I'd like to take Sean and Robert E. Greene of TAS and lock them up in a room together and watch the festivities. The esteemed Dr. Greene thinks pretty much like Rsbeck except that he also doesn't care much about source components or amplification. I respect all three of these gentlemen, by the way.
With some audio buddies yesterday, we wanted to evaluate a new IC. The CD player had two sets of outputs, so we used one for one brand and the second for the other brand. The comparison was then done by switching the input on the preamp. The first time through, the system's owner made the switch while music was playing, so "now switching to Brand X", then "back to Brand Y", etc. None of us could hear a meaningful difference. I suggested that the rapid switching was a problem, so we listened to a passage with Brand X and then paused and listened to the same passage with Brand Y. This time through, there were noticeable differences.
My question is this: Which listening procedure is the most flawed? I'm telling this tale and asking this question in this thread because this is exactly what is at issue here. Rsbeck and Dr. Greene would maintain (I'm putting words in their mouths, but indulge me please) that the physics dictate no meaningful differences. Ergo, any differences we believe we hear while listening are imagined or whatever.
There's a sh*tstorm in the Harbeth user's group forum now over the issue of aftermarket bi-wire jumpers. Some users (including me) believe they hear a meaningful improvement when replacing the stock jumper plates with Audience or other third-party jumpers. We have taken considerable harsh criticism from the "scientists", especially REG.
I know we go down this road over and over again in these forums. You don't have to tell me that if *I* can hear a difference, what should I care what the science says. I always make my purchase decisions based on what I hear. Nevertheless, I would like to know what is TRUE because, unlike some audiophiles, I am open-minded to the possibility that my subjective evaluation is not reliable and that I need to temper what I sometimes hear with a pinch of reason.
With some audio buddies yesterday, we wanted to evaluate a new IC. The CD player had two sets of outputs, so we used one for one brand and the second for the other brand. The comparison was then done by switching the input on the preamp. The first time through, the system's owner made the switch while music was playing, so "now switching to Brand X", then "back to Brand Y", etc. None of us could hear a meaningful difference. I suggested that the rapid switching was a problem, so we listened to a passage with Brand X and then paused and listened to the same passage with Brand Y. This time through, there were noticeable differences.
My question is this: Which listening procedure is the most flawed? I'm telling this tale and asking this question in this thread because this is exactly what is at issue here. Rsbeck and Dr. Greene would maintain (I'm putting words in their mouths, but indulge me please) that the physics dictate no meaningful differences. Ergo, any differences we believe we hear while listening are imagined or whatever.
There's a sh*tstorm in the Harbeth user's group forum now over the issue of aftermarket bi-wire jumpers. Some users (including me) believe they hear a meaningful improvement when replacing the stock jumper plates with Audience or other third-party jumpers. We have taken considerable harsh criticism from the "scientists", especially REG.
I know we go down this road over and over again in these forums. You don't have to tell me that if *I* can hear a difference, what should I care what the science says. I always make my purchase decisions based on what I hear. Nevertheless, I would like to know what is TRUE because, unlike some audiophiles, I am open-minded to the possibility that my subjective evaluation is not reliable and that I need to temper what I sometimes hear with a pinch of reason.