HiFi tuning Foo-uses

[Steven Toy]

jirij was going somewhere with this. Perhaps he(she?) will take it up.

I guess the point is that what you hear is not necessarily what you are hearing.

I sort of see what Steven is getting at (assuming in reply to the video), but there may be something to this.

Yes, in reply to the video. There are evolutionary reasons why we gap fill in the face of incomplete information but not why we may imagine sonic differences between fuses, mains cables, interconnects, supports, amplifiers or DACs.

 

[Steven Toy]

Oh, I am quite sure there exists a sub-tribe of audiophiles who insist that labelling anything with an 'A' changes its sound for the better.

To eliminate this possibility, only the person doing the swapping will actually see the stickers.

I know of at least one contributor on pfm who has lurched between your abovementioned extreme and the other where all DACs sound the same during his audio life.

 

[Whaleblue]

Yes, in reply to the video. There are evolutionary reasons why we gap fill in the face of incomplete information but not why we may imagine sonic differences between fuses, mains cables, interconnects, supports, amplifiers or DACs.

From a pure "evolutionary advantage" POV, imagining non-existent improvements of any action taken by the individual would be DE-selective I'm sure

There is surely still be more to it though. Taking a Descartian approach if the hearer hears it, whether actually there or not, it's there to him

 

[Steven Toy]

From a pure "evolutionary advantage" POV, imagining non-existent improvements of any action taken by the individual would be DE-selective I'm sure

Quite.

There is surely still be more to it though. Taking a Descartian approach if the hearer hears it, whether actually there or not, it's there to him

True, but this opens up the possibility of the unscrupulous saying something is there when it is not. Example: sending components (valves, fuses, cables) to be cryogenically treated. The owner perceives an improvement when the component in question has simply sat on a shelf at 20C for a week.

 

[spartaco]

There's still an offer of £100 to anyone who can pick out the differences between mains fuses with a blindfold on. Your house, your system, I'll provide the money and blindfold.

My god 100£! I would expect at least 5000 - 10000 £.

For 100 £ no need to spend so much time (preparation and BT execution) for what? Satisfy you?

 

[Whaleblue]

True, but this opens up the possibility of the unscrupulous saying something is there when it is not. Example: sending components (valves, fuses, cables) to be cryogenically treated. The owner perceives an improvement when the component in question has simply sat on a shelf at 20C for a week.

Fair point. What if the seller and the buyer *both* truly believe in the product's efficacy? Is that legit?

 

[whatsnext]

My god 100£! I would expect at least 5000 - 10000 £.

For 100 £ no need to spend so much time (preparation and BT execution) for what? Satisfy you?

I would welcome hearing the outcome. If someone can discern I might consider taking a chance on trying an overpriced fuse then.

 

[arthur]

Just out of interest, what would be the necessary gauge of mains lead required to make certain the big fuse in the consumer unit blew before there could be any damage to the unfused cable?

I imagine three times ten mm would do the job?

 

[jirij]

There is no relevance beyond the leap of logic that says:

We can prove that you imagine x therefore you'll imagine y.

There is a reason for imagining x, it's called pattern modelling. Our brain fills in gaps in order to complete the picture. This is not happening when we perceive a sonic change as with y.

There are a lot of optical illusions that make still images appear to move. By using the same leap of logic I would conclude that our eyes cannot be trusted to read correctly, never mind understand, posts in the pfm audio room.

Regarding fuses, the effect is either non-existent or so negligable that any perceived change is well within the placebo threshold. I prefer standard fuses anyway as they are more likely to be fit for purpose, i.e. protect your home and equipment. I don't need the 2+2=5 leap of logic to tell me that.

I wasn't attempting a mathematical proof. It was supposed to be more or less an example showing that what one's hearing can be influenced by outside factors, namely the placebo effect, as you mentioned.

The video actually demonstrates a placebo effect as well - "the eyes" tell you what you're supposed to hear and the end result is that you at least partly hear it.

The point being that whether this translates to knowledge induced by other parts of the brain or not, such effects can happen and that blind testing (as in not knowing what piece of equipment is currently used) *might* generate interesting results, even for a person that doesn't believe in the existence of the effect.

 

[adamdea]

Oh, I am quite sure there exists a sub-tribe of audiophiles who insist that labelling anything with an 'A' changes its sound for the better.

Hardly stranger than some things which have been suggested by Jimmy Hughes.

 

[Robert]

Regarding fuses, the effect is either non-existent or so negligable that any perceived change is well within the placebo threshold. I prefer standard fuses anyway as they are more likely to be fit for purpose, i.e. protect your home and equipment. I don't need the 2+2=5 leap of logic to tell me that.

I agree 100%

Steve, how then do you account for the experiences of those people claiming that different fuses elicit 'clearly audible' sonic differences as reported on this and other threads?

Without some level of objective assessment we make no progress in understanding the issue. Arguably not important that we understand the effect of fuses beyond the protection aspect but the principles carry over into more important areas.

 

[Whaleblue]

Got the 20amp fuses, and switched them in on Friday evening. I thought at the time that there was indeed an improvement, but will AB at some point to see if I can pin down what.

Got the Obs over to Phonography on Saturday and a clean bill of health given

Now, as soon as I "knew" that the Obs were all good, no niggling issue with a tweeter or some-such, they sounded fine to me. Rather, their sound did not change (notably sibilance on certain female vocal recordings for example) but I was comfortable with it. Having spent most of today listening to a variety of stuff it's no longer in my mind and I'm really enjoying my system.

This adds weight to my feeling that the psychology of listening is not at all trivial.

 

[spartaco]

How long does it take to do a A/B switch over?

 

[jirij]

Now, as soon as I "knew" that the Obs were all good, no niggling issue with a tweeter or some-such, they sounded fine to me. Rather, their sound did not change (notably sibilance on certain female vocal recordings for example) but I was comfortable with it. Having spent most of today listening to a variety of stuff it's no longer in my mind and I'm really enjoying my system.

I believe that most people avoid blind testing exactly because they're comfortable with their system and they lack the scientific curiosity, "what if ..".

I knew about the placebo effects even before coming to the "hifi world" (spent some time in a med school), but I never suspected that they can significantly affect the "sound quality" - before trying it myself. For example an USB isolator for my MDAC seemed to bring quite huge improvement at first. That improvement was noticeable even during blind test, but it was much smaller than I expected, almost not worth the $35.
Similar thing with a "hifi" mains power strip - I originally thought there were some filters inside, the bass was cleaner and more "musical" - I was unable to indentify it during a blind test. Then I opened it and found out it's actually just a sturdy metal case with a few wires inside, like normal power strip, but many times more expensive.

Your mileage may vary, but this stuff certainly works on me. I still use the power strip simply because I'm too lazy to sell it, though.


edit: Note that for such test to be meaningful, you still need to keep in mind several things, like fatigue (max. 10 comparisons for me before taking a break), environment (clicking sound of XLR connector might be different between ie. two DACs), the person doing the swap (various small things he/she may do differently for A and B) and so on. Even the blindfold might help if the friend is behind you (different shadow positions). It's hard to do it correctly, because your brain tries VERY hard to figure out whether A or B is playing, even by cheating.

 

[spartaco]

Well listening is a mental activity and anything that can change the mental activity can change the result of the sound perception. Is there any proof that while you are doing a BT your mental activity is the same as when normally listening to music? We no that placebo effects (other mental activities) can happen, when unblinded testing is done.

 

[Whaleblue]

How long does it take to do a A/B switch over?

About 3 mins max - but as my wife is unwilling to turn speakers upside down to change them blind testing could be a tad tricky!

I believe that most people avoid blind testing exactly because they're comfortable with their system and they lack the scientific curiosity, "what if ..".

Sure, and if you've spent money on an *effective* placebo it would be costly to discover it does nothing as the effect would be undone!

 

[Werner]

Is there any proof that while you are doing a BT your mental activity is the same as when normally listening to music?

That's why serious proponents of serious BT insist on training the subjects, so that they are less (adversely) affected by the test protocol.

 

[sq225917]

Steven, there's perfectly sound evolutionary reason why some people experience change in a situation where there is believed to have been none. It's all to do with response to risk.

Imagine UGG 1 and UGG2, UGG1 always feels unsettled upon returning to camp after the hunt, he always feels like things have been moved around slightly, (they haven't though). He dislikes the feeling of being unsettled and sleeps with his knife by his side.

UGG2 on the other hand doesn't notice when things have been moved very slightly and he always passes off any small changes as just his mind playing tricks. He sleeps soundly with his weapons far away on the other side of camp.

So when someone has sneaked in while they were out hunting and is lying in wait to cut their throats as they sleep. UGG1 stands a good chance of surviving, he's spooked already. UGG2 however is fast asleep, and he's gonna die.

In evolutionary terms it costs, UGG1 only a little to be in a constant state of worry, and he'll survive because of it, however it costs UGG2 his life to be blind to these small changes. Thinking differences exist when they don't in cable, stands, etc etc is exactly the same, but the risk reward is flipped.

Of course then there's UGG3, he checks the tent is safe upon his return after every hunting trip. UGG3 learns to measure his surroundings and modify his behaviour accordingly. He neither dies nor lives in a constant state of worry. UGG3 is the guy who blind tests his assumptions, he could naturally be a type 1 or type 2 UGG, but he's learnt behaviours that make his innate personality type moot.

 

[jirij]

Well listening is a mental activity and anything that can change the mental activity can change the result of the sound perception. Is there any proof that while you are doing a BT your mental activity is the same as when normally listening to music? We no that placebo effects (other mental activities) can happen, when unblinded testing is done.

... what Werner said.

I don't claim that ad-hoc "blind" testing in your home, after you had different lunch than yesterday, with one subject and without control of the mains supply is even 99% accurate, but if I can clearly identify an improvement 10 times out of 10, I'm buying. If I can't identify an improvement more than ~15 times out of 20 (with break at 10 comparisons), I'm not buying.

I'm not declaring an existence/nonexistence of difference between two components on a global scale (which a proper double/triple blind testing could), it's just a simple "reality check" whether the upgrade is worth it and I'd recommend it to everyone.

Even if you choose to believe that a particular improvement actually exists and is not placebo (even though it can't be identified in this simple blind test), is it worth the money? It's your money, you decide, but it's better to have another input to that decision, I'd say.

PS: If there is a paper on how various environment variables affect blind testing, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Electron]

Steven, there's perfectly sound evolutionary reason why some people experience change in a situation where there is believed to have been none. It's all to do with response to risk.

Imagine UGG 1 and UGG2, UGG1 always feels unsettled upon returning to camp after the hunt, he always feels like things have been moved around slightly, (they haven't though). He dislikes the feeling of being unsettled and sleeps with his knife by his side.

UGG2 on the other hand doesn't notice when things have been moved very slightly and he always passes off any small changes as just his mind playing tricks. He sleeps soundly with his weapons far away on the other side of camp.

So when someone has sneaked in while they were out hunting and is lying in wait to cut their throats as they sleep. UGG1 stands a good chance of surviving, he's spooked already. UGG2 however is fast asleep, and he's gonna die.

In evolutionary terms it costs, UGG1 only a little to be in a constant state of worry, and he'll survive because of it, however it costs UGG2 his life to be blind to these small changes. Thinking differences exist when they don't in cable, stands, etc etc is exactly the same, but the risk reward is flipped.

Of course then there's UGG3, he checks the tent is safe upon his return after every hunting trip. UGG3 learns to measure his surroundings and modify his behaviour accordingly. He neither dies nor lives in a constant state of worry. UGG3 is the guy who blind tests his assumptions, he could naturally be a type 1 or type 2 UGG, but he's learnt behaviours that make his innate personality type moot.

But then one day UGG 3 for got shot in the neck by an arrow as he was so smug and self satisfied in measuring the same old things and and checking the same old surroundings he hadn't realised that the intruder had adopted a different attack method totally beyond his imagination.