Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Analog Scott]

I will not be playing this game. It is apparent to me that you have not heard any difference and while that is all fine and dandy, there are many here that have moved on from this type of argument. It's rather silly because we know better. You will not convince anyone to change their mind, so I would respectfully ask that you stop with the trolling of this forum. We are better than this and honestly, this kind of banter, seemingly just to attract attention, is simply a disruption to our community. Which is against the TOS of this forum.

As a reminder, the TOS can be found here >>> https://www.whatsbestforum.com/help/terms/

To answer your question, I answered this a very long time ago with a simple IC swap out. I am at the point now to where PC's, digital cables.....well, basically any cable within my system can have a make it or break it moment on my rig. Yes, it is measurable. Even down to a fuse. Yes, a fuse.

Now, can we kindly get back to the thread topic, instead of hashing out an outdated and very old (no one wins) debate? Thank you.

Tom

So the short answer is nothing would change your mind.

as for me, of course I have heard the same dramatic differences under sighted conditions as you and others. But after learning the science behind how that happens I accepted the realities of how we all can perceive differences where none exist.

And to answer the question as to what would change my mind about the audibility of something. Evidence. Reliable verifiable evidence.

 

[PYP]

So the short answer is nothing would change your mind.

as for me, of course I have heard the same dramatic differences under sighted conditions as you and others. But after learning the science behind how that happens I accepted the realities of how we all can perceive differences where none exist.

And to answer the question as to what would change my mind about the audibility of something. Evidence. Reliable verifiable evidence.

This made me think about medical placebos. In a control group that receives a placebo, a certain number of people will get better. So, when the study is done, does someone say: "Your cancer is in remission even though you took the placebo. I wish you well in the future."

I don't care if something is a placebo as long as it always works. There must be a lot we do not know about how music affects us and what alters our perception of it.

Some truly great audio designers say that they pay attention to the what the customer hears, but not their reason for hearing it (audio theories). Then they try to find a new measurement to understand the phenomenon. That pragmatic iteration leads to improvements. Humility = innovation.

 

[Analog Scott]

This made me think about medical placebos. In a control group that receives a placebo, a certain number of people will get better. So, when the study is done, does someone say: "Your cancer is in remission even though you took the placebo. I wish you well in the future."

Placebos don’t make cancer go into remission and they don’t use placebos on cancer patients. They do use control groups in clinical studies. There was a time when control groups would get a placebo. That is no longer common practice. But the point of the placebo was that it didn’t work. And the effectiveness of a new drug or treatment being studied was gauged against the control group. If it was no better than the control group it would as deemed ineffective.
Thankfully audio does not carry a he same consequences.
What happens in audio that leads to false positive identifications of audible differences is different than a placebo effect although any long term sustained perception of those false differences would fall into a placebo effect. But the initial cause is due to steered focus and data reduction in our short term aural memory. It’s not a placebo. It is an apples to oranges comparison.

I don't care if something is a placebo as long as it always works. There must be a lot we do not know about how music affects us and what alters our perception of it.

Yes and no. How we hear, process and set sound to memory is much better understood than one would be led to believeby many audiophile circles. How it affects us is more about psychology than audio.

Some truly great audio designers say that they pay attention to the what the customer hears, but not their reason for hearing it (audio theories).

Who says that?

Then they try to find a new measurement to understand the phenomenon. That pragmatic iteration leads to improvements. Humility = innovation.

A lot of work has gone into developing thorough measurements and carefully correlating them to subjective perceptions. Unfortunately a lot of this work is rejected by many audiophiles seemingly because it doesn’t fit their existing beliefs

Preferences are inarguable. If someone likes having a high end power cord or magic rocks they like it. Period. But when the question is asked what actually makes a real audible difference in the sound that goes beyond what we like.

Liking a “placebo” is different than insisting there is a real thing they’re making a physical difference. And that is the question being asked here. What actually makes a difference

 

[PYP]

Placebos don’t make cancer go into remission and they don’t use placebos on cancer patients. They do use control groups in clinical studies. There was a time when control groups would get a placebo. That is no longer common practice. But the point of the placebo was that it didn’t work. And the effectiveness of a new drug or treatment being studied was gauged against the control group. If it was no better than the control group it would as deemed ineffective.
Thankfully audio does not carry a he same consequences.
What happens in audio that leads to false positive identifications of audible differences is different than a placebo effect although any long term sustained perception of those false differences would fall into a placebo effect. But the initial cause is due to steered focus and data reduction in our short term aural memory. It’s not a placebo. It is an apples to oranges comparison.

