....this IS to say that the main goal of every manufacturer IS to earn money from our passion. As reasonable men and women living in this most modern society, we should clearly understand the implications of that statement.....and should be able to draw some very real conclusions based on real world examples of capitalism and marketing.

 

My personal perspective, based on a lifetime as an audiophile/music lover, and half a lifetime in the cottage high-end industry in one form or another is this:

 

a) Many humans are most fulfilled and content with our lives when we are in a vocation for which we have a passion. For some it takes a long time to discover what that passion is (in my wife's case, she took a long road from being a high-school English teacher, to government environmental planning, to finally being director of a renowned outdoor environmental education program for kids operating in Yosemite National Park); For others (myself) that vocation starts off as a hobby at a young age.

 

b) Building and selling a brand of hand-crafted audio gear, along with selling (for 25 years now) a line of capacitors to other electronics and speaker manufacturers, I have met thousands of engineers and business people in this industry. The vast majority of them not only got started in this out of a love of music and audio, but continue in it for the same reasons.

 

c) The founders of all audio firms wish to make a living at it, but a shockingly low number of high-end audio makers are realizing significant--if any--profits. Yes, there are exceptions to that. Some are not just successful and enjoy nice profits--there are those, as in any industry, whose profits one could call grotesque. Maybe some of the larger cable manufacturers fall into that category, but I advise not to be quick to assume so. Production and marketing costs, deep discounts to overseas distributors (on cables up to 75% off retail), investments in R&D and production of products that don't sell as well as expected--plus just basic economies of scale--all contribute to a reality different than what customers assume. And remember, just because a cable make has a $2,000-to-$5,000 cable in their line does not mean they are selling a 100 sets a month of that model.

 

d) All the engineers I encounter building audio components (speakers, electronics, cables, whatever) are on their own unique, individual quest for audio nirvana, and they each believe that their way and their products are among the best. They also are constantly tweaking and refining their designs, often at greater production expense. We can not chalk all that up to sales/marketing motivations (unless we are talking about Bose!).

 

e) I did not start this post intending to write a defense of high-end audio prices. But having jointly operated a now-closed high-end firm for 10 years, I can tell you exactly how to make a million dollars in this business: Start with two million! Yes, it is an old joke, and our numbers were different: Hovland Company sold a bit more than $11 million wholesale over 10 years, but had losses in many, and closed with nothing. We operated in expensive Los Angeles, built and sourced everything in the USA, paid modest wages to our crew of 13, took less than a teachers salary for ourselves, and had a blast--despite fraying some of the friendships the 4 of us started with.

 

 

As for my participation on the CA forums:

My advocacy for people to try things in their systems is not based on commercial motivations. I make nothing from someone who tries a RAM disk or SD card or new cable in their system. If I gain anything by writing, it might be credibility with some for either being a thoughtful person or turning someone on to a trick that makes their system more musical.

Full disclosure: I am attempting to get back into the audio hardware business based on some functional approaches to advanced designs that my friend, the brilliant John Swenson, has been cooking up for some time. Funny thing is, I am once again motivated less by aspirations of commercial success (though with kids coming of college age such would be welcome), but more out of sense of obligation to share John's inspired circuits with the audiophile community--and to see him get the recognition and renumeration he deserves. So I gamble once again...

[Daudio]

Unidentified Flying Object... people who report hearing differences, even when clearly reporting they do not understand why they hear a difference or what exactly the difference is, are often dismissed in the same ways as UFO sightings

 

Paul, Perhaps we could create a new acronym. The UAD - 'Unidentified Audio Difference'. Might make it a little faster to type up long discourses in the many subjective/objective jousts here.

[Paul R]

(grin) UAD - I like it. It is quite open to puns though... (!)

 

-Paul

 

 

Paul, Perhaps we could create a new acronym. The UAD - 'Unidentified Audio Difference'. Might make it a little faster to type up long discourses in the many subjective/objective jousts here.

[Superdad]

Paul, Perhaps we could create a new acronym. The UAD - 'Unidentified Audio Difference'. Might make it a little faster to type up long discourses in the many subjective/objective jousts here.

 

Sorry, but I think it was about 10 pages ago in this thread that I coined UAD as "Unmeasurable Audible Differences." IIRC, George or Dennis even approved it.

[Jud]

One things been nagging at me more and more lately....in general, not just as it relates to this hobby and forum is that we like being marketed to. What's not so clear is why some prefer to conform while others go out of they're way to be different.

 

We do, but only by those we like marketing to us.

 

There are marketing campaigns designed to appeal to those who prefer to conform, and campaigns designed to appeal to those who go out of their way to be different. (Remember "Think Different"? "Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits..."?)

