CD playback from Blu-Ray player

[jayne lee wilson]

...I can easily tell DACs apart'...
I hear this a lot from 'audiophiles', but these 'differences' magically disappear when blind tested and level matched....

Ever stop to consider the many potential flaws in the methodologies of blind testing themselves? There are several possible approaches and many variables: eg type of music, length of excerpts, venue of the test, number of listener(s) at each playback....all these can easily affect perception in what is a very artificial way to listen to music in the first place.

They could simply be testing the listener's ability to perceive differences, or or how they are perceived; not testing whether the difference exists. How would you know which?

*****

Say you answer the phone and you recognise the voice but - can't say who it is exactly. When they tell you, you instantly recall it and wonder why you could not. What does that tell you about human perception?

One notes that audio sceptics never doubt their inherent rectitude. But they are just as confirmation-biased as anyone with a different attitude or approach. Often seeming to believe that measurements tell you everything; they don't, they are a part of a larger world of perception. That's why the best reviews include both the tech analyses and detailed accounts of the listening itself (which do not always correlate neatly with the measurements).

*****

What did I do when system-building? Knowing the system well, I would insert the new component/cable etc; give it time to burn-in if necessary. Then just listen to the system that way for several days, relaxing with familiar recordings, before switching back.

[Pianoman]

Of course we knew we'd be miles apart on this one - especially when I see terms like 'burn-in' and 'the soul of a component' - terms that make audio designers and electrical engineers gnash their teeth. I mean, how can a box of electrics have a 'soul'....the music yes, the gear, no.
Put simply, when you get the equipment home for extended listening and start swapping things in and out, of course you'll hear a difference. So would I - and have done !
Totally convinced until we tried a properly level-matched test with the same tracks. Then the cheap amp and the expensive one sounded, mmm, so similar I was guessing, so 50/50.
However music lovers spend their hard-earned is up to them, but from what I can see it's usually those who've spent a lot that can hear the 'differences', which have to be justified, and manufacturers have to keep them spending so...it can be a rabbit hole (no Naims...))

[jayne lee wilson]

Of course we knew we'd be miles apart on this one - especially when I see terms like 'burn-in' and 'the soul of a component' - terms that make audio designers and electrical engineers gnash their teeth. I mean, how can a box of electrics have a 'soul'....the music yes, the gear, no.
Put simply, when you get the equipment home for extended listening and start swapping things in and out, of course you'll hear a difference. So would I - and have done !
Totally convinced until we tried a properly level-matched test with the same tracks. Then the cheap amp and the expensive one sounded, mmm, so similar I was guessing, so 50/50.
However music lovers spend their hard-earned is up to them, but from what I can see it's usually those who've spent a lot that can hear the 'differences', which have to be justified, and manufacturers have to keep them spending so...it can be a rabbit hole (no Naims...))

I'm not sure what you mean by "the soul of a component"... certainly not a term I've read in HFN anytime recently (but anyone might use it metaphorically about the sound balance - why not?).
But "burn-in" is quite different - of course it changes the sound of a brandnew item, especially speakers; and is recognised by those supposedly hard-nosed "designers and engineers" you describe. (Current HFN Editor Paul Miller is also a professional test equipment & measurement suite designer - these things do overlap).
I've heard burn-in happen myself to electronics and cables far too often to ignore; not sounding so good out-of-the-box, it can be very frustrating not to know when they will settle down to their true sound, so its best to get wellused demo gear for a home trial (or have the cable burned-in before delivery for the trial).

Again if you couldn't tell the difference between two amps, it proves nothing about the amps; it may just be that the system around them wasn't revealing enough. Listener skills & preconception, length of listening time, types of music.....all can also play a part in any such test.
And I never "swap things in and out"....I give it much longer....see above.

("Blind Testing": How do you choose the components; or ascertain the sound of the components to be tested, their differences or similarities,, before putting them before the listeners?)

Once again (wearily) neither I nor anyone else needs to justify large expenditure by "hearing differences" . That is why we insist on home trialling before any commitment to a purchase (any good dealer will offer this, and have done for many years.....)

[richardfinegold]

Of course we knew we'd be miles apart on this one - especially when I see terms like 'burn-in' and 'the soul of a component' - terms that make audio designers and electrical engineers gnash their teeth. I mean, how can a box of electrics have a 'soul'....the music yes, the gear, no.
Put simply, when you get the equipment home for extended listening and start swapping things in and out, of course you'll hear a difference. So would I - and have done !
Totally convinced until we tried a properly level-matched test with the same tracks. Then the cheap amp and the expensive one sounded, mmm, so similar I was guessing, so 50/50.
However music lovers spend their hard-earned is up to them, but from what I can see it's usually those who've spent a lot that can hear the 'differences', which have to be justified, and manufacturers have to keep them spending so...it can be a rabbit hole (no Naims...))

And those that don’t spend justify their decision by claiming there is no difference. Expectation bias works both ways.
What I have never understood is why the people who claim that there is no difference between components are so dogmatic in their beliefs. They don’t allow for the possibility that just because they can’t perceive a difference, then no one else on the planet can either.
As if we are all biologically identical, annd our hearing sensory organs lack any of the variation in morphology that the rest of our corps so abundantly demonstrate. Yes, they know the True Path, anyone who is at odds with them is some type of heretic that needs to be shouted down. Most of them would have Ben at home with dinner parties with Torquemada

[Pianoman]

"...the soul of a component'...used in post 27......
You regularly hear about 'Audiophiles' saying this amp or that cable 'being more musical' - any hifi forum will show you that. An amp is NOT musical...
As for bias working both ways, of course it does. I'm not saying you can't hear a difference - how can I ? You believe it, that's all that matters. I just chirp in to balance out the remarks like "I heard a huge difference in transports' or 'cables being night and day'...sorry, utter drivel. Why would an amp manufacturer put cheap interconnects in the box when he could make a 'night and day' difference by putting 'better' ones in, doesn't make sense - except to get more money out of you later...
Most 'audiophiles' admit to enjoying swapping gear and getting big shiny new boxes. Me, I'm content with the 'trickle down' effect of cheap gear, which these days is mainly an iPhone and decent headphones, so there you go.
Oh and if you want a random example (of many) of 'snake oil' -try this for starters....

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/quantum-science-audio-red-black-high-end-uk-mains-fuse?gclid=Cj0KCQiA8aOeBhCWARIsANRFrQEefRzgKSWjuUQWkrcg2D8eihKTwcmqEvg_wf367KGhxQSMpUpxXaMaAlmwEALw_wcB

[Bryn]

"...the soul of a component'...used in post 27......
You regularly hear about 'Audiophiles' saying this amp or that cable 'being more musical' - any hifi forum will show you that. An amp is NOT musical...
As for bias working both ways, of course it does. I'm not saying you can't hear a difference - how can I ? You believe it, that's all that matters. I just chirp in to balance out the remarks like "I heard a huge difference in transports' or 'cables being night and day'...sorry, utter drivel. Why would an amp manufacturer put cheap interconnects in the box when he could make a 'night and day' difference by putting 'better' ones in, doesn't make sense - except to get more money out of you later...
Most 'audiophiles' admit to enjoying swapping gear and getting big shiny new boxes. Me, I'm content with the 'trickle down' effect of cheap gear, which these days is mainly an iPhone and decent headphones, so there you go.
Oh and if you want a random example (of many) of 'snake oil' -try this for starters....

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/quantum...MaAlmwEALw_wcB

The rationale for including cheap but basically functional interconnects with some devices is, surely, cost. They will let you set up your equipment on a basic level but if you want to get what may be marginal improvements in the output of your speakers, improving the conductivity of the interconnects is there as an option. There will, of course, be diminishing returns from each step up in conductivity.

[Sir Velo]

Not the most scientific approach, but my question always is does it sound good? There have been times where I have been dissatisfied, and considered upgrading, only to find that a good clean of the components and the connections has improved the sound significantly.

[Pianoman]

Yes I’ve been there …I remember being dissatisfied with a pair of speakers and on the cusp of organising dealer auditions decided to move them about 8 inches out into the room, so more free space. The result saved me hundreds….that’s why I’ve always felt that room/ speaker interaction is far more important than cables, mains conditioners and other Russ Andrews style tweakery.

[Bryn]

Not the most scientific approach, but my question always is does it sound good? There have been times where I have been dissatisfied, and considered upgrading, only to find that a good clean of the components and the connections has improved the sound significantly.

That reminds me of one of the worst interconnection problems, gold against tin. Galvanic corrosion leads to poorer and poorer transfer of electrons. This can also be a problem for some older computers where tin-plated memory sockets met gold-plated memory cards or vice versa. I well recall the surprise on an IT wiz friend's face when I 'curred' his main but ageing computer's frequent crashes by wiggling the memory cards in their sockets to penetrate the corrosion layer and restore reliable performance. I suggested that he repeat the process on a monthly basis.

[jayne lee wilson]

"...the soul of a component'...used in post 27......
You regularly hear about 'Audiophiles' saying this amp or that cable 'being more musical' - any hifi forum will show you that. An amp is NOT musical...
As for bias working both ways, of course it does. I'm not saying you can't hear a difference - how can I ? You believe it, that's all that matters. I just chirp in to balance out the remarks like "I heard a huge difference in transports' or 'cables being night and day'...sorry, utter drivel. Why would an amp manufacturer put cheap interconnects in the box when he could make a 'night and day' difference by putting 'better' ones in, doesn't make sense - except to get more money out of you later...
Most 'audiophiles' admit to enjoying swapping gear and getting big shiny new boxes. Me, I'm content with the 'trickle down' effect of cheap gear, which these days is mainly an iPhone and decent headphones, so there you go.
Oh and if you want a random example (of many) of 'snake oil' -try this for starters....

https://www.futureshop.co.uk/quantum...MaAlmwEALw_wcB

This example and your argument generally is just more of the tired strawman approach that sceptics always use - exaggeration fallacy (it would be interesting to know the sales figures for that fuse). It is all so repetitious, and often quite alarmingly cynical.

"Audiophiles" are as varied as any other forms of humanity. They don't always "swap things out" regularly. My own system has had just two major changes/additions since 2013; it's often more rewarding to improve what you have with relatively inexpensive accessories, or keep vintage equipment (well designed and solidly built, often customised) serviced every few years. Makes economic sense as well. I'm just as fascinated by vintage equipment, especially 1980/90s CD Players (as described in HFN each month) as by uptodate digital developments.
(I still run a 1996 Marantz CD63 MkII KI Signature, heavily modded, in the system now).

[Pianoman]

Ok whatever - we're in exactly the circular argument that was predictable from the start...you're absolutely right about it being 'all so repetitious and ..alarmingly cynical'.. - I'm just reading a thread that runs to 87 pages (currently) about "Audiophile' network switches, worth a read (Pink Fish)...subjectivists v objectivists and no-one wins (of course) but the contributions from electrical engineers and designers are more persuasive than the 'I heard a difference so it's true' brigade - unless of course the designers are selling the new product, so there is a difference...

[Dave2002]

One not only has to be able to hear differences, but also to perceive one as "better" than another. What convinced me about interconnects was listening to Colin Davis's versions of Mozart operas on CDs which I had borrowed from the local library - those were the days when opera sets were still expensive. There are a few sounds on the discs which are slightly different, such as the sound of glass breaking, and bells etc. I had listened to the discs a few times, and didn't think they were as special as the reviewers at the time did, but one weekend I installed some different interconnects, and put the CDs on. I don't think I even paid any particular attention to what was happening, but when the crashing and bell effects came along they sounded so much more realistic than they had before that I had to go back to replay those sections. I left those interconnects in place after that, though I did try swapping a few to see if there was much difference. I came to the conclusion that moving up from the basic ones which often come with kit with cables perhaps £20-£30 more expensive was worthwhile, though I drew the line at some of the more "esoteric" ones - the kind that have been stroked in a particular way and direction and orientation to "enhance their transparent properties".