Yes and no. How we hear, process and set sound to memory is much better understood than one would be led to believeby many audiophile circles. How it affects us is more about psychology than audio.

Who says that?

A lot of work has gone into developing thorough measurements and carefully correlating them to subjective perceptions. Unfortunately a lot of this work is rejected by many audiophiles seemingly because it doesn’t fit their existing beliefs

Preferences are inarguable. If someone likes having a high end power cord or magic rocks they like it. Period. But when the question is asked what actually makes a real audible difference in the sound that goes beyond what we like.

Liking a “placebo” is different than insisting there is a real thing they’re making a physical difference. And that is the question being asked here. What actually makes a difference

I overstated the use of placebos in cancer treatments specifically, although they are sometimes used: "Placebos are rarely used in cancer treatment clinical trials. If placebos are used it is likely because no standard treatment exists." Cancer.org

But other clinical trials do use placebos: "Parkinson’s disease: A review of 11 clinical trialsTrusted Source found that 16 percent of participants with Parkinson’s disease in the placebo groups showed significant improvements, sometimes lasting for 6 months."... “Placebos are extraordinary drugs. They seem to have some effect on almost every symptom known to mankind, and work in at least a third of patients and sometimes in up to 60 percent. They have no serious side-effects and cannot be given in overdose. In short, they hold the prize for the most adaptable, protean, effective, safe and cheap drugs in the world’s pharmacopeia.”
Medical News Today

Bruno Putzeys has talked about finding new measurements after listeners commented on something they heard. He concluded that it was good to get their feedback, but their theories were not based upon science and should not be considered. He is a measurement-first designer (see his work with Grimm Audio, Mola Mola, Kii and Purifi Audio). Strangely, when he announced some of these measurements, some audiophiles (who do not design equipment) told him that couldn't be true (because of their belief system).

If you like the placebo, does it matter if it is "the real thing," whatever that means? (I assume you mean it can be measured). Obviously, not everything makes a meaningful (meaning improves our engagement with music) difference. Practically speaking, that is what we want to know and those answers are individual and system specific. There are sensible guidelines of course. But personal experimentation is needed.

Regarding the sum total of the playback setup, isn't it all about how it affects us?

 

[morricab]

I overstated the use of placebos in cancer treatments specifically, although they are sometimes used: "Placebos are rarely used in cancer treatment clinical trials. If placebos are used it is likely because no standard treatment exists." Cancer.org

But other clinical trials do use placebos: "Parkinson’s disease: A review of 11 clinical trialsTrusted Source found that 16 percent of participants with Parkinson’s disease in the placebo groups showed significant improvements, sometimes lasting for 6 months."... “Placebos are extraordinary drugs. They seem to have some effect on almost every symptom known to mankind, and work in at least a third of patients and sometimes in up to 60 percent. They have no serious side-effects and cannot be given in overdose. In short, they hold the prize for the most adaptable, protean, effective, safe and cheap drugs in the world’s pharmacopeia.”
Medical News Today

Bruno Putzeys has talked about finding new measurements after listeners commented on something they heard. He concluded that it was good to get their feedback, but their theories were not based upon science and should not be considered. He is a measurement-first designer (see his work with Grimm Audio, Mola Mola, Kii and Purifi Audio). Strangely, when he announced some of these measurements, some audiophiles (who do not design equipment) told him that couldn't be true (because of their belief system).

If you like the placebo, does it matter if it is "the real thing," whatever that means? (I assume you mean it can be measured). Obviously, not everything makes a meaningful (meaning improves our engagement with music) difference. Practically speaking, that is what we want to know and those answers are individual and system specific. There are sensible guidelines of course. But personal experimentation is needed.

Regarding the sum total of the playback setup, isn't it all about how it affects us?

I have never heard anything from Putseys work I woukd want to own. Every Grimm Audio demo has me running for the door. Digital perfection? More like artificial strawberry flavouring…

 

[bonzo75]

Grimm audio speakers were too bad

 

[bonzo75]

Ron, I operate following this basic principle: if something added or removed from a system is not audible, whether or not it makes a difference does not really matter to me, in terms of my listening experience. I now think life is too short to worry about things that I can not hear from the listening seat.