[mayhem13]

My disagreements would be along the lines of "why yourself or others hear differences or improvements where I do not." As far as anyone knows, you may be hearing the same things as everyone else. What you call an "improvement" may not be to someone else, and vice versa.

Then there is this line - "Taking a more extreme case, no one is going to convince someone who witnessed a UFO that UFO's don't exist......but maybe instead examine why they experienced a UFO sighting in the first place."

You need to rethink the "why" above and perhaps change it to a "what." Examine exactly what they saw.

 

That's just it Paul.....I'm not hearing a difference, improvement, degredation, whatever...it just sounds the same when auditioned.

 

And as to the UFO reference, my intention was to examine perception which your rebuttal doesn't address. Please excuse me if I wasn't particularly clear on this. The ' why' is exactly what I'm after. The 'what' has been debated, debunked and argued within the context of all unexplainable events including audio. If we leave it with the 'what', we just keep going round and round as the 'what' is unsubstantiated or without proof or measure. If you mean to say to accept the 'what' based on individual experience as fact, I'm not prepared to do so, but I can say that I'm no longer going to bother attempting to prove otherwise.

[VandyMan]

Teresa - You post replies to me (in part), but I'm going to refrain from replying again since I think my point of view is already clearly stated in this discussion. Feel free to PM me if you desire a direct answer.

[mayhem13]

We do, but only by those we like marketing to us.

 

There are marketing campaigns designed to appeal to those who prefer to conform, and campaigns designed to appeal to those who go out of their way to be different. (Remember "Think Different"? "Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits..."?)

 

Round Robin....the conformist wind up conforming to what is different....hence change in fashion, music, art, food and nearly every consumable you can think of. I really wish it was as simple as how you put it, but in reality it's far more compex....which I'm sure you're fully aware. My response more of a clarification of my own viewpoint for those reading this thread.

[mayhem13]

Good morning everyone:

 

First, I just want to extend kind thoughts and wishes for the all the people in Illinois, Michigan, and elsewhere affected by the tornados and storms which have devastated many communities. I just made a Red Cross donation (to Philippines too), and encourage others to do whatever they can.

 

It is amazing how much fascinating discourse has gone on in this thread in just the 12 hours since I last posted. I have very little to add. Mayhem did mention something which I want to comment on:

 

 

 

My personal perspective, based on a lifetime as an audiophile/music lover, and half a lifetime in the cottage high-end industry in one form or another is this:

 

a) Many humans are most fulfilled and content with our lives when we are in a vocation for which we have a passion. For some it takes a long time to discover what that passion is (in my wife's case, she took a long road from being a high-school English teacher, to government environmental planning, to finally being director of a renowned outdoor environmental education program for kids operating in Yosemite National Park); For others (myself) that vocation starts off as a hobby at a young age.

 

b) Building and selling a brand of hand-crafted audio gear, along with selling (for 25 years now) a line of capacitors to other electronics and speaker manufacturers, I have met thousands of engineers and business people in this industry. The vast majority of them not only got started in this out of a love of music and audio, but continue in it for the same reasons.

 

c) The founders of all audio firms wish to make a living at it, but a shockingly low number of high-end audio makers are realizing significant--if any--profits. Yes, there are exceptions to that. Some are not just successful and enjoy nice profits--there are those, as in any industry, whose profits one could call grotesque. Maybe some of the larger cable manufacturers fall into that category, but I advise not to be quick to assume so. Production and marketing costs, deep discounts to overseas distributors (on cables up to 75% off retail), investments in R&D and production of products that don't sell as well as expected--plus just basic economies of scale--all contribute to a reality different than what customers assume. And remember, just because a cable make has a $2,000-to-$5,000 cable in their line does not mean they are selling a 100 sets a month of that model.

 

d) All the engineers I encounter building audio components (speakers, electronics, cables, whatever) are on their own unique, individual quest for audio nirvana, and they each believe that their way and their products are among the best. They also are constantly tweaking and refining their designs, often at greater production expense. We can not chalk all that up to sales/marketing motivations (unless we are talking about Bose!).

 

e) I did not start this post intending to write a defense of high-end audio prices. But having jointly operated a now-closed high-end firm for 10 years, I can tell you exactly how to make a million dollars in this business: Start with two million! Yes, it is an old joke, and our numbers were different: Hovland Company sold a bit more than $11 million wholesale over 10 years, but had losses in many, and closed with nothing. We operated in expensive Los Angeles, built and sourced everything in the USA, paid modest wages to our crew of 13, took less than a teachers salary for ourselves, and had a blast--despite fraying some of the friendships the 4 of us started with.

