Golden Ears Fail Again

[E-Stat]

Hmm, interesting read, but you still haven't answered my question as to why you feel a sighted test is better than or equivalent to a blind test. The engineer in question didn't do a blind test either. Why not? Why didn't this engineer present his findings to Nature or the NEJM? How about an EE journal? He may have some valid points. You may have some valid points. If sighted testing is truly the best, then I'm sure you can get your findings published in a real journal.

I guess neither he nor I has a scientific proof fetish. I buy audio components to enjoy music, not impress people. That's it.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

I guess neither he nor I has a scientific proof fetish. I buy audio components to enjoy music, not impress people. That's it.

rw

E-Stat,

there is problem with this position, the placebo effect, Many of those who make these controversial claims in the high-end industry shy away from any tests that attempt to address the placebo effect without providing any reasonable alternatives. Medical research has proven time and time again that many folks quite happily go through life ascribing imagined benefits to various placebos. For many audio claims to have reasonable credibility, more must be done to address the placebo effect issue. If Nordost, Kimber or whoever could provide a credible test that effectively accounted for the placebo effect and yet demonstrate the advertised benefits of their products, we will have solid progress.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, there is problem with this position, the placebo effect.

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

[markw]

The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Nowhere is it implied that cost will affect what is percieved. It's simply the knowledge that you're listening to one item as opposed to another that is enough to skew an opinion.

I learned this with my "simple "single blind test years ago but somehow this was never accepted here.

I will say, though that people will go to great lengths to justify paying a high price for an item and listening w/o knowledge of what's being listened to is a good way to see if the rewards justify the outlay.

[E-Stat]

I will say, though that people will go to great lengths to justify paying a high price for an item and listening w/o knowledge of what's being listened to is a good way to see if the rewards justify the outlay.

How about the converse? Let's see if I can make this story short. A couple of years ago, I bought a new CD player to replace a Pioneer unit I've used for about ten years. I decided to use it as the basis of an office system. I already had my trusty '81 Threshold Stasis amp so I purchased some Polk speakers at CC. Next I contemplated a preamp. I was thinking of finding a Dyna PAS-3 for about $100. It was about that time that I read about DIY passive preamps. Which really aren't preamps at all. They're just passive attenuators in a box. So with a little help from a guy at another audio forum, I went to Radio Shack and bought $15 worth of parts and cobbled together this:



Actually, I'm fibbing a little bit about the total cost as the knobs I used were left over from a black faceplate purchase for my ARC preamp. Each knob costs what the entire project cost ! Anyway, I tried it out in my new office system and found it worked fine. Indeed, the gain of the CD was such that while I couldn't fully drive the amp, it would still play at more than adequate levels in the office. Here is where it gets interesting. Just for grins, I took it downstairs and put it on the main system. Here I was comparing my homely $15 unit to a $2500 Audio Research SP-9 MKIII.



It would really be no contest, right? The ARC preamp should easily outperform my cheapo passive. I confess I was very surprised at the results. The passive was clearer and offered a wider image than the preamp. Because the GamuT has a very low impedance / high gain output (75 ohms/4 volt) , it could fully drive the amps through the attenuators so there were no compromises with level. Later, I built another unit with better parts and use that with the CD player today. I use the preamp solely with my vinyl source.

Summary-the results of my sighted comparison was completely opposite from what I expected. How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding? I no longer assume anything.

rw

[markw]

How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding?

Well, in audio it's always been assumed (and rightly so) that the less there is in the signal path, the better off you are. Since your source had more than enough output to drive your mains, aattenuation was all you needed. Anything else was superfulous (sp) and merely added it's signature into the chain..

Nice attenuator, btw. I like it. Ever think of trying those $500 wooden knobs everyone in AA is chortling about?

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...roduct_Count=2

[E-Stat]

Nice attenuator, btw. I line it.

Thanks. It has since undergone some changes due to leftover parts from the second model and now feeds my vintage garage system. Inadvertently, I purchased twice as many Cardas RCA jacks as I needed, so I later put them in this unit. Also, I got a meter of JPS Labs wire for free and rewired both units with it. Here's my favorite passive design by Steve Eddy (who helped me with wiring mine - which is why I dubbed them the SE-1 and SE-2).

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...dy&r=&session=

Ever think of trying those $500 wooden knobs everyone in AA is chortling about?

Don't think so.

I did spend some "extra" money on the finish of the second unit with it's nicer anodized aluminum case from Para-Metals and more leftover ARC knobs. More importantly, it uses DACT precision stepped attenuators, silver solder, Cardas connectors, and some of that free JPS Labs alumalloy wire.





BTW, the sealed baggie of sand is there to ballast the unit as my ultra stiff cables tend to stand it up.

rw

[Geoffcin]

How about the converse? Let's see if I can make this story short. A couple of years ago, I bought a new CD player to replace a Pioneer unit I've used for about ten years. I decided to use it as the basis of an office system. I already had my trusty '81 Threshold Stasis amp so I purchased some Polk speakers at CC. Next I contemplated a preamp. I was thinking of finding a Dyna PAS-3 for about $100. It was about that time that I read about DIY passive preamps. Which really aren't preamps at all. They're just passive attenuators in a box. So with a little help from a guy at another audio forum, I went to Radio Shack and bought $15 worth of parts and cobbled together this:

Actually, I'm fibbing a little bit about the total cost as the knobs I used were left over from a black faceplate purchase for my ARC preamp. Each knob costs what the entire project cost ! Anyway, I tried it out in my new office system and found it worked fine. Indeed, the gain of the CD was such that while I couldn't fully drive the amp, it would still play at more than adequate levels in the office. Here is where it gets interesting. Just for grins, I took it downstairs and put it on the main system. Here I was comparing my homely $15 unit to a $2500 Audio Research SP-9 MKIII.



