Heavy gauge speaker wire versus ACD technology
Comments
-
Most likely.:biggrin::biggrin:
Even if he is, he is pretending like he is not.
:biggrin:
The mini TL's used Vifa drivers that were part of the recession buster kit from Madisound.Anyway, I recall you built mini TL speakers with Zaph Drivers? Is it one of the Zaph designed also?
I also have a pair of Zaph designed ZA5.2's.They were originally built as ZMV5's but I exchanged the MCM 3870 woofers with Zaph's custom ZA14 when it became available.
As you can see in the pic I use a variation on the ACD theme put forth by the OP.The different profile means the diffractive signature is somewhat disimilar.This IMO enhances the soundstage width and depth to a greater degree than does the basic cylindrical shape of the ACD.But as they say YMMV. -
Heeellll, Yeahhhhh.nooshinjohn wrote: »I think there are better places for you to put the Pepsi can... Obviously you do not know a thing about which you speak. If you did, there would be a Coke can on the speaker instead.Not an Audiophile, just a dude who loves music, and decent gear to hear it with. -
Most likely.:biggrin:
The mini TL's used Vifa drivers that were part of the recession buster kit from Madisound.
I also have a pair of Zaph designed ZA5.2's.They were originally built as ZMV5's but I exchanged the MCM 3870 woofers with Zaph's custom ZA14 when it became available.
As you can see in the pic I use a variation on the ACD theme put forth by the OP.The different profile means the diffractive signature is somewhat disimilar.This IMO enhances the soundstage width and depth to a greater degree than does the basic cylindrical shape of the ACD.But as they say YMMV.
I see. You also used a different type of ACD. But I think the curvy shape of the ACD you used may well have friendlier acoustics to the baffle diffraction and easier splitting of soundstage and hairs? :biggrin:
Since you used the same tweeter as in ZVM5, I wonder how this tweeter behaves in your built. The reason I asked was that the FR graphs the OP posted have a wide swing below 20KHz. I looked at Zaph design and it seems that tweeter will have wide swings above 20KHz but not like this under 20KHz.
I may as well be misinterpreting something or could it be some XO or dysfunctional tweeter the OP got?Trying out Different Audio Cables is a Religious Affair. You don't discuss it with anyone. :redface::biggrin: -
That there is no change in the pressure field (sound) at the position of the microphone.I still am not sure what is actually being proven or not proven here.
I read this a few times to try to see the issue. I think you are confusing the tweeter flange (the black plastic stuff which is part of the tweeter) with the baffle (the 8" by 14" wooden front of the speaker).Anyway, in regard to the can on the top affecting the SPL measurements the answer was it is the same effect as a baffle on a tweeter. However, aren't tweeter baffles attached to tweeter itself? If so then one would expect them to affect the sound. Yet the can is 10cm above the tweeter, in the center of the speaker, and away from the sound waves being propagated from the tweeter.
Again, to be clear, the baffle is the entire surface in which the woofer and tweeter are mounted. Changing the shape of the baffle will always result in a change in the diffraction signature. In general, to design a crossover, you need to first mount the woofer and tweeter in the baffle, take measurements, and then design the crossover. In other words, the baffle size cannot be changed much without changing the crossover design.In post 9 we see the can mitigates the swings of the SPL between 1K and 10K. However, how that is related to tweeter baffles has me baffled, so to speak. Personally, I would try to find an object of the same weight, but at least 70% smaller in height than the can, and see if it gives the same response. -
I read this a few times to try to see the issue. I think you are confusing the tweeter flange (the black plastic stuff which is part of the tweeter) with the baffle (the 8" by 14" wooden front of the speaker).
Yes. My mistake. Maybe I am learning something from this thread. I didn't know the front of the speaker is the baffle. For whatever reason, I had a mental image of some device over, or around, the tweeter.
I agree speaker shape can influence the sound. While box type speakers seem to be prevalent, there are plenty with rounded shapes, or other designs. I bet it is interesting, and fun, to try and get a certain response from a speaker, and you have the ability to change all aspects of the design.
Anyway, back to the can. Sorry to be a nag, but I do not agree with your explanation for the can's affect on the SPL. Based on your definition, the can is on the speaker cabinet, not the baffle. So, the baffle effect does not apply to the can. Yet, there is a measured difference between no-can and can. If possible, I would like to see more data relating to various sizes and weights on the speaker before agreeing with the baffle effect.
Even more relevant, or interesting, is data on whether the "can baffle effect" (CBE) improves, degrades, or has no effect, on the sound quality. In post 28, I mentioned having 2 lb paving stones on top of my HT speakers. In my mind this made a positive difference. Also, at that time, I went through a phase where I experimented with different weight blocks in both the HT and two channel system. Finally, I settled on the 2 lb blocks in the HT.
The point here is that the different weight blocks, on the different speakers, made, to me, an audible difference, and one was positive, and the others negative.
Your graph shows there is a SPL difference between the can (weight) and the no-can (no weight) experiment. The question is, "Is that difference audible, and if so is it better, worse, or no difference?"
If it is audible then that is possible proof people are hearing a difference with speaker tweaks, or even cables. I suspect we can measure differences if we try hard enough between different components. If so the argument becomes are these differences audible.
If you are familiar with your system and its sound then I am saying yes, these differences are audible, and with the appropriate change, audible in a positive direction.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Zaph and I may not be using exactly the same component values in the HP (tweeter) filter. I don't remember if I "cheated" on any component values. His HP filter looks like it has a slightly less downward "contouring" at very high frequency. I think he also used some smoothing in the MLS process. Here is a new (far-field) measurement at 1m (this is valid only for f > 400Hz) with 1/3 octave averaging:The reason I asked was that the FR graphs the OP posted have a wide swing below 20KHz. I looked at Zaph design and it seems that tweeter will have wide swings above 20KHz but not like this under 20KHz
Compare with Zaph:
I can't really go beyond 20kHz because of limitations of my microphone. Over time I'll improve my measurement gear. Anyhow, its much closer with smoothing. -
I don't think you're being a nag; you're reading my posts and asking for clarification, and I'm happy to do my best to answer you.Anyway, back to the can. Sorry to be a nag, but I do not agree with your explanation for the can's affect on the SPL.
Actually, diffraction occurs from any solid object in the vicinity of the speaker. If I suspended a bowling ball in the air, close to but not quite touching the side of the speaker box, the diffraction from the bowling ball could be measured as well. At some point, if the object is very far from the speaker, we then refer to the process as reflection.Based on your definition, the can is on the speaker cabinet, not the baffle. So, the baffle effect does not apply to the can.
In this case the weight has nothing to do with the diffraction effect (although weight can have some effect on cabinet resonance).Yet, there is a measured difference between no-can and can. If possible, I would like to see more data relating to various sizes and weights on the speaker before agreeing with the baffle effect.
Well, the ACD is of course a joke meant to illustrate how a soda can placed atop a loudspeaker probably has more effect on the sound (good or bad) than upgrading a $5 cable to a $1,000 one. But the measurements also show the effect of the can is probably too small to be perceptible. Still, the audibility of cabinet diffraction is still a subject of some debate. You can read about the intricacies in this very accessible page written by Linkwitz (the speaker guru's speaker guru):Even more relevant, or interesting, is data on whether the "can baffle effect" (CBE) improves, degrades, or has no effect, on the sound quality.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/diffraction.htm
However, there is a CRITICAL diffraction effect that will basically ruin the speaker if not addressed in the crossover, and that is the so-called baffle step. Below about 200Hz, a speaker radiates almost uniformly all around the enclosure. That's why you can hear bass even if you stand behind the speaker. However, above about 2kHz, the speaker radiates only in the forward direction. It is actually a lot of work to "massage" this transition in the crossover. You can google "baffle step" to learn more.
How large are these blocks -- do you have a photo? My guess is that the primary effect of the blocks, if they are large, is actually diffraction. And if the speakers were designed by someone like Zaph, you will actually make the speakers worse by changing the diffraction signature. :frown:In post 28, I mentioned having 2 lb paving stones on top of my HT speakers. In my mind this made a positive difference. Also, at that time, I went through a phase where I experimented with different weight blocks in both the HT and two channel system. Finally, I settled on the 2 lb blocks in the HT.
