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
Objective vs. Placebo = define reality.
1. If you think a placebo is real, is it a placebo or is it real?
2. What exactly is "objective"?
Noone I saying there's no such thing as the placebo effect or even the reverse placebo effect or other psychological effects like expectation bias but these psychological effects can be isolated if the listening tests are performed properly. If they couldn't be isolated and eliminated from consideration we'd be in a world of hurt since we would never be able arrive at conclusions about anything - cables, amps, speakers, much less tweaks.
Mceljo,

I'd really like to know what you think of your new tube amp? Even if you decide that tubes are not for you, its always fun to test a new piece of gear.
Zd542 - So far I'm really impressed with the tube amplifier. Before tonight I would have said that I was blown away on all fronts, but so far tonight my musical selections have not been quite a compelling compared to what I'm used to.

Overall, I definitely understand a lot more about what the tube sound is compared to solid state and would easily be in agreement that tube amplifiers have an appeal and result in less listener fatigue.

On the majority of what I've listened to so far I really think that the tube amplifier is a significant improvement. I wasn't expecting to be impressed with my SACD of Saint-Saens Symphony No.3 that I normally listen to surround sound with a subwoofer. The recording is extremely powerful and I think at the volumes that I prefer it is just getting way too far into the tube sound. You can always have too much of a good thing and no one amplifier is going to be perfect for everything.

I'm currently listening to David Garrett Paganini Caprices, specifically No.24 and found it not quite right in ultralinear mode (where I've done the majority of my listening) and once I switched it into triode mode it sounds a lot better, less tube.

It's interesting how my bias I have on certain recording in that I want to hear it a certain way and the difference between the two amplifiers is almost like having a completely new CD.

Sometimes when I listen to my receiver at louder volumes I feel like I did exactly that. I get the feeling that it would be much more difficult to have the same feeling. Balalaika Favorites and Yo-Yo Ma Goat Rodeo Sessions are two CDs that are very detailed, fast, and busy and can quickly cross over into the too much category. I love both of them, but they can wear on you and it was almost easy listening in comparison with the tube amp.

Happy camper here. Tonight, I'll be hooking the receiver back to the speakers since my wife and kids will be home during the day the rest of the week. It'll be interesting to see what I think going back...
As a follow up, I just hooked the receiver back up and the word that I never thought would come to mind describing my system is dull. You generally think of solid state as being more bright and tubes as mellow and warm, but in this case the overall sound of the tube amplifier is both brighter (e.g. clarity) and softer all at the same time. I've only sampled a few songs, but it is a very clear difference. Objective to keep this close to the topic. I would absolutely know if you changed out my amplifiers :-)
Mc,

Glad the new amp is sounding good.

What you describe with the two amps doesn't surprise me. You have a nice AV receiver, but few if any receivers ever made (2 channel stereo even or especially multi-channel, mutli-featured A/V ones) can compete with most ANY standalone power amp of good design and build quality, regardless of design/technology applied. The physics just does not allow a really good power amp to occupy space in the same box as the other line level and digital oriented components and for everything to perform as well as it might. Too many noise related issues! Build quality needed would price the thing out of sight and loose teh advantages of having everything in one box. Its a dilemma. Can't have the best sound and all those features and functions in proximity in the same box AND get teh best performance possible.

It is basic science and engineering in this case that can do a good job of explaining why.

I do think that newer integrateds built around very high efficiency CLass D amp modules have a good chance of pushing what is possible in a single small box further, but I have not had an opportunity to hear these much to date so cannot say for sure, but it is something worth keeping an eye on I would say.

I do use separate Class D monoblock amps. Class D amps in general is a technology worth considering if you think there is a chance of squeezing even more performance out of those Focal speakers beyond the current tube amp.

I think the new tube amp is a pretty good match for teh Focals, but you know us crazy audiophiles, always looking to raise the bar if possible.....