Is the "improvement" real or imnagined?


This thread may be of interest to no one, but I was inspired by @inna post to start a thread. I had a recent experience that may touch on broader unresolved (unresolvable?) questions. I'm mostly happy with my system and my room has been professionally treated. I don't have an ideal listening chair-the back comes up to ear level, maybe a little above. Concessions have to be made to old and crumbling neck vertebra that need support.

I know that high back seating can in theory affect the sound through reflections. So, I got the bright idea to try to mitigate that-I'm sure its not original.

I bought a weighted blanket-quite thick and covered the chair. I put an Afghan blanket over that, the last one my mom crocheted, so its magical already. I perceive improved detail and better imaging -certainly not huge, but a subtle improvement that I hear, or at least think I hear.

So, maybe there is some science behind this, makes sense the blanket would reduce reflections. On the other hand, maybe its simply expectation bias, placebo effect, whatever, at work because there is science behind that as well, and its hard to imagine this is a big thing.

So, how do I know if its real or imagined? Its not a big deal, no real investment and only a very subtle perceived change, but it does relate to other issues that are often debated, sometimes heatedly, on this forum. How do you account for, or eliminate expectation bias, other than a proper double blind test which I'm guessing most of us are not going to do when auditioning equipment? 

I found this interesting, maybe no one else does. Thoughts?

 

kerrybh

Showing 1 response by whart

Years ago, a sound guru who has since gone to that big listening room in the sky suggested I start with phone books, and stack them til I achieved optimal sound. I don’t think they even make phone books anymore, so I’m dating myself. (When I date myself, I hardly ever have issues:)

Seriously, though, I’ve gone through various seating arrangements. I like my Eames lounge- most folks think it has a high back, but it comes to my shoulders. It is also comfy for me. (It’s a real one, not a knock-off). I bought a pair with matching ottomen. (plural of "ottoman"- I once considered opening a store dedicated to footstools, footrests, and hassocks, and calling it the Ottoman Empire). Yes, I'm in a mood, for which I apologize. 

When I make a change in the main system (the vintage system is essentially what I was running in 1975 using some of the same components, restored, with top tier glass), my questions are: is there a change? And is that change an improvement? I’ve often found a change can improve one aspect, but has a negative impact in other areas, to wit, footers or isolation devices beneath electronics.

My main system is pretty "mature" in the sense that it is dialed in, and the changes I’ve made are fairly long-standing. I’m not really on a gear quest, or a tweak hunt. I may be the exception to the restless audiophile constantly seeking more. I spend the money on records, but I’ve slowed down as grade and price inflation took hold and rare copies are even harder to find, except at nutty prices.

It is fun to experiment though and there is nothing wrong with asking the question. Some years ago, I got one of those Schumann Generators from Acoustic Revive. It definitely did something- whether to me or to the gear, I don’t know. But I concluded that I didn’t like the effect- it made things sound more homogenized, less visceral. I still have it, sitting on a shelf with various Peter Belt stuff that I never used, but bought for 5 quid decades ago in London. Where is Geoff when you need him? :)