Audiophile rectal inserts, you need some. |
I would add one final note. I bought four sheets. Successively, on my Reimyo 300B amp, I started with a half sheet. It was awful. I tried a quarter sheet. It was awful. I tried an eighth sheet, same results. Ultimately, I had a 1/2" by 1/2" sheet and still hated it. I removed all of it and put it in a cabinet in my room. Something was still wrong. Ultimately, when I put it in my car, I could not hear its bad effect. I sold all of it. We all are different! |
Bryoncunningham, I think you are right about science ultimately getting it right, but also scientists have interest as well as pressure to publish. Most would not really devote time to why some cables sound better. Why quartz in some place improves music reproduction, in other harms it, and in others does nothing.
I must say that I set a pretty high standard for tweaks. A minor benefit isn't worth the trouble. I have never really understood the very unscientific notion that a panel of people using double blind 30 seconds exposures to music and having to make a same/different decision has any use for me. I have also never understood why anything other than the basic laws of electrical engineering means it must be snakeoil and therefore no one should sell or buy them. |
Sabai, you say, "based on empirical truth, not on scientific evidence." This is the weirdest thought I have ever heard. Good science revolves around empirical evidence. Occasionally, that evidence upsets the paradigm that has been developed based on other research over time. But yes, science is often wrong and only with time and further evidence moves forward.
I think your discussion of mercury in fillings was engineering not science. |
Sabai, there are substantial variation in the sciences in instrumentation as well as in being able to do experiments that give information on causality. Double blind testing, especially in audio, is an invalid methodology as the indicator is not accepted by many as a isomorphic counterpart to the variable of concern.
Yes, evidence typically improves as a science matures from anecdotal to experiments assessing causality.
Engineering applies known laws from science to doing or making things. When dentists and dental schools looked for filling for cavities science came to their aid with known properties of materials, as well as warnings about their dangers. Virtually all universities have colleges of sciences as well as others for engineering.
Audio is engineering but beyond what electrical engineering can tell us. There is limited science about quartz, but little question that it impacts what we hear for better, worse, or very little. Science cannot help us on this, probably because it is not a sexy area for scientists. Geoff operates in this gray area. To some degree, we all do. Were there good science on all aspects of music reproduction, there would be few successful companies and we would all have basically the same systems. |
Mrtennis, what you call the " placebo effect" works both ways. I you don't want to hear a benefit, you won't. Also you know that it is so powerful that people actually get benefit from placebos.
I also think the effects are binary. Some tweaks have great effect and some much less. Again this is a cost/benefit decision by buyers.
I still totally agree with your conclusion, "have an open mind , and let products succeed or fail based upon results." |
Almarg, the only real question is do we all agree as to what is implausible and on how implausible it needs to be to be rejected a priori. EEs seem to have a lower level of implausible, probably as that is their training. The contrast between my undergraduate course in physics and EE are the reason I never completed the EE major.
I still remember StillPoints ERS paper, totally implausibly affecting my sound adversely just being in my cabinet in the listening room. Of course, that only proves that it had an effect only a negative one. |
Almarg, I always tense when "common sense" is mentioned. It is exceedingly unscientific. Everybody knows man cannot fly, etc.
I am decidedly unscientific when it comes to audio. I merely have to please myself. It is like wine, women, and song, just a matter of tastes, not science. I am very open-minded and thus have many "tweaks" lying around. Many initially impressed me only to prove of too little value to continue, but yet others ultimately detracted more than they contributed. |
Bryoncunningham, you say "I respectfully disagree with you, Tbg, that we all need to agree on where to locate the line between what is plausible and implausible. That is partly because, as Al points out, the line is subjective, debatable, and imprecise." Perhaps I was too subtle, I totally agree with you. Implausible is a vicious concept not unlike common sense. Both are very unscientific. Were we really a science, this would be very serious. |
Douglas_schroeder, actually, in my experience, it is uncommon that have experiences such as the ERS paper. I never liked it at all and made a valiant effort to get it to work. Usually, I am satisfied by a modest improvement if the tweak is not very expensive. At some point later I decide they aren't worth the effort. With quartz products, I basically gave up as requiring too much trial and error fiddling. |
Wow, what a contribution! Typical. |
|
Mostly personal experiences here.
1. Removing all telephone books from the house.
In the corners of you room of some benefit. Other than that no effect.
2. Removing all plants and flowers from the listening room.
Small plants are okay, but a large rubber tree plant is a comb filter.
3. Removing all empty beer, etc. bottles from the listening room.
Nothing.
4. Removing unused speakers from the listening room.
Without shorting plugs remove them. Even with shorting plugs better get them out.
5. Removing all unused amps and other components and cables from the listening room.
No effect that I have heard unless piled around the speakers.
6. Removing all Sonex from the room.
Soft foam is death.
7. Removing speaker grills.
If you have them, experiment. Some speakers sound better without grills. Others sound no different. |
Mrtennis, you sound like a scientist, not a EE. |
Most of the illustrations are visual, but the key is that we don't know everything. |
Mrtennis, having taken as many courses in psychology in pursuing my doctorate as in political science, I am well aware of perceptual errors. I am also aware that human beings' senses have served them well in survival, with hearing being central to this. I also think this has little relevance to picking an audio component that suits your taste.
In your post where I thought you were seemingly a scientist and not an engineer, you seemed to suggest that mankind does not fully understand everything that shapes our ability to reproduce music in our rooms. Many EEs believe that what they learned prohibits differences in power cords, isolation, and even amplifiers, which personally I find ridiculous. I see no reason to criticize someone for liking a particular component or power cord even if I think it is worthless. It is his taste and money. Unreliable or not, his perceptions are what counts. And obviously we all differ, or there would be very few manufacturers as many products would have been found most unsatisfactory, and their makers having gone out of business. |
