I am frustrated because I am an audiophile who cannot discern details from so many of the methods praised by other audiophiles. I joke about not having golden ears. That said, I can easily discern and appreciate good soundstage, image, balance, tone, timbre, transparency and even the synergy of a system. I am however unable to hear the improvements that result from, say a piece of Teflon tape or a $5.00 item from the plumbing aisle at Home Depot. Furthermore, I think it is grossly unfair that I must pay in multiples of one hundred, or even one thousand just to gain relatively slight improvements in transparency, detail, timbre soundstage, etc., when other audiophiles can gain the same level of details from a ten dollar tweak. In an effort to sooth my frustration, I tell myself that my fellow audiophiles are experiencing a placebo effect of some sort. Does anyone else struggle to hear….no wait; does anyone else struggle to comprehend how someone else can hear the perceived benefits gained by the inclusion of any number of highly touted tweaks/gimmicks (brass screws, copper couplers, Teflon tape, maple hardwood, racquet balls, etc.) I mean, the claims are that these methods actually result in improved soundstage, image, detail (“blacker backgrounds”), clarity, bass definition, etc. Am I alone in my frustration here?
This has been an interesting exchange. Thanks to everyone who made the effort to constructively contribute. I'll share just one story to the mix, for whatever it may be worth.
My listening partner of 30 years is my spouse. We regularly listen to music together and we jointly listen to changes we make in our system to cross-check what we each think we may be hearing. We're both intimately familiar with the sound of our system. Over the years, we've come to a simple process that has worked for us for assessing changes:
1) Listen carefully to the current set-up on complex orchestral music.
2) Introduce the change, allowing appropriate time for break in, settling, warm-up or whatever may be needed.
3) Listen carefully again to the same music without comment.
4) Separately write down what differences, if any, we each heard.
5) Share what we separately wrote, then discuss.
6) Undo/Remove the change, re-listen and re-discuss what we hear.
Invariably, we hear the same things and invariably every change makes some difference -- occasionally very minimal, occasionally very significant. We may describe them differently, but the discussion allows us to resolve the difference in descriptive language. When we both separately describe the same sonic changes following the introduction of the change (whether component or tweak), we're pretty well satsified that what we're hearing is real.
Then it's another question to decide: Is the change for the better? Is it worth the cost? When my spouse announces that something we've tried is not leaving the house, I know for sure we have a winner! And, of course, many times the impact of any tweak is highly system and room dependent -- we've experienced that as many others have already described.
My sound awareness has improved as my systems has become more resolving providing more information to make judgements with. My system's resolution allows me to hear small tweaks some I like some I don't but there is no denying that changes are made. There are many many many more resolving systems then mine and I can only imagine what can be heard on those systems!!!
Ahh...very good. I was afraid this thread had withered on the vine, but since there is still a sign of life, I will inject some more hooey…There is definitely something to be said regarding someone’s ability, or inability to hear well – or discern details. It is also a fact that there will always be systems that are more revealing than others.
As I have stated, I can clearly discern good soundstage, image, clarity, transparency, timbre and even decay, and I can discern and appreciate changes in the aforementioned. For most audiophiles, the formula for attaining these physical characteristics - to an obvious degree, is to replace gear or do modifications to the gear (proper setup and room treatments are also big factors). Then, there are cables, tubes, power tweaks, etc. that make audible improvements, but to a lesser degree than upgrading the gear. Then there is the fine-tuning that may involve a myriad of tweaks and products; and it is very difficult for me to believe that placing something-anything under a component or placing a shield of some sort over an IEC... can make the kinds of differences that have been described. We’re talking about improvements in the soundstage that are clearly discernable for crying out loud, or that improvement in transparency are quite obvious.
Look, human beings are human beings; sure, there are those who hear better than others, but what’s more likely – be honest, that a very real and scientific phenomenon known as “the power of persuasion” (placebo effect if you will) is occurring, or that there is the phenomenon of extraordinary human achievement occurring!?
I know I’m pi@#%$! some of you off. Don’t take it personally – I don’t.
Lets assume any system change is a tweak, some are big, some are small, some are minuscule, some are in between.
My first big tweak is moving from a transistor radio to a nicely matched $3000 component system with very well reviewed monitor speakers, amp, etc.
If you are hearing impaired, you might not hear a difference even with this major "tweak".
Most of us will fall in between this degree of hearing ability and that of the very best, say that rabbit in the old Doctor Suess story "The Big Brag" who could hear an insect sneeze or something along those lines miles away.
Where you fall in between in regards to hearing ability in conjunction with how much you care and the relative significance of any particular tweak will determine whether you might actually hear a difference with that particular tweak.
BTW my dog probably hears better than me and he seems to enjoy listening to my system so that makes me feel better.
Also none of us can see into the Infrared or ultraviolet EM bands either. Too bad as those could be a really useful ability!
Most people think they have decent hearing. Like Mapman said, it's all relative. Some people will have more sensitive hearing than others. That doesn't mean those with less sensitive hearing have tin ears.
I think your description of physiological superior hearing as a "phenomenon of extraordinary human achievement" is hyperbole that's unfair to the comparison you put forth, which I imagine was intended to be taken seriously.
However, I do believe that the discussion is either genuine, or it's mostly for fun and therefore interwoven with humor. It's unclear to me which direction this thread is taking.
Of course it’s hyperbole – as are the claims! That’s my point.
Yes, it’s for fun. You don’t see the humor!?
I do value this forum and I do ask serious questions and I do learn from the members and I am grateful. I also can’t stand being nice all the time! I get this itch…not really. I just couldn’t keep my proverbial mouth shut on this whole - “You wouldn’t believe what putting my speaker cables on risers did…it opened the entire soundstage up, the background is so much blacker, I can hear new details…” - thing!
When my friend and I did the comparison between Equarack and Marigo, we were hoping that Equarack would come out on top, since their footers are half as expensive.
No such luck.
My friend's wife listened and immediately and enthusiastically noted the difference made by the Marigo footers.
Even otherwise uninterested spouses of other friends who tried the footers noticed the difference.
Maybe it's the word "Mystery" in the name: Marigo Mystery Footers. Women are attracted to that sort of thing.
What, they’re not exaggerated? Maybe “amplified” would have been a better choice of words! I never said improvements weren’t realized, I merely implied that some of the purported claims of the results gained by employing some (certain) relatively small tweaks seem questionable (“amplified”).
“You wouldn’t believe what putting my speaker cables on risers did…it opened the entire soundstage up, the background is so much blacker, I can hear new details…” - thing!
Be careful here - many speakers are badly designed. The cabinets waffle around like a washboard. The crossovers create huge suckouts around the crossover frequency at different angles. So that a few inches of height difference or a slightly different tilt or just getting them off teh floor can make a huge difference...of course whether you use a hockey puck or a one thousand dollar cone may not be the significant factor but differences are sometimes obvious. Some speakers sound markedly different when you stand from when you sit - it can be that bad.
And of course everyone knows that stands DO MAKE a huge difference (brings things up to the right height and can change the way the omnidirectional bass interacts with the floor and celing.
Wondering what people aren't doing with their weeknights/ends because we're arguing about the benefits/pseudo benefits/degree of benefits/lack of benefits of tweaks. Taking a step back I would venture that this thread has had more impact on our lives then most tweaks will ever have.
I believe tweaks were partly borne out of an audiophile's typically obsessed state of mind with making it 'better'. After all, we've all seemingly accepted that slicing and dicing the point of diminishing returns has somehow become a worthy cause. How many of you have thought about what benefits, if any, an aftermarket power cord would make on say, an electric razor? Would it cut better? Faster? I've thought about things like this, and then I laugh because I've obviously crossed over into crazy audio-geek world -- a "normal" person wouldn't think about these things, just as their reactions are predictably perplexed when I tell them why my cd player is balanced on 3 blocks of wood. But of course we're all audiophiles here, so we won't discuss how abnormal this way of thinking is in the first place.
An interesting experiment to all us tweakers would be to take all the tweaks out of our system (maybe not power cords, for those of you with serious power issues) and see how it sounds. What if you didn't hear any difference? What if you heard a slight difference? What if there was a major difference? It would resolve any doubt as to whether tweaks worked in your system or not.
It saddens be that so many people ascribe their lack of understanding of some of the many phenomena within our world to the nature of the world, itself, and not themselves. I've grown so tiresome of all those, "I can't understand how, therefore it must not be," arguments. "I don't understand how this tweak could work, so it doesn't." "That flies in the face of current theory, so those claims must be false." If science, herself, were to operate within those parameters, it would never advance. What hubris! "To me, evolution just doesn't seem possible. So the theory is false." "I don't see how the world could come to be without a creator, so there must be one." "I do things for a reason. So, nature does, too." We live in a world where anthroporphism has run amok, The world of high-end audio is no different. If we can't explain it, it must not work. If we can't reconcile the theory behind something with our own (generally, quite limited) precepts regarding kinetics, or electro-magnetism, or quantum mechanics, or gravitation, or the strong and weak nuclear forces--then we are being conned! What a bunch of horsesh*t! Friends, reality doesn't give a f*ck what you think.
A few of the conundrums with which we "audiophiles" are faced are: 1) The varying degrees of our acuity of hearing bear no relationship to our bankbooks. 2) Listening is a learned skill of which most of us have little. 3) I suspect that, ofttimes, the developer of an expensive tweak a) Doesn't, really, know why it works, so they posit something that may be absurd, or, at best have little to do with anything, and b) Won't simply admit that the cost of the product has nothing to do with the cost of its manufacture but, rather, with an attempt to recoup the R & D involved in its development. (This is exactly the same as a pharmaceutical company trying to recoup its investiture it a newly developed product before it must be offered in generic form.)
One sad truth is that many "audiophiles" lack either the faculty, or training, or both, to discern those heightened sonic attributes for which they so often pay so dearly. It would not surprise me if less than twenty percent of you reading this, now, can hear well enough to discern what those "golden-eared" ones can. Furthermore, I suspect that very few of the "golden eared" have honed their listening abilities sufficiently to make effective use of what effectively remain naught but latent abilities. So, many of us are just wasting money, when we tweak. And many of the rest of us are simply not getting our money's worth. Though the fault, in both cases, lies, solely, within ourselves and bears no relationship to the genuine efficaciousness of the product, or procedure, in question,
Now, I'm off to play drinking games with Christopher Hitchens and shall see you on the morrow.
When I replaced my MDF shelves with BDR "The Shelf" my wife as well as myself heard the difference and were surprised by the amount of improvement. Less leading edge hash and a blacker background. When I returned the BDR #3 cones under the CDP I didn't like the sound in conjunction with "The Shelf" so I pulled them and now the CDP sits directly on "The Shelf".
One sad truth is that many "audiophiles" lack either the faculty, or training, or both, to discern those heightened sonic attributes for which they so often pay so dearly. It would not surprise me if less than twenty percent of you reading this, now, can hear well enough to discern what those "golden-eared" ones can. Furthermore, I suspect that very few of the "golden eared" have honed their listening abilities sufficiently to make effective use of what effectively remain naught but latent abilities.
Following your argument, pretty much everybody has no idea what they're hearing, and therefore have no basis to judge if it's truly good or not.
3) I suspect that, ofttimes, the developer of an expensive tweak a) Doesn't, really, know why it works, so they posit something that may be absurd, or, at best have little to do with anything
And since audio equipment, like tweaks, are created by the same types of people, they must not know what they're doing either. Which makes this whole hobby a joke on itself and its participants.
Can you not apply this argument to most things man made created for fellow man to enjoy? if i buy an expensive sports car and I like going fast, in reality, the expensive sports car is a mass of metal only thought to perform well, but its creator doesn't really know what he's doing and if or why it works. And I only think I'm going fast, in reality I'm not smart enough to know what fast is, and I'm actually probably not going fast at all.
So we have no idea why we like something, and moreover, we're idiots if we think we do. Makes sense, since we're all living in the Matrix anyway.
Well, it does depress me that the sort of thinking I attack in my post leads to things like my good state of Texas wishing to stop teaching evolution to my children. As it all applies to audio, not so much. Your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum retort falls rather flat,Tholt. I never said that "pretty much everybody has no idea what they're hearing", implying that they "therefore have no basis to judge if it's truly good or not". I was referring to those subtle sonic attributes affected by tweaks. And, yes, most people can't hear them. That doesn't mean they can't tell good sound from bad, though. Why would it? Does not possessing the taste buds of a first class sommelier mean one can't appreciate a good bottle of wine?
Then, you make another generalization. For one thing, people who design audio equipment are, generally, not the same ones who sell tweaks. And, not all people who design tweaks fail to understand why they work. Besides, that's hardly the point. Suppose someone tries out forty types of glue putting a speaker they designed together before settling on the "right one". Does it, then, follow that they would, or should, know why the one they, ultimately, chose sounded best? Of course not. If they possessed that sort of knowledge, they wouldn't have had to try out the first thirty-nine!
Just because some discoveries are stumbled upon doesn't mean they all are. Sound engineering principles don't fall by the wayside because of any of this.
You seem to be saying that what applies to some people applies to most. And that what applies to most, applies to all, creating your own absurdity.
That being said, I agree that, for many, paying more for differences they don't actually hear is a joke. How much have YOU spent on jars of rocks, for instance? Do you, always, do well in double-blind testing? My accuracy rate is, typically, about 85%.
Oh, and, my god! Why do I always keep hearing that, "Nietzsche is dead."--God joke, year after year? What does that even mean, really? Ha, ha. Nietzsche died. The joke's on him? In what way is that a witty comeback, or retort? You mean, he thought he wouldn't? After all, one of Nietzsche's points was that we ALL die--as did that Jesus guy. Upon the arrival of The Second Coming, we'll know the joke really was on Nietzsche. Because that means that after he died, he found that he, still, existed, albeit in the afterlife. At that point, he, probably, looked around and said something like, "Uh oh." In German.
And did you hear the one about Ergo, the Philosophy student, who, when writing of Descartes' dictum, "Cogito ergo sum" responded, "Cogito sum Ergo"?
Nietzschelover, I don't accept "success" in DBTs as a valid indicator of anything, because "same/different" samplings of 30 seconds themselves are invalid. Science requires valid measures and hypotheses testings.
There, however, is an even more important concern--are audio equipment or tweak buyers engaged in science or just what pleases them? I don't think anyone has to defend their likes for a tweak or component based on how it works.
I certainly have had tweaks that don't work, those that work sometimes, and those that work extremely well.
I really don't understand why some have to take it on themselves to be judges of what is worthwhile, what I call the Scam Police. What purpose do they serve? Certainly when some were selling worthless elixors as cures for ailments with those taking them potentially harmed, society did the right thing to band them. How are Scam Police serving society?
I have to agree with everything 'N' said about varying aural acuity, and training with regard to "hearing differences". Then there's the other crap he's spouting. It takes MUCH more faith to accept evolution, as there is absolutely no scientific process possible to support it. The "scientific process" requires that something MUST BE repeatable, observable and recordable to be proven. Evolution is none of these, and further: flies in the face of the first two laws of Thermodynamics. It's totally grounded in philosophical preference, NOT scientific-inference. On the other hand: Science HAS determined that the simplest living cell has, what's been termed, "irreducible complexity", and Darwin himself stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species. (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840) One might also consider MIT's having run a probability program, mathematically determining that it would be TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a single DNA strand to spontaneously occur. When I ran across this video at Blockbuster, I thought it would be a comedy and rented it: (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/) Very thought provoking, and a revelation concerning the fear the scientific and educational establishments have with regards to being found in error. Not exactly, "Misc Audio", but I didn't bring up the topic!
Careful Nietzschelover, that's what happened to Nietzsche in the end. Next thing you know, you'll be writing Wahnbriefes. Come to think of it, your writing actually does resemble the Wahnbriefe!!!!
I would love to debate Intelligent Design vs. Neo-Darwinism here. However, that would be off-topic. I respect your Materialist opinions, Nietzschelover, but don't appreciate your injecting them into threads. You sound like an evangelist for Humanism. Please keep it to yourself. Thank you. :)
Shadorne, the comment you quoted was regarding putting speaker cables on risers, not putting the speakers on risers.
Oops my bad. I retract my statement then. There is indeed no strong reason to use cable elevators in that there is no credible science behind this concept. Insulated elevators are used for uninsulated power wires in free air as it is cheaper than insulating the wires. These are designed to prevent the bare wires shorting to ground. In some cases they have intricate shapes so that the path length (over the surface)to ground is long (this can help when it is wet or raining or the piece becomes dusty/dirty). Of course if it looks cool, keeps wires off the carpet where they can be damaged by traffic and for those that like it - then by all means go for it but it would be an odd situation that would create audible effects from this procedure.
Why should it be surprising that some tweaks have material effects?
Suppose that RF in a system has a significant distortion effect. We know that A/C is a major source of RF. Wouldn't it make sense that a power cable that materially reduces or eliminates RF transmission from the A/C would have a material and positive effect on your sound?
Similarly, suppose that component vibration has a material adverse effect on sound qualify. Wouldn't it make sense that a footer that actually does reduce vibration would materially improve the sound?
That's not to say that any particular tweak that *claims* to achieve these goals actually does. Many/most of them do not. But a few may, and that is what we are looking for.
I really don't understand why some have to take it on themselves to be judges of what is worthwhile, what I call the Scam Police. What purpose do they serve? Certainly when some were selling worthless elixors as cures for ailments with those taking them potentially harmed, society did the right thing to band them. How are Scam Police serving society?
Ok let's pick a more relevant (to Society as a whole) than John Doe with $7,000 Speaker Cables and $3000 speakers (who is happy and in heaven with his cables nevermind that he might have actually got better sound by getting $10,000 speakers instead).
Have you heard of the consensus of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Did you know that this could have huge implications that affect taxes and legislation globally. Many scientists/experts believe that it is all a scam. IMHO, today, we really do need "Scam Police" or at least the "skeptics", more than ever.
Shadorne, you say "There is indeed no strong reason to use cable elevators in that there is no credible science behind this concept." This is a very unscientific thing to say. No credible scientist would ever make that argument. Evidence is call for to be dismissive even in science. We are not talking about science here; we are talking about people's preferences. Therefore you comment about global warming is off the topic. No one needs to pay any heed to you nor your willingness by self-selection to serve as a Scam Police.
I am glad, however, that you so starkly set out your position. Most here are pussyfooting around. I also think you and I have previously had this same discussion before with equal inability to convince each other. :)
"That's not to say that any particular tweak that *claims* to achieve these goals actually does. Many/most of them do not. But a few may, and that is what we are looking for."
Or they may, but in some cases the potential problem may not in fact really exist, so even if the tweak works, you may not hear a difference and draw the wrong conclusion.
Mapman, I have been experimenting today with the Acoustic Revive RIQ-5010 quartz disks under components, which are already on top a Halcyonic active isolation bases. Initially and most conveniently, I tried the quartz under the feet of the component. It is most convenient as the quartz disks are only 1/2 inch thick. They had no effect and in fact harmed the sound somewhat.
Previously, I had noted on a component with only tiny feet that putting the quartz disks directly against the component worked quite well. I contemplated removing the component's feet, but this was a pain. Therefore I sought a spacer to go under the quartz disks and finally settled on old Walker Audio lead filled brass ring pucks that were used under his Valid Points. I used three under both my amp and my dac in piles with the quartz disks on top.
The transparency of the sound and preciseness of the sound stage greatly improved in both instances. In both cases I locked the Halcyonic bases so they were not canceling vibrations. In effect they were just heavy shelves. The sound was good, but far short of the sound stage with the Halcyonics on.
As you can see, I pay no attention to the Scam Police. I find their arguments quite unscientific and defensive of existing science rather than pursuing further knowledge. I would love to know why quartz has the effects it does, no doubt related to its being a piezoelectric, but that won't work as sometimes they don't work. We need better science on this, but who will provide it?
2chnlben, you are providing these definitions, not me. Actual, "To act or proceed cautiously or timidly to avoid committing oneself, like a cat circling carefuly around something it finds distasteful."
No one needs to pay any heed to you nor your willingness by self-selection to serve as a Scam Police
I quite agree - everyone is free to spend as they wish. I just report what is common thinking in science circles. Wrong they may all be, but you won't find many Engineers that can be easily convinced they could benefit from speaker cable elevators in an audio system.
Nor would you be likely to find any physicists who would say there could be no effect. I have heard too many EEs say that electrons don't know what cable they have flowed through and other ridiculous statements to pay them much heed.
A further thought. I once served on a doctorate committee in civil engineering where the candidate sought how to build on landfill. He sought many solutions, but ultimately stated that only penetrating it with footing would work. This may be true and may ultimately be cheapest, but there may be a better solution for someone with a more open approach. The Tacoma Narrows bridge is another example.
Nor would you be likely to find any physicists who would say there could be no effect.
I know what you mean, this is the type of argument used by the "catastrophic" Global Warming advocates - they all point out that C02 is a greenhouse gas therefore it must have an effect. This is all true but it is the relative size of the effect compared to other factors which is actually relevant. No doubt the kind of shampoo one uses might have some effect on the sound quality too.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
