Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Terry, some of those that heard a difference in a fake cable swap might just rationalize it as proof that cables have a settling time because the dielectric was stressed and it takes time for the system to achieve equilibrium again.
Ha, that's the least of some of the rationalisations I'd expect!
We know that 'explabation' is rubbish, not least that it does not make sense heh heh. (the original 'explanation' had a typo in it, but felt it appropriate to not fix it as it rhymes with or implies a mix of explanation and babble..ie explababble' haha)
I am super curious about this whole area. He hears these differences and they are so 'real' to him that he can go to great lengths with flowery descriptors. You then show him incontrovertible proof that nothing had changed, the 'new' sound is exactly the same as the 'old' sound. Which path do the individuals take in dealing with this set of factors?
'You tricked me' might be one response...possibly that might be so. Or was it his own brain? Could he acknowledge that?
Or would it be such an eye opener that he could change his mind and now see the need for controlling this aspect of audition by means such as blind testing? Because the one thing a procedure like this has NOT proven is that there are no differences between dacs (say). It is a prior step to that, demonstrating the need to control these mental gymnastics.
The thing is, we are ALL subject to this phenomenon, it is not just the realm of the subjectivist, it is a human trait. Which is what prompted me to wonder how the objectivist might exhibit the trait, with the example of 'not hearing an obvious difference'. Does it work that way?
Brett, no doubt you saw the earlier link from arny, would something like this be of use in the earlier project we spoke of??