[Maclintick]

Having started this particular hare, which has now delved into an impenetrable "subjectivist v. objectivist"
thicket, I plant myself queasily on the fence separating the two sides of the argument.

Ever stop to consider the many potential flaws in the methodologies of blind testing themselves? There are several possible approaches and many variables: eg type of music, length of excerpts, venue of the test, number of listener(s) at each playback....all these can easily affect perception in what is a very artificial way to listen to music in the first place.

Blind testing is a scientifically-proven methodology intended to eliminate "confirmation-bias". Notional "artificiality" is irrelevant IMHO.

They could simply be testing the listener's ability to perceive differences, or or how they are perceived; not testing whether the difference exists. How would you know which?

Conducting tests with a cohort of informed listeners, whether audiophiles, music aficionados & practitioners of one sort or another, or plain common-or-garden music critics, will tend to average any differences of perception.

Say you answer the phone and you recognise the voice but - can't say who it is exactly. When they tell you, you instantly recall it and wonder why you could not. What does that tell you about human perception?

This tells me that human perception and memory do not always correlate immediately, unlike that which occurs in a real-time blind test.

One notes that audio sceptics never doubt their inherent rectitude. But they are just as confirmation-biased as anyone with a different attitude or approach. Often seeming to believe that measurements tell you everything; they don't, they are a part of a larger world of perception. That's why the best reviews include both the tech analyses and detailed accounts of the listening itself (which do not always correlate neatly with the measurements).

I'm broadly in agreement, here, except that "perception" can be unwittingly skewed by random variables introducing "unknown unknowns", for instance, conductivity between braided-copper multi-strand wires and nickel or gold-plated speaker terminals, where the very act of disconnection and re-connection with a new cable can result in a perceptible improvement in sound purely because of the shedding of accumulated oxide in an environment of less-than-ideal humidity...So it goes..

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#introduction

[richardfinegold]

So I may have missed it with all of the discussion here. Did the OP ever settle on using a BDP as a disc spinner or a transport?

[jayne lee wilson]

Having started this particular hare, which has now delved into an impenetrable "subjectivist v. objectivist"
thicket, I plant myself queasily on the fence separating the two sides of the argument.


Blind testing is a scientifically-proven methodology intended to eliminate "confirmation-bias". Notional "artificiality" is irrelevant IMHO.

JLW: As in all experiments or exercises, such intention may remain unfulfilled. There are too many variables in the methodology of blind-testing to meaningfully generalise about it...
Asking subjects to listen to music in a way they usually would not is indeed relevant....listening skills can be learned and developed.
And "IMHO" gives the subjective game away.




Conducting tests with a cohort of informed listeners, whether audiophiles, music aficionados & practitioners of one sort or another, or plain common-or-garden music critics, will tend to average any differences of perception.

JLW: But there is no scientific reliability that it will....



This tells me that human perception and memory do not always correlate immediately, unlike that which occurs in a real-time blind test.

JLW: This is just a subjective assumption....they may or may not do...how could you possibly tell? It will in any case depend on the individual response to the musical example presented.


I'm broadly in agreement, here, except that "perception" can be unwittingly skewed by random variables introducing "unknown unknowns", for instance, conductivity between braided-copper multi-strand wires and nickel or gold-plated speaker terminals, where the very act of disconnection and re-connection with a new cable can result in a perceptible improvement in sound purely because of the shedding of accumulated oxide in an environment of less-than-ideal humidity...So it goes..

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#introduction

Well, this is all simply more subjective reflection or assumption, nothing that could be presented as provenly scientific or truly objective. The example of oxide-shedding through disconnection/reconnection has been very well known for many years, and would surely be avoided as an influence in any serious listening tests.

As for Roger Russell.... same old, tired old....so dated. (Blind tests? Such writers seem never to have heard of .... home trials. Makes their same old arguments so much easier - for them).
What does he imagine a supposed stereotypical Audiophile will do if they read his very lengthy, fact laden, so-cocksure so-condescending article? Clutch their heads and cry "thank you so much...if only I'd known!"

All that time and effort, all those words, just to prove.... what exactly?
Poor Roger could have listened to several symphonic cycles in the time it all took him.