2. misc-audio
  3. 996010019

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.
hueske
lak's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
lak
4,532 posts
 
Hueske, I do not know what a 19 year old EE student is, however (IMHO) you write as if you are LIGHT YEARS ahead of 19 years of age. You bring out some great questions which have more than one answer and the posts above mine shed light upon some questions, but there is no absolute answer. You are very observant and I will bet your Dads interest in Audio helped to create your wisdom and insight. If the music sounds good to the listener that’s all that matters.
angela100
435 posts
 
Lak, you're right, it sounds as if Hueske grew up around audio and has learned from his dad. Good job, DAD!
Anyway, I was just thinking about this today and was actually thinking about starting a thread about it - that is as Hueske put it "So then why try to recreate the original event at all?"
I was wondering what live events people thought of when they were creating the "ultimate set up". I have found that it depends on the format the live event is - for example, I saw Count Basie in 1983 in a auditorium environment wired for sound.... and I have see ACDC in a coliseum environment wired for.... well, just wired.....
I would love to recreate the sound of the Count Basie event, but NEVER the echoey, rambling sound of the ACDC event...
What do people mean when they say hearing music live is the best?
macm
116 posts
 
You've raised several good questions about our hobby. To answer your original question, I suppose you could argue that if the listener thinks it sounds better, that's all that really matters. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. After all, what is "enjoyment" anyway? It's just a biochemical reaction in the brain. So what difference does it make how that reaction is triggered?

Why strive to recreate the original event? Presumably, the closer you get to the original event, the greater your enjoyment will be. But the "original event" is sometimes a somewhat theoretical notion when you consider the way music is recorded in studios. Sound engineers mix and tweak the various instruments and voices; and when you're talking synthesizers, it's anybody's guess what the "original event" sounded like. In the end, I think the "original event" has come to mean music the way the sound engineer intended you to hear it. Again, the closer you can get to that, the greater your listening enjoyment.

I think blind A/B testing is a perfectly valid way of determining sonic differences in gear. And I think, if it's done properly, it works every time. So why the cases of people flunking the Pepsi challenge? I believe the problem is in the way the tests are administered. More to the point, I don't think these tests usually take into account what poor "listening memory" we have. It seems people's memories are more accurate when recalling visual objects than when recalling sounds alone. I don't believe most people can distinguish the usually subtle sonic differences between different pieces of high-end gear after only a minute or two of listening. Even an hour or two is sometimes not enough, yet that's usually the way these tests are administered. I know in my case it usually takes me at least a week or more to be able to tune into the precise differences a new piece of gear brings to my system. I've learned from experience not to expect a new revelation in sound when I bring in new gear. Occasionally, I'm surprised and can hear a difference fairly quickly. But more often than not it takes hours of listening over a number of sessions before I can start to appreciate and articulate the sonic characteristics of a piece.

Admittedly, I've not always heard a difference when "upgrading" my gear. Case in point: I replaced my stock power cords with some (I won't mention the name) highly regarded cords and sat back ready to be blown away by the improvements. I'm still waiting, and it's been over a year. But, like your dad, I still have them in my system. Why? Well, it's like a joke I once heard:

"Do you believe in God?"
"Of course."
"Really? Why?"
"Are you kidding? What if there really is one!"
avguygeorge
2,300 posts
 
Been in this a few weeks now;
For Angela; Going to an amplified event isn't the thing one would use for a comparison. You would be listening to mostly their amps, and their speakers. Even if they may have a million and 1/2 watts. Un-amplified events would be the goal.

On recreating in one's living room; It's the only choice/ ---Can't fit LSO in my living room, or ACDC's drum set. Can't afford for John Williams to come over and play the guitar.

---Where's my placebo?? Where'd I leave that sucker? Can't remember to take my Ginkoba (to help my memory)
angela100
435 posts
 
hey, George, they say that MEMORY is the SECOND thing to go!

.....i forgot what the first thing is......
More to discover