How does adding separate amps improve sound? (1 Viewer)

[george king]

Mark,
You do have a point. However, if one were to use a Signal Detection Analysis, then one can extract out the effects of bias (which would be your tendency to say I do not hear a difference in an ambiguous case) from detectability.
Just some food for thought.

 

[John Doran]

mark,

I don't use science to prove something that my senses know is the truth. I go with my senses before relying on science. If my mind says this apple is sweeter than that apple I dont do a sugar analysis to prove it to myself. Science is after all an instrument of your mind.

i don't think that's entirely true. i mean, to your senses (and mine), the earth looks flat, and the sun looks like it's moving across the sky while the earth feels like it's not moving at all.
the reason you don't actually believe that the earth is flat, or that the sun moves around it, is because you have concluded, based on other evidence, that your senses, in these cases, are misleading. (the examples can be multiplied - do sticks actually bend when put in water? are loud sounds made by small things close or big things far away? is the moon a big thing far away or a small thing close? and so on.)
what i think you mean is that you don't rely on "science" to verify your preferences. and i wholeheartedly agree with you on this point - few people probably do carry out tests on something before deciding whether or not it appeals to them.
BUT, it is an ongoing misunderstanding of DBT's that they have anything to do with preferences at all. they DON'T. as i pointed out in another thread, the DBT crowd is not saying that people don't actually hear or subjectively perceive a difference between audio components, or that they shouldn't prefer the difference they perceive - what they're saying is that the perceived difference is not caused by the audio components, but by something else. and what the DBT-er's typically point to as the cause is something like the listener's belief that the audio component they favor/is more expensive/is "supposed" to sound better, is sonically superior and will sound better (or at least different).
again - both the DBT-er's and the "subjectivists" assume that there is some difference being sensed by the listeners. they just disagree as to the cause.
the "science" becomes involved in trying to develop an experiment to determine just what is causing the varying acoustic experiences. this is, after all, the scientific method - to formulate a hypothesis to account for the phenomena and then carry out experiments that will either prove or refute the hypothesis.
DBT's are elaborated as precisely such an experiment - the hypothesis to be (dis)confirmed is that the alleged sonic differences are not caused by differences in the hardware, but rather by some non-acoustic sensory phenomenon, presumably visual or doxastic (belief-related) in type (that's why they're double blind tests). basically, the claim DBT's are designed to test, is that you won't hear a difference if you can't see or don't know which component is producing the sound.
this is the way science has always been done. people used to think that fire was caused by "phlogiston". then someone (lavoisier) came up with what he thought was a better hypothesis, and then set out, through experiment, to see if that hypothesis was supported. it was. so now we think that fire is caused by something called "oxygen". again, examples are limitless.
i say this only by way of clarification. i am definitely and decidedly NOT saying that i think DBT's are successful, and that all audio devices (with relevantly similar acoustic properties) sound the same. i just don't know if they've proven anything. but i DO think they're a valid scientific exercise (if carried out in the right way. which is another story).
i feel i must be clear on this - i am NOT saying there is no difference between separates and receivers, or between cheap cables and expensive cables, etc.
i'm just saying that the attempt to determine IF they are responsible for acoustic variations is a sensible one. it makes sense to try and figure out which of two competing claims is true, or at least most likely on the evidence (because these things are rarely ever demonstrable either way with the sort of certainty that makes all other contrary beliefs irrational).
i am also NOT saying that it should actually matter to anyone whether or not DBT's are successful; even though i don't know myself, i am upgrading from my denon 5800 to separates, at least in part beause i don't really care whether they sound better. i feel better owning them. (at least partly because i believe their design and construction is usually more reliable. and that, whether or not i can conclusively say that they sound different to me, i believe that there can be long-term acoustic benefits from sound-sources that are not instantaneously perceivable - this is what "sonic fatigue" is arguably all about, for instance).
anyway. i'm just trying to add some perspective to what usually becomes a thread that focuses more on the person holding the view than it does on the view itself and the related facts.
alright. let me have it. give jaleel a break...

