Audible Component Differences...A Nousaine Story

Chu Gai · 05-13-2004, 02:52 PM

The following story was recounted by Tom Nousaine. So should you tweak?

Quote:

A few years ago I tested the idea that devices that cannot be differentiated by themselves may have audible consequence when used in series. So I constructed two systems one of which was decidedly what i called Tweak using an outboard DAC, a vacumn tube preamplifier, a high-end Bryston power amplifier, expensive networked Monster speaker cables, $100 a meter interconnects, spikes everywhere they would work, Teknisonic vibration dampers to isolate the speaker cables from the floor and very careful cable dress.

The other was definitely Geak with a 20 year old solid state preamplifier built from a low priced kit, a used $200 power amplifier, interconnects randomly drawn from a junk box, 16-gauge car speaker cable (zip cord) with a 6-foot length for one channel and a 25-foot length for the other with the cable wrapped around the power cords several times.

The digital outputs of a Marantz Cd-player drove the Tweak system and the analog ouputs of the same cd-player drove the Geak system.

Once installed I found the systems both had response that was within 0.2 dB of each other but the Tweak system had a 2-dB channel imbalance which I compensated with the balance control on the Geak system.

Using an ABX comparator I was unable to hear any difference between them myself. I then invited a number of enthusiasts one at a time to audition them A/B with programs that they had personally found to be the most revealing for finding audibility differences.

ALL of them said they thought they sounded different. But NONE of them were able to differentiate when nothing more than a blanket was covering the inputs on the rear of the PSB Stratus Mini speakers (reference device with measurements taken in the NRC) hiding which set of speaker wires were connected to the speakers.

Someone following this debate might then conclude that bias-controls obscure differences that were audible under sighted conditions. But actually all the sighted information, except the answer to the question, was always available. The ONLY factor introduced was the elimination of a bias mechanism, subjects are inclined to report differences that do not have audible source, that is known to have consequence.

In this experiment I tried to include every item that I had heard people report as having audible consequence, not directly tied to frequency response or other known audible atrifact, either by itself or in tandem.

Kevin C Brown · 05-13-2004, 07:49 PM

Chu- I really hate info like that. Makes me re-think "upgrades".

Lewis Besze · 05-13-2004, 09:10 PM

Yeah I remeber this story I think it was published in Stereo Review,or it's successor[S&V].
My favorite was when Nousaine burned several cds to various people[some were audiophiles],he intentinally dithered the signal to introduce distorsion,then burnt it to several CD-Rs.He also made the same song bit perfect copies on the same CD-Rs for reference.First he didn't tell what was the difference,and some actually did preffered the distorted copies.The subjects were free to use any CD player in their posessions,and were invited to take them home and spend considerable time with it.Then he revealed that one of copy of the song was altered cosiderably,but didn't reveal which.
None of the contestant could reliably "guess" which one was the altered song.

Yogi · 05-14-2004, 12:55 AM

Quote:

None of the contestant could reliably "guess" which one was the altered song.

Which means people can't distinguish between clean and distorted sound in a true DBT, right?

Chu Gai · 05-14-2004, 06:28 AM

It simply means that some things don't have an effect even when compounded. How often do we read in reviews from the snotty, my system is just so revealing and don't you wish you had all this stuff so you'd be cool too and I take every precaution posssible to not contaminate my signal, critics about the spectacular benefits to be realized from something or other? To bolster their supposed credentials, they list their attached equipment (stuff you'll never be able to afford but ya wants to!) as some sort of figure of merit much in the same way that scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals list their equipment, sources, calibrations, etc. For example, look at this equipment vitae from 6moons for their review of the Silverline Bolero speakers.

Quote:

Digital source: Pioneer DV-535 DVD player feeding the Bel Canto DAC2
Analog Source: Sota Jewel table, Sumiko Premier FT3 arm, Micro Benz MC Silver cartridge, Bryston BP-1.5 phono stage
Preamp: Herron Audio VTSP-1A
Power Amp: Art Audio Carissa, Art Audio Symphony II [for review], Herron Audio M150 & Bryston 7B-ST monoblocks
Cables: JPS Labs Superconductor interconnects and speaker wire, DH Labs D-75 digital interconnect, JPS Power AC, Digital AC and Kaptovator power cords
Powerline conditioning: Audio Magic Stealth, Ultra-1 Z-sleeves by Z-cable
Sundry accessories: Vibrapod Isolators
Room size: 12' by 16' with 9' ceiling, speakers set up on long wall in quasi Audio Physic orientation

Well god damn! These guys must really know audio, huh?

Nousaine broke every rule with the Geek system. Junk interconnects, wrapping speaker wire around power cords, preamps and amps that you'd find in the salvation army junk bin, you name it.

He also broke a couple of other rules. He level matched. He then tossed a blanket over the connecting wires. Now does Tom get his blanket from the Navaho reservations and have it impregnated with peyote and mescaline to dull the senses and render the listener's ears insensitive? Or is Tom pointing out that if you focus on what's important you can get a kick-ass system even if you're on a budget?

**HTF Ads**

Angelo.M · 05-14-2004, 07:19 AM

Chu:

There are 2 important tweaks conspicuously absent from Nousaine's rig that would have absolutely, unquestionably and indisputable transformed his system into a thing of unparalleled beauty, revealing the essence, the substance, the liquidity, the fundamental truth of 2-channel performance itself, placing the performers in the room with you, with a soundstage as wide as one's imagingation.

I think you already know what they are:

and

Chu Gai · 05-14-2004, 08:01 AM

Think how good that beer will taste when it's resting on a chilled Shakti stone. Makes me thirsty even this early in the morning.

Bill Blank · 05-14-2004, 11:23 AM

Kind of along the lines of Angelo's response, I find a six pack of one of the local brewery's (Victory) beers often improves the sound of my system 10-fold.

Bill

Lewis Besze · 05-14-2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Which means people can't distinguish between clean and distorted sound in a true DBT, right?

This wasn't a DBT people used their own rig or anybody's they choose.The only thing they could rely on was their "ear".

Kevin_R_H · 05-14-2004, 01:21 PM

Chu,

Well, I would be hesitant to quote Tom Nousaine. I mean, I really question the audio credentials of anyone who would use the words "high-end" and "Bryston" in the same sentence.

Kevin

P.S. - just kidding...