| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
objecftivists --- what's the next step?
Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
I'm sitting at home listening to my stereo and reading an audio magazine. I come across a review of some new cables. The review is glowing with praise, and describes several attractive sonic improvements. I'm thinking that my system could benefit from those improvements. Maybe I go to the cable manufacturer's website and am impressed by some pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about perceptual-motion-electron-conditioning. I follow a link to a newage site describing interactions of mother earth's energy fields and magic cables. I'm sold. I run down to the store and spend two month's salary on a set of those cables. Returning home, I lovingly install them in my system. I'm impressed with their build quality, and they look fabulous. I turn on the system and do some critical listening. They sound fantastic! The system really sounds better to me, and I'm enjoying the music more than ever before. Sounds better, and provides more satisfaction ---- that's a good thing, right? I'm so happy. The next day, my objectivist friend comes to visit with some zipcord and an ABX box. He proves to me that I can't tell the difference between the two cables in a DBT test. He proves to me that the cables are electrically equivalent. He proves to me that there is no sonic difference between the two cables. He proves to me that the differences I heard in my sighted test were caused by expectation bias. So what? What now? What next? I really did perceive a difference in my sighted test, and I enjoyed the magic cables much more than I enjoyed my previous cables. Yesterday, my system sounded better (to me) after I instaled the new cables. Today I understand that the difference I heard can be attributed to non-sonic factors. That doesn't change the fact that yesterday I perceived an improvement. So what happens tomorrow? 1. Zipcord cables start sounding better? I now find the same improvements were there all the time in zipcord? I return the expensive new cables for a refund, but now get the same increased enjoyment from zipcord? My newfound knowledge allows me to port my perceptual improvements back to zipcord? Are there any studies that indicate that the effects of expectation bias, once exposed, are portable? 2. My new cables start sounding worse? The sound improvements I was enjoying now vanish, and my system reverts to the sound it had two days ago? My objectivist friend made my system sound worse to me? 3. My new cables still sound better to me? I know that the improvement is not based on sonic factors, but they sound better non-the-less. I understand that perception and judgement are based on more than sound alone, and am willing to take advantage of that fact if it increases my listening enjoyment. If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
CaptLego wrote:
Consider the following hypothetical scenario: I'm sitting at home listening to my stereo and reading an audio magazine. I come across a review of some new cables. The review is glowing with praise, and describes several attractive sonic improvements. I'm thinking that my system could benefit from those improvements. Maybe I go to the cable manufacturer's website and am impressed by some pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about perceptual-motion-electron-conditioning. I follow a link to a newage site describing interactions of mother earth's energy fields and magic cables. I'm sold. I run down to the store and spend two month's salary on a set of those cables. Returning home, I lovingly install them in my system. I'm impressed with their build quality, and they look fabulous. I turn on the system and do some critical listening. They sound fantastic! The system really sounds better to me, and I'm enjoying the music more than ever before. Sounds better, and provides more satisfaction ---- that's a good thing, right? I'm so happy. The next day, my objectivist friend comes to visit with some zipcord and an ABX box. He proves to me that I can't tell the difference between the two cables in a DBT test. He proves to me that the cables are electrically equivalent. He proves to me that there is no sonic difference between the two cables. He proves to me that the differences I heard in my sighted test were caused by expectation bias. So what? What now? What next? Hopefully you now realize the power of expectation bias. I really did perceive a difference in my sighted test, and I enjoyed the magic cables much more than I enjoyed my previous cables. Yesterday, my system sounded better (to me) after I instaled the new cables. Today I understand that the difference I heard can be attributed to non-sonic factors. That doesn't change the fact that yesterday I perceived an improvement. So what happens tomorrow? 