Dumb things you've heard from "audiophiles"...

BeefJerky wrote: »

Headrott:
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, your primary point of issue is that the placebo effect was not originally intended for use in the audio world, and therefore ABX/DBT's aren't applicable in that world either.

First, just because something wasn't originally intended for a particular use doesn't mean that it cannot actually be used for that. That is like saying: computers weren't originally intended for use in the home, so they shouldn't be used there. No, they weren't intended for that originally, but they have found purpose there.

It also turns out that placebo and ABX/DBT does have a valid use in the audio world. Bell Labs and many others would disagree with your contention that DBT/ABX shouldn't be used at all in audio. The real issue comes down to whether or not they are applicable for use with more complex forms of audio, such as stereophonic music reproduction. There seems to be evidence from both sides of the argument, so I don't expect to be able to conclusively prove my point. At the same time, there isn't any overwhelming evidence saying that it isn't, so I don't intend on changing my point of view either; at least not at this point in time.

So, until there comes a time when more conclusive evidence is available, I say we live and let live on the subject. Or, if you prefer the McCartney version: live and let die.

Please go back to my posts and read the number of times I said "stereophonic audio", not just audio. It was every time. We are talking about stereophonic audio in this thread correct?

I am not saying that because the placebo was not intended to be used in stereophonic audio, therefore ABX/DBT tests aren't either. I am saying (again) that placebo, ABX, DBT's were not intended for use in stereophonic audio and specifically (again) placebo is not applicable because (again):

headrott wrote: »

Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along). You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?

Also, using computers as an example of muti-use applications is not a good example because no testing methods and standards were set up for using computers in military and/or business settings vurses home settings. Your example of the use of computers is not fit for comparing to use of placebo, ABX, DBT's in stereophonic audio.

Now that I have had to beat this horse dead because of the need to repeat myself 3 to 4 times, hopefully you understand what my points are.

I was going to bring up the last part of the quote above (again) because you still have not addressed it, but after reading you plan on trying power cables in your system I will let it go. I hope you really do try a number of power cables in your system. Would you mind listing what your system consists of? Just trying to figure out what resolution your audio system has. It really does make a difference.

Greg

I am not trying to dump on BJ and his gear, but in my opinion and experience using a mid level Onkyo receiver as part of a system is not going to reveal many of the nuances we so commonly talk about in regards to cables, etc. He said he had an Onk receiver. So in the end moving up the line in gear will probably give more positive results than trying to buy a $300 power cable for his current gear.

headrott wrote: »

Please go back to my posts and read the number of times I said "stereophonic audio", not just audio. It was every time. We are talking about stereophonic audio in this thread correct?

Yes. However, there was section in your prior post where you said:
"First off, I never said I didn't believe in "placebo effect" when it comes to audio (an opinion), I said that it was not intended to be used for audio (a fact). So, by that logic, I believe (to make us on the "same page") I said that a placebo was intended to be used for medicinal purposes, whereas a placebo was not intended to be used for stereophonic audio testing. As in my quote above stating:"

I suppose that's the part that confused me since you didn't actually mention stereophonic there. However, when taken in context with the rest of your post it is clear you were talking about stereophonic audio; I'll take blame for that.

I am not saying that because the placebo was not intended to be used in stereophonic audio, therefore ABX/DBT tests aren't either. I am saying (again) that placebo, ABX, DBT's were not intended for use in stereophonic audio and specifically (again) placebo is not applicable because (again):
"Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along). You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?"

I've already made it clear that the word placebo alone doesn't really have the same meaning when outside of the context of the word effect. When used in context it refers to a change within the human body based on expectations alone. In other words, it certainly can refer to a change in audible perception based on expectations. But, it seems like you don't believe that expectations can change one's perception of audio. Is that correct? If so, we are at an impasse on that subject.