If I can hear a change of some kind, I ask myself one question: Does it sound more or less natural? I then stick with what sounds more natural and go back to listening to the music.

So, to answer your title question: No, not everything makes a difference.

I think changes are audible, thing is if they are significant or not. If a system is sounding bad, and you walk in a week later, something has changed, you can hear it, but the same overall picture still sounds bad, then it is insignificant. If the change has made a system you did not like now sound really good, or vice versa, then it is significant.

Sometimes it is easy to get lost in daily changes where changing something small makes an audible difference, but in the bigger picture it is immaterial.

 

[Argonaut]

I think changes are audible, thing is if they are significant or not. If a system is sounding bad, and you walk in a week later, something has changed, you can hear it, but it still sounds the same overall picture bad, then it is insignificant. If the change has made a system you did not like now sound really good, or vice versa, then it is significant.

Sometimes it is easy to get lost in daily changes where changing something small makes an audible difference, but in the bigger picture it is immaterial.

You could just have commented audiophile ‘Lipstick On A Pig ‘

 

[Analog Scott]

If you like the placebo, does it matter if it is "the real thing," whatever that means? (I assume you mean it can be measured). Obviously, not everything makes a meaningful (meaning improves our engagement with music) difference. Practically speaking, that is what we want to know and those answers are individual and system specific. There are sensible guidelines of course. But personal experimentation is needed.

Regarding the sum total of the playback setup, isn't it all about how it affects us?

Speaking for myself I want to spend my time, money and effort on upgrades that make a real audible difference.

One can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on “upgrades” that literally make zero audible difference. In time the buzz of the purchases wear off and eventually sometime later one is left with exactly the same sound they had hundreds of thousands of dollars earlier and a renewed itch to upgrade because you’re right where you started. I have no interest in chasing those dragons.

I doubt that many audiophiles feel all that differently. How many audiophiles do you the know would still spend $20-30K on a power cord or $100K on speaker cables if the manufacturer told them the truth, that there is no real science or real technology behind the products, we make them for far less than 1% of the retail price and there is no evidence that they make any real audible difference?
I bet no one would buy these products if that was what the manufacturer told them. I would bet that every single buyer believes these products do make a real audible difference and would not buy them otherwise.

 

[bonzo75]

You could just have commented audiophile ‘Lipstick On A Pig ‘

Yes it is often that. Kind of like asking, is this lipstick noticeable. Yes it is, but so is the rest that hasn't changed.

 

[morricab]

Speaking for myself I want to spend my time, money and effort on upgrades that make a real audible difference.

One can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on “upgrades” that literally make zero audible difference. In time the buzz of the purchases wear off and eventually sometime later one is left with exactly the same sound they had hundreds of thousands of dollars earlier and a renewed itch to upgrade because you’re right where you started. I have no interest in chasing those dragons.

I doubt that many audiophiles feel all that differently. How many audiophiles do you the know would still spend $20-30K on a power cord or $100K on speaker cables if the manufacturer told them the truth, that there is no real science or real technology behind the products, we make them for far less than 1% of the retail price and there is no evidence that they make any real audible difference?
I bet no one would buy these products if that was what the manufacturer told them. I would bet that every single buyer believes these products do make a real audible difference and would not buy them otherwise.

Let me ask you, do you think speaker time coherence is important?

 

[Ron Resnick]

One can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on “upgrades” that literally make zero audible difference. In time the buzz of the purchases wear off and eventually sometime later one is left with exactly the same sound they had hundreds of thousands of dollars earlier and a renewed itch to upgrade because you’re right where you started.

Who are these people you are talking about? I don't know anybody who does this.

How many audiophiles do you the know would still spend $20-30K on a power cord or $100K on speaker cables if the manufacturer told them the truth, that there is no real science or real technology behind the products, we make them for far less than 1% of the retail price and there is no evidence that they make any real audible difference?
I bet no one would buy these products if that was what the manufacturer told them. I would bet that every single buyer believes these products do make a real audible difference and would not buy them otherwise.

This is convoluted. I have no idea what you're talking about.

People don't spend a lot of money on cables because they hear no difference. People spend a lot of money on cables only if they hear a difference of a magnitude and in a direction they care about.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Yes it is often that. Kind of like asking, is this lipstick noticeable.

