I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

@deludedaudiophile 

"I had my own revelations many years ago now, thinking that I could easily hear differences between amplifiers, speaker cables, and yes CD players. Then someone forced me to do a listening test without knowing what I was listening to. All those changes I thought I heard disappeared. As opposed to dismissing the tests, I delved into the technical details and realized there was little reason I should hear a difference. I just had not really given it enough thought before."

The first time I compared my Sony MP3 player (an NWZ E585 or something similar) to my super duper Marantz CD6000 KI CD player, volume matched of course, just to see what I was losing when plugging it in to my system for convenience, I was in for a rude shock.

I couldn't hear any difference.

No, really, I could not hear any difference?!

Not on U2s Achtung Baby, or the Doors LA Woman. 

Now had I been an optimist I might have rejoiced in the knowledge that I wasn't losing anything at all.

However, all I could feel was a sense of disappointment that my CD player had, in some way, let me down.

So much so that I didn't even consider that the fact the Marantz was connected to the amp via some fancy IXOS cables as opposed to the cheap proprietary Sony cable that connected the MP3 player to spare RCAs on the back of the Creek amp.

That would have just rubbed salt into the wound.

I'm not a great believer in the sonic differences that cables can make, but that was ridiculous.

Surely there should have been SOME difference?

Just even a little bit?

Anyway, if I have some time to kill, I might repeat that same experiment with my phone next time just to see if O can hear any differences there.

To protect my sanity, I might also need to draft in some volunteers to a t as witnesses.

This kind of thing can sure be a little disturbing.

With odd exception, everything you are posting about is cause. You are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find potential causes, while ignoring the most important thing is effect. Listening is effect. What happens inside our head is cause. What we hear is effect. Trying to come up with causes without showing a conclusive effect is a thought exercise.

If you remember i do not contradicted your perspective...
I claimed that only psycho-acoustic explain sound experience... Not electronic design industry alone, it is based on psycho-acoustic research anyway at the end or on a basic hearing theory...

When we listen a piece of gear in a specific room, with our specific ears , with many components, we must learn how to perceive and analyse what we perceived in acoustic term...Reading specs sheets is no more enough here...
It is what i am interested in, in audio experience...Specific gear brand name is not my primary interest...Nor upgrading...

The idea that designer must SEPARATE cause and effect and not confuse them is trivial evidence...But the idea that all sound experience by someone to be valuable must be proved by electrical measures alone is meaningless in an audio forum...And meaningless because it takes also other science like acoustic to complete the description and explanation of the experience...

All my point is it will help audiophile to experiment with acoustic and psycho-acoustic to understand their own experience in a room ...

And yes for sure i am guilty of posting interesting theories about the brain and music, and numbers, etc which are specualation and experiments about "hypothetical" causes, not concrete designer day to day matter...

But at least i post interesting matter to say the least for at least i hope one reader....

Perhaps i presume too much... 😁😊

about these very new research if no one give a dam for sure...

What surprises me is that someone has a dam to give. Is it a big dam or a little dam? If it's big, damn. 

Instead of pushing open doors why not thinking?

There is no opposition at all in audio science and in audio experience between any measurements and any subjective listenings experiments...Only possible and necessary correlation...Thinking otherwise is preposterous...

Those who promote those non sense are a minority of "fetichists" or "zealots"...

And asking for a proof because a listener claim it is a "fact" for him is a waste of time, not science....And all competent designer adjust and verify their audio design by listening to it after their measures standard procedure and adjust and fine tuned it after listening tests ... Thats all there is to say in this debate...

Subjectivist audiophile must all learn objective acoustic to control sound in their room...Most think this is secondary and they are dead wrong!

Objectivist engineer must study psycho-acoustic to understand our actual hearing theory limitation and possibilities...Those who dont do that are a minority and not the best there is...atmasphere here just spoke about the way the ears perceive harmonics and why this matter to a material designer... This is an example of a creative engineer ...

Now for the science of tomorrow read a trailblazer genius about the brain,

This scientist is amazing, his first book is one of a series of ten and he is the world specialist in rythm engineereing programming and science design of the brain...

Why reading it?

Because the way we think about the brain can illuminate what is sound, music and hearing...

I dont post about it to brag , like mean people  will accuse me, i post it because i am AMAZED... An very happy to read his book...

Yes i am an enthusiastic mind...i spoke too much too... 😁😊

But i will not apologize to be a messenger for this interesting new work in brain research....

https://www.beautifulhumans.info/anirban-bandyopadhyay/

Yes i have a dam to give not because it is a big one, but because no one here gives a dam, save circling in a circle, and my posts tried to break this circle ... There is no S or O meaningful debate ...There is only few fetichists and a few zealots... I am neither one... You ask a question i give answers who point in a direction...At least...

What surprises me is that someone has a dam to give. Is it a big dam or a little dam? If it’s big, damn.

A resume of the article matter:

«

We are not the first ones to talk about clocks in biology. For example, circadian rhythm was introduced by Franz Halberg in the 1960s, so rhythm exists in the living systems. We are clocks, and rhythms of life is a concept that haunted scientists for ages. But, no one knew or ever proposed how those clocks are connected. We know that our body clocks are in synchronisation with the motion of the planet or the galactic bodies. These kind of associations were studied exhaustively even to the single cellular scale. What our contribution was that we started from the millisecond clock of the neuron and we went inside to microsecond clocks in the giant protein complexes and when we went inside them we found nanosecond clocks in the singular protein scale, and inside them we found the picosecond clocks in the secondary structures, and inside them we found picosecond clocks in a group of atoms. So clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock, which we humans created, we use it on our wrist, is out there in our body to keep time. Similar kinds of clocks are also there in the biological system but it does not end with a neuron pairing. So before people did noticed the clock, inquisitive scientists did much to understand our clocks and the mechanism, but did not go deep inside it. No one ever thought time could be connected in a geometric shape to process everything that we see, that we feel.»

In the writer word and concept, clock means frequencies, distributed in a fractal time fashion... Clock are music....He designed the first non Turing brain machine then  it is not speculation at all...

What is music?

What is sound?

Are these questions not interesting for us audiophiles?