Does Everything Make a Difference?

[henrich3]

Could we really expect a 70 year old to hear any difference with a piece of wood or Shakti rock placed on a component?

I'm pretty sure that the answer is "No" regardless of the listener's age. Of course I'm open to changing my beliefs if either of those audiophile tweaks (or any others) were found to improve sound based on objective measurements and/or blind testing done by a trustworthy independent testing organization.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Could we really expect a 70 year old to hear any difference with a piece of wood or Shakti rock placed on a component?

One of the many things that is interesting to me is that some 70 year olds report to us that they can hear a difference with a piece of wood or Shakti rock placed on a component.

 

[henrich3]

One of the many things that is interesting to me is that some 70 year olds report to us that they can hear a difference with a piece of wood or Shakti rock placed on a component.

In *sighted* listening tests.

Tom Nousaine - Can You Trust Your Ears?

 

[Ron Resnick]

In *sighted* listening tests.

Tom Nousaine - Can You Trust Your Ears?

Members have been around and around and around on that issue. This particular article has a reasonable discussion of listening biases, but his conclusion ultimately goes way too far, as he does not believe that speaker cables or capacitors or integrated circuits versus discrete components can make sonic differences that can be heard by anybody.

He seems to be afflicted by the same mental arrogance as most people who believe that because they cannot hear a difference it means that nobody can hear a difference.

I don't think I hear a difference with Shakti stones on top of the power transformers of the JA100s. But Don thought that maybe, possibly, not sure but maybe the sound seemed "very slightly more closed in" with Shakti stones on the power amplifier transformers.

I don't hear a difference, but I keep the Shakti stones there on the ground that in theory the Shakti internal element could be absorbing some frequency of EMI.

 

[henrich3]

He seems to be afflicted by the same mental arrogance as most people who believe that because they cannot hear a difference it means that nobody can hear a difference.

If somebody, anybody, can hear a difference in a properly controlled blind listening test, then there is a difference. I'm sure that Nousaine (RIP) would have agreed. Most wild-sounding (to objectivists) audiophile claims are not backed up by objective measurements or blind testing done by a trustworthy source. It takes significant effort to do that, so most people don't bother. I would require that effort before I would believe that most of the tweaks in your original post had any merit. For better or worse, I'm a skeptic. I know that my beliefs are out of step with consensus in this forum however...

 

[Ron Resnick]

If somebody, anybody, can hear a difference in a properly controlled blind listening test, then there is a difference. I'm sure that Nousaine (RIP) would have agreed. Most wild-sounding (to objectivists) audiophile claims are not backed up by objective measurements or blind testing done by a trustworthy source. It takes significant effort to do that, so most people don't bother. I would require that effort before I would believe that most of the tweaks in your original post had any merit. For better or worse, I'm a skeptic. I know that my beliefs are out of step with consensus in this forum however...

On this issue usually where the rubber meets the road is the question of time frame. Objectivists want to assess quick A/B switching. Subjectivists reject that methodology and want to live with each of A/B for some time.

Ask the audiophile in question what time frame he/she needs to feel comfortable hearing the difference (this could very well be days or weeks), and then plan a "properly controlled blind listening test" around that exact time frame, and maybe we will have a conclusion we all can agree on for that particular audiophile assessing that particular possible difference.

 

[henrich3]

On this issue usually where the rubber meets the road is the question of time frame. Objectivists want to assess quick A/B switching. Subjectivists reject that methodology and want to live with each of A/B for some time.

Ask the audiophile in question what time frame he/she needs to feel comfortable hearing the difference (this could very well be days or weeks), and then plan a "properly controlled blind listening test" around that exact time frame, and maybe we will have a conclusion we all can agree on for that particular audiophile assessing that particular possible difference.

https://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html

"LONG TERM LISTENING: A lot of blind testing involves switching between A and B, or replaying music tracks after something is changed. Critics of these tests argue that’s not the best way to evaluate audio gear. They say you must live with it for a while to appreciate the differences (never mind most of them claim to swap out a piece of gear and hear immediate and obvious differences). David Clark and Laurence Greenhill came up with a clever idea. They made a bunch of sealed black boxes where some had a direct connection inside while others distorted the audio signal to a significant degree. They were built with high-end connectors, etc. They sent the boxes home with members of a local audiophile club to live with and decide if they had a “straight wire” box or one that did ugly things to the audio. Despite living with them for a while, the audiophiles who took the boxes home failed to determine which was which. The same boxes, however, were identified with relative ease in a blind A/B/X test. This demonstrated the exact opposite of what many audiophiles claim: Long term listening is less sensitive than A/B/X testing."

 

[Ron Resnick]

https://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html

"LONG TERM LISTENING: A lot of blind testing involves switching between A and B, or replaying music tracks after something is changed. Critics of these tests argue that’s not the best way to evaluate audio gear. They say you must live with it for a while to appreciate the differences (never mind most of them claim to swap out a piece of gear and hear immediate and obvious differences). David Clark and Laurence Greenhill came up with a clever idea. They made a bunch of sealed black boxes where some had a direct connection inside while others distorted the audio signal to a significant degree. They were built with high-end connectors, etc. They sent the boxes home with members of a local audiophile club to live with and decide if they had a “straight wire” box or one that did ugly things to the audio. Despite living with them for a while, the audiophiles who took the boxes home failed to determine which was which. The same boxes, however, were identified with relative ease in a blind A/B/X test. This demonstrated the exact opposite of what many audiophiles claim: Long term listening is less sensitive than A/B/X testing."