Depends at some level if it’s a boy or a girl pig… and even then which end of the pig you’re looking at… clearly everything can make a difference to the pig in a good lipstick scenario.

 

[Analog Scott]

Let me ask you, do you think speaker time coherence is important?

I’m not a speaker designer. Let’s just start by saying I think speaker designs matter. I think there are different valid approaches to speaker design. What’s best depends heavily on one’s goals. Speakers and rooms have to be considered as systems. I think now we have to add certain DSPs to that combination that has to be thought of as a singular systems.

Speakers/rooms/DSP are 95% of an audio system. They really matter

 

[Analog Scott]

Who are these people you are talking about? I don't know anybody who does this.

I can name manufacturers who make the products. I’m happy to do because I have no problem calling them out. We can start with Nordost. They make $100K speaker cables. We can go to Shinyata and Synergistic Reseach for power cords and power accessories that add up to and above the numbers I stated.
As for audiophiles buying these products and other such products that have zero audible effect…do you really want me to name names? Isn’t that an invitation to insult fellow audiophiles?
The products are sold by these companies and others like them. If you really need names I think they all offer testimonials on their ads. I’m not looking to shame or ridicule other audiophiles.

This is convoluted. I have no idea what you're talking about.

People don't spend a lot of money on cables because they hear no difference. People spend a lot of money on cables only if they hear a difference of a magnitude and in a direction they care about.

And this is where we disagree on an objective set of assertions. Assertions that are quite testable. Other than a few cable designs that are so high in capacitance and/or inductance that they hey act as a passive low pass filter none of these products make an audible difference. And we have very solid explanations as to why human beings can perceive audible differences with these products where no actual audible difference in the sound is present.

It’s old ground. We can argue it out if you want. But for me science trumps anecdotes. And as tired and obnoxious as you and others may find it, when these things are actually put to level matched bias controlled tests the results are the same. No audible differences identified.

I do wonder though, at some point do folks who believe in these products ever and genuinely ask themselves “if my wife can hear a night and day difference from the kitchen while doing the dishes why can’t anyone reliably identify such massive differences in basic ABX DBTs?” Doesn’t that make you go hmmm? It did me. And that was why I looked into it with an open mind that maybe, just maybe the scientists who research sound and human hearing and processing for a living might actually know things that I don’t.

How often does Joe Schmoe get it right and an entire field of science get it wrong for nearly a century? Can you think of any other cases where the researchers were wrong and the hobbyists showed them?

There just came a point where I had to swallow my ego and listen to real experts on the subject. And by experts I mean the actual scientists who do research in the field for a living.

 

[morricab]

I’m not a speaker designer. Let’s just start by saying I think speaker designs matter. I think there are different valid approaches to speaker design. What’s best depends heavily on one’s goals. Speakers and rooms have to be considered as systems. I think now we have to add certain DSPs to that combination that has to be thought of as a singular systems.

Speakers/rooms/DSP are 95% of an audio system. They really matter

And yet that 5% is everything when it comes to realistic portrayal of music. Artificial strawberry flavor is also 95% of the way to real strawberry but no one would ever mistake the two. Systems that have put all their effort into the speaker/room/DSP and ignored power, cables and electronics quality are like artificial strawberry... they sound kind of like the real thing but in fact are very far away from a realistic sound.

Just like getting a natural flavor, where there are literally thousands of minor flavor and odor compounds...and how those interact in our perception is largely unknown, the same is true for all the subtle signal distortions that are introduced into a system through the power, cables and electronics. These signals, or the absence of ones expected by the brain, results in the brain screaming "synthetic"!

No one is saying that speakers and room don't matter (DSP is highly debatable though) but that is just level one of a whole lot of levels to get a system where the brain says, "ok that is pretty natural".

Is it 100%? No of course not we are talking about human perception...which is very sensitive but not very precise or accurate. You want repeatability from an organism that is inherently inconsistent.

If you hear that you have perfection, then great...stop at level 1 and enjoy because there is no reason for you to go further. I have gone much further because just getting level 1 right (and yes I have used room correction and all that in the past) didn't yield a realistic sound.

You should hear the differences in a SET tube amp when you replace the tube rectifier...shocking and highly repeatable.

