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?
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?
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"?
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.
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".
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.
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.
“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.
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”).
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!!!
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.
2chnlben, as I said earlier, I certainly have tried tweaks that made very little, if any impact; I have tried tweaks that initially had an impact that I liked, only to discover later that I liked them out of my system; and I have tried tweaks that have a substantial impact in one place, none in a second place, and do great harm in a third. I don't see how these experiences can be reconciled with the idea that tweaks merely have a perceived impact, especially unless they have "scientific basis." I have much training in science and in research methods. As an undergraduate one of my majors was physics. I certainly know that my training now is quite out-of-date as we know much more about nature's laws than we did in the 1960s. Science doesn't know everything that can affect reproduced music.
Thanks to all. This was just another pointless thread meant to stir a little healthy debate. Even if we were all in the same room demoing tweaks, we could never say with any certainty whether or not someone really heard a difference, or merely perceived hearing a difference. I remain a doubter, not because I am predisposed to a negative viewpoint, but because I just can’t hear the perceived enhancements that some of these relatively minor tweaks purportedly impart on a given system’s ability to convey music. With that said, what are you going to do, stop obsessing about your system? That’s absurd! It’s all part of the hobby (hobby is a nice word for this neurosis). By the way, I use quite a few tweaks, but I can’t say they make any differences! So, it could well be asked, who’s nuttier, the guy who spends money on something he can hear and appreciate, or the guy who spends money on things he can’t hear? It’s all nuts man!
I spend hours to A/B stuff. I guess I have tin ears like yourself. I try to use a remote to control what I am listening to without having to move. I also use a meter to carefuly match volume levels for comparisons.
My experience is that it is easy to hear a difference but it is very hard to ensure the difference is not simply down to head position, volume level or from a different focus or attention that one inevitably places on the music as one repeats a track or a combination of all of these.
Some differences are distinctly audible. Four corner tri-traps was definitely audible at the listening position (with careful listening) and extremely obvious as you aproach the traps (in the room corners which is not a normal listening position but confirms they do something)
Differences between Benchmark DAC1 and an ordinary CD player were not clearly evident to a friend of mine but they were to me (once I knew what to listen for I could identify which was which). Nevertheless the difference was small compared to the effects of a room or speaker.
I'd recommend Alton Everests "Critical Listening Skills for Audio Professionals" for those who want to hone their skills.
I view tweaking as something one does when their components and speakers are satisfying and no further changes are expected in those areas. Then, tweaks become fine tuning.
It doesn't make sense to expect tweaks to make large adjustments in a system's sound. If that's the goal, then either a component or the speakers need to be changed.
Spot on Tvad…well said! Yet, there are many who profess to hearing significant changes when incorporating a variety of relatively minor tweaks. Time and time again, we read that someone has improved the soundstage, detail, clarity, transparency, etc.; and furthermore, these same persons combine words like, “huge,” “night-and day,” “immediate,” “very noticeable,” etc., so that the claim is - for example, “a night and day difference in the soundstage, or bass definition.” Really? All from that brass screw, or those expensive footers, cheap coupler, Teflon tape, etc.
For me, that is kind of an insult to my meager intelligence. I just can’t believe that anyone can (significantly) improve soundstage, transparency, inner detail, bass definition, etc. by incorporating some of these minor tweaks. Note, I did not say that it is not possible to enhance a system’s performance by fine-tuning it with tweaks…I say that these so-called really significant improvements cannot be attained by minor tweaking (and, after all, a night-and-day difference in the sound floor, bass control, frequency extension, clarity, transparency, etc., is a HUGE and significant improvement).
That's not the case. I truly want to hear the differences. Now, it may certainly be possible that I am unable to hear real differences because of...say, poor hearing, inferior electronics, etc. I highly doubt it. For certain though, my NOT hearing a difference with some tweaks has absolutely nothing to do with...as you put it, perceptual bias.
I am kind of with "two channel ben" on this one. I hate stuff that makes small differences. I much prefer to hear big differences, much better cd player, big differences in cable etc. When I do make small additions or change things out I just let it play and listen for a couple of days and see if I like it. If it doesn't sound worse I leave it and usually after a time I can decide if it is better then it was. Typically those small incremental changes are slow death. In other words inching your way to a good sound. I rarely A & B those kind of changes with the exceptions for toe in and speaker placement.
Tvad - I appreciate your hopefulness, but as they say..."don't hold your breath!"
The worst part here, for me, is that I still buy/try the stuff (with limits - no footers costing $266/ea). At least, if I was experiencing the placebo effect, I wouldn't feel frustrated about the purchase.
I thought you were genuinely open minded on the topic, but it appears I was mistaken. Your latest post suggests that you are of the opinion that people who hear changes are kidding themselves...that they are self delusional.
And here I thought my sarcasm was pretty blatant; just the same, it is merely skepticism and definitely not meant to be insulting. The placebo effect is very real and a completely normal human occurrence. The power of suggestion has sold more than a few products to very satisfied customers….see a connection between the two!? Now, although the aforementioned statements are indisputable facts, there undoubtedly exists exceptional products, as well as exceptional people (the golden eared types).
Cruz: I don't know that anyone besides the inventor really knows how they work.
My friend (who is a preamp and cd player designer) and I did a direct comparison of the Marigo and Equarack footers (I had previously purchased two sets of the Equaracks, and he had several sets of Marigos).
Based on the manufacturers' explanations of how they worked, he expected the Equarack footers to come out on top, but the Marigos did, and it wasn't close.
He has asked Marigo how they work, and the answers he got didn't make things any clearer.
There's apparently something like 30 parts in each footer, each of which needs to be hand- or machine-finished, which probably explains the high cost.
Full disclosure: Based on his experiences with the Marigo products (cd mat, power cords, footers, tuning dots) my friend became a Marigo dealer (very small-time, no meaningful profit: Since the Marigos work on the equipment he designs, he is able to provide the Marigos to those of his customers who want them). ---However, the reason to try these is because there is no risk---if they don't work out, you get your money back.
JimJoyce: The Marigo TR/VX footers are the best footers I have used. That includeds stillpoints, aurios pro-bearings, maple-shade brass points, Townshend sinks, Granite surface plates, and so on---Yeah---I have been at it for over 40 years and they are the most musical isolation device I've heard. Best part-try them for 30 days-NG-send them back-but I bet you won't-how can you lose??
Look, here's the deal; on so many of these "tweaks" there's no way to do a true A/B comparison. With the copper coupler, at least you can instantaneously compare between - the coupler installed, or uninstalled, by sliding it on or off during the same song (even the same passage in the song - hell, even within the same extended note), same settings, etc. Other tweaks (e.g.: isolation, power cords, this-that-and the other), cannot be compared in a true A/B demo, making memory the only method of determining all of those “huge/noticeable/plain-as –the-nose-on-your-face/night-day” differences. Installing different speakers in a system can make dramatic changes – changes that are clearly discernable via memory alone. If, say…let’s pick on isolation feet, these things make the kind of improvements that are clearly discernable via memory alone, then why even bother replacing the actual equipment. I have no doubt that people truly think they can remember hearing difference in these tweaks, and for those who actually do hear the differences, I really think our country, in this time of uncertainty, could utilize the services of people with such extraordinary skills and abilities….
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.