Interesting, but not relevant to our hypothetical audiophile under test who believes he can hear differences only over longer time frames.

 

[Folsom]

Interesting, but not relevant to our hypothetical audiophile under test who believes he can hear differences only over longer time frames.

Too many variables. Distortion levels may be too low on a stereo with a fair amount, and then they A/B on one with vanishing low distortion... So either the box makes it obvious or it does not. Besides that if it has a circuit in it there are OTHER factors than distortion that could make it more apparent on one stereo than another. If one is grounded and one is not for example.

 

[henrich3]

Interesting, but not relevant to our hypothetical audiophile under test who believes he can hear differences only over longer time frames.

Well, there's a difference between hearing differences only over longer time frames, and just believing that we can only hear differences over long time frames. That's what the test was designed to determine. We'll agree to disagree on this one...

Cheers.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

One of the many things that is interesting to me is that some 70 year olds report to us that they can hear a difference with a piece of wood or Shakti rock placed on a component.

just observe cartridge set-up processes many dozens or even hundreds of times. you can train yourself to get better and better and better at it. these are 30 to 90 minute sessions. someone who has a couple decades of experience setting up cartridges can listen effectively. at 70 years old you are better at it than at 50. why? your mind is more trained, than your senses have diminished.

i've done speaker building contest judging for 20 years. done it 10-12 times. it's also training.

both are not the fun part of the hobby, but we can learn to listen. and apply that when we need to. normal HF loss of hearing is not relevant to either situation.

but trusting our ears also involves finding our proper head space to listen effectively. that is also learned. we are not machines always the same.

 

[Tuckers]

Could we really expect a 70 year old to hear any difference with a piece of wood or Shakti rock placed on a component?

I might not be 70, but getting there. Certainly my hearing is not what it once was. But to my ears, something like a Shakti Stone makes an easily perceptible difference in many aspects of the music, not just in the 10K+ frequency range.

 

[Tuckers]

I don't think I hear a difference with Shakti stones on top of the power transformers of the JA100s. But Don thought that maybe, possibly, not sure but maybe the sound seemed "very slightly more closed in" with Shakti stones on the power amplifier transformers.

I would applaud you for discerning listening Ron. The original Shakti Stones sounded good on a lot of gear (particularly digital). But experience on amplifiers, especially tube amps, (heard by myself and a number of trusted ears) was that is could roll off the top and the dynamics a bit. Like a blanket on the sound. There is a new version called the Shakti Air that is a completely different animal and reduces noise without stepping on the sound (to my ears). I find a good place for the originals to be things like network switches, SMPS, anything that doesn't have an analog section.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I would applaud you for discerning listening Ron. The original Shakti Stones sounded good on a lot of gear (particularly digital). But experience on amplifiers, especially tube amps, (heard by myself and a number of trusted ears) was that is could roll off the top and the dynamics a bit. Like a blanket on the sound. There is a new version called the Shakti Air that is a completely different animal and reduces noise without stepping on the sound (to my ears). I find a good place for the originals to be things like network switches, SMPS, anything that doesn't have an analog section.

We can applaud Don, not me. Don is much better than I am!

I have some Shakti Airs. I will swap them for the Stones.

 

[Robh3606]

Interesting, but not relevant to our hypothetical audiophile under test who believes he can hear differences only over longer time frames.

Hello Ron

With that view point virtually everything does matter. You can talk yourself into hearing anything you want over time. So is this a discussion about what actually matters and makes a difference or what people believe???

I moved my full water glass on the table and the bass improved! Then at half full the midrange was effected!!!!

Are we supposed to start experimenting with water glasses????

Rob

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hello Ron

With that view point virtually everything does matter. You can talk yourself into hearing anything you want over time.

No; blind A/B testing -- in the timeframe selected by the subject -- can smoke this out.

So is this a discussion about what actually matters and makes a difference or what people believe???

I moved my full water glass on the table and the bass improved! Then at half full the midrange was effected!!!!

If you can tell via blind A/B testing on your preferred timeframe whether the glass is full or half full based on what you're hearing, then I will believe you.

 

[henrich3]

No; blind A/B testing -- in the timeframe selected by the subject -- can smoke this out.

If you can tell via blind A/B testing on your preferred timeframe whether the glass is full or half full based on what you're hearing, then I will believe you.

Better mind your words Ron or people might think that you've gone over to the Dark Side...

* Objectivism

 

[Robh3606]

No; blind A/B testing -- in the timeframe selected by the subject -- can smoke this out.

Hello Ron

So what would you be comparing??? Let's say we pick a week for the interval. You install the "box" listen blind for a week comparing to before the box install??" Then what??? Take a data point and repeat??? Not going to address length of the "sonic memory"

You have to have a statistically significant difference between just plain guessing and the results for it to be valid.

This is going to have to be repeated many times.

Just don't see how a long term test would work??

Rob

 

[Ron Resnick]

Better mind your words Ron or people might think that you've gone over to the Dark Side...

* Objectivism

I am not beholden to any side.

There can be some truth on both sides. Dogma is foolish (especially in a subjective hobby).

 

[Ron Resnick]

Just don't see how a long term test would work??

Rob

I don't know. I came up with the idea. Implementation of a practical experiment is not my problem.*

This discussion has allowed us to advance a theory beyond the usual rock'em sock'em robots of blind A/B testing on quick A/B swaps versus leisurely long-term listening.

*This week I watched the Oppenheimer movie, and I saw clearly the bifurcation between theoreticians and experimentalists.