 

 

As for my participation on the CA forums:

My advocacy for people to try things in their systems is not based on commercial motivations. I make nothing from someone who tries a RAM disk or SD card or new cable in their system. If I gain anything by writing, it might be credibility with some for either being a thoughtful person or turning someone on to a trick that makes their system more musical.

Full disclosure: I am attempting to get back into the audio hardware business based on some functional approaches to advanced designs that my friend, the brilliant John Swenson, has been cooking up for some time. Funny thing is, I am once again motivated less by aspirations of commercial success (though with kids coming of college age such would be welcome), but more out of sense of obligation to share John's inspired circuits with the audiophile community--and to see him get the recognition and renumeration he deserves. So I gamble once again...

 

An honest explanation of a business model that's fair and with integrity......which is no longer viable in our global economy unfortunately. The high end audio market is dying or near dead. Please excuse me if I eluded to price points as relevant....that wasn't my intention. What is relevant is the attempt at creating a market for a product....creating a need or desire....much more slippery environment with IMO plenty of examples right here in audio. I'll refrain from examples at this time as I'm trying to establish a clean slate or black page from which to begin a new set of discussions.

 

Again, truly sorry for the closing of your company. Sounds like you did everything right and still found it too difficult to survive.......an all too common outcome for small businesses these days. My concerns lie with the bigger fish and why they're successful or sustainable......a topic for a new thread. Maybe now it's a bit clearer where I'm going with this?

[Paul R]

Not exactly - if you near no difference at all, then that is a datum. It does not mean your hearing or system or anything is "inferior" in any way. Indeed, there is some argument that it may mean something is not only right in your system, but very very right.

 

But in the case of the UAD/UFO (I like that point) the why (the explanation) for the event is far less important than the actual event (what). Something happened, or some difference was noted.

 

The particular methods used in the constant attempts to invalidate that happening may or may not be good science, but at least to me, it looks like very poor efforts at real science.

 

Why anyone would insist on stressing out about proving that other people are liars or at best, have easily fooled simple minds, is beyond my ken. It's exactly analogous to the UFO thing.

 

True story:

 

Paul: "I saw a UFO last night. It floated over the woods near my home, and it was utterly silent. Looked like a cigar shape, and it had a blinking red light, and even what looked like portholes."

 

Tony: "No Paul - you did not see anything in the sky, it is just your imagination! If it didn't make any noise, it wasn't an aircraft, and there ain't no such thing as flying saucers!"

 

I got a lot of grief about it at work, until I reported it to the police. And it turned out that several other people, including several patrolmen, had reported it as a UFO too. Turned out to be a private blimp that had floated a little bit off course. Spooky as all get out at 1:30 in the morning. But the impossible aircraft that several people told me violated all the laws of science had a perfectly mundane explanation.

 

I suspect it will turn out to be a similar thing with these audible differences people hear. Something perfectly mundane and easy to explain, once all the bias is removed from the equation.

 

Unless of course, your goal is simply to prove everyone who does hear a difference is wrong, a liar, or imagining things. In which case, I suspect (and hope) that is the unreachable goal.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

That's just it Paul.....I'm not hearing a difference, improvement, degredation, whatever...it just sounds the same when auditioned.

 

And as to the UFO reference, my intention was to examine perception which your rebuttal doesn't address. Please excuse me if I wasn't particularly clear on this. The ' why' is exactly what I'm after. The 'what' has been debated, debunked and argued within the context of all unexplainable events including audio. If we leave it with the 'what', we just keep going round and round as the 'what' is unsubstantiated or without proof or measure. If you mean to say to accept the 'what' based on individual experience as fact, I'm not prepared to do so, but I can say that I'm no longer going to bother attempting to prove otherwise.

[esldude]

That's just it Paul.....I'm not hearing a difference, improvement, degredation, whatever...it just sounds the same when auditioned.

 

And as to the UFO reference, my intention was to examine perception which your rebuttal doesn't address. Please excuse me if I wasn't particularly clear on this. The ' why' is exactly what I'm after. The 'what' has been debated, debunked and argued within the context of all unexplainable events including audio. If we leave it with the 'what', we just keep going round and round as the 'what' is unsubstantiated or without proof or measure. If you mean to say to accept the 'what' based on individual experience as fact, I'm not prepared to do so, but I can say that I'm no longer going to bother attempting to prove otherwise.

 

Yes, mayhem13, please do a nice thoughtful thread on the 'why'. I think you are right on target with 'why' being more interesting, fruitful and cogent than continuing with a "what" that is addressed in murky ephemeral ways.

