Does Everything Make a Difference?

[knotscott]

What do you mean by "take the subjectivism to an extreme"? Do you mean reporting hearing a sonic difference from some tweak or change that seems too ludicrous to be credible?

"Yes" is the gist of it. Some claims are less credible than others. I suppose even the perception of subjectivism is subjective, but it does seem me that there are logical and curious folks who hear subtle changes in audio systems and question why in a methodical and healthy manner. There are others who become very obsessive about their systems, to the point of neurosis over it, and I suspect may be searching for answers in life that they're not likely to find within the confines of audio, and that sort of extremism does tend to raise some eyebrows IMO. I'm sure it exists in any hobby people are passionate about, but to me, it seems that audio attracts more of that element than say woodworking or car buffs.

Disclaimer - This just my 2 cents. I am not qualified to evaluate the mental health of anyone....just my opinion of my observations in audio vs other walks of life.

 

[Tangram]

I suppose even the perception of subjectivism is subjective,

I think its time for me to tap out of this thread.

 

[Ron Resnick]

There are others who become very obsessive about their systems, to the point of neurosis over it, and I suspect may be searching for answers in life that they're not likely to find within the confines of audio, and that sort of extremism does tend to raise some eyebrows IMO. I'm sure it exists in any hobby people are passionate about, but to me, it seems that audio attracts more of that element than say woodworking or car buffs.

Disclaimer - This just my 2 cents. I am not qualified to evaluate the mental health of anyone....just my opinion of my observations in audio vs other walks of life.

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

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

 

[sbnx]

Why do some feel that something needs to be explained in order to enjoy its benefits? If I try something in my system and I can hear an improvement then I am good. I don't need to know how it works. Just like I don't have to know how electricty works to flip the switch on the wall. The Neodio B2's are a great example of this. I have no idea how they work and the documentation on the website is pretty far out there. But, I easily hear what they do. Not only me, but others I have demo'd them for hear what they do and they report the same type of change to the sound that I hear. Coincidence??

Sometimes, someone comes along and does provide a scientific explanation for why we hear differences. Powercords are a great example of this. Back in the day everyone argued "How can 3 feet of power cord make any difference? We have miles and miles of romex etc. going back and back and back." Yet, people could readily hear the differences between different power cords. Then Shunyata came along and developed a method of actually measuring differences between powercords -- dynamic transient response. And he explained that components don't sip current in a steady state rather they gulp it in small increments. Before the explanation someone could choose to stay in the "theoretical" camp of power cords can't make a difference or they could be in the "emperical" camp of I hear a clear difference. The explanation that came later did not change anything. Powercords mattered then and they matter now.

I also think it is interesting for "tweaks" that don't have a good scientific explanation people turn to Psychology in an attemp to explain why someone would "hear" a difference. Since this widget can't really be explained by exact science it must all be in the mind. Weird that anyone should turn to Psychology to explain this as Phsychology isn't an exact science and is likely the poorest understood of all sciences. It is too easy to say "I can't measure any difference therefore there must not be a difference and this is all in your mind.".

IMO lots of people seem stuck in the theoretical "This can't possibly matter. There is not a measured difference". etc. If multiple people are reporting something sounds different and better we should investigate for ourselves. Use the extremely sensitive pressure sensors attached to our head. Find a dealer that can demo it for you or loan it to you for a few days. Either you like it or you don't. No harm, No foul.

 

[Elliot G.]

Why do some feel that something needs to be explained in order to enjoy its benefits? If I try something in my system and I can hear an improvement then I am good. I don't need to know how it works. Just like I don't have to know how electricty works to flip the switch on the wall. The Neodio B2's are a great example of this. I have no idea how they work and the documentation on the website is pretty far out there. But, I easily hear what they do. Not only me, but others I have demo'd them for hear what they do and they report the same type of change to the sound that I hear. Coincidence??

Sometimes, someone comes along and does provide a scientific explanation for why we hear differences. Powercords are a great example of this. Back in the day everyone argued "How can 3 feet of power cord make any difference? We have miles and miles of romex etc. going back and back and back." Yet, people could readily hear the differences between different power cords. Then Shunyata came along and developed a method of actually measuring differences between powercords -- dynamic transient response. And he explained that components don't sip current in a steady state rather they gulp it in small increments. Before the explanation someone could choose to stay in the "theoretical" camp of power cords can't make a difference or they could be in the "emperical" camp of I hear a clear difference. The explanation that came later did not change anything. Powercords mattered then and they matter now.

