2. misc-audio
  3. 1383246560

Objective vs. Placebo relating to system changes

I am continually baffled by the number of people that are convinced that changes to power cords, speaker wires, interconnects, etc. in their systems result is objectively real changes. While I won't go so far as saying that making these changes absolutely doesn't make a difference, I would love to have the resources to challenge people prove it to me and test it with my own ears.

Here's what I would do if time and financial resources were no object (I'm visualizing retired millionaires that are audiophiles).

I would build a listening room where the only components in the listening space were the speakers and the speaker cables coming through opening in the wall where the rest of the system was setup. The idea would be to allow the test subject the opportunity to create their system of choice and then have the opportunity to become very familiar with the system by spending hours listening. Then I would let them know when I was going to start changing different components on them on a very random basis and they should report any changes that they heard so we could link the changes to any potential changes on the other side of the wall.

Here's a short list of things that I'd try:

(1) I would replace the upgraded power cord with the stock unit.
(2) I would install or remove isolation (e.g. Nordost sort kones) devices from a component.
(3) I would replace interconnects with basic quailty products.
(4) I would replace well "broken-in" cables with otherwise identical new ones.

Depending on the results of doing these test slowly over a period of time I would consider swapping out some of the more major components to see how obvious a macro change was if the listener wasn't aware that a change had been made.

I can tell the difference between new and broken in speakers (on ones that I'm familiar with) so I know this break-in is very real and would also not be at all surprised with differences from amplifiers and analog sources being obvious. I'm not as sure about digital sources.

So the question is, what components in your system would you be confident enough to bet, say $1,000, that you could identify that something changes if it was swapped out?

In my system I am sure that I could identify a change in amplification or speakers, but highly doubt that I could do the same with any cables, isolation devices, or digital sources. Maybe I just reduced myself to being a non-audiophile with low-fi gear?
mceljo
Post removed 
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,590 posts
 
"I think a lot of my skepticism is directly related from understanding enough of the related science, or having friends that do, to understand how misleading a lot of the "science" manufactures give to support their products."

Yea, that's all part of the high end audio twilight zone. I always hesitate to even mention it, but see most any product from Machina Dynamica for a good example of the kind of nonsense that can and does go on.

The Twilight Zone of high end audio is prime feeding ground for vendors to prey on clients with lots of money and ambitions but little relevant knowledge to go with it.

Also home of those who are trustworthy and with very high standards for sound quality who understand the scientific and engineering fundamentals of producing good quality sound and are likely to be able to set the bar for good sound quality, and are able to communicate intelligently and with good intentions about how to go about it.

THen of course everything in-between, including many diverse views and opinions.

GOtta say that only a fool would tread these waters without being prepared to assert healthy doses of skepticism regularly. Some thick skin can help.

But if good sound and camaraderie with other with like mind and good intentions is your goal, I'd say its worth spending teh time it might take for one to sort through it all.

That's the sign post up ahead....
brownsfan
1,508 posts
 
Mceljo, My friend, with all due respect, I think a lot of us are baffled why some people fail to understand that rejection of and shielding against RFI and EMI can make an audible difference in a high end system. It’s not necessary to invoke metaphysical explanations.

It is also not necessary for everyone to understand all of the science and engineering that may be involved. Sometimes it’s OK to take an Edisonian approach and be guided by empiricism. There are plenty of people who use a toaster without understanding how it works. If that were to be a requirement for use of a toaster, there would be a few people without toast.

If you are in Indianapolis, send me an email and I will demonstrate in 10 minutes that PCs make a difference that is immediately obvious.

At the end of the day, perhaps you may want to entertain the possibility that not all of us are fools. I'm not sure what it is you wish to accomplish with this thread.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,590 posts
 
"shielding against RFI and EMI can make an audible difference in a high end system"

That's a good one that often relates to ICs.

Encompassing my low level phono set up transformer device with a makeshift external mu metal surround is a clearly audible example of this I can point out in my experience, but the concept extends to even more common line level signals, though the effects at higher levels is surely more subtle. Science accounts for why this would be the case fairly well I would say. Using shielded ICs (like the MITs I use) versus unshielded (the DNMs I use and prefer for this) alone also makes a clear difference in my case.
blkadr
739 posts
 
Definitely maybe.
More to discover