 

[morricab]

I can name manufacturers who make the products. I’m happy to do because I have no problem calling them out. We can start with Nordost. They make $100K speaker cables. We can go to Shinyata and Synergistic Reseach for power cords and power accessories that add up to and above the numbers I stated.
As for audiophiles buying these products and other such products that have zero audible effect…do you really want me to name names? Isn’t that an invitation to insult fellow audiophiles?
The products are sold by these companies and others like them. If you really need names I think they all offer testimonials on their ads. I’m not looking to shame or ridicule other audiophiles.

And this is where we disagree on an objective set of assertions. Assertions that are quite testable. Other than a few cable designs that are so high in capacitance and/or inductance that they hey act as a passive low pass filter none of these products make an audible difference. And we have very solid explanations as to why human beings can perceive audible differences with these products where no actual audible difference in the sound is present.

It’s old ground. We can argue it out if you want. But for me science trumps anecdotes. And as tired and obnoxious as you and others may find it, when these things are actually put to level matched bias controlled tests the results are the same. No audible differences identified.

I do wonder though, at some point do folks who believe in these products ever and genuinely ask themselves “if my wife can hear a night and day difference from the kitchen while doing the dishes why can’t anyone reliably identify such massive differences in basic ABX DBTs?” Doesn’t that make you go hmmm? It did me. And that was why I looked into it with an open mind that maybe, just maybe the scientists who research sound and human hearing and processing for a living might actually know things that I don’t.

How often does Joe Schmoe get it right and an entire field of science get it wrong for nearly a century? Can you think of any other cases where the researchers were wrong and the hobbyists showed them?

There just came a point where I had to swallow my ego and listen to real experts on the subject. And by experts I mean the actual scientists who do research in the field for a living.

I tell you what, you buy the best measuring items tested on ASR and assemble this into a system and report back whether or not that system gives satisfying sound. There are a number of DACs that measure nearly perfectly as are some amps. Put those with your DSP'd speakers and report back.

I have friends who believed like that and bought that stuff (like Topping DACs). They thought it sounded pretty good...until they heard something that measured a lot worse and cost a lot more...needless to say they spent the money that they didn't think they needed to spend before. You can say placebo or that they wouldn't have heard it blind...but long term listening satisfaction doesn't lie from my experience.

 

[Argonaut]

Have ASR just ‘Activated’ one of their *Sleeper cell* assets.

 

[Analog Scott]

And yet that 5% is everything when it comes to realistic portrayal of music.

I’d say it’s about 2.5 %. Can’t forget the recording and mastering

Artificial strawberry flavor is also 95% of the way to real strawberry but no one would ever mistake the two.

I’m not going to argue analogies but I used to own a Leonidas Famous Belgian chocolate shop. For me it was the best chocolate on the planet. I’d challenge anyone to identify which of their flavors were natural and which were artificial.

Systems that have put all their effort into the speaker/room/DSP and ignored power, cables and electronics quality are like artificial strawberry... they sound kind of like the real thing but in fact are very far away from a realistic sound.

I disagree.

Just like getting a natural flavor, where there are literally thousands of minor flavor and odor compounds...and how those interact in our perception is largely unknown,

Not really. There’s an entire science as well as art to this too. The experts know what they are doing. They know the

the same is true for all the subtle signal distortions that are introduced into a system through the power, cables and electronics. These signals, or the absence of ones expected by the brain, results in the brain screaming "synthetic"!

In light of this claim you are essentially accusing manufacturers of digital and analog gear of incompetence in designing their own regulated power supplies.
That aside I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that none of these observations have been made under bias controlled level matched conditions or backed up by careful measurements of the actual audio signal in the signal path. Am I wrong?

No one is saying that speakers and room don't matter

Not a trivial point. NO ONE is arguing this. For good reason.

(DSP is highly debatable though)

Depends on the DSP

but that is just level one of a whole lot of levels to get a system where the brain says, "ok that is pretty natural".

In your opinion based on your experience. In mine nothing matters more than DSP for suspension of disbelief.

Is it 100%? No of course not we are talking about human perception...which is very sensitive but not very precise or accurate. You want repeatability from an organism that is inherently inconsistent.

If you hear that you have perfection, then great...stop at level 1 and enjoy because there is no reason for you to go further. I have gone much further because just getting level 1 right (and yes I have used room correction and all that in the past) didn't yield a realistic sound.

You should hear the differences in a SET tube amp when you replace the tube rectifier...shocking and highly repeatable.

I’ve been down those roads.

 

[christoph]

One can always NOT feed a troll