Also, using computers as an example of muti-use applications is not a good example because no testing methods and standards were set up for using computers in military and/or business settings vurses home settings. Your example of the use of computers is not fit for comparing to use of placebo, ABX, DBT's in stereophonic audio.

Maybe not the best example, but the point I was trying to make is as follows:
You seem to be claiming that placebo effect, ABX and DBT aren't applicable simply because they were not originally intended for that use. That is not a valid argument! My example was to show that something intended for a particular use absolutely can be used for another purpose successfully. You keep repeating this argument, yet that isn't going to make it valid.

Now that I have had to beat this horse dead because of the need to repeat myself 3 to 4 times, hopefully you understand what my points are.

I was going to bring up the last part of the quote above (again) because you still have not addressed it, but after reading you plan on trying power cables in your system I will let it go. I hope you really do try a number of power cables in your system. Would you mind listing what your system consists of? Just trying to figure out what resolution your audio system has. It really does make a difference.

Onkyo TX-NR1009 receiver
3x Marantz MA500 amps for front stage
4x surrounds powered by receiver
2x LSi15 FR/FL
LSiC center
2x LSiFX side surround
2x LSi9 back surround

Sources:
HDMI via computer
LG BD390 blu-ray
Cable box
Technics SL-1200MK2 with Denon DL-110 cartridge into Cambridge Azur 640p preamp

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The first noise study was the first in an ongoing series which now comprises ten articles covering power cords, passive power conditioners, AC regenerators, dedicated AC circuits and audio grade fuses. Here is a link to the 10th article:

Studies-On-Residential-Power-Line-Noise-Part-10-PS-Audio-P10-AC-Regenerator

The second post in the 10th article has links to the other 9 articles.

Thank you! I will be looking through those articles when I get some time.

Thank you for your understanding. That is the point. I don't understand people getting all up in arms because someone said they tried something and received a particular result. I have never said anything along the lines of "if YOU try this, this is the result you will get".

Understood.

Nothing wrong with a proper blind test. I do them frequently.

Agreed, it definitely needs to be done proper to be worthwhile.

There can never be conclusive evidence for anything that affects peoples senses and perceptions. Medical trials can provide "conclusive" evidence that a particular treatment worked for a statistically relevant sample of subjects. That does not mean it will work for every person who takes it. Something which cures one person can kill another.

The main thing is, you have to try things for yourself under the proper conditions using an appropriate testing method.

Well, for me, it wasn't a matter of what the difference was, or how it would sound to someone, just that there was a difference. And your point about medical tests brought up the exact reason it can be hard to quantify exactly what the change is. Different people (and their senses) will react different, and therefore describe things differently. For me, a blind test is really only applicable to show if there is a difference or not, nothing more. Hopefully you can understand where I am coming from.

No.

I agree that it would be an interesting study, but this is not something I am interested in doing.

I became interested in the power cord and power conditioning device studies because I was fascinated by the fact that something well outside the audio signal chain could have such a profound effect on audio signal quality. I think it is well understood that anything inserted into the audio signal path is going to have an effect on the signal. Whether that effect is audible or not depends on the listener, the equipment and the listening environment. I was curious to find out the technical reasons behind what I was hearing from power cords and other power conditioning devices.

I was in this hobby for a couple of decades before I tried my first aftermarket power cord, an inexpensive Signal Cable MagicPower cord. It, along with every power cord I have tried since then, came with a money back guarantee. Therefore all I risked was time and shipping costs.

My power cord studies document that sometimes I heard a difference and improvement and sometimes I did not. I also documented that when power cords did make a difference, the difference varied based on the the equipment they were used with. Sometimes I tried a high performance power cord and didn't hear a benefit. After upgrading my audio equipment, I would revisit the rejected cord and an improvement would be evident.

I can understand. If it's not something you're interested in, you don't really have a motivation to do it. Your motivation for testing power related stuff makes sense to me. You want to understand something that seems "odd" or "out of place." I really thank you for taking the time to do it, regardless of whether if was just your own curiosity that drove you there.

