Some thoughts about the double-blind argument... First of all, when you change out a component for such a test, the ground configuration is changed and can alter the sound unless the the entire system is turned off and then on again. Even the order in which components are turned on can have an effect. There is a break-in period for any new signal and power connection. The compared components must also be broken in. (I would never judge a DAC or a preamp right out of the box). Finally, the best critical listening is done ALONE over a period of time, without outside influence or pressure of any kind, or someone standing over you waiting for absolution. From the Forum, I gather that there are many audiophiles who have an excellent ear for sound, cultivated over years of dedication to true hi-end.
Placebo Effect...a good thing?
I'm just a beginner into the world of the high-end (19 year old EE student), but the more I learn about audio and the entire culture surrounding it, I get more and more confused of the goals around creating the "perfect" sound system. I'm not an idiot, and I know that no matter how close an approximation is to the original event, be it vinyl, SACD, CD, multi-channel, or whatever, it is still only going to be an approximation. So then why try to recreate the original event at all? My best guess, and belief, is to capture the "magic" of that event in your living room. I've been reading a lot of articles by various giants in the audio field, and there has been a lot of talk recently about "snake-oil" in the audio industry. That is, no one can tell the difference in a double-blind test between two similar componenets; their guesses will be no better than chance. The only real differences people hear are due to the Placebo Effect: their brains generate a response, perhaps truthful in their own minds, that two similar products have completely different sounds. My question is, is that a bad thing? My experience from this comes from a power cord dilemma. My father auditioned a power cord from JPS Labs for his CDP. After it had burned-in a little, he asked me to listen to the difference and see what I heard. At first listen, I heard less brightness in the treble, and an overall ease of presentation that was not there before. So he arranged a simple double-blind test. It stumped me. I chose the cheap power cord, although the differences to me were so slight, they were near irrelevant. We discussed it for a while, and he ended up buying the cord anyways. Why? Because HE ENJOYED the system more with it in than out. Maybe it didn't effect the sound. WHO CARES? The point of a stereo is to listen to music. If you buy a 15,000 dollar line stage and you listen to music 15 more minutes a day because of it, isn't that an improvement? That's why I laugh everytime someone makes fun of a "tubehead." "Extremely high even-order distortions" they say. If you listen to music more because of a purchase you made, then you made a good purchase. If you don't, you didn't. PERIOD. I just get a crack out of all this finger pointing. Tubes vs. solid state. Vinyl vs. CD. If you buy a turntable to break out all the LPs you have sitting in your closet, and find you prefer the sound of analogue to digital, GOOD FOR YOU. I delight in people enjoying music, be it through a $500,000 wacko system, or a $150 JVC boom box. And besides, it makes me feel good to have a nice looking set of cables tying up my system. They may not sound any better (which I think they do), but I DO listen to more music because of them. Just a thought.