1. Zipcord cables start sounding better? I now find the same improvements were there all the time in zipcord? I return the expensive new cables for a refund, but now get the same increased enjoyment from zipcord? My newfound knowledge allows me to port my perceptual improvements back to zipcord? Are there any studies that indicate that the effects of expectation bias, once exposed, are portable? Of course, there is that not-so-small advantage of having an extra 2 months of salary... I would guess that you have also learned that the expensive cables are a rip-off. And that you never read another cable ad or review again without a high degree of skepism. 2. My new cables start sounding worse? The sound improvements I was enjoying now vanish, and my system reverts to the sound it had two days ago? My objectivist friend made my system sound worse to me? Well, if you want to believe that something sounds worse, you could always convince yourself that it does. But why not simply stop worrying about the cable after that illuminating experiment? 3. My new cables still sound better to me? I know that the improvement is not based on sonic factors, but they sound better non-the-less. I understand that perception and judgement are based on more than sound alone, and am willing to take advantage of that fact if it increases my listening enjoyment. You of course are free to choose your gear whichever way you want to. If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? A couple of things I can think of. You are helping to promote an industry that is not based on solid engineering principles. And you would be wrong if you try to convince others that the improvements come from *sonic* factors. Very few auidophiles are enlightened enough to realize that the expensive cables they bought sound better to them because of purely *non-sonic* factors, or that based on sonic factors, they perform as well as zip-cord. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's what's wrong with that! Think of all the CDs or SACDs you could
buy with that two weeks salary you spent on the cables. I have noticed that my system "sounds" different to me every day. Is it me or the temperature, pressure, humidity, or other factors? The point is it does sound different even though I have done nothing to cause this. The biggest tweak of all is ------ TIME. ---MIKE--- |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my
objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that?" You began this by saying how, in this hypothetical, you were led to buy them based on marketing and 3rd party reaction which could not be cconfirmed. The question for yourself is how you control, or not, such in your life. One common sequence for one in this situation is to quickly wonder if there is not some next thing which produces better purely psychic results and/or what majic in sound based on same are you missing; which leads to imo a fool's errand; subject to the next better marketing/publicity/publishing technique. In the meantime, displacing from your budjet all those cds that psychic wire cost. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jón Fairbairn" wrote in message
... (CaptLego) writes: If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception [...] -- then why not take advantage of that? One reason for the objectivist's ire is that it would not be you that is taking the advantage, but the seller of the "magic" wires or whatever. My wife likes Starbucks french roast coffee, and has said that I should buy it because we can afford it, and she feels that she should be able to splurge a bit at this time in our lives. However, Costco also carries another brand of french roast that costs half as much as Starbucks. I cannot tell any difference in flavor between the two; neither can my wife. But, if she knows that I've substituted the cheaper beans for the Starbucks, she's incensed. It's come to the point where she feels she can't be sure that she's drinking Starbucks unless she makes the coffee herself. Yesterday, she even brought up the possibility that I might possibly have filled an empty Starbucks bag with the cheaper beans without telling her. The entire situation is fantastic to me--indeed, quite amusing. But to my wife it's a matter of trust, love, and a willingness to spend to make her happy. After all, "she's worth it." I think something similar to this goes on in the audiophile world. The knowledge of what you're listening to has more effect than the actual sound. Norm Strong |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
normanstrong wrote:
