Larry B

Not long ago I read a PS Audio white paper in which it was stated that their power cables have one gauge wire for the lows, another for the mids, and still another for the highs. I asked how this could possibly matter in light of the fact that the power cord was nominally carrying only one frequency (i.e., 60 Hz in the U.S.). Paul replied that he had no idea why it mattered, but stood by their observations. Larry

Fear not, I'm not going far.

Paul, this is getting too contentious, so I will politely bow out. larry

Jud, I agree completely. Despite what you might have conclude from my posts, I neither particpate in DBTs, nor encourage others to do so. Where I do however differ from some is in my recognition of the effects of bias - not just in lip service, but in a deep and true belief. Best regards, Larry

Paul, anyone who "believes his ears" (or any expression with the same meaning) is ignoring the effects of bias. Whether they do so consciously or subconsciously is a separate discussion. Regards, Larry

Paul: "If both cars were available at the same time, they blindfolded you, and took you for a ride in each one, your judgement on which one you like better might change." Precisely. Indeed, many factors go into making a choice, as I discussed this in an article a number of years ago: http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=455. I have a friend who bought his preamp because it has a red top plate; it's his money and if a red plate makes him happy, then it was a wise choice. But the key issue here is that in the case of audio, some (in fact, many) people discount the influence of those other factors and assume that they are completely unbiased listeners. I daresay this is rarely if ever the case. Larry

Forrest, never underestimate the abilty of humans to food/deceive themselves.

This passage from the Sean Olive article cited above, sums it up nicely: In summary, the sighted and blind loudspeaker listening tests in this study produced significantly different sound quality ratings. The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material. In other words, if you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. It’s time the audio industry grow up and acknowledge this fact, if it wants to retain the trust and respect of consumers. It may already be too late according to Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt, who lamented in a recent interview: “Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..”

If your wife distinguished the two cables in a blind test (assuming the test was properly blinded, the resuts reached statistical signficance, etc. etc.) then there is indeed a sonic difference between the two. Lest I be misunderstood, I have never stated that such differences do not exist. (Others make that claim, but not me.) I do however advocate that one be careful in reaching conclusions when careful, unbiased testing has not been performed. Larry

Forrest, I'll begin by saying that I have no interest in tricking anyone. While the analogy was not perfect (analogies never are), my point is that our observations and perceptions can be and often are influenced by many factors; as a result, we can easily reach incorrect conclusions. "I believe it is possible to trick me like that in a contrived situation, but not daily in my listening room." That may well be the case but without careful testing, it is simply conjecture. Again, I am interested in the truth, whatever it may be. And for the record, I too "trust my senses" when choosing audio gear, but I do so with the full knowledge that what I "hear" may be the result of external factors, rather than the actual sonic properties of the gear itself. Larry

Barrows, you said "I do find it a sorry commentary on the state of human beings that many on this thread cannot believe in their own experiences." The issue is not of believing in one's own experience, but of understanding whether those experience were the result of powerful external factors. Please look at this: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_feet_lin/index.html We all have the "experience" of seeing the yellow and black bars undergoing saltutory motion. A sorry commentary would be if individuals accept that at face value, instead of delving deeper to understand why we perceive it in that way. So it is - or should be, IMO - with audio. And for the record (no pun intended), I have no interest in telling people what they like or don't like. I do however have an interest in uncovering what factors contribute to our perceptions and observations, especially when those factors are quite different from the supposed explanation. That is simply seeking truth; nothing more and nothing less. Larry

Better. By and large I agree, with the caveat (and I really am not trying to be argumentative) that some folks seem to truly not care. One rule I try to live by is to not tell others how to spend their money unless asked - or unless they are trying to borrow the money from me! Larry

"Extremes are tricky places to be. One is best advised to avoid them" That seems ike a pretty extreme position. "I will state again that it is silly - no, plain stupid - to discount the evidence of your ears the way some people do." I agree, and never suggested otherwise. Rather, my view is that the question should be to determine to what our ears (by which I, and I suspect, you, mean the entire human auditory system) are responding; actual sonic differences on the one hand, or something other than sonics. "And it is plain stupid to not spend the effort to uncover some level of objective proof of what your ears tell you, again as some people do." On that point, I do not completely agree. Listening to music can be purely for pleasure, and some folks are quite content to not care about the things we're discussing here. I don't think that makes them stupid; just different. Regards, Larry

I'm just your garden variety neuropharmacologist with only a dozen or so patents to my name, not nearly as smart as many here. That said, I would like to offer my observations. 1. The one invariant is these discussions is that neither side ever convinces even a single member of the opposing side. 2. To the best of my knowledge, no "objectivist" has ever snuck into the home of a "subjectivist" in the middle of the night, and removed the subjectivist's favorite interconnect/speaker wires/magic stone/whatever. Despite this, the subjectivists are hell-bent on convincing the objectivists of the folly of their ways, and thereby converting them. 3. Again to the best of my knowledge, no subjectivist has ever forced an objectivist to purchase special cables/stones/whatever. Despite this, objectivists are hell-bent on convincing the subjectivists of the folly of their ways, and thereby converting them. 4. Subjectivists invariably maintain that they hear differences between product x and product y, and appear to think that the objectivists are telling them that they have not heard said differences. This however is not what the objectivists are saying (or at least, should not be saying). Rather, the objectivists are asking whether the differences are sonic or instead, are due to any of the myriad other factors that influence human perception. The only way we know to distinguish between these possibilities is to hide the identity of the components during the comparative listening session(s). 5. The notion that we could be so easily fooled is apparently terrifying to many. I suspect this is because audiophiles are control freaks, and cannot deal with the fact that there are many aspects of our perception that are beyond our control. (As an aside, I wonder why audiophiles don't recoil in horror at so-called optical illuions. Or perhaps they do!) 6. Thankfully, bandwidth is cheap, so the same arguments can be repeated at regular intervals, ad infinitum. Larry P.S. Alan: The so-called placebo effect is in most cases far less robust than had originally been believed. If you're interested, I can send you links to some relevant publications.

is that the end-user would be guilty. As the device has another purpose, the manufactuer would have a defense against contributory infringement. But please note that I am not a lawyer.