I also think it is interesting for "tweaks" that don't have a good scientific explanation people turn to Psychology in an attemp to explain why someone would "hear" a difference. Since this widget can't really be explained by exact science it must all be in the mind. Weird that anyone should turn to Psychology to explain this as Phsychology isn't an exact science and is likely the poorest understood of all sciences. It is too easy to say "I can't measure any difference therefore there must not be a difference and this is all in your mind.".

IMO lots of people seem stuck in the theoretical "This can't possibly matter. There is not a measured difference". etc. If multiple people are reporting something sounds different and better we should investigate for ourselves. Use the extremely sensitive pressure sensors attached to our head. Find a dealer that can demo it for you or loan it to you for a few days. Either you like it or you don't. No harm, No foul.

I think many let the understanding get in the way of the enjoying. If one has this viewpoint of life does this apply to everything? I have long ago abandon my desire to understand everything and sometimes one has to just react to what one perceives. There is a place for science and measurements however tere are many things that defy what we want to quantify.
We can't measure taste, we can't measure love, we can't measure joy and although we want to we can't measure audio satisfaction.
There are a lot of way out non wrap my head around audio things, some may work some may not but again I agree with Todd if you like it then there is no harm nor foul.
I'm not a tweak guy per se but I do have some stuff that I use even though I can and do laugh at myself at sometimes.

 

[Al M.]

Why do some feel that something needs to be explained in order to enjoy its benefits? If I try something in my system and I can hear an improvement then I am good. I don't need to know how it works. Just like I don't have to know how electricty works to flip the switch on the wall. The Neodio B2's are a great example of this. I have no idea how they work and the documentation on the website is pretty far out there. But, I easily hear what they do. Not only me, but others I have demo'd them for hear what they do and they report the same type of change to the sound that I hear. Coincidence??

Sometimes, someone comes along and does provide a scientific explanation for why we hear differences. Powercords are a great example of this. Back in the day everyone argued "How can 3 feet of power cord make any difference? We have miles and miles of romex etc. going back and back and back." Yet, people could readily hear the differences between different power cords. Then Shunyata came along and developed a method of actually measuring differences between powercords -- dynamic transient response. And he explained that components don't sip current in a steady state rather they gulp it in small increments. Before the explanation someone could choose to stay in the "theoretical" camp of power cords can't make a difference or they could be in the "emperical" camp of I hear a clear difference. The explanation that came later did not change anything. Powercords mattered then and they matter now.

For far too long I used to be huge power cord skeptic because of the "science", but I was wrong. I always found the Shunyata explanations pretty poor. I became convinced by actually hearing huge differences in a friend's system and by a post by Billing on WBF that explains it very well (#112):

Audiophile power cords vs. the cables in your walls

Try making a cable out of Romex... seriously, have fun. I have seen it done. They’re extremely hard to move, and because of that they will come loose from the plugs (internally). But also you aren’t as likely to maintain the relationship with the ground in the middle as cleanly. What really...

www.whatsbestforum.com

See also follow-up posts by the same poster on that thread (e.g. #153) that emphasize his case, quoting other engineers as well.

It turns out, there is actual science to the madness!

Billinge also writes in that post: "So perhaps the cable salesmen are not completely wrong [...] but I find they dumb things down soo much the explanation may sound fishy".

That's always how I felt about the Shunyata explanation.

Anyway, now I am a strong proponent of audiophile power cords. They do make a huge difference without which my system would not perform anywhere near the level that it does now (I have ZenWave PL-11 and ZenWave Clear Bass cables, see my signature).

***

I do *not* consider audiophile power cords as "tweaks". They are essential system components.

 

[sbnx]

I do *not* consider audiophile power cords as "tweaks". They are essential system components.

This is how I feel about a lot of things.

 

[knotscott]

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

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

I'm with you in that regard. Just trying to point out some possible reasons why some measurement only folks struggle to accept any subjective comments.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Why do some feel that something needs to be explained in order to enjoy its benefits?

i'm assuming that 'needs to be explained' equates to some sort of 'scientific proof' or 'objective evidence'.

the answer is simple. two main reasons. (1) it's much easier to question something than go to the trouble to investigate it and listen for yourself. although many do have an open mind and intend to try it for themselves. (2) they are not respecting or giving the benefit of the doubt to listening impressions. they don't believe their ears, or simply are not really active listeners.....so how could they accept listening as evidence?

this is just an alternate perspective on music reproduction processes. neither good nor bad. not saying objectivists don't like music; all results are possible. but they are more focused on the why than the what.

