@jacobsdad2000 hey yes is I am both. But I’m an audiophile first.  I ask the question as an audiophile. I been an audiophile longer than I been both. I’ve been blessed to do well in my career. I enjoy helping clients find their way as audiophiles too. I say this because I listen to my rig daily. Brings me a smile. Spent years getting to this point.  It’s not just an expensive system. It’s one that I took my time researching, tweaking and carefully choosing the gear in it. Based on the knowledge I learned for years.  I only became a dealer because I truly believe in the designer and the product.  If I didn’t I would just do what I been doing. Just being an audiophile.  Take care my friend. 

Thanks for the nods and welcomes! It's been a while since I've participated in a forum. I'm looking forward to sharing some thoughts and laughs.

 

BTW, if your first car-stereo wasn't an 8-track, attached to a hanging bracket that was bolted onto the underside of your metal dashboard (ALL metal, called a "Chicklets maker"), rejoice (!), as you may not be old yet. Mine was a '64 Belair, which some of us know could accommodate up to 8 teens..

Do you think the way things are going you will end up selling your high end gear to eat? Time will tell.

Haters just want to hate.

Seriously, I think the hate comes from people who don't want to spend more money on better sound, so they justify and rationalize that by convincing themselves that cheap gear sounds as good as high dollar gear.

 

Hater love to hate ... You are right ...

But your explanation is simplistic ...

It is not necessary to spend big money to have a minimal acoustic satisfaction if we learn how to do it ... most people are lazy or lack the time to learn ( i am retired) ... Some hate high end for the reason you mention , some hate the price abuse because they dont know how to make any system at any price great and optimal for his potential specific level of S.Q. and needs ...

Some with high end systems hate also people like me happy and who knows why and how to be happy with acoustics knowledge and a low cost system because in their head the price tag only have a meaning and i claim too much and devalorize their costly gear by my claims ( it is not true because there exist for sure differences in S.Q, level qualities )...

hate have many roots as you see not only one ; and when you are creative as some are you dont loose your time in hating ...

But it is knowledge who rule audio minimal acoustical satisfaction not price tag ... This threshold is enough for most people .. And trust me  my system is not a frustrating stopgap... One can be proud of his very costly system as Mike Lavigne who worked hard to created it and i am not envious at all , i admire him; and i am as creative as he was but with a low cost system in a dedicated room ...

First low cost gear is not to be confused with cheap gear as you do ...

Second good low cost gear can give very great acoustic result even if for sure it is under the quality of high end system potential ...

Third if someone dont study, experiment and learn how to create S.Q. with acoustics, then anyway  with high end or low cost system he will be sensitive to critics and he will react with hate often or with very forceful dislike and scepticism ...

Psycho-acoustics and creativity  rule audio not price tag ....

Those who ignore the first and do not bother with the second are sentenced by their attitude to hate at worst and frustration at best ....It is the case with high end owners as wii5th low cost system owners ...

Haters just want to hate.

Seriously, I think the hate comes from people who don’t want to spend more money on better sound, so they justify and rationalize that by convincing themselves that cheap gear sounds as good as high dollar gear.

Hate is a strong word, I'd prefer to say frustrated. Some posters come here looking for wisdom from more experienced members, and instead get: recommendations that are way above their price point, suggestions to replace their entire systems, comments about their equipment being junk, condescending comments about knowledge, etc. etc.

I can see that after a while it can sour an attitude. 

Basic competent cables are audibly transparent as are basic competently designed and built amplification. Same for anything digital at red book or above. Power cords and numerous other after market tweaks don’t affect the sound. This is not based on jealousy, a lack of experience or hatred of high end audio. These are facts based on solid science. There is a mountain of evidence in support based on numerous controlled studies designed to objectively determine human thresholds of audibility of various forms of distortion. We also know through years of research that we can not reliably compare an aural memory to real time sound perception. Unless comparisons are done level matched, time synced, double blind with quick switching then the results are prone to be unreliable. Science doesn’t care how we feel about objective reality. One either accepts that or not. I care deeply about sound quality. I do not dismiss anything out of jealousy, anger or hatred. If these things really made a difference I would want to know it so I can make well informed choices as an audiophile. But if impressions about sound quality are made under uncontrolled conditions based on long term aural memory I want verification under proper conditions. I want to know objectively what does make a difference and what does not. 

Basic competent cables are audibly transparent as are basic competently designed and built amplification. Same for anything digital at red book or above. Power cords and numerous other after market tweaks don’t affect the sound. This is not based on jealousy, a lack of experience or hatred of high end audio. These are facts based on solid science. There is a mountain of evidence in support based on numerous controlled studies designed to objectively determine human thresholds of audibility of various forms of distortion. We also know through years of research that we can not reliably compare an aural memory to real time sound perception. Unless comparisons are done level matched, time synced, double blind with quick switching then the results are prone to be unreliable. Science doesn’t care how we feel about objective reality. One either accepts that or not. I care deeply about sound quality. I do not dismiss anything out of jealousy, anger or hatred. If these things really made a difference I would want to know it so I can make well informed choices as an audiophile. But if impressions about sound quality are made under uncontrolled conditions based on long term aural memory I want verification under proper conditions. I want to know objectively what does make a difference and what does not. 

bob70 I had that eight track player that you referred to which I lovingly installed in my 1969 Plymouth Fury. The sound quality was- loud- and glorious to my then acute ears. Felt like the Allman Brothers were in my backseat. 

has anyone defined "high end" for purposes of this discussion? Seems impossible, since the term is inherently relative. I enjoy my system, and have stretched financially to make upgrades from time to time. Yet, for some the cost of my system would be immaterial . Those folks can, if they choose, put together a system that would far exceed the quality of mine. I understand that you generally get what you pay for and it doesn't make me jealous that there are components I will never be able to afford. My system brings me joy actually listening to music which is a lot more important to me than what someone posts a on some forum. I think it's about taking your budget, whatever that may be, and putting together a well matched system, that makes you happy. This is not a competition 

those that make it so should take some time for quiet reflection 

@scottwheel  Here we go again. If you do not notice the differences, so be it.

There is no need to convince others that they are "delusional", just annoying.

I did not say anyone was delusional. I hear the same differences in non level matched, non time synchronized, non quick switching, non bias controlled comparisons as you and everyone else does. But the accept the science that tells why we perceive those differences when no actual differences in the sound exist. If that objective information conflicts with your beliefs it’s up to you how you want to reconcile it. Personally I want to know what really happened s audible and what is a byproduct of flawed auditioning. That informs my choices. 

@scottwheel i disagree. But I’m perfectly fine with how you feel about your audio experiences. But to tell us that cables and amplification doesn’t make a difference and that our auditioning is flawed is where I think a lot of audiophiles say that there is either hate against the high end or even those that have found ways to achieve those results for less money is where you lose me. Basically either you lack the hearing or experience to tell the difference is what most think about people that feel the way you do. I think when someone tells others that have been in this 20 or 30 years that it is simply flawed auditioning despite the fact that different materials, shielding , processes and building methods are used and that it makes 0 audible difference just doesn’t make sense to most of us and even in a scientific measurement camp that doesn’t make sense to us. I’m just saying. Not bashing you but the way you explained your points is exactly why we feel the opposite. Materials, processes, technology  and build quality make a difference period. 

Oh, come on already.

I'm at the point where I refuse to deal with anyone who says they can't hear a difference in cables, power cords, fuses, etc...

Of course they do.

It's the same old thing, over and over and over and over.

 

 

 

 

Pointing out the non intuitive nature of human biology isn’t hate. Nor is it a personal feeling. It is kind of ironic though that the typical response is that somehow I am an inferior listener. We are all humans and we are all subject to how the human auditory system perceives sound. It does strike me as problematic that science is seen as a “camp.” What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Isn’t that conflict a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs? Historically speaking how often have hobbyists been onto something that an entire field of scientific studies have been getting wrong for an entire century? 

“ I'm at the point where I refuse to deal with anyone who says they can't hear a difference in cables, power cords, fuses, etc... Of course they do. It's the same old thing, over and over and over and over.” Do you think you could reliably identify those differences you believe you and everybody else hears in a proper double blind listening test? Speaking for myself I am quite confident that I can identify any and all differences in sound that I believe to be real in such a test. Further more if I were put to the challenge and failed to reliably identify differences I believed to be real that would give me cause to reconsider my beliefs.

scottwheel

It does strike me as problematic that science is seen as a “camp.”

That's a logical fallacy, straw man argument. There is a bias here against measurementalists, who often parade as scientists or "objectivists." But of course they are among the most biased on the group, the "nay-sayers."

It’s not a straw man Calvinj referred to “a scientific measurement camp.” 

Scientism has nothing to do with sciences ...

And sound quality perception is too complex to be reduced to electrical engineers explanation... Psycho-acoustics also play the most part in the sound studies ...

This does not means that amplifier designer work with their mere only taste to design more musical gear, they can use psycho-acoustics results, about harmonics perception ,the non linear time domain of the brain or crosstalk effects on the brain etc ...

As i said , objectivist and subjectivist are two opposed and deluded groups about a too complex problem : the objective conditions and the subjective correlated conditions in the perception of qualities ...

Psycho-acoustics is the science who put the right question here , and the answers are complex and multidisciplinary , never simplistic as claimed by the two opinionated groups above ...

 

«Complexity and intelligence begin as claimed the late Charles Sanders Peirce with the number three » -- Anonymus thinker 🧐

«The three musketeers were four because three is not the end of the world»-- Anonymus Alexandre Dumas reader

«For the sake of power any group can be usefully  divided in two : the good and the bad »-- Anonymus Machiavelli reader

I am certainly not parading as a scientist . One does not need to be a scientist to have a basic understanding of science. I don’t parade as a scientist but I listen to them, look at their research and give scientists and their work the credibility it is due. I am certainly not an objectivist. If logical fallacies are going to be pointed out then  ad hominem needs to be called out here. It ain’t about me. My questions stand unanswered. So I will ask again. What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs? 

my post was my opinion and not aimed at you but being after your post it was in some way related to your post...😁

My opinion is that there is many sciences involved not only one as in electrical engineering ...

Then in audio we must add all multidisciplinary factors at play ...

Then i cannot be subjectivist nor objectivist ... This is my opinion ..

And psycho-acoustics so technologically advanced it is and it is, had no complete understanding once for all of human hearing ... There is only competing theories ...

It was not my intention to attack you but to give my opinion here ... When we say that something make no difference because electrical engineering said so , it is not necessarily a scientific position ... Why ? because the problem is sometimes multidisciplinary and more complex than we think ... this is my point ...

And i dont like as you ad hominem attack ... we then can understand ourself ...

Dividing audio in two camps is useless...

I am certainly not parading as a scientist . One does not need to be a scientist to have a basic understanding of science. I don’t parade as a scientist but I listen to them, look at their research and give scientists and their work the credibility it is due. I am certainly not an objectivist. If logical fallacies are going to be pointed out then ad hominem needs to be called out here. It ain’t about me. My questions stand unanswered. So I will ask again. What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs?

scottwheel

Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs? 

It doesn't seem to have worked that way for you, does it?

Electrical audio signals are not particularly complex. Determining whether or not there is a change in an audio signal is pretty simple as well. Same goes for proper listening comparisons to determine whether he thresholds at which various types of change in an audio signal are audible. 

”It doesn't seem to have worked that way for you, does it?”

 

Sure it did. I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. I resolved those conflicts by accepting the objective data and accepting the realities about how I hear and process sound. 

people are usually partisan as to what they already have......they realize that their wallets are not fat enough.

"Electrical audio signals are not particularly complex. Determining whether or not there is a change in an audio signal is pretty simple as well."

Actually not so, science apparently is still not sure about electrical current workings see: "Two New Theories for the Current Charge Relativity and the Electric Origin of the Magnetic Force Between Two Filamentary Current Elements" paper.

"I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else." I am pretty sure this is questionable, at least.

@calvinj     Great thread!  IMO many have not had enough experience around HEA. It's easy to be critical over the unknown. Secondly with the recent escalation of budget audio Youtube reviewers and vinyl collectors, they have the attitude that the music is 100% more important than the electronics. Lastly many can't accept value is a subjective opinion that varies with the individual.

There’s no debate in science about the nature of electrical audio signals. In the world of electrical signal transfer and processing it’s about the simplest thing there is. You want complicated? Signal processing via satellite for real time GPS that literally has to calculate the effects of special relativity because the speed at which the satellites travel create micro mismatches in synchronization due to time slowing down at faster speeds. That’s complicated. Audio signals from 20 hz - 20 kHz is really simple in comparison. And none of those far more complicated technologies are using “high end” cables or power cords. They use gear and materials based on their measured performance. And it works. 

 

“Psycho-acoustics is the science who put the right question here , and the answers are complex and multidisciplinary , never simplistic as claimed by the two opinionated groups above ...”

 

 

What are the competing theories in psychoacoustics pertaining to well established thresholds of human hearing or the current models of how we process and store aural memories? I was not aware of any actual theories in psychoacoustics that challenge the current body of studies that have already established those thresholds of human hearing or any theories that challenge the current models of how we filter and steer focus when listening and how that information is further filtered through data reduction and additional steered focus. Can you point us to any literature in the field of psychoacoustics that talks about these competing theories? 

>>> I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. >>>
 

>> am pretty sure this is questionable, at least. >>
 

how so? Do you believe that you and other audiophiles have developed some form of audio perception that works differently than what was the product of millions of years of evolution? Do you think that somehow your ear physiology has been some how reconstructed or that your brain functions that process sound have been re-wired? What makes it questionable? What makes you think you are exempt from human biology? 

human hearing in many ways is not extensively understood or measurable, and there certainly are individual differences...the process is the same, but the results are different...

“human hearing in many ways is not extensively understood or measurable, and there certainly are individual differences...the process is the same, but the results are different...”

 

based on what? As I mentioned before I try to pay attention to actual scientists in the field of psychoacoustics and the actual studies. According to scientists such as James D Johnston and Floyd Toole among others we know a great deal in deep detail about what humans can actually hear and can’t hear and have a pretty detailed map of how that correlates to measured performance in audio gear. In so far as the electrical audio signal in particular is concerned it is very well known as to what makes an audible difference and what does not. It does get more complicated once it’s about sound waves in three dimensions. What scientific sources are you getting this conflicting opinion from that states human thresholds of hearing are not so well understood? Honest question. Even in the world of high end audio we do have some substantial differences of opinions among top scientists. But none that I know of regarding thresholds of audibility. So honestly, if you know of any conflicting opinions from the scientific community I’d very much like to know about it. 

@scottwheel here we go telling people that they can’t hear possibly what they are hearing. This is where we are. So everyone that hears a difference in power cords cables etc are being mind tricked or ear tricked. Ok whatever! 

What are the competing theories in psychoacoustics pertaining to well established thresholds of human hearing or the current models of how we process and store aural memories? I was not aware of any actual theories in psychoacoustics that challenge the current body of studies that have already established those thresholds of human hearing or any theories that challenge the current models of how we filter and steer focus when listening and how that information is further filtered through data reduction and additional steered focus. Can you point us to any literature in the field of psychoacoustics that talks about these competing theories?

 

Read this and you will have a gist of an aspect of the problem ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

Link this article above with this one about the conditions around a good audio design :

https://www.temporalcoherence.nl/cms/images/docs/FourierConditions.pdf

For the competing theories about hearing, google it, there is many competing theories, but the main point is between theory of ecological perception inspired by J.J. Gibson in visual perception field and the theory based on a more traditional mechanical view ( Fourier, Helmholtz, etc )

By the way we must not conflate the immense progress in audio technology with pure scientific unresolved question about hearing itself ...

For example the fact we create A.I. with neural network are not a proof of our understanding of the brain AT ALL ... It is easy to demonstrate because consciousness dont emerge from the neural level , but from a much smaller scale according to the most important research in this field right now ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257134660_Consciousness_in_the_universe_a_review_of_the_%27ORCH_OR%27_theory

Technology is not science, and science is not knowledge ...

As transhumanism and other technological cult simplify it by reduction ...

@scottwheel so that deeper soundstage.  Airy decay. Tighter bottom end bass. It’s all human biology. lol 😂 

>>> I don’t perceive sound any differently than you or anyone else. >>>
 

>> am pretty sure this is questionable, at least. >>
 

how so?

If you do not know it by now, I guess you never will.

As demonstrated by the first of the article in my post above , we dont understand exactly how the human hearing beat the Fourier threshold and the Gabor limits ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

For the aural memory problem , analysing it in pure quantitative terms is beside the main point and is not enough ... The body store aural memory in his metabolism rythm as emotions and as meanings too ...

Sound and musical memory are not only accurate quantities, they are essentially RECOGNIZED pattern of meanings perceived in their own non linear time domain and they are also emotions stored in our body and by which we can ressuscitate even consciousness ( alzheimer patient listening music . unborn babies growing a brain with rythm )

Reducing aural memory as a mere mechanistic process can be useful in technological experiment, and it must be so because technology to be efficient need limits ; but putting this mechanistic approach as the ONLY way human store sound memory is not only detrimental to hearing research it is simplistic ... Science dont reduce itself to technology...

Technology must simplify and use maps to work , but science goes on by facing complexity and reality, not mere maps...And knowledge is the ability to differentiate technology and science, maps and reality ...

Knowledge call for wisdom not for technology at the end ...

Our world is actually in a state of destruction created by ideological technocrats reducing not only wisdom and knowledge but science to technology for the sake of corporate greed and power ... I dont know if you learned something in the last 4 years humanity goes through, about science, greed, power, technology etc  but i learned a lot  ...

Do you or do you not accept the well researched established thresholds of human hearing and human aural memory?

“ so that deeper soundstage.  Airy decay. Tighter bottom end bass. It’s all human biology. lol 😂 “

 

Do you think you can reliably identify these differences in a proper ABX DBT? 

“As demonstrated by the first of the article in my post above , we dont understand exactly how the human hearing beat the Fourier threshold and the Gabor limits ...

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html “

 

ok let’s cut to the chase. You are citing this study as evidence in support of your position. Does that mean you accept the study and the protocols and methodologies used in this study as a reasonable standard for valid data? Let’s just focus on that for the moment. 

“how so?

If you do not know it by now, I guess you never will.”

 

does that stop you from explaining it and answering the questions I asked? 

@scottwheel i don’t put much stock into folks that can’t hear the difference. As long as I can hear the difference that’s enough 

“ I don’t put much stock into folks that can’t hear the difference. As long as I can hear the difference that’s enough”

 

I didn’t ask you to put stock in me. I’m asking you if you put stock in yourself. Do you think *YOU* can reliably identify those differences in a proper level matched ABX or ABChr DBT? Can you really hear the difference without knowing in advance which is which? 

 

ok let’s cut to the chase. You are citing this study as evidence in support of your position. Does that mean you accept the study and the protocols and methodologies used in this study as a reasonable standard for valid data? Let’s just focus on that for the moment.

Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies , and in spite of certain criticism , theirs conclusions goes with the reseacrh trends in this hearing studies field ... I am not an objectivist nor a subjectivist... I am only interested by hearing, acoustics, sounds, musics ... And the source of qualia ...

What they say in their conclusion goes hand in hand with the deep and important research of J.J. Gibson in the visual field ... Then it appear to me that reversing that trend is not possible because hearing and seeing are way less stranger and distant to one another for the brain that what we think generally as non scientist ...

And by the way this article is related by me to the second article i put in my post by a physicist van Maanen about the conditions of application of the Fourier mappings in amplifier design for continuous sine waves signals versus dynamic musical signal in relation to the human ears ...

 

 

 

 

https://maa.org/news/math-news/human-hearing-not-constrained-by-gabor-limit

«Human Hearing Not Constrained by Gabor Limit

“ Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies “

 

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol. So do I. And when audiophiles can produce repeatable verifiable evidence in the form of double blind listening tests with positive results I will accept their claims on the audibility of interconnect cables, power cords and other similar claims. That’s the difference between a legitimate scientific study like the one you cited and anecdotal evidence that was subject to multiple variables, had no meaningful controls and is unverifiable or repeatable. 

“ Lets cut the chase i have no reason to doubt their methodologies “

 

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol. So do I. And when audiophiles can produce repeatable verifiable evidence in the form of double blind listening tests with positive results I will accept their claims on the audibility of interconnect cables, power cords and other similar claims. That’s the difference between a legitimate scientific study like the one you cited and anecdotal evidence that was subject to multiple variables, had no meaningful controls and is unverifiable or repeatable. 

There is one thing you seems to not understand here ...

Double blind test are not practical for everybody in his OWN room with his OWN gear and his OWN listenings habits ..

Blind test are useful practice in many industry for his statistical signifiance...THATS ALL ...

Blind test are useless for an individual incremental step by step process of tuning an audio system/room with many devices ...

 

Supposed now in an experiment i put a piece of shungite on an amplifier...

This amplifier is mine , the system is mine , the acoustic room is controlled by me for my ears ...

I listen and i recognize a difference ( positive or negative) with or without this piece of shungite on the amplifier ( i can ask my wife to put it or not on the amp ) ... I will use a piece of music i know very well on my room /system doing this ...

If i do the same experiment with a piece of quartz, i will recognize or not a positive or a negative difference or no difference at all ...

But it will be with my gear and my acoustic room ...

With another gear, another room, another music ; this test will have no meaningful result ...

We can do it statistically with a crowd using the same system and room for all and had results which will be positive in a low % for the perception of an effect and change ...

But this low % of beneficial results will in no way change or contradict the value of this positive results for my ears, with my specific gear, and my specific room and my music ...

Then we must not infer that a negative % results about a "tweak" means that the tweaks had no value ...

It is not also good science to infer from a mere placebo explanation... It will be simplistic and the usual way hard core objectivist simplistically eliminate a real perceived effect in some conditions for some ears as illusory ...

i dont believe and i dont buy tweaks by the way ...

I created mine at no cost ...😁

Experiment is science ... using statistic goes both way it can establish the value of a result or discredit a result as easily if you know how to falsify anything with statistics ( half of medical articles are made this way paid by big pharma ) ... See big pharma criminal methods use of statistic and this is a fact confirmed by many direc tors of the more prestigious medical journals ...Google it ..😊..

i am neither in the crowd of subjectivist audiophile nor in the crowd of objectivist ...

Sorry ...

I enjoy music at low cost by my own creative effort in simple way adressing electrical noise floor, mechanical vibrations/resonance and acoustics my own way AT NO COST ...

I dont promote scientism but simple experiments...I promote creativity not costlier upgrades ...

Dont sell me your blind test salad to discredit anything ...😊

We must learn how to hear even as adult ... It is enough for me ...I dont buy the accuracy salad on the limits of hearings... Because it is not even wrong ...It is beside the main point : qualia recognition and interpretation ...

My low cost system is enough for me as i tuned it by the way... It gave me minimal acoustic satisfaction passed this minimal threshold ... The only upgrade i need will be the BACCH filters you already own...

my best to you ...

 

cool. So you accept the use of double blind listening tests as a valid protocol.

 

We all have our own beliefs, and decision making processes...there are hundreds and hundreds of threads essentially identical to this one...read and enjoy !

@mahgister thank you! +1