However, if you ever do get interested in testing digital audio cables in the same way, just know that there will be a very interested audience awaiting it! :cheesygrin:

I don't think there is any rational reason for perceived differences in audio equipment to be a contentious, divisive or derisive matter. If someone says they put a cuckoo clock in their listening room and it improved their listening pleasure, I don't feel the need to pounce on them asking for scientific "proof" and/or to ridicule them for how they pursue this hobby. To each his own. If I post a review or research results, I am not insisting that everyone needs to adopt what worked for me. I am only documenting my experience and offering suggestions.

I suppose I can understand that to some extent, but my brain just doesn't work that way. If there isn't some sort of measurable or demonstrable difference, I just can't really motivate myself to try it unless it is in some sort of scientific manner. However, I don't have the instruments you do, nor do I really have friends interested in working with me to do proper blind studies.

Life is short, experiment.

heiney9 wrote: »

I am astounded that people have to be told by someone else there is a difference rather than discovering it on their own. Just listening can tell YOU if YOU hear a difference. I will never understand why someone else has to scientifically demonstrate it before you are willing to listen for it. I assume everything in life is this way for you, if not, why just for this subject, topic or hobby?

When it comes to buying things, pretty much. I don't usually have a desire to waste my time and money on trying something without some quantifiable proof of difference. Some things have obvious differences, but for things that don't, I want something more than just "it's different because I say it is." There are rare exceptions to this; something that I deeply care about, something that I put my heart and my soul into. However, while audio is great hobby, it's not that important in my life.

At any rate, power cords are a perfect example of that. It simply made no sense in my mind that they would make a difference on the audio output since they were so isolated from the signal chain. In fact, DK said that this is exactly the reason he delved into his research and testing on the subject! The difference is, he has the knowledge, proper equipment and the interest to do those kinds experiments, whereas I don't. In the end, DK gave me the information that I desired, and confirmed to me that there is at least a difference that some people can hear based on his tests and prior blind studies on noise.

Now, when it comes to how the difference affects me, or my senses, that becomes completely subjective. Therefore, I don't expect science to come out and explain it; I can discover that for myself.

I just don't get the logic,

That's okay; not everyone thinks the same way. Besides, I believe it would be a boring world if everyone did.

If someone puts a scoop of what appears to be chocolate ice cream in front of me and tells me it tastes just like banana. I don't make them prove to me scientifically it tastes like banana. It take a taste for myself to determine it tastes like banana.

That's not really applicable to my logic.

I don't understand why an outside person you don't even know has to demonstrate via measurements and scientific data that there is a difference before you will try and listen for a difference yourself.

Limited amounts of time and money. I generally choose to spend both on things that I know can provide me some difference.

I am sorry, I can't comprehend that sort of thinking. Most people don't like to be told, they like to experience for themselves.

Okay.

BeefJerky wrote: »

At any rate, power cords are a perfect example of that. It simply made no sense in my mind that they would make a difference on the audio output since they were so isolated from the signal chain.

Yet, with absolutely no knowledge or experience you had no problem stating there cannot be any audible difference between either power cords or digital cables. Typical know-it-all. Wrong again. :rolleyes:

BlueFox wrote: »

Yet, with absolutely no knowledge or experience you had no problem stating there cannot be any audible difference between either power cords or digital cables. Typical know-it-all. Wrong again. :rolleyes:

Yep, and I have no problem admitting that my claims were wrong; about power cords anyway.

halo71 wrote: »

I agree with you. But why argue till you are blue in the face against something you have not tried?

I like a good discussion/debate. I've already stated why I had no desire to try them myself prior to some evidence of difference.

heiney9 wrote: »

Ummmmmmm are you really that dense?

H9, I think you have some very unrealistic expectations.

Did you see post #240 where it was demonstrated that WilliamM2 cannot distinguish between two different papers, with two different titles, with two different abstracts, published in two different journals, yet by the same authors?