If I try something in my system and I can hear an improvement then I am good. I don't need to know how it works. Just like I don't have to know how electricty works to flip the switch on the wall. The Neodio B2's are a great example of this. I have no idea how they work and the documentation on the website is pretty far out there. But, I easily hear what they do. Not only me, but others I have demo'd them for hear what they do and they report the same type of change to the sound that I hear. Coincidence??

anecdotal information is never acceptable to unbelievers. period. the human condition since time immemorial. whereas listeners crave listening feedback. and it's a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon.

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

 

[Ron Resnick]

I went into my early power cord comparisons prejudiced and believing:

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

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

I was wrong on both counts, unfortunately.

 

[Rensselaer]

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.

How about if the stones were instead placed on the output transformers, or on top of the step-up transformer(s), or on the floor next to the amplifier, the next room, down the street? Tweek effectiveness that only some can hear reminds me of the Chinese proverb where it is claimed that when a butterfly flaps it‘s wings in the mountains of Nepal, a hurricane suddenly develops in the Caribbean, (story sounds good, so why not).

"Everything" is a pretty broad category, so I can't say with confidence that everything matters.
the minor things that I hear a difference in include isolation, wires, cables, connectors, tubes, op amps, capacitors, some resistors, bi-wiring, bi-amping, subwoofer polarity, baffle treatment..

When the OP asks if “everything” can affect the sound, it opens the thread to a myriad of unverifiable opinion and conjecture on, well, “everything”. Tweeks mostly, which strain at credulity.

What, IMHO, would be much more valuable would be the “specifics” of better sound. There are experts on this site who know. Does a diamond cantilever sound better than boron? Does hollow state beat solid state? Single-ended class A triode amplification better than pentodes in push-pull? Does reducing/eliminating capacitance everywhere make a difference? Interstage transformers? Old school paper cones vs. Magnesium/carbon fibre/plastic etc.? Is it true that the fewer components there are in the recording/playback chain the more real it will sound?

audiophiles actually care about what is true in regard to the claims made, they actually want to understand how audio gear ACTUALLY works, and use that knowledge in their own decisions.
Personally, I greatly appreciate the information provided by technically knowledgeable people (who aren't trying to sell me something) I actually want to know if a $1,000 or $5,000 AC cable would likely produce any sonic benefits at all.

I am not alone here.

 

[Elliot G.]

i'm assuming that 'needs to be explained' equates to some sort of 'scientific proof' or 'objective evidence'.

the answer is simple. two main reasons. (1) it's much easier to question something than go to the trouble to investigate it and listen for yourself. although many do have an open mind and intend to try it for themselves. (2) they are not respecting or giving the benefit of the doubt to listening impressions. they don't believe their ears, or simply are not really active listeners.....so how could they accept listening as evidence?

this is just an alternate perspective on music reproduction processes. neither good nor bad. not saying objectivists don't like music; all results are possible. but they are more focused on the why than the what.

anecdotal information is never acceptable to unbelievers. period. the human condition since time immemorial. whereas listeners crave listening feedback. and it's a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon.

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

I think for many that a technical advance equates directly with there being a sonic advance. This may be true or it may be false but it is a great thing for people to latch onto to justify their opinion or purchase.

 

[Kingrex]

I think what bothers most skeptic is the bloated claims of sonic change. I was amused reading a fuse thread and how the heavens were opening and it was a new component etc etc. Then at the very end the poster notes its really a subtle change. But it really seems huge for what it is. Heck, its just a $1000 fuse.

 

[wil]

First, I know that the above post was made with the best of intentions.

But I have to say, whenever discussions turn to finicky gear stuff, at least one audiophile shows up to tell everyone "who cares, just listen, it's all about the music."

And I don't think everyone needs to be told that. I'm quite sure we all enjoy listening to music, and all have the priorities that make us happy. If one person wants to never think of gear at all...well that person is probably not an audiophile...but in any case that's great. Swinging to the other side, if an audiophile just loves audio gear, he's got reel to reels he's fixed up and dotes over, he's built his own server or whatever, audiophiles who build or mod their equipment from amps to speakers, audiophiles who have various sets of speakers and amps because they like variety...everyone is different, everyone has their own bliss, and nobody really needs to be "reminded" otherwise IMO.