"J=F3n Fairbairn" wrote in message ... (CaptLego) writes: If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception [...] -- then why not take advantage of that? One reason for the objectivist's ire is that it would not be you that is taking the advantage, but the seller of the "magic" wires or whatever. =20 My wife likes Starbucks french roast coffee, and has said that I should buy it because we can afford it, and she feels that she should be able to splurge a bit at this time in our lives. However, Costco also carries another brand of french roast that costs half as much as Starbucks. I cannot tell any difference in flavor between the two; neither can my wife. But, if she knows that I've substituted the cheaper beans for the Starbucks, she's incensed. It's come to the point where she feels she can't be sure that she's drinking Starbucks unless she makes the coffee herself. Yesterday, she even brought up the possibility that I might possibly have filled an empty Starbucks bag with the cheaper beans without telling her. The entire situation is fantastic to me--indeed, quite amusing. But to my wife it's a matter of trust, love, and a willingness to spend to make her happy. After all, "she's worth it." =20 I think something similar to this goes on in the audiophile world. The knowledge of what you're listening to has more effect than the actual sound. =20 Norm Strong FWIW, Costco also sells pre-packaged Starbucks brand coffee. I believe=20 thr French-roast goes for about $9 for 2 pounds, about half what it=20 costs at Starbucks. I personally prefer Peetz's coffee, and they usually give you a free=20 fresh-brewed cup if you buy a pound. But to back up your point, I know people who got angry when they found=20 out that their expensive cables sound the same as zip-cords, or that=20 their magical discs have no effects. Unfortunately they also got angry=20 at the messengers for making them look stupid... |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"normanstrong" wrote: "Jón Fairbairn" wrote in message ... (CaptLego) writes: If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception [...] -- then why not take advantage of that? One reason for the objectivist's ire is that it would not be you that is taking the advantage, but the seller of the "magic" wires or whatever. My wife likes Starbucks french roast coffee, and has said that I should buy it because we can afford it, and she feels that she should be able to splurge a bit at this time in our lives. However, Costco also carries another brand of french roast that costs half as much as Starbucks. I cannot tell any difference in flavor between the two; neither can my wife. But, if she knows that I've substituted the cheaper beans for the Starbucks, she's incensed. It's come to the point where she feels she can't be sure that she's drinking Starbucks unless she makes the coffee herself. Yesterday, she even brought up the possibility that I might possibly have filled an empty Starbucks bag with the cheaper beans without telling her. The entire situation is fantastic to me--indeed, quite amusing. But to my wife it's a matter of trust, love, and a willingness to spend to make her happy. After all, "she's worth it." I think something similar to this goes on in the audiophile world. The knowledge of what you're listening to has more effect than the actual sound. Well no, because the tweakophile doesn't acknowledge there is no difference. How much megabucks speaker cable is sold to customers who know it sounds the same as zip cord? In fact, the tweakophile, while probably deluded, makes more sense here than does your wife, although I'm sure she's a lovely woman. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , CaptLego wrote:
Consider the following hypothetical scenario: [ . . . ] The next day, my objectivist friend comes to visit with some zipcord and an ABX box. He proves to me that I can't tell the difference between the two cables in a DBT test. He proves to me that the cables are electrically equivalent. He proves to me that there is no sonic difference between the two cables. He proves to me that the differences I heard in my sighted test were caused by expectation bias. [ . . . ] There's a segment of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' where the hero's friend comes to him with a problem with his (very expensive) German motorcycle. The hero identifies the problem, and tells the friend that the solution requires the insertion of a metal shim. The friend wonders how much this will cost. The hero says, 'nothing' and indicates that perfectly good shims can be made out of an old beer can hammered flat and cut to shape. The friend is horrified and makes many excuses, eventually taking his expensive motorcycle to a factory mechanic, where he was undoubtedly mercilessly overcharged for 'factory spec' shims of the same functionality as the beer can. The same sort of thing can be found with camera buffs who buy only the best Nikon or Zeiss lenses when a Vivitar or Soligor will do just as well, at a fraction of the cost. I wonder if there isn't some little part of our brains that tells us that putting zip cord in place of expensive speaker cables isn't a form of pollution, and that, sound quality aside, we have degraded our 'noble' systems with 'lower-class' components. Are we really interested in sound quality, or in impressing our friends and reassuring ourselves that we have done everything in our power to get