You know my position on this, and I yours.........so I will not waste the time of either of us with further fruitless debate.
Rotel RA-11 | Technics SL-P333 | Rotel RT-11 | Technics SL-L1 | KEF Q300 | Grado SR80i | Atlas & QED interconnects
But just as you say you post to get someone to go and listen for themselves, I post to get someone to think for themselves
So do I.
Where there are two completely opposing approaches, listening for themselves is the only way........and I wholly agree with thinking for themselves, which is why I never take a dogmatic, absolutist approach.
what, absolutely never ever??
SRM-tech Rega P3/GL2400 Talk Electronics Castle Howard
Rega Planet CD player > Hurricane/Tornado/ > speakers with
Denon TU-1800 DAB/FM Whirlwind amplifiers Tellurium Q Black
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
The sound has improved noticeably, with more clarity, better bass and a bigger soundstage, no idea why it works but I am now rediscovering all my music again.
People are claiming a substantial change.
To me that is not substantial merely noticeable. In my book substantial would be going from a £500 to a £1K+,. Now that could be termed 'night & day' in terms of difference.
I believe that the poster is stating a substantial change - better bass, more clarity - surely this is a substantial change. They have not used the word slightly better, or descriptive words such as this. So for that person, the change was quite significant.
Given that you have stated £500 to a £1k+ system change - how does money assure improvement.
I was going to purchase a CD player in the early 1990's - one auditioned was a philips player modifed with a different op-amp and different transformer. The philips cost approx £200, and the modified player £600 - just for an op-amp and transformer change. Hence - money does not guarantee improvement.
I was in exactly the same position when listening to both plug setups. How do I know this? Because I was in the same chair with my head back against the headrest and I had not moved the chair or the headrest. And so was my OH when she blind tested the change (after having first noticed it with no prompting from em or information that I had changed anything (she was out shopping whilst I was playing and I had finished by the time she got back).
You're one of many, recently and historically, to cite partner's ability to spot these 'obvious' changes. Thing is, no-one's ever done it in controlled conditions. So either people are blessed with remarkable golden-eared partners or they're getting subconscious cues. I know which I think is more likely.
There do seem to be two different groups - people who can hear the change, and people who cannot hear the change.
Science in this area of circuit theory etc., has been documented for 2 centuries at the earliest investigations.
For those that hear a change - there are two possibilities.
1. There is a change
2. That the person is succumbing to the palcebo effect (make a change, expect a change and hear a change)
The people who hear a change claim it is number 1 - and always seem to discount number 2.
For these people, there is a claim from many of them that science cannot measure everything, and the change is real.
If science cannot measure the changes that they hear - then an opposing theory intimated as above - that the other half has somehow received subliminally a cue that something has changed can be true.
That is, if the people claim that science cannot disprove that there is a change heard for speaker connections, and science cannot disprove subconscious telepathy exists, then subconscious telepathy is an equal proposition that the other half knew of a change from the person who changed the cable.
So it is quite possible that the people claiming the change exists are prone to the placebo effect, and intimate this to their other half through subconscious telepathy.
This is equally valid since science cannot prove the change does not exists (the claimants proposition) and science cannot disprove others are aware through subconscious telepathy (my proposition).
There are vast number of people who believe in telepathy, subconscious or not, and hence is their belief as invalid as audio people who believe they hear a change ?
Indeed. There is a difference between what is possible & what is plausible. IIRC, there's no scientific explanation for acupuncture but its benefits aren't doubted by many scientists. Oil companies employ dousers - no scientific reason to do so apart from hedging their bets. Science is more than capable of denying the existence of anything lacking "prove". Many scientists believe in God. My world isn't in black & white nor are most peoples.
There are some forum objectivists who believe that all amps adhering to a certain specification by definition sound the same & that all modern DACs sound identical. Many of these folk don't always practice what they preach: their list of equipment is often the give-away in their sigs.
There are some safeguarding reality checks anyone experimenting should carry out such being sceptical as the default, realising that we are easily fooled & always undoing "improvements" should undo the perceived benefits. I rarely hear perceived improvements straight after doing them but may well do days later - one reason I'm sceptical of DB ABX relying on short-term memory.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2 & iTunes Match, CA Azur 751BD or Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros.
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 4GS/Sennheiser MM450.
This is an interesting slant.
I have had a fair amount of Acupuncture, mostly without much long term success - though I thought science was coming to grips with how it worked.
My father used a well known local Douser to find a couple of wells on their property.........not only did he pin-point 2 wells, but was accurately able to determin the depth (by walking away from the position of the well, and measuring back to this, from the point where the rods jumped back towards his chest).
My proposal is possible and probable - equally to the people who claim there is a difference and their other half stating what has changed.
My post was to highlight that people are prone to the placebo affect, and if the other half recognised this, that the recoginition could be due to subconscious effects.
There are reports of twins knowing what the other is thinking in specific circumstances, or aware that an event has happened to the other person, people knowing what someone is going to say before they state it, and people knowing that someone is about to telephone them and then receive that call.
As with some of the examples you have provided - there is no scientific proof - but the placebo effect is provable, and is scientifically recognised.
The topolgy of an amplifier can vary - there are so many combinations of resistors, capacitors and semiconductors that constitute an amplifier - so similar measured performance does not guarantee that they will sound the same, but the hifi reviews i do read - especially a group test, in some circumstances, the changes do not seem too great for similar amplifiers - power houses - with multiple output devices as an example.
With speaker connections - not the cable, just the connection - a hard wired piece of metal less than 2 inches connecting either top to bottom, or vice versa at the speaker terminals - to produce the changes as stated by some people - would have to be discussed.
It's really no wonder we can't win an argument, if telepathy is a more likely hypothesis than "we actually heard it".
I am just trying to apply the open mind approach on what is possible. Science states the change should not affect the sound, people claim it does - so i have proposed an alternative. This alternative is valid and equaly probable - that is all.
I was being a touch facetious.
It's feels at times, like being an innocent and frustrated defendant in a court case, where nobody believes their alibi (except for family).
I suspect science probably can explain, but us mere mortals aren't equiped to debate it on equal footing / standing with somebody qualified. Qualified people can get it wrong, and frequently do (that is not having a pop btw).
FWIW I do appreciate your polite, respectful and objective approach.
Placebo effect & expectation bias certainly exists - hence a healthy dose of scepticism helps lessen it. Regarding amplifiers, some will argue that whatever the topology used, if they measure the same, they must sound the same - simples. Many engineers snort at the notion that existing measurement techniques aren't fit for purpose. Some very well-known design engineers such as Baxandall were extremely dismissive of subjectivism. Many speaker manufacturers reject designs that measure well but don't sound that great. One designer, John Westlake has well-honed technical skill, uses measurements to refine his designs but also uses his ears & takes note of his customer's feedback. Sometimes, I wish the world was in black & white!
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing