In my experience models are a lot of trouble. People read into or attribute things to be true when in reality it is nothing but an educated guess run on a computer that can be changed easily with a different PHD's opinion. Models change depending on which way the political* wind blows. There should be some kind of confidence number shown with models but even that can be way off and biased.
* I don't mean big politics, I'm referring to local institutional politics.
I would take a close look: if two cables are connected instead of one and the tweeter no longer clinks, something has changed in terms of sound. Not an illusion, but an objective fact. An example: Two cables run via two sockets, woofer and tweeter. One cable runs via a woofer socket, and the tweeter via a metal bridge and another screw connection, i.e. two sockets. Here we have a material change (sheet metal bridge) as well as further socket (further material). These add metal character and clinks. This is roughly how I would start with audio physics;-) After the first assumptions, you could strip the cable end further for single wiring and lead it through both sockets. If there is now less cliknking, then I would start to rework the entire speaker in this direction. In other words, remove all connectors, connect them directly e.g. to the voice coil feeds, connect the sockets inside directly, without solder lugs, and so on. Just physics. If the loudspeaker, which still measures the same frequency response, has a different sound afterwards, then that's a good example of the difference between frequency response orientation and audio orientation, conceptual electronics and objective electro physics.
And as always to everyone: first do, then answer;-)
And as always to everyone: first do, then answer;-)
I changed the PCM filter setting of the DAC and all is well now.
I realize I must have felt for the placebo effect.
I realize I must have felt for the placebo effect.
Not necessarily, the change you had made with the cables could compensate for the harshness you perceived as such.
For what it's worth, if it were up to me I would try again with the new DAC setting as a check.
No scientific claims here, just my personal experimentation, for what it's worth. 🙂
Last edited:
While I certainly don't have your experience and skills, I've been doing what you described practically always. 👍
I've "learned" by myself (or better, I thought I learned) that with analog signals the "less is better" works well.
But one also has to have the "courage" to go back because Physics is not always "all logic", in my humble opinion.
I thought it was the same with digital signals, but it didn't seem to me that it was instead.
I've "learned" by myself (or better, I thought I learned) that with digital signals you can add even a small component and improve the perceived sound quality.
Again, no scientific claims here, just my personal experimentation and, as always, FWIW. 😉
Placebo effect explains that, mate. That's what this thread is all about but people keep ignoring that elephant in the room.
Take the toys away from the kids so that they learn to deal with the physics;-)
Even in the analog sector, it is possible to become "better" by adding. For example, by adding a diode in the psu. I call this a "beautifying diode". The soul, so to speak. In instrument making, a soundpost: âme, anima.
Mmm. That's just engineering manipulation rather than 'the physics' though isn't it. 'Physics' refers to the study of underlying laws of nature that it's the job of scientific branches to explain. 'Clinks', 'metal character' and 'beautifying' (last I checked) aren't actually 'the physics' in themselves though -they're just subjective descriptions of something you believe you have perceived & may (or may not) be there. 'The physics' would be clearly estabilishing whether these observations are real or not, and seeking the mechanisms that cause them, the research studies being subject to competent peer review and evidence-based challenge.
Last edited:
I would try if I got that far, but I'm not there yet.
Also because you should explain to me exactly how and where. 🙂
Thanks, anyway. 😉
I would have said: "Placebo effect could explain that, mate". 🙂
But only because I don't like it when people use absolute statements since my background is addressed to use of "it would seem" rather than "it is". 😉
I do not deny the possibility that the "placebo effect" - or to use a less specialized term the "expectation bias" - may have its importance, on the contrary.
I deny that you can establish the when and the where.
I mean that, as I already said, even in the medical field the placebo effect does not always and in any case manifest itself, if you know what I mean.
In other words, please explain to me why the expectation bias should arise in a case where I have to choose between a change that costs me the same amount of effort, the same amount of money, and the same amount of commitment.
Will I be free and capable to give a preference when there is no expectation bias or not? 🙂
Can you please describe your entire system and what you have been doing?
For example, what dac is it? Which filters are you switching between? Are you sure you can hear a difference between filters?
What audio are you listening to, one carefully chosen test song that you know intimately? Streaming, lossy encoded, resampled, all sorts of different music?
How have you been listening, focusing your attention on the part of the frequency spectrum where you think there could be a difference?
Last edited:
Maybe better not to focus on one simple explanation, especially one probably using less than ideal technical terminology. More likely there have been a number of problems, the possibility of which leads me to doubt the reliability of the "all is well now" claim. It wouldn't be the first problem that's happened in this story.
No problem, but please note that I was replying to the OP who replied to me who replied to @cumbb... 😉
👍
This gets fun from a discussion standpoint.
First - regardless of whatever definition some people choose to use (including, IMO, in the video) ... Placebos sometimes do "work" ergo the "placebo effect".
So... as a thought exercise for 'objectivists' that seemingly want to save all those poor misguided 'subjectivists' from having their hard-earned money stripped away by big audio shysters ... AND for those 'subjectivists' that hope upon hope that they can convince those poor misguided 'objectivists' that they just haven't figured out how to measure things properly...
To the self-labeled subjectivists in the room - would you rather be sold something from a "true believer" i.e. give your money to someone that really believes that you WILL hear a difference when you implement whatever they're selling OR someone that knowingly is selling you something that they have no clue whatsoever if you'll hear a difference, but they're smart enough to know that expectation bias / the placebo effect are very real, and that if they use the right words can actually convince you into hearing a difference? Does the pseudo-science posted on some purveyors' sites convince you to try things... do other people you trust convince you?
To the self-labeled objectivists in the room - why do you care? If people have the opportunity to return something if they don't hear a difference, placebo or not; and if they're happy... why kick up dust?
Again... I have no horse in the race. I truly do accept both "camps". I sit right in the middle. I putz about in this hobby b/c it's fun.
Yes, the hyperbole and glaring separation of people into two groups is intentional. I hate it... but it's just a thought exercise. It's somewhat rhetorical, but if people have thoughts they'd like to share. I'm all for it.
First - regardless of whatever definition some people choose to use (including, IMO, in the video) ... Placebos sometimes do "work" ergo the "placebo effect".
So... as a thought exercise for 'objectivists' that seemingly want to save all those poor misguided 'subjectivists' from having their hard-earned money stripped away by big audio shysters ... AND for those 'subjectivists' that hope upon hope that they can convince those poor misguided 'objectivists' that they just haven't figured out how to measure things properly...
To the self-labeled subjectivists in the room - would you rather be sold something from a "true believer" i.e. give your money to someone that really believes that you WILL hear a difference when you implement whatever they're selling OR someone that knowingly is selling you something that they have no clue whatsoever if you'll hear a difference, but they're smart enough to know that expectation bias / the placebo effect are very real, and that if they use the right words can actually convince you into hearing a difference? Does the pseudo-science posted on some purveyors' sites convince you to try things... do other people you trust convince you?
To the self-labeled objectivists in the room - why do you care? If people have the opportunity to return something if they don't hear a difference, placebo or not; and if they're happy... why kick up dust?
Again... I have no horse in the race. I truly do accept both "camps". I sit right in the middle. I putz about in this hobby b/c it's fun.
Yes, the hyperbole and glaring separation of people into two groups is intentional. I hate it... but it's just a thought exercise. It's somewhat rhetorical, but if people have thoughts they'd like to share. I'm all for it.
Last edited:
There is one person who "still has one of the best pairs of ears in the business," in whom I have a lot of trust. Didn't always trust him, but he has this annoying habit of virtually always being right about audio stuff. 🙂
Last edited:
The OP's video is pretty clear, I just wanted to give my opinion. Bi-wiring, while changing minimal L/C/R parameters, the changes are totally inaudible to the average person
That seems like a pretty overarching generalization. How many different types of speakers, different types of cable construction, different lengths of wire runs, etc., were tested?
Reason I ask is that cable construction can have quite an impact on sound coming out of the speakers. Are you familiar with Hans Polak's (the phono preamp guy) work on lumped compensation of zip cord Z0? OTOH, many people assume zip cord must be perfectly okay, with no adverse effect on sound.
Reason I ask is that cable construction can have quite an impact on sound coming out of the speakers. Are you familiar with Hans Polak's (the phono preamp guy) work on lumped compensation of zip cord Z0? OTOH, many people assume zip cord must be perfectly okay, with no adverse effect on sound.
Last edited:
I think you may be on to something here. What are the flat sheet metal bridges and 'gold' connectors made from? Chances are they are steel. It didn't take me long to discover that simply twisting the cable ends and crimping them sounded better than fancy golden banana connectors. The best connection is a soldered cable from the amp to the loudspeaker.
Sorry if I din't understand this at all, but I'm sure there is something I'm missing...
I can't understand this maybe because I probably don't have a finger on the pulse of the current situation: does anyone have one?
I've never asked myself the question of how and why people buy what they buy in audio, why does anyone ask to himself this question?
From my side of the street, the side of a buyer since I'm not a manufacturer nor a seller nor a dealer of course if the system is mine and I'm the one listening to it that system will have to satisfy just my ears, or I'am wrong and someone just does something different?
Is there a reason why I should care or even worry about what others do and/or how and why they do it when they want to buy a new device?
It is a question that I would like anyone to give a rational/informative answer to. 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.