the purest sound possible. That 'purity,' of course, must include the pedigree of the components which produce the sound, otherwise there can be no justice or beauty in the world. I, for one, will be going to the electrical supply store and investing in some 10-gauge, 2-wire, SJ or SO rated 'cab-tire.' Like zip cord, but with two or three times the cross-section. More expensive than zip cord, but still vastly cheaper than some of the audio cables advertised. Then we'll see. Best, Greg. -- Greg Grainger 'What a world of gammon and spinach it is, though, ain't it?' - Miss Mowcher |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Dec 2004 17:03:12 GMT, (CaptLego) wrote: If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? That seems pretty obvious. Use functional electronics, and sell your granny and your kids to buy Avalon Eidolons (or substitute the aspirational speaker of your choice). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Here's another anaysis I made nearly 10 years ago after conducting a controlled listening tests of Tara Labs RSC cables costing $990 a pair compared to a set of zipcord wires. The cables were not reliably distinguishable to a 21-year old female (and my self) so I compiled an economic and aesthetic comparison of the things a $1000 bought during the first 3 months of that calendar year. Option 1: RSC Cables: $990 1 CD: $6 (Chas. Neville) Total: $996 Option 2: Equipment/Software Zip Cord $5 Pamona Banana Plugs $8 2 CDs $26 2 Laser Discs $95 Education: AES Section Meeting: $15 (dinner) Live Music: (prices for 2 tix) CSO $132 Neville Bros Concert: $70 DrJohn Concert $165 (includes lodging) Leon Russell Concert $134 ( " ) Decatur Jazz Festival $265 ( " ) Chicago Jazz Fair $30 Total $945 I think the latter course, which reflects what I actually did and not what I might have otherwise done musically, is a much more useful course of action ....after all, the sound at home was exactly the same either way. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote in message
I know people who got angry when they found out that their expensive cables sound the same as zip-cords, or that their magical discs have no effects. My expensive cables sounded worse than zip cord. Seriously. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote in message ...
CaptLego wrote: Consider the following hypothetical scenario: [snip] Hopefully you now realize the power of expectation bias. Powerful stuff, indeed. It seems too powerful to ignore, or to simply wish it would go away. I suppose it could be used for good (improving the sound of a system), or evil (fleecing ignorant consumers). [more stuff snipped] If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? A couple of things I can think of. You are helping to promote an industry that is not based on solid engineering principles. And you would be wrong if you try to convince others that the improvements come from *sonic* factors. Agreed. But is it too ambitious to think that it could be put on a solid engineering basis? Does it depend upon how much a gizmo costs? On the credibility of proponents? Appearance? Could economical audio systems be improved in this regard, or is this powerful effect only something to be exploited by snakeoil salesmen? Very few auidophiles are enlightened enough to realize that the expensive cables they bought sound better to them because of purely *non-sonic* factors, or that based on sonic factors, they perform as well as zip-cord. You're probably right. But if you'd indulge me in a bit more of my hypothetical story..... The other night my objectivist friend came over for dinner. Now I like to eat peas, and I was excited to serve a new brand of peas that I'd recently discovered. My old peas were OK, I guess, but they were kinda grey and smelled funny. The new peas are a nice green, and smell good, too. I think they taste better. My objectivist friend laughed at me, and told me I'd been duped again. He explained that all peas taste the same (given that they are the same size and texture, and that less than 1% are spoiled). To prove it to me, he blindfolded me and put a clothspin on my nose. Then he fed me a serving of each brand of peas. Sure enough, I could not tell any difference based on taste alone. Once again, I was influenced by "expectation bias". Or was I? I don't normally eat dinner blindfolded with a clothspin on my nose. Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some incomprehensible neurological process of my brain. Perhaps I (mistakenly?) attribute the change to "taste". Or maybe the sight of green peas on my plate somehow recalibrates my tastebuds in the expectation of a different sensation. This is, of course, pure speculation on my part. But I know that I still prefer to eat the green peas. My friend thinks I'm crazy. I guess there's just no accounting for taste.... I expect that in the food industry, they study the interaction of appearance, smell, and taste. I don't know if there's sensory co-mingling in the audio realm, but *something* is going on that makes reviewers hear dramatic differences. There is apparently some confounding factor that has a major influence on the perception of audio -- beyond the sonic performance alone. Such a powerful effect --- why not study and understand it, rather than bemoan its existence? |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Dec 2004 17:03:12 GMT, (CaptLego) wrote: If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? That seems pretty obvious. Use functional electronics, and sell your granny and your kids to buy Avalon Eidolons (or substitute the aspirational speaker of your choice). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I've never lusted after aspirational speakers. Besides, planar dipoles don't usually have that quality. Although compared to most of the dynamic speakers I've heard, they sometimes leave *me* breathless ! Bruce J. Richman |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
CaptLego wrote:
Such a powerful effect --- why not study and understand it, rather than bemoan its existence? In other words, should Stereophile review the marketing gibberish rather than the cables themselves? Let me think how this would go: "The brochure for the Quantum 9000 cables was packaged in a heavy paper envelope, with excellent build quality. When I read it aloud, even my wife could hear it from the kitchen." |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
CaptLego wrote:
Chung wrote in message ... CaptLego wrote: snip If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? A couple of things I can think of. You are helping to promote an industry that is not based on solid engineering principles. And you would be wrong if you try to convince others that the improvements come from *sonic* factors. Agreed. But is it too ambitious to think that it could be put on a solid engineering basis? Does it depend upon how much a gizmo costs? On the credibility of proponents? Appearance? Could economical audio systems be improved in this regard, or is this powerful effect only something to be exploited by snakeoil salesmen? You are completely missing the point. You aren't "improving" an audio system by imagining that it is better than it is. You may be improving your enjoyment of it, but if you want to believe that something is better, you don't need to spend megabucks to do it. Consider the immense "improvement" reported by such cheap tweaks as green pens. Any change has the potential to invoke a positive mental response. Very few auidophiles are enlightened enough to realize that the expensive cables they bought sound better to them because of purely *non-sonic* factors, or that based on sonic factors, they perform as well as zip-cord. You're probably right. But if you'd indulge me in a bit more of my hypothetical story..... The other night my objectivist friend came over for dinner. Now I like to eat peas, and I was excited to serve a new brand of peas that I'd recently discovered. My old peas were OK, I guess, but they were kinda grey and smelled funny. The new peas are a nice green, and smell good, too. I think they taste better. My objectivist friend laughed at me, and told me I'd been duped again. He explained that all peas taste the same (given that they are the same size and texture, and that less than 1% are spoiled). To prove it to me, he blindfolded me and put a clothspin on my nose. Why a clothespin? You've rigged the test right there, since most of what we "taste" is actually smelled. Do the test with just a blindfold, and it's a fair analogy. (And fresh peas will win eaasily.) Then he fed me a serving of each brand of peas. Sure enough, I could not tell any difference based on taste alone. Once again, I was influenced by "expectation bias". Or was I? I don't normally eat dinner blindfolded with a clothspin on my nose. Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some incomprehensible neurological process of my brain. Perhaps I (mistakenly?) attribute the change to "taste". Or maybe the sight of green peas on my plate somehow recalibrates my tastebuds in the expectation of a different sensation. This is, of course, pure speculation on my part. But I know that I still prefer to eat the green peas. My friend thinks I'm crazy. I guess there's just no accounting for taste.... I expect that in the food industry, they study the interaction of appearance, smell, and taste. I don't know if there's sensory co-mingling in the audio realm, but *something* is going on that makes reviewers hear dramatic differences. There is apparently some confounding factor that has a major influence on the perception of audio -- beyond the sonic performance alone. Such a powerful effect --- why not study and understand it, rather than bemoan its existence? Who's bemoaning it? We're just accepting it, and learning to account for it in our comparisons. And by the way, what is it that you think we don't understand about it? bob |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