It would really be no contest, right? The ARC preamp should easily outperform my cheapo passive. I confess I was very surprised at the results. The passive was clearer and offered a wider image than the preamp. Because the GamuT has a very low impedance / high gain output (75 ohms/4 volt) , it could fully drive the amps through the attenuators so there were no compromises with level. Later, I built another unit with better parts and use that with the CD player today. I use the preamp solely with my vinyl source.

Summary-the results of my sighted comparison was completely opposite from what I expected. How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding? I no longer assume anything.

rw

I've found a similar story with my preamp. I use a vintage PS Audio IV preamp that was designed to work both driven, and fully passive. I've compared it to some pretty expensive preamps from Classe; DR-6(SS), and Audio Research; LS-25, and I've found that I like the passive pre the best. I've bought, used, and sold a lot of audio gear in my time but I am keeping my passive pre!

[markw]

The term "passive", implies, in this sense, no noise generating powerd circuits but the term "preamp" implies gain, which is impossible to obtain without power.

Now, if the terms used were along the lines of"passive attenuator/switching device" or some such then it would make sense.

[musicoverall]

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

I think I've run the gamut with wire auditioning and the outcomes. I've heard less expensive cable that sounded better than more expensive, certainly vice versa, I've heard no differences between cables of grossly differing costs, I've heard major differences between cables that cost roughly the same, AND the cables I just purchased are about the least attractive I've ever seen. They, unfortunately for my sense of sight, sounded the best at the price point I was seeking. They sounded better than cables costing 3 times their cost... but, also unfortunately, not as good as the Valhalla... (heavy sigh).

[magictooth]

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

This is incorrect. The naysayer mantra is not an assumption based on cost, but rather the fact that you KNOW what you are listening to in advance. It just happens that the most common determining factor is cost.

[Monstrous Mike]

Let's start with a quote from Charles Barkley which he made in response to Jemaine O'Neil who claimed himself the top forward in the NBA: "I can claim that I am thin but that doesn't mean that I am".

The fundamental point of the original link was that we have to be careful drawing conclusions from our observations. The reference to Copernicus was pertinent because it involved the basic observation of how the earth moves in our solar system. It was obvious to everyone who looked at the sky that everything revolved around the earth. But Copernicus dug a lot further and found inconsistencies which indicated other things were happening.

However, the concept of a centric earth was so ingrained in society that Copernicus was not taken seriously and even imprisoned for blasphemy. The same thing happens today in audio and in life in general. However, audio is a good, benign laboratory experience to learn about how we form opinion and beliefs about other aspects of our lives.

So like the people of the Copernicus era who trusted their eyes, trusting your ears in audio is not enough to make something true. And like a centric earth, audio cabling differences are not supported by science, they are not supported by testing, and now another test (regardless of how your assess its validity or accuracy) has pointed to no differences.

It seems that more this is discussed, the stronger some people cling to their trust of their senses and observations and those of others who have like beliefs. It's amazing to see how any contrary arguement, test, fact, or opinion is marginalized or outright dismissed.

I really mainly stick around places like this because that type of behaviour intrigues me.

[Woochifer]

Let's start with a quote from Charles Barkley which he made in response to Jemaine O'Neil who claimed himself the top forward in the NBA: "I can claim that I am thin but that doesn't mean that I am".

Oh Chuckster, what a great modern day philosopher!

It seems that more this is discussed, the stronger some people cling to their trust of their senses and observations and those of others who have like beliefs. It's amazing to see how any contrary arguement, test, fact, or opinion is marginalized or outright dismissed.

I really mainly stick around places like this because that type of behaviour intrigues me.

It amazes me that cables get discussed with almost religious fervor because it's much ado about not a whole lot. I mean, let's go back to the beginning of the thread. This article discussed differences between power cords. Yes, FREAKING POWER CORDS! No discussion about the wiring inside the house, nothing about the power delivery from the generating facility or how it travels across miles of overhead wiring, etc.

I think when discussing cables, the point should be that even if you can hear differences between cables, who the **** cares? The differences are so minute, so subtle, so insignificant that it's absolutely laughable to invest thousands of dollars on things like power cords when you got so many other parts of the system that can make a far bigger step up in sound quality for less investment.

And when we talk about blind testing, the loudest voices complaining about the methodology seem to be the very same people who've never actually done a blind test before. It's almost like they don't want to find out whether their ears are as reliable as they've built them up to be. I've done them before, and the only "night and day" difference that I've seen is how much the magnitude of difference that I thought I detected under sighted conditions narrows when the comparison is done under blind conditions.

[musicoverall]

It amazes me that cables get discussed with almost religious fervor because it's much ado about not a whole lot.

It amazes me, too. I can't imagine people spending so much time discussing a topic that they themselves say is not only insignificant, but that doesn't exist! If cables didn't sound different, I wouldn't waste my time talking about them. I do agree that cables are the absolute last item that should get upgraded and that they have the least amount of effect on the overall sound. The significance of that effect shouldn't be ignored, however, simply because it's small. Some of us like to maximize our systems potential and we've already taken care of the rest of the components.

[FLZapped]

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.


rw

It is the audiophile community who equates expense with performance, not the scientific community. Just following your lead. -Bruce