 

[RAF]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let's keep everything on topic here and please refrain from personal attacks. The Great Oz has spoken.

Thank you.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!

i am upgrading from my denon 5800 to separates, at least in part beause i don't really care whether they sound better. i feel better owning them.

Hee hee honesty I love it. My recent upgrade to separates was done mostly for the same reason. - And also for convenience. Sound quality was down on the list and I'm not convinced that it's really any better.

 

[James Zos]

Wow. Thanks to all who continue to respond! Since many of the posts seemed to revolve around a subjective vs. objective debate, I thought I'd weigh in on that as well...

From my own PERSONAL experience (I'm not, of course, speaking for anyone else here) I have found that I cannot trust my hearing alone to tell me if there has been an improvement in sound. This is not true 100 percent of the time, and it may depend on the degree of perceived improvement, but there was at least one occasion where I thought I had changed something, heard an improved sound, and realized that I had not actually changed anything--the sound "changed" based on my PERCEPTION that I had changed something. This doesn't always hold true however--for instance there have been plenty of times where I have made an expensive upgrade, fully expecting to hear an improvement, and could detect no improvement at all. So it isn't just a matter of wish fulfillment. There are also times where a change has led to a sonic improvement that is so clear there is simply no need to question it. It is in the gray area BETWEEN a huge improvement and no improvement at all that I get stuck...That is where I think a double blind test would be very helpful.

I wish to defend JaleelK. My comments on this have to due ONLY with the posts he has made in this thread: I understand that there seems to be a history of conflict/controversy over comments he has made elsewhere: I take no position on those, having not read them. I do understand how his comments in other threads could weigh on the opinions of those who take exception to comments he has made here, but since I have not read them for me that is neither here nor there.

I think JaleelK.s comments in this thread were constructive, and not outside the bounds of civilized discourse.

I understand and APPRECIATE the efforts of those posters who wanted to protect this thread from turning into the kind of back and forth battle that other threads have turned into.

Thanks again for everyone who weighed in, one way or the other!

 

[EricHaas]

John:

My view on the subject is virtually identical to yours, and is what I tried to get across in that God-awful behemoth thread on the subject, which finally died a merciful death. However, no matter how you try to frame the issue as what it logically SHOULD be, it will always come back to the straw men: that people are trying to use scientific tests to tell others what they should like or not like, that the scientists aren't true audiophiles and are not qualified to render an opinion, that only what we think our senses tell us is True, etc. Like you, I have not formed an opinion about whether there is an actual difference in the sound coming from different amps that is discernable to the human ear or not. And frankly I don't care any more than you do, except as an abstract academic concern. I make purchasing decisions because I like what certain things do for me. So I may buy an amp and really enjoy what I see and hear, but I am not going to herald my own personal, sighted and non-level matched listening experiences as Almighty Truth while at the same time dismissing double blind tests for being too "subjective."

Great post.

 

[EricHaas]

Mark:

We agree and disagree. My position is that if you frame the issue in the manner that John framed it - are the differences we hear due to actual differences in the sound emitted from the amp or are they really based on subjective expectations - then a DBT must necessarily be the superior method of answering that question. Your ears and mine are Almighty Truth in telling us what we prefer, and it is more than reasonable for us to make buying decisions on that basis. But if we really care or want to know if there is an actual difference in sound, then a test which removes the subject's knowledge of the brand name, price and appearance of each component can only be a *better* method of getting at this issue. Whether or not DBT's are sufficiently sound to actually provide a reliable answer is of course legitimately debatable. But what seems less debatable to me is this assertion that what your ears tell you means more than the blinded tests. Because in fact what your ears tell you in a situation where you may have preconceptions based on brand and price is actually quite unreliable. The DBT's may be unreliable too for other reasons, but they *at least* eliminate a source of *major* bias from the process.

In any event, I think Jaleel has become somewhat of a whipping boy for the subjectivist viewpoint because he perhaps does not always present his view in the most persuasive manner. I will leave it at that.