CaptLego wrote:
Chung wrote in message ... CaptLego wrote: Consider the following hypothetical scenario: [snip] Hopefully you now realize the power of expectation bias. Powerful stuff, indeed. It seems too powerful to ignore, or to simply wish it would go away. When it comes to speaker cables, green pens, etc., a lot of people believe that they can overcome the expectation bias. I suppose it could be used for good (improving the sound of a system), or evil (fleecing ignorant consumers). And what is good for those who sell such cables may not be good for you. [more stuff snipped] If we know that non-sonic factors can influence perception (and my objectivist friend argues that non-sonic factors *dominate* perception of audio electronics) -- then why not take advantage of that? Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? A couple of things I can think of. You are helping to promote an industry that is not based on solid engineering principles. And you would be wrong if you try to convince others that the improvements come from *sonic* factors. Agreed. But is it too ambitious to think that it could be put on a solid engineering basis? Put what on a solid engineering basis? Does it depend upon how much a gizmo costs? On the credibility of proponents? Appearance? Could economical audio systems be improved in this regard, or is this powerful effect only something to be exploited by snakeoil salesmen? Huh? Very few auidophiles are enlightened enough to realize that the expensive cables they bought sound better to them because of purely *non-sonic* factors, or that based on sonic factors, they perform as well as zip-cord. You're probably right. But if you'd indulge me in a bit more of my hypothetical story..... The other night my objectivist friend came over for dinner. Now I like to eat peas, and I was excited to serve a new brand of peas that I'd recently discovered. My old peas were OK, I guess, but they were kinda grey and smelled funny. The new peas are a nice green, and smell good, too. I think they taste better. My objectivist friend laughed at me, and told me I'd been duped again. He explained that all peas taste the same (given that they are the same size and texture, and that less than 1% are spoiled). To prove it to me, he blindfolded me and put a clothspin on my nose. Then he fed me a serving of each brand of peas. Sure enough, I could not tell any difference based on taste alone. Once again, I was influenced by "expectation bias". Or was I? I don't normally eat dinner blindfolded with a clothspin on my nose. Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some incomprehensible neurological process of my brain. Perhaps I (mistakenly?) attribute the change to "taste". Or maybe the sight of green peas on my plate somehow recalibrates my tastebuds in the expectation of a different sensation. This is, of course, pure speculation on my part. But I know that I still prefer to eat the green peas. My friend thinks I'm crazy. I guess there's just no accounting for taste.... When it comes to food, sight and smell are very important sensations. I'm not sure what you proved. There is nothing wrong with preferring food that looks better and smells better. Those are important criteria for your preference. I expect that in the food industry, they study the interaction of appearance, smell, and taste. I don't know if there's sensory co-mingling in the audio realm, but *something* is going on that makes reviewers hear dramatic differences. That something is "expection bias" when it comes to green pens, shatki stones and mpingo disks. Certainly there can be dramatic differences between some components, but in every one of those instances the differencs can be clearly supported by measurements. There is apparently some confounding factor that has a major influence on the perception of audio -- beyond the sonic performance alone. You dim the lights, and your system would probably sound different. Or you can have a glass of wine and it will sound different. Your state of mind has a large effect. Such a powerful effect --- why not study and understand it, rather than bemoan its existence? Not sure who is bemoaning it. Certainly not those you call objectivists. Perhaps those who bought the cables and found out that they sound the same as zip-cords? Scientists have observed this phenomenen for years. It's just basic psychology. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
CaptLego wrote:
Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some incomprehensible neurological process of my brain. "Maybe"? "MAYBE"??? You'd better believe they're inextricably linked...and anyone in the olfactory sciences is well aware of this connection. What you describe isn't a Double Blind Test, it's a Double Dumb-Ass Test!  I don't know if there's sensory co-mingling in the audio realm, but *something* is going on that makes reviewers hear dramatic differences. There is apparently some confounding factor that has a major influence on the perception of audio -- beyond the sonic performance alone. Right. That's the Expectation Bias that everyone is talking about. Such a powerful effect --- why not study and understand it, rather than bemoan its existence? In order to study it, one first has to isolate it. And not confuse it with other factors. (Such as actual sonic differences between audio components.) Likewise, when one studies actual sonic differences between audio components, one has to isolate them, and not confuse them with other factors such as Expectation Bias. That's just the nature of good science. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
J=F3n Fairbairn wrote:
(CaptLego) writes: [snip] Shouldn't my quest for audio nirvana focus on maximizing the contribution of non-sonic factors? If all competent audio electronics are essentially perfect, Electronics, perhaps. Loudspeakers, positioning and room treatments can have far from imperceptible effects. but I can still attain dramatic improvements via non-sonic factors, what's wrong with that? Maybe nothing. But if moving your speakers a few centimetres, or hanging a tapestry really do make a difference, why not do that? If you really want illusory improvements, just buy a bottle of Cognac or smoke a joint. Such non-sonic factors certainly alter perception, but if you believe that there is something wrong with doing it that way, I'd argue that the same thing is wrong with doing it by spending large sums of money. -- J=F3n Fairbairn So loudspeaker selection, positioning, and room treatment can have dramatic effects. So can magic cables (if I'm influenced by expectation bias). So how do you eliminate expectation bias when chosing loudspeakers, positioning, and room treatments? Do you rely on objective measurements of the soundfield? How do you do a DBT of room treatments? Is a blind test even really appropriate for room treatment? If not, how do you overcome expectation bias? |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
CaptLego wrote:
Chung wrote in message ... The other night my objectivist friend came over for dinner. Now I like to eat peas, and I was excited to serve a new brand of peas that I'd recently discovered. My old peas were OK, I guess, but they were kinda grey and smelled funny. The new peas are a nice green, and smell good, too. I think they taste better. My objectivist friend laughed at me, and told me I'd been duped again. He explained that all peas taste the same (given that they are the same size and texture, and that less than 1% are spoiled). To prove it to me, he blindfolded me and put a clothspin on my nose. Then he fed me a serving of each brand of peas. Sure enough, I could not tell any difference based on taste alone. Once again, I was influenced by "expectation bias". Or was I? I don't normally eat dinner blindfolded with a clothspin on my nose. Maybe in normal dining circumstances, my olfactory inputs get combined with the signals from my tastebuds in some incomprehensible neurological process of my brain. In fact, they are. It's not incomprehensible; the neural tracts connecting olfactory to taste centers were mapped long ago, I think. It's why when you have a stuffy nose, food doesn't taste as distinctive. And you really shouldn't set up a test with so many variables changed at once. Moreover, while olfactory input certainly impairs perception of gustatory difference, there';s no evidence AFAIK that literally blinding someone does sthe same to auditory difference perception (indeed, some people probably feel they can concentrate *better* with eyes closed) But experimental 'blinding' isnt' the same as blindfolding, anyway. Supposem instead, that your friend had simply given you two plates of peas in succession, without 'blindfolding' you, and varied whether the two plates were the same or different? What sensory input are you missing? DBTs aren't actually done 'blindfolded'. It's quite possible to set them up so that the devices under test are all *visible*. All that's needed is a way to mask which one is connected to the system during the test. 'Blinding' in a DBT refers to keeping biasing *knowledge* from the subject, not necessarily visual input. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Have you considered this? Atmospheric pressure, temperature and
humidity varies from day to day (we had a violent wind storm last night which was a result of a dramatic drop in pressure). These elements have an effect on the speed of sound. Since the room dimensions remain constant, a change in the speed of sound would cause the frequency of room nodes to change. Wouldn't this cause the apparent sound of a stereo system to change? ---MIKE--- |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... wrote: I think you're mostly concerned with eliminating it. The argument goes like this: a) Magic cables sound better only because of expectation bias. b) Zipcord is sonically equilivant to magic cables c) