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

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 I certainly know that my training now is quite out-of-date as we know much more about nature's laws than we did in the 1960s.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.

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.

This has been an interesting exchange. Thanks to everyone who made the effort to constructively contribute. I'll share just one story to the mix, for whatever it may be worth.

My listening partner of 30 years is my spouse. We regularly listen to music together and we jointly listen to changes we make in our system to cross-check what we each think we may be hearing. We're both intimately familiar with the sound of our system. Over the years, we've come to a simple process that has worked for us for assessing changes:

1) Listen carefully to the current set-up on complex orchestral music.

2) Introduce the change, allowing appropriate time for break in, settling, warm-up or whatever may be needed.

3) Listen carefully again to the same music without comment.

4) Separately write down what differences, if any, we each heard.

5) Share what we separately wrote, then discuss.

6) Undo/Remove the change, re-listen and re-discuss what we hear.

Invariably, we hear the same things and invariably every change makes some difference -- occasionally very minimal, occasionally very significant. We may describe them differently, but the discussion allows us to resolve the difference in descriptive language. When we both separately describe the same sonic changes following the introduction of the change (whether component or tweak), we're pretty well satsified that what we're hearing is real.

Then it's another question to decide: Is the change for the better? Is it worth the cost? When my spouse announces that something we've tried is not leaving the house, I know for sure we have a winner! And, of course, many times the impact of any tweak is highly system and room dependent -- we've experienced that as many others have already described.

Regards,

My sound awareness has improved as my systems has become more resolving providing more information to make judgements with. My system's resolution allows me to hear small tweaks some I like some I don't but there is no denying that changes are made. There are many many many more resolving systems then mine and I can only imagine what can be heard on those systems!!!

Ahh...very good. I was afraid this thread had withered on the vine, but since there is still a sign of life, I will inject some more hooey…There is definitely something to be said regarding someone’s ability, or inability to hear well – or discern details. It is also a fact that there will always be systems that are more revealing than others.

As I have stated, I can clearly discern good soundstage, image, clarity, transparency, timbre and even decay, and I can discern and appreciate changes in the aforementioned. For most audiophiles, the formula for attaining these physical characteristics - to an obvious degree, is to replace gear or do modifications to the gear (proper setup and room treatments are also big factors). Then, there are cables, tubes, power tweaks, etc. that make audible improvements, but to a lesser degree than upgrading the gear. Then there is the fine-tuning that may involve a myriad of tweaks and products; and it is very difficult for me to believe that placing something-anything under a component or placing a shield of some sort over an IEC... can make the kinds of differences that have been described. We’re talking about improvements in the soundstage that are clearly discernable for crying out loud, or that improvement in transparency are quite obvious.

Look, human beings are human beings; sure, there are those who hear better than others, but what’s more likely – be honest, that a very real and scientific phenomenon known as “the power of persuasion” (placebo effect if you will) is occurring, or that there is the phenomenon of extraordinary human achievement occurring!?

I know I’m pi@#%$! some of you off. Don’t take it personally – I don’t.