If William cannot distinguish between the written word right in front of his face, is it reasonable to think that he could distinguish between two pieces of audio gear? Hence his insistance that someone else "prove" for him that a difference or improvement exists.

Whatever works mannnnn!

halo71 wrote: »

No, arguing against something you nothing about or have no experience with is not a discussion or a debate. I call it being hard headed.

That's way too logical for most of the naysayers I encounter in life. Plus, they think they know it all too. Having experience and direct knowledge and disagreeing is completely different than having no experience and no direct knowledge and disagreeing based on nothing but assumptions. We all do it to a certain extent; it's human nature but to the extent I've seen on this audio board; it's quite amazing (and not in a good way).

H9

madmax wrote: »

I agree. At this level upgrading a power cable would be silly. I seriously doubt there could be any difference unless he had an RF interference problem or the like. Even upgraded interconnects and speaker wire would be questionable unless something were wrong with the current ones (like using cheap Monster Cables or the nasty ones that came with the AVR). Before even entering a discussion of this class daily access to a system with much more definition and lots of gear swapping experience is necessary just to grasp of the content of this discussion. I don't think he is being helped to understand what a more revealing system can offer.

There are some of us that just aren't fortunate enough I'll put it... to join some of you in the high accepted society known as a revealing setup. It's these posts like this that depress me because some of us are just stuck with what we got. Maybe some folks want to get the best out of what they currently own or can afford.

I have MIT IC's and speaker cables in my rig, but I use an AVR because I can't afford a nice pre nor integrate one that will satisfy the need. But at least I don't use no basic RCA AVR which I'm sure would be MUCH WORSE then a decent Onkyo AVR.

Now that's not to say that buying a $300 PC for a $300 AVR is a great suggestion, but like anything in this world, any modification big OR small will help. That applies to so many things. You can only lead the horse to the water, only he can drink from it!

I've had revealing setups on the cheap, spending money is not the point. So yeah, I have a very expensive setup now but my real interest has always been in setting up systems as cheap as possible which sound as good at least in some ways than a system that costs 20 times more. You are not stuck! Those MITs will some day be on something different and instead of a moderate improvement they will make a massive improvement. So what is cheap? Under $500 for everything? Under $800? Under $2100? For those prices you can do some pretty impressive things. Truthfully at $2K is where you can really hit some significant bench marks.

gdb wrote: »

Isn't it time to start in on Emotiva or Bose at this point ? This topic is pretty well hammered out. it's gotten to the point that I'm able to use it as an aid for getting to sleep.

i use it as an aid in moving my bowels

sda2mike wrote: »

i use it as an aid in moving my bowels

Has it a scouring effect, has it , or is it more virus-like ??

headrott, see..........the question was never (can BJ) hear a difference. The question was can anyone else hear a difference. Completely assbackwards way of doing it, I know. Most could gives a rats a$$ if other people can hear a difference and care more about if they could hear a difference.

Hence, my fascination with the naysayer crowd that always wants proof (I) can hear a difference as if because I do, they will..............of course having never tried it or experimented with it.

Sometimes I feel like I am in Bizzaro-Land.

H9

heiney9 wrote: »

headrott, see..........the question was never (can BJ) hear a difference. The question was can anyone else hear a difference. Completely assbackwards way of doing it, I know. Most could gives a rats a$$ if other people can hear a difference and care more about if they could hear a difference.

Hence, my fascination with the naysayer crowd that always wants proof (I) can hear a difference as if because I do, they will..............of course having never tried it or experimented with it.

Sometimes I feel like I am in Bizzaro-Land.

H9

Especially when part of the scientific method is that you observe a phenomina when you are testing a hypothesis. In BeefJerky's "scientific method" someone else observes a phenomina and reports to him the results, then BeefJerky decides if the hypothesis is true or false.


Greg