So..who cares? We do, the people discussing the issues in this thread. It's fascinating. Why would someone who doesn't care bother commenting? .

The other thing is that Tom, and again I'm not trying to kill your buzz, but given the quotes under your name, clearly you think about this stuff...what has made a difference in your system...since that's the only way you'd have come to such strong opinions about how close or not your system sounds to real music, and about the sonic qualities of vinyl vs digital.

We can all spend time thinking about this interesting stuff without entailing we aren't also very much enjoying music on our own time. And remember, this is where we come to hash over these kind of things - doesn't mean we are constantly distracted when we are actually in front of our system listening.

Cheers.

This is an excellent post. Thanks

 

[sbnx]

Each individual thing may be small. (Some bigger than others.) But it all adds up. If I took all of the "stuff" out of my main system and just set the gear on the shelf with the standard foot, plugged everything into the wall with the stock "black" power cord, no special fuses, no damping plates, no B2's, no grounding devices the sound would be so dramatically different that anyone would hear it. No special ears required. Not only would it be different it would be substantially worse sounding.

A little story. I setup a system in my front room without any tweaks. It consisted mostly of leftover gear. (WIlson Sophia 3, Luxman M600A, Antipodes K50, MSB Diamond V DAC, Simaudio 740P, MIT cables, Shunyata power) I used this system mostly to experiment with setup stuff. No matter how precise I got the setup the sound always bothered me a little. The "image" was resonant sounding. I just assumed this was due to the fact that there was zero acoustic treatment in the room. Then one Saturday afternoon I was sitting there listening and looking at the system and thinking. I thought "Hey, I have a piece of bamboo that I could put under the amp. Why not?" So, I did that. Nice, small improvement. Then I added 3 stillpoint ultra 5's under the amp with the bamboo. OK, that's definitely better. Stillpoint ultra 5's under the K50 -- better still. Then I added a set of Nordost sortkones (Ti) under the preamp -- better again. The resonant nature of the image is really improved here. I had two boxes of RevOPods sitting around waiting on the Wadax so I busted those out and put one set under the DAC and one under the powersupply. Wow, the resonant nature of the image dropped by a couple orders of magnitude. This was so much better and easy to listen to. So, it wasn't excess acoustic energy that was causing the resonant nature of the sound. It was the resonance of the boxes that was causing it.

This stuff is just as easy to hear as changing an amp or preamp. Easy to experiment -- buy a set of RevOpods minis for each of your components. Put 3 under each one and go back and press play. Not a huge investment and the sonic benefit should be apparent.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think what bothers most skeptic is the bloated claims of sonic change. I was amused reading a fuse thread and how the heavens were opening and it was a new component etc etc. Then at the very end the poster notes its really a subtle change. But it really seems huge for what it is. Heck, its just a $1000 fuse.

the reader must always apply some reasoning to interpret feedback. common sense tells us that a percentage of listening impressions are emotional, in degrees. based on what we know. and the immediacy of the feedback and duration of time and thoroughness spent investigating.

we should not reject feedback with too much hyperbole, instead just temper it. it's still a data point, which might cause us to look deeper for more data points.

something happened.

 

[sbnx]

Here are a few levels of tweakers. Feel free to add:

1. I only listen to the boxes with basic cables because I believe nothing else matters. Tweaks are a waste of money.
2. I only listen to the boxes because the cost to benefit ratio is poor for tweaky things. I can hear some very small differences but these are too small to really matter
3. I believe some things matter to some degree so I have better power cords and cables but there is a limit to how much these can possibly matter.
4. I believe everything matters but who has time to try all of this stuff? I am happy with what I have.
5. Everything matters and I experiment to find what works best in my system.

 

[Kingrex]

Here are a few levels of tweakers. Feel free to add:

1. I only listen to the boxes with basic cables because I believe nothing else matters. Tweaks are a waste of money.
2. I only listen to the boxes because the cost to benefit ratio is poor for tweaky things. I can hear some very small differences but these are too small to really matter
3. I believe some things matter to some degree so I have better power cords and cables but there is a limit to how much these can possibly matter.
4. I believe everything matters but who has time to try all of this stuff? I am happy with what I have.
5. Everything matters and I experiment to find what works best in my system.

OMG - Its Amazing. Its like a brand new system!!!!!

 

[twitch]

Anyway, now I am a strong proponent of audiophile power cords. They do make a huge difference

[/QUOTE]

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

 

[Al M.]

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

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