Pugsly
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2021
- Messages
- 98
- Likes
- 122
Hey all,
I was wondering about how various myths began and became entrenched. Sheer placebo is not quite enough in some instances, it seems to me. Granted, I know that I, to admit my own failings, wanted to believe certain things 'made a difference' and was talked into some (thankfully relatively inexpensive) 'upgrades' when I could not really hear a difference. (Specifically, I bought a CD player from someone which I was not sure then (and am quite certain now) sounded no different than my then current unit due to sales pressure from a 'friend'.) But it appears to me that some myths might be grounded in in other causes. For example:
-The 'synergy' myth makes little sense assuming that one is talking about well-measuring, stable units. (On the above note, I was once at an audio boutique and remember the salesman trying to a couple of years later prime me with an 'I think you will really like this (more expensive) unit more,' and telling them that I actually preferred the cheaper one - when in reality neither sounded any different to me.
But now wait: Some of the most expensive boutique audio gear that populates the high-end is anything but well-measuring. So, imagine that one has just dropped quite a bit of cash on something (say headphones) that objectively measures like crap, but which interacted with another piece of poorly measuring equipment with which one first auditioned them at the local boutique, and that the failings of each unit evened each other out. Now one buys the headphone, gets it home, is disappointed. I am sure these headphones cannot be bad, I tell myself, as I remember how they sounding great with the equipment at the store. Thus, I search for something that has that same mythical 'synergy' - except now this is not quite a myth because the right amplifier/dac/etc. when it is flawed in the right way does correct the issues. Of course, this means that finding this 'right' gear that will 'synergize' is a crap-shoot and a matter of offsetting failings. But now I have 'heard the difference with my own ears', and at this point am not just emotionally invested in my purchase, but have become accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of my new baby so that other things begin to sound 'off.' Moreover, I now 'know' that measurements are not reliable - since two pieces of crap measuring gear produced audio bliss! Ergo, all hail synergy and anyone who appeals to objective measurements is deaf and/or has not had experience with the really good, expensive stuff while that cheap stuff that measures well falls apart when paired with the really good equipment I own (sniffs own farts and smiles knowingly...)
Any other hypotheses, or any more specific hypotheses or research that go beyond mere delusion and placebo effect? For example, I can imagine that crosstalk might be advantageous with some recordings, as well as that gear which acts as an eq, or which muffles sounds, or adds reverb in the right region for a particular kind of music, might be highly advantageous. We need to remember that many people do not audition gear either with a broad spectrum of material, and even don't bring their own recordings for auditions!
Now, if someone could nail down in a predictable manner what effects/distortions are advantageous in which circumstances/instances so that they could be applied in an easily reproducible and predictable manner, that would really be interesting and valuable...
Pugs
I was wondering about how various myths began and became entrenched. Sheer placebo is not quite enough in some instances, it seems to me. Granted, I know that I, to admit my own failings, wanted to believe certain things 'made a difference' and was talked into some (thankfully relatively inexpensive) 'upgrades' when I could not really hear a difference. (Specifically, I bought a CD player from someone which I was not sure then (and am quite certain now) sounded no different than my then current unit due to sales pressure from a 'friend'.) But it appears to me that some myths might be grounded in in other causes. For example:
-The 'synergy' myth makes little sense assuming that one is talking about well-measuring, stable units. (On the above note, I was once at an audio boutique and remember the salesman trying to a couple of years later prime me with an 'I think you will really like this (more expensive) unit more,' and telling them that I actually preferred the cheaper one - when in reality neither sounded any different to me.
But now wait: Some of the most expensive boutique audio gear that populates the high-end is anything but well-measuring. So, imagine that one has just dropped quite a bit of cash on something (say headphones) that objectively measures like crap, but which interacted with another piece of poorly measuring equipment with which one first auditioned them at the local boutique, and that the failings of each unit evened each other out. Now one buys the headphone, gets it home, is disappointed. I am sure these headphones cannot be bad, I tell myself, as I remember how they sounding great with the equipment at the store. Thus, I search for something that has that same mythical 'synergy' - except now this is not quite a myth because the right amplifier/dac/etc. when it is flawed in the right way does correct the issues. Of course, this means that finding this 'right' gear that will 'synergize' is a crap-shoot and a matter of offsetting failings. But now I have 'heard the difference with my own ears', and at this point am not just emotionally invested in my purchase, but have become accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of my new baby so that other things begin to sound 'off.' Moreover, I now 'know' that measurements are not reliable - since two pieces of crap measuring gear produced audio bliss! Ergo, all hail synergy and anyone who appeals to objective measurements is deaf and/or has not had experience with the really good, expensive stuff while that cheap stuff that measures well falls apart when paired with the really good equipment I own (sniffs own farts and smiles knowingly...)
Any other hypotheses, or any more specific hypotheses or research that go beyond mere delusion and placebo effect? For example, I can imagine that crosstalk might be advantageous with some recordings, as well as that gear which acts as an eq, or which muffles sounds, or adds reverb in the right region for a particular kind of music, might be highly advantageous. We need to remember that many people do not audition gear either with a broad spectrum of material, and even don't bring their own recordings for auditions!
Now, if someone could nail down in a predictable manner what effects/distortions are advantageous in which circumstances/instances so that they could be applied in an easily reproducible and predictable manner, that would really be interesting and valuable...
Pugs