[Guidof]

Full disclosure: I am attempting to get back into the audio hardware business based on some functional approaches to advanced designs that my friend, the brilliant John Swenson, has been cooking up for some time. Funny thing is, I am once again motivated less by aspirations of commercial success (though with kids coming of college age such would be welcome), but more out of sense of obligation to share John's inspired circuits with the audiophile community--and to see him get the recognition and renumeration he deserves. So I gamble once again...

 

Having followed John Swenson's quest for a Squeezebox Touch replacement on another forum and having read about his ideas re: DAC design, I'm most interested in what you guys are cooking up and wish you all the best.

 

Regards,

 

Guido F.

[Daudio]

Sorry, but I think it was about 10 pages ago in this thread that I coined UAD as "Unmeasurable Audible Differences." IIRC, George or Dennis even approved it.

 

How do you expect anyone* to remember 10 pages back in this thread ???

 

* (at least those with 66 year old brains)

 

Unidentified, Unmeasurable, Unexplainable, Unthinkable, Unlikely, Underwear,... whatever. They all work for me

[esldude]

Not exactly - if you near no difference at all, then that is a datum. It does not mean your hearing or system or anything is "inferior" in any way. Indeed, there is some argument that it may mean something is not only right in your system, but very very right.

 

But in the case of the UAD/UFO (I like that point) the why (the explanation) for the event is far less important than the actual event (what). Something happened, or some difference was noted.

 

The particular methods used in the constant attempts to invalidate that happening may or may not be good science, but at least to me, it looks like very poor efforts at real science.

 

Why anyone would insist on stressing out about proving that other people are liars or at best, have easily fooled simple minds, is beyond my ken.

 

 

-Paul

 

Paul,

 

You have a history of misrepresenting the viewpoint I and some others hold as you have above. I have dozens of times made clear I am calling no one a liar. That I fully believe in their mind, in their perception they hear what they report. They are honest I have little doubt. Nor have I said such people have easily fooled minds in the context of being more easily fooled than most people. All people have minds that can get fooled in the right circumstances. It isn't a criticism, it is not an insult, it is not an evaluation they are inferior in some way. It simply is a well known aspect of being human. No matter the honesty, integrity, care or diligent attempt to overcome it, there are situations where it is a likely result of being human. No more and no less.

 

There are some who take advantage of such things. There are situations where knowledge of how that works can be used to enhance experience. Stereo music replay itself is at its heart just such an activity. Your fallible senses can be stimulated to hear something that isn't actually happening. A near 3D simulation of music in your small room that can sound like one in a much larger space. When in fact you have two sound sources and nothing more.

[mayhem13]

But in the case of the UAD/UFO (I like that point) the why (the explanation) for the event is far less important than the actual event (what). Something happened, or some difference was noted.

 

The particular methods used in the constant attempts to invalidate that happening may or may not be good science, but at least to me, it looks like very poor efforts at real science.

 

Why anyone would insist on stressing out about proving that other people are liars or at best, have easily fooled simple minds, is beyond my ken. It's exactly analogous to the UFO thing.

 

True story:

 

Paul: "I saw a UFO last night. It floated over the woods near my home, and it was utterly silent. Looked like a cigar shape, and it had a blinking red light, and even what looked like portholes."

 

Tony: "No Paul - you did not see anything in the sky, it is just your imagination! If it didn't make any noise, it wasn't an aircraft, and there ain't no such thing as flying saucers!"

 

I got a lot of grief about it at work, until I reported it to the police. And it turned out that several other people, including several patrolmen, had reported it as a UFO too. Turned out to be a private blimp that had floated a little bit off course. Spooky as all get out at 1:30 in the morning. But the impossible aircraft that several people told me violated all the laws of science had a perfectly mundane explanation.

 

-Paul

 

EXACTLY! Thank you as i couldn't have come up with a better example of what i'm talking about. YOU concluded it was a UFO instead of the far more likely common event of a known aircraft of some sort. 'WHY' is that?

 

Thank you so much for that and i have an example to share as well.....

 

Several times a day,as many do i'll check a clock for the time randomly whether it involves me getting my ass to work, a job deadline, checking on the cook time of dinner.......whatever but probobly 20-25 times on average per day. Now the creepy part. With consistency of 20% or so, the time when i check it contains the number 11. No i dont mean a few days or weeks......this has been going on for months? I've avoided trying to explain this to myself for several reasons but it begs some questions. Am i more accute to patterns or repetitions now than i was in the past? Does my subconcious hold a predisposition for checkin the time at precise intervals even if my concious is only aware of the action. Again, i submit a question of perception as broad as it may be. For those with psychological backgrounds, feel free to analyze this phenomina and accept this as real.......it's been bugging me a bit and it's already happened twice today since i awoke.

 

.....and try not to make any assumptions as to my mental state.....i'm pretty sane as far as im concerned if that's worth anything! lol