Of course on the other end of the spectrum we have those who refuse to admit that there could be a real audible difference if it can't be proven with the scientific method used. In other words, if it can't be measured it doesn't exist. To my way of thinking, this person is just as much a stubborn jackass, but just with a different paradigm. I say keep an open mind, measure what you can and try to figure out why you may be hearing what you perceive.

I completely agree, perception is really the bottom line. How you perceive what you hear is different to everyone else and the individual must decide if the cost is worth it. I believe that what is trying to be conveyed is that an "AJA" is the individual that even after a blind A-B-C side-by-side test with a multiple random shoot out still refuses to look at the results. Instead the AJA makes multiple excuses such as components make, speakers not being revealing enough etc... If they are side by side in an A-B-C test with identical reasonably high-end equipment with the same passages played for each, the results should speak for themselves.

AJA is a good one!
It is also important for the observers to be aware of the difference between objective claims and subjective ones as much as some manufactures will try to blur the line by rubbing it with snake oil.

While we are at terminology discussion, would “psychoacoustics” be of any relevance to people thinking they hear things that are not scientifically measurable?

Spatula, I was recently told by someone who has conducted numerous A-B-C tests in a controlled environment that some “audiophiles” showed up only once and wouldn’t talk to him anymore after being humiliated (in their own perception) for not being able to tell the difference between their boutique audio products and the common hardware store goods. Will this make a case of AJA?

Thanks, it just popped into my head.

With your question on my opinion of Psychoacoustics being relevant in this case, not really. Psychoacoustics really isn't thinking you hear something that is not there or cannot be measured, it is more the art of masking or removing sounds that are not alledgedly in the audible range or are buried by a louder sound producing the same frequency.

EXAMPLE, remember "Minidisc" and Digital Compact Cassette, "DCC" (Not DAT), in the mid to late 90's? These two formats were based on Psychoacoustics. Both held less than half of the information available on a CD, but yet they were able to play the same minutes of identical music as a CD. This was achieved by removing the information that was alledgedly measured to be out of the audible range and any other information that was being masked by louder sounds on the same frequency. Minidisc only used 40-50% of the information as a CD, DCC 20-35%. As you know, both of these formats failed miserably. Audiophiles claimed the sound was compressed, artificial sounding and a step backwards in technology. Most people could not tell the difference. The reason that this was even attempted was that each format was compact and recordable.

Now, were these so called Audiophile's really AJA's, we will never know because I do not believe the format was ever taken seriously enough for a formal blind side by side against CD. I personally thought that they sounded like crap, but I might be being an AJA myself because I never did a blind side by side.

Almost forgot, as for the "Audiophile Slayer", If he used the same kind of cables and ESPECIALLY SPEAKERS (I think we can all agree that all speakers ARE NOT created equal) for both set ups, than yes I think we have an AJA. If the Audiophile Slayer stacked the deck in his favor than he's the AJA, because he proved nothing.

Good Convo Spiker

Absolutely!

I think that both a technical instrumented analysis and true A-B comparisons with a statistically large enough sample audience are valid comparisons. Both these methods compliment each other. If listening trials consistently point out differences between products, it gives the instrumentation group a reason to hunt for the cause. When the instrument based analysis finds a performance difference between products, the A-B listener group is beneficial for learning if the technical difference between products causes a perceptible difference. If the two methods reach an agreed consensus regarding a product or an issue, that leaves those that continue to insist otherwise 'without a leg to stand on.' I'll say again, both methods are valid and have a place and role.

Beyond that, you will still have your own perceptions and preferences.

A difficulty arises, for example, when you have four different reviewers (too small a sample to be statistically accurate) in four different magazines try several different cables over the course of year and all end up praising different products for different reasons and may even contradict each other. Sometimes these reasons are dubious because reviewers are subject to the vagaries of expectation-influenced perception like the rest of us. This process lends some, but little, true aid to the person trying to choose between the many products out there and leaves plenty of snake oil for sellers to hide behind. Isn’t it contrary to a publisher’s advertising revenue interests to report over and over again (if true), “We find no practical or overall statistical performance difference between using Extra Wonderful Cable at 40 dollars per foot and Quite Good low-gauge copper at 40 cents per foot?”

I think debating the speaker wire thing is like debating what came first, the chicken or the egg.
It goes on forever. I do find it interesting that despite all of the big bucks that one can spend for electronics and speakers, Cheap, 12g lamp cord is very hard to beat. However if high priced wiring trips your trigger, fire away. I spent my coins on a new Ford GT

Yeah, but does it have a Bose radio?

You mean "I hear no Highs I hear no Lows, oh my god it must be Bose!?!?!?"

Whew, you want 2 year waiting list?