2. misc-audio
  3. 1243114910

I Just Don't Hear It - I wish I did

I am frustrated because I am an audiophile who cannot discern details from so many of the methods praised by other audiophiles. I joke about not having golden ears. That said, I can easily discern and appreciate good soundstage, image, balance, tone, timbre, transparency and even the synergy of a system. I am however unable to hear the improvements that result from, say a piece of Teflon tape or a $5.00 item from the plumbing aisle at Home Depot. Furthermore, I think it is grossly unfair that I must pay in multiples of one hundred, or even one thousand just to gain relatively slight improvements in transparency, detail, timbre soundstage, etc., when other audiophiles can gain the same level of details from a ten dollar tweak. In an effort to sooth my frustration, I tell myself that my fellow audiophiles are experiencing a placebo effect of some sort. Does anyone else struggle to hear….no wait; does anyone else struggle to comprehend how someone else can hear the perceived benefits gained by the inclusion of any number of highly touted tweaks/gimmicks (brass screws, copper couplers, Teflon tape, maple hardwood, racquet balls, etc.) I mean, the claims are that these methods actually result in improved soundstage, image, detail (“blacker backgrounds”), clarity, bass definition, etc.
Am I alone in my frustration here?
2chnlben
jimjoyce25
215 posts
 
Not out to insult anyone's intelligence. Not out to offend anyone's sense of what amount is proper or improper to spend on a footer.

The question was asked: Can a tweak make a big difference?

I provided an example of a product that is under most radar, and which offers a money-back trial period. It works for me.

For those who wish to try it, I'd be interested to hear what your experience is.

For those who do not, it's your time, money and belief system. You're entitled!
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Jimjoyce25, as we used to say, that is damn right of you.
2chnlben OP
595 posts
 
Thanks to all. This was just another pointless thread meant to stir a little healthy debate. Even if we were all in the same room demoing tweaks, we could never say with any certainty whether or not someone really heard a difference, or merely perceived hearing a difference. I remain a doubter, not because I am predisposed to a negative viewpoint, but because I just can’t hear the perceived enhancements that some of these relatively minor tweaks purportedly impart on a given system’s ability to convey music. With that said, what are you going to do, stop obsessing about your system? That’s absurd! It’s all part of the hobby (hobby is a nice word for this neurosis). By the way, I use quite a few tweaks, but I can’t say they make any differences! So, it could well be asked, who’s nuttier, the guy who spends money on something he can hear and appreciate, or the guy who spends money on things he can’t hear? It’s all nuts man!
tbg
5,263 posts
 
2chnlben, as I said earlier, I certainly have tried tweaks that made very little, if any impact; I have tried tweaks that initially had an impact that I liked, only to discover later that I liked them out of my system; and I have tried tweaks that have a substantial impact in one place, none in a second place, and do great harm in a third. I don't see how these experiences can be reconciled with the idea that tweaks merely have a perceived impact, especially unless they have "scientific basis." I have much training in science and in research methods. As an undergraduate one of my majors was physics. I certainly know that my training now is quite out-of-date as we know much more about nature's laws than we did in the 1960s. Science doesn't know everything that can affect reproduced music.
tvad
9,467 posts
 
People hear differently. Some better than others. Just as some people have better eyesight, sense of smell, and sense of taste. I am steadfast in this belief.

I'm a road bicyclist. Over the years, I have gone through periods of intense training. However, I know that no matter how much I trained, I would never be on the level of riders like Lance Armstrong, or any of the riders in the Grand Tours. Those guys simply have different cardio/pumlinary physiology than do I. Their hearts and lungs can process oxygen better, and their legs can process lactic acid better than mine. We won't get into the doping issue.

Just as a professional cyclist's physiology is better than mine, I am absolutely certain that hearing is different among humans as well. Some have keener, more sensitive ears.

2chnlben, although I know you will resist the notion, you may rest easier knowing that others possess naturally better hearing than you do, and in fact these people will hear differences brought about by tweaks whereas you will not. It will lessen your frustration if you realize and accept this.
More to discover