Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

apples and oranges

Posted by Bruce from DC (B) on September 26, 2005 at 09:57:09

In Reply to: Which is worse? posted by Charles Hansen on September 24, 2005 at 11:14:06:

As others have said in the thread, the 3 "lies" you mention are indpendently, objectively verifiable. So, that makes them different than a "lie" about whether a tweak has a sonic effect.

But here's the bigger point:

Every subjective judgment about the output of a stereo system ("it sounds better!" "It doesn't sound better!"), based only on human perception carries with it the possiblity that the judgment reflects phenomena internal to the person rendering the judgment, rather than external phenomena.

There are testing protocols that attempt to eliminate that; but they have their own problems. (Imagine a DBT test for a Rembrandt painting: "Quick, in 45 seconds, can you tell the real Rembrandt from the forgery?" If you can't then they must be the same!")

As you know better than I, there are lots and lots of objectively different things in audio that may or may not produce subjectively different results.

Do tubes sound better than transistors?

Do class A amplifiers sound better than Class AB amplifiers?

Are cathode/emitter followers bad?

and so on.

Even cables rarely have the exact same measured characteristics (capacitance, inductance, DC resistance).

So, when some reviewer says that amplifier A sounds better than amplifier B (which is just another way of saying they sound different), we accept that because amplifier A is different from amplifier B and we accpet at least the possibility that the ways in which the two amplifiers are different are the cause of the perceived difference, not the suggestability of the reviewer, the "prestige name" on one of the amplifiers, etc. (even though all of those could be factors that account for the perceived difference.)

The CR guys, of course, don't accept even that. But, as you point out, that is not the position taken by just about anyone who's an audiophile.

However, when we get to reports of perceived sonic differences caused by tweaks, our confidence level that these reported differences are not the result of something going on in the reporter's head goes down if we don't have a plausible explanation that accounts for the difference.

That said, there are plausible explanations for a lot of tweaks, especially the whole category of tweaks devoted to vibration control/isolation (footers, cable elevators, platforms, etc.), various things that may absorb EMI and/or RFI and even polishes for optical disks.

But when the explanation for the workings of the tweak is absurd on its face and no one comes forward with a non-absurd explanation, then the confidence level that the reported effect of the tweak is not the result of something going on in the reporter's head drops to zero.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

The Cable Cooker

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---