If the blocks are large enough they may well make an audible difference via diffraction. The soda can is small and curved, so the effect is small, but a large flat surface atop a small speaker can change the SPL by 2 dB or more. If you show me what you've done I can estimate the effect on SPL.The point here is that the different weight blocks, on the different speakers, made, to me, an audible difference, and one was positive, and the others negative. -
I can't really go beyond 20kHz because of limitations of my microphone. Over time I'll improve my measurement gear. Anyhow, its much closer with smoothing.
It looks better than before for sure. But really comparing the frequency characteristics between two tweeters, the frequency swings in Zaph is closer to 20KHz where the one you got is closer to 15KHz?
Of coz, no one have control over how a tweeter (coming straight from the supplier) behave but hopefully, it doesn't matter like you said. Have you measured the other side of speakers and compare between them?Trying out Different Audio Cables is a Religious Affair. You don't discuss it with anyone. :redface::biggrin: -
I don't see that. I see the first dip occurring at about 14kHz and the second at 20kHz in both cases. Actually the Zaph second minimum is just a hair beyond 20kHz. I got all the measurement equipment out again to generate this curve, so don't ever accuse me of being lazyIt looks better than before for sure. But really comparing the frequency characteristics between two tweeters, the frequency swings in Zaph is closer to 20KHz where the one you got is closer to 15KHz?
You mean the other monitor; yes. Its SPL was very similar to the plot you see. I was going to show data for it too but I was too lazy.Of coz, no one have control over how a tweeter behave but hopefully, it doesn't matter like you said. Have you measured the other side of speakers and compare between them? -
I don't see that. I see the first dip occurring at about 14kHz and the second at 20kHz in both cases. Actually the Zaph second minimum is just a hair beyond 20kHz. I got all the measurement equipment out again to generate this curve, so don't ever accuse me of being lazy
You mean the other monitor; yes. Its SPL was very similar to the plot you see. I was going to show data for it too but I was too lazy.
What I was saying is that the swings started in your tweeter are closer to the 15KHz region and Zaph seems to be at a little higher frequency.
No, I am not going to accuse you anything. I am quite impressed that you are motivated and took the troubles to take another measurements within hours. It's all that counts in this Hobby! Trying out Different Audio Cables is a Religious Affair. You don't discuss it with anyone. :redface::biggrin: -
How large are these blocks -- do you have a photo? My guess is that the primary effect of the blocks, if they are large, is actually diffraction. And if the speakers were designed by someone like Zaph, you will actually make the speakers worse by changing the diffraction signature. :frown:
If the blocks are large enough they may well make an audible difference via diffraction. The soda can is small and curved, so the effect is small, but a large flat surface atop a small speaker can change the SPL by 2 dB or more. If you show me what you've done I can estimate the effect on SPL.
The speakers are LSi15s in an 11X12 room. The blocks are 2.25" high, and 5.5" square.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Here's my estimate (probably an overestimate) of the effect of the block on the frequency response (really, on the top woofer). Its smaller than I thought it would be:The speakers are LSi15s in an 11X12 room. The blocks are 2.25" high, and 5.5" square.
-
Here's my estimate (probably an overestimate) of the effect of the block on the frequency response (really, on the top woofer). Its smaller than I thought it would be:
Thanks. Unfortunately, I do not think your model is accurate. At this point I feel it needs to be measured in my room with my gear to get an accurate response before I can trust it. However, it has made me think about this issue.
I did the block experiment 2-3 years ago, and I have not really thought about it until now. I realized that since that point I have upgraded the speaker wire to Mapleshade Clearview Double Helix Plus, and the five interconnects to MIT CVT Terminator 1. Both of these changes had positive, audible impacts, and both were done with the blocks on the speakers.
Now that I am adjusted to the sound of the HT with the blocks, I am removing them. I should hear a difference. Whether, good or bad needs to be determined. After a few weeks or so I will restore the blocks and see if that again makes a difference.
As you can see, accurate measurements need to be done over time.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
No problem. The modeling of the SPL change is probably within about a factor of 2 of the "correct" answer. However, as far as I can tell, you have the speaker in a corner so that is going to affect the response significantly more than the block.Thanks. Unfortunately, I do not think your model is accurate. At this point I feel it needs to be measured in my room with my gear to get an accurate response before I can trust it. However, it has made me think about this issue.
O.K. Good luck.Now that I am adjusted to the sound of the HT with the blocks, I am removing them. I should hear a difference. Whether, good or bad needs to be determined. After a few weeks or so I will restore the blocks and see if that again makes a difference. -
Ok. I now see what all the fuss is about.the [MY]scientific approach generally shows that cables only make a difference when the gauge/length violate certain minimum requirements.a soda can placed atop a loudspeaker probably has more effect on the sound (good or bad) than upgrading a $5 cable to a $1,000 one.
I respect your approach and dedication to reducing the amount of "magic" that often seems to creep into the HI FI experience.
I've not been seriously involved in this hobby for long, only 2 years or so. In that time I have tried only few cable swaps. However, lacking scientific measurement gear I was forced to rely on my ears and those of friends and we all heard real appreciable differences.Or maybe, just maybe, the difference is only imagined.
This has been a serious concern of mine. I don't want to be the **** that "hears" the difference just because I'm listening through a filter of x amount of my very hard earned money.
Thus in lieu of science gear and knowhow I use friends to keep me reigned in.
The friends involved in those listening "tests" are not the golden ear type. Time after time one friend or another walked in "blind" and I asked them if they could hear a difference between this or that.
I'd say 75% of the time they could AND described the "better" wire as sounding "better."
Did they immediately set fire to their Ipod docks and rush out to buy Krell and MIT?
No.
Did they patiently make their observations and give me a friendly ribbing for investing in such a small (to them) difference?
Usually.
What I'm trying to say is that in nearly all my real world observations the positive or negative difference between wire is real and notable.
In addition, the psychology of sensory perception is also real. You have to admit that there is a chance that your charts are having an effect on your ability to "hear" a difference.Sounds good to me... -
Rev. Hayes wrote: »In addition, the psychology of sensory perception is also real. You have to admit that there is a chance that your charts are having an effect on your ability to "hear" a difference.
Good observation. It's probably a good thing that this thread has evolved into a friendly discussion on the physics of things that affect SPL. However, the OP has sidestepped the issue of whether SPL is a valid model of sound quality. Since the perception of music is a completely psychological phenomenon, the SPL model is likely missing some critical factors.SystemLuxman L-590AXII Integrated Amplifier|KEF Reference 1 Loudspeakers|PS Audio Directream Jr|Sansui TU-9900 Tuner|TEAC A-6100 RtR|Nakamichi RX-202 Cassette -
Yes and my variant of the ACD serves a dual purpose.Besides the obvious soundstage enhancment the added few grams of weight help to mitigate panel resonance ala. Totem's Beak device.The degree of this resonance damping effect can be modified by strategically placing M&M's (any colour)within the cup.IIRC it was Jeff Josephs of Joseph's audio that discovered the positive sonic attributes of using M&Ms.I see. You also used a different type of ACD. But I think the curvy shape of the ACD you used may well have friendlier acoustics to the baffle diffraction and easier splitting of soundstage and hairs? :biggrin:
His smoothed response shows closer correlation with Zaph's in that the big -10db null is not present.Metal domes usually have a nasty breakup mode or oil can resonance above 20k or so thats why the response is rather unflattering at the very hi end.Being as his Vifa tweets are likely from a different production lot than those used by Zaph it is possible the ultra sonic resonance( break up mode) occurs at a slightly lower frequency in his samples?Since you used the same tweeter as in ZVM5, I wonder how this tweeter behaves in your built. The reason I asked was that the FR graphs the OP posted have a wide swing below 20KHz. I looked at Zaph design and it seems that tweeter will have wide swings above 20KHz but not like this under 20KHz.I may as well be misinterpreting something or could it be some XO or dysfunctional tweeter the OP got? -
wait, does this mean different wire actually makes a difference?
*epic facepalmLiving Room 2 Channel -
Schiit SYS Passive Pre. Jolida CD player. Songbird streamer. California Audio Labs Sigma II DAC, DIY 300as1/a1 Ice modules Class D amp. LSi15 with MM842 woofer upgrade, Nordost Blue Heaven and Unity interconnects.
Upstairs 2 Channel Rig -
Prometheus Ref. TVC passive pre, SAE A-205 Amp, Wiim pro streamer and Topping E50 DAC, California Audio Labs DX1 CD player, Von Schweikert VR3.5 speakers.
Studio Rig - Scarlett 18i20(Gen3) DAW, Mac Mini, Aiyma A07 Max (BridgedX2), Totem Mites -
I haven't sidestepped that issue. I wrote a very long post addressing this issue, and in particular expressed the scientifically accepted position that p(x,y,z,t) is the complete description of what is presented to your ear in a listening session. I've described what it means to reduce this to the on-axis pressure (SPL) in these tests.Jetmaker737 wrote: »Good observation. It's probably a good thing that this thread has evolved into a friendly discussion on the physics of things that affect SPL. However, the OP has sidestepped the issue of whether SPL is a valid model of sound quality. Since the perception of music is a completely psychological phenomenon, the SPL model is likely missing some critical factors.
There are numerous great and proven books on theoretical acoustics which, while filled with pages of mumbo-jumbo related to resonant cavities and vibrating pistons, also contain a wealth of information about "hearing", "speech", "noise", "the ear", etc (Beranek, Kinsler et al, for example).
And, on the topic of the psychology of perception, we have this:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/expensive_wine_tastes_better.phpThe experiment, led by researchers at Cal-Tech and Stanford, was simple. [A free version of the study is here.] Twenty subjects tasted five wine samples which were distinguished solely by their retail price, with bottles ranging from $5 to $90. Although the subjects were told that all five wines were different, the scientists had actually only given them three different wines. This meant that the first two wines were used twice, but given two different price labels. For example, Wine 1 was labeled as a $35 dollar wine and a $5 wine. The subjects sipped the wines inside an fMRI machine.
Not surprisingly, the subjects consistently reported that the expensive wine tasted better. They preferred the taste of the $90 bottle to the $10 bottle, and thought the $45 bottle was more delicious than than the $5 wine.
What's interesting is that the brain scans reflected these subjective reports. In fact, when people drank more expensive wines a part of the prefrontal cortex called the medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC) got significantly more excited. The scientists argue that the activity of mOFC can be used as a neural correlate for pleasure, so that more expensive wines not only tasted better but actually provided us with more "subjective utility," as an economist might say. Of course, these wine preferences aren't really valid. In a follow-up experiment, the subjects again tasted all five wine samples, but without any price information. This time, they thought the $5 dollar wine tasted the best.
The best way to think of this experiment is as the economic equivalent of the placebo effect. Consider a 2005 experiment by Tor Wager of Columbia. His experiment was brutally straightforward: he gave college students electrical shocks while they were stuck in an fMRI machine. Half of the people were then supplied with a fake pain-relieving cream. As expected, people given the pretend cream said the shocks were significantly less painful. The placebo effect eased their suffering. Wager then imaged the specific parts of the brain that controlled this psychological process. He discovered that the placebo effect depended entirely on the prefrontal cortex. When people were told that they'd just received a pain-relieving cream, their frontal lobes responded by inhibiting the activity of the emotional brain areas (like the insula) that normally respond to pain. However, when the same people were informed that the same cream was "ineffective" at blocking pain, their prefrontal cortex went silent. Because people expected to experience less pain, they ended up experiencing less pain. Just as our expectations about expensive wine influenced the taste of the wine itself - expensive wine is supposed to taste better - so do our expectations about pain affect our experience of pain.
Baba Shiv, a co-author on the recent wine study, has previously shown how price can warp our consumer decisions. He supplied people with an "energy" drink that was supposed to make them feel more alert and energetic. Some participants paid full price for the drinks, while others were offered a discount. The participants were then asked to solve a series of word puzzles. To Shiv's surprise, the people who paid discounted prices consistently solved fewer puzzles than the people who paid full price for the drinks. The subjects were convinced that the stuff on sale was much less potent, even though all the drinks were identical. "We ran the study again and again, not sure if what we got had happened by chance or fluke," Shiv says. "But every time we ran it we got the same results."
Why did the cheaper energy drink prove less effective? According to Shiv, consumers typically suffer from a version of the placebo effect. Since we expect cheaper goods to be less effective, they generally are less effective, even if they are identical to more expensive products. This is why brand-name aspirin works better than generic aspirin, or why Coke tastes better than cheaper colas, even if most consumers can't tell the difference in blind taste tests. "We have these general beliefs about the world -for example, that cheaper products are of lower quality - and they translate into specific expectations about specific products," said Shiv. "Then, once these expectations are activated, they start to really impact our behavior."
-
Yes and my variant of the ACD serves a dual purpose.Besides the obvious soundstage enhancment the added few grams of weight help to mitigate panel resonance ala. Totem's Beak device.The degree of this resonance damping effect can be modified by strategically placing M&M's (any colour)within the cup.IIRC it was Jeff Josephs of Joseph's audio that discovered the positive sonic attributes of using M&Ms.
So, M&M plays a nice trick where people normally use lead shots for vibration damping? I guess M&M makes very environmental and appetite friendly substitute to the lead shots.His smoothed response shows closer correlation with Zaph's in that the big -10db null is not present.
I think so too. The smoothing (love this word) or another measurement corrects the -10dB null.Metal domes usually have a nasty breakup mode or oil can resonance above 20k or so thats why the response is rather unflattering at the very hi end.Being as his Vifa tweets are likely from a different production lot than those used by Zaph it is possible the ultra sonic resonance( break up mode) occurs at a slightly lower frequency in his samples?
I am a bit surprised coz the breakup resonance due to non-linear distortion is considerable at on-axis measurement under 20KHz, it sure is saying something about QC of that particular tweeter. Or may be a slight variation weight of tweeter diaphragm or the L and R of VC could cause the FR to alters from batch to batch.Trying out Different Audio Cables is a Religious Affair. You don't discuss it with anyone. :redface::biggrin: -
Correct,and there are some that claim inherent superior damping properties for the yellow ones but IMO thats all bunk.So, M&M plays a nice trick where people normally use lead shots for vibration damping?
It appears that if the OP's measurement extended beyond 20k it might also reveal the break up mode to be near the same point as in Zaph's.Otherwise the two curves look very similar.From what I gather Vifa have a good record of consistancy from one sample to another.I am a bit surprised coz the breakup resonance due to non-linear distortion is considerable at on-axis measurement under 20KHz, it sure is saying something about QC of that particular tweeter. -
And, on the topic of the psychology of perception, we have this:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/expensive_wine_tastes_better.phpThe experiment, led by researchers at Cal-Tech and Stanford, was simple. [A free version of the study is here.] Twenty subjects tasted five wine samples which were distinguished solely by their retail price, with bottles ranging from $5 to $90. Although the subjects were told that all five wines were different, the scientists had actually only given them three different wines. This meant that the first two wines were used twice, but given two different price labels. For example, Wine 1 was labeled as a $35 dollar wine and a $5 wine. The subjects sipped the wines inside an fMRI machine.
Not surprisingly, the subjects consistently reported that the expensive wine tasted better. They preferred the taste of the $90 bottle to the $10 bottle, and thought the $45 bottle was more delicious than than the $5 wine.
What's interesting is that the brain scans reflected these subjective reports. In fact, when people drank more expensive wines a part of the prefrontal cortex called the medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC) got significantly more excited. The scientists argue that the activity of mOFC can be used as a neural correlate for pleasure, so that more expensive wines not only tasted better but actually provided us with more "subjective utility," as an economist might say. Of course, these wine preferences aren't really valid. In a follow-up experiment, the subjects again tasted all five wine samples, but without any price information. This time, they thought the $5 dollar wine tasted the best.
The best way to think of this experiment is as the economic equivalent of the placebo effect. Consider a 2005 experiment by Tor Wager of Columbia. His experiment was brutally straightforward: he gave college students electrical shocks while they were stuck in an fMRI machine. Half of the people were then supplied with a fake pain-relieving cream. As expected, people given the pretend cream said the shocks were significantly less painful. The placebo effect eased their suffering. Wager then imaged the specific parts of the brain that controlled this psychological process. He discovered that the placebo effect depended entirely on the prefrontal cortex. When people were told that they'd just received a pain-relieving cream, their frontal lobes responded by inhibiting the activity of the emotional brain areas (like the insula) that normally respond to pain. However, when the same people were informed that the same cream was "ineffective" at blocking pain, their prefrontal cortex went silent. Because people expected to experience less pain, they ended up experiencing less pain. Just as our expectations about expensive wine influenced the taste of the wine itself - expensive wine is supposed to taste better - so do our expectations about pain affect our experience of pain.
Baba Shiv, a co-author on the recent wine study, has previously shown how price can warp our consumer decisions. He supplied people with an "energy" drink that was supposed to make them feel more alert and energetic. Some participants paid full price for the drinks, while others were offered a discount. The participants were then asked to solve a series of word puzzles. To Shiv's surprise, the people who paid discounted prices consistently solved fewer puzzles than the people who paid full price for the drinks. The subjects were convinced that the stuff on sale was much less potent, even though all the drinks were identical. "We ran the study again and again, not sure if what we got had happened by chance or fluke," Shiv says. "But every time we ran it we got the same results."
Why did the cheaper energy drink prove less effective? According to Shiv, consumers typically suffer from a version of the placebo effect. Since we expect cheaper goods to be less effective, they generally are less effective, even if they are identical to more expensive products. This is why brand-name aspirin works better than generic aspirin, or why Coke tastes better than cheaper colas, even if most consumers can't tell the difference in blind taste tests. "We have these general beliefs about the world -for example, that cheaper products are of lower quality - and they translate into specific expectations about specific products," said Shiv. "Then, once these expectations are activated, they start to really impact our behavior."
People are very interesting and this might prove something about how a percentage of people might react or think, but you certainly can't apply this to 100% or even 70% necessarily. Who were these 20 people that participated in the wine test? Were they wine connoisseurs? College educated? Young or middle-aged? Where were they raised? All of these things could affect a person's preconceptions.
It's interesting because I've done lots of experiments with all of my hobbies and I don't always pick the most expensive, in fact most times I don't. I've been into audio for over 30 years, I've been heavily into electric and acoustic guitars and have bought and sold around 40, and have experimented with everything that goes along with them. Pickups, strings, electronics, nut and saddle materials, types of wood used, etc. As for alcoholic beverages over the years, I always end up a connoisseur and spend more than I should. I've been into wine, premium single-barrel bourbon, beer, and more recently premium vodkas.
Vodka would be a prime candidate for one of these tests because it's supposed to be an orderless/tasteless mixture of neutral spirits and pure water. Some people will tell you they all taste alike. I drink it straight over ice and, lately, I have been picking up 2 different 1/5th's every trip to the liquor store. The 1/5th's have ranged in price from $9.95 to $39. I do numerous side by side shot tests as well as compare them over ice. I have found that price has absolutely nothing in common with whether one tastes better than another. The $14 Svedka and Sobieski are just as good as something like Chopin or Ketel One and better, IMO, than Grey Goose which is highly overated. And the $20 Indio Silver Edition is probably as good as any vodka at any price. So any experiment outcome would depend on whether the participants had done enough experimentation on their own to formulate an opinion already. If you take some casual drinker who usually buys any old vodka, and give them choices as in the wine experiment he would also likely choose the more expensive because that's all he has to go on. If you choose 20 people like me, who are far from experts but have done some experimentation, the results would very likely be different.
All of us know about these types of tests and experiments, and all of us know that people have bias and preconceptions. It's a little condescending to me when these are brought up in a discussion like this. It seems that the measurement crowd is always trying to 'enlighten' the other side as if the reason for their 'misguided' beliefs are because of a lack of education. Heaven forbid many of them are educated people just like you that have formulated their own opinions through extensive experimentation and effort, and have thrown out any bias and preconception long ago.2 channel - Willsenton R8 tube integrated, Holo Audio Spring 3 KTE DAC, audio optimized NUC7i5, Windows 10 Pro/JRiver MC29/Fidelizer Plus 8.7 w/LPS and external SSD drive, PS Audio PerfectWave P3 regenerator, KEF R3 speakers, Rythmik F12SE subwoofer, Audioquest Diamond USB cable, Gabriel Gold IC's, Morrow Audio SP5 speaker cables. Computer - Windows 10/JRiver, Schiit Magni 3+/Modi 3+, Fostex PMO.4n monitors, Sennheiser HD600 headphones -
1660 views in less than 48 hours. I love it.
-
Yes....your plan worked....good job!:rolleyes:2 channel - Willsenton R8 tube integrated, Holo Audio Spring 3 KTE DAC, audio optimized NUC7i5, Windows 10 Pro/JRiver MC29/Fidelizer Plus 8.7 w/LPS and external SSD drive, PS Audio PerfectWave P3 regenerator, KEF R3 speakers, Rythmik F12SE subwoofer, Audioquest Diamond USB cable, Gabriel Gold IC's, Morrow Audio SP5 speaker cables. Computer - Windows 10/JRiver, Schiit Magni 3+/Modi 3+, Fostex PMO.4n monitors, Sennheiser HD600 headphones
-
1660 views in less than 48 hours. I love it.
Got to agree here... the troll struck gold.:rolleyes:The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, Mcintosh C2300 Arcam AVR20, Oppo UDP-203 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk Audio Legend L800 with height modules, L400 Center Channel Polk audio AB800 "in-wall" surrounds. Marantz MM7025 stereo amp. Simaudio Moon 680d DSD
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”— Thomas Jefferson -
Yep right on Q.nooshinjohn wrote: »Got to agree here... the troll struck gold.:rolleyes: -
I haven't sidestepped that issue.
I disagree. You have sidestepped it. Citing the wine tasting study is a classic sidestep and misdirection. Referring to p(x,y,z,t) addresses the question with the item in question. It's too bad because you appear to have some smarts but you are just as locked into your dogma as those you oppose and you choose not to see other possibilities. Or maybe for purposes of this thread you choose not to acknowledge. I can see why some members of CP might conclude that this whole thing is a massively successful trolling exercise.SystemLuxman L-590AXII Integrated Amplifier|KEF Reference 1 Loudspeakers|PS Audio Directream Jr|Sansui TU-9900 Tuner|TEAC A-6100 RtR|Nakamichi RX-202 Cassette -
What other possibilities for converting an electrical signal to vibrations (transduction) and propagating those vibrations to the ear (acoustics) are there? Are you suggesting there is a mysterious "missing" phenomenon? If so, are the designers of your loudspeakers also missing out by sticking to the same "dogma" as me? I would claim that my approach is better described as "kosher" with regard to the actual process that engineers use to produce the loudspeakers you buy.Jetmaker737 wrote: »I disagree. You have sidestepped it. Citing the wine tasting study is a classic sidestep and misdirection. Referring to p(x,y,z,t) addresses the question with the item in question. It's too bad because you appear to have some smarts but you are just as locked into your dogma as those you oppose and you choose not to see other possibilities. Or maybe for purposes of this thread you choose not to acknowledge. I can see why some members of CP might conclude that this whole thing is a massively successful trolling exercise. -
You might tell me Speaker A is better than Speaker B, but I might think its the other way around.
This is not really about preferences, but rather deciding if there's any audible difference at all in the first place - from which a person could then form a preference? -
When I compare wires, cables, components and speakers, I like to consider things like noise floor, height/width/depth of soundstage, focus of phantom center channel, focus of insturments, focus of vocals, heaviness/airiness of sound quality veiling, etc.
SPL and frequency response are important too, but sometimes there are components that measure bad but sound good so SPL and response are not the end all/be all.VTL ST50 w/mods / RCA6L6GC / TlfnknECC801S
Conrad Johnson PV-5 w/mods
TT Conrad Johnson Sonographe SG3 Oak / Sumiko LMT / Grado Woodbody Platinum / Sumiko PIB2 / The Clamp
Musical Fidelity A1 CDPro/ Bada DD-22 Tube CDP / Conrad Johnson SD-22 CDP
Tuners w/mods Kenwood KT5020 / Fisher KM60
MF x-DAC V8, HAInfo NG27
Herbies Ti-9 / Vibrapods / MIT Shotgun AC1 IEC's / MIT Shotgun 2 IC's / MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Cables
PS Audio Cryo / PowerPort Premium Outlets / Exact Power EP15A Conditioner
Walnut SDA 2B TL /Oak SDA SRS II TL (Sonicaps/Mills/Cardas/Custom SDA ICs / Dynamat Extreme / Larry's Rings/ FSB-2 Spikes
NAD SS rigs w/mods
GIK panels
