AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

(Lou Anschuetz) wrote:

...mostly snipped.....

: Indeed. Hasn't been done, AFAIK. Therefore the alternate explanation
: for many sighted reports of unlikely audible difference
: -- perceptual bias -- still holds sway.

Well, maybe. Because this is a human sense that is known to be pretty
unreliable, there is an issue with falsifiability here that concerns
me. It is easy to argue that since the majority of people don't see/hear
it, it isn't there and they are making choices based on "pretty colors"
or "someone else said so". But it is more difficult to prove that it
is not so (the falsifiability issue). This is why I limit my testing
knowing that I will increasingly see a convergence. But it is also
why I take a "witness" to make sure we both heard the same thing. If
we don't, then it is likely to in fact be bias. If we do? Difficult to
say then eh?

You forget that humans are psychologically biased to perceive 'difference' when
given two identical sound presentations and will also interpret small changes
in level as chages in quality. So unless you monitor the latter volume control
settings may affect your judgement between trials. (Ever notice that a saleman
will always turn the gain control all the way down between equipment changes?
This is a great perception influence opportunity as well as a safety
practice.)

I don't know about your specific techniques but it is also common to see
listeners "negotiate" differences during a presentation so 'agreement' on what
they 'heard' is often just a social interaction that may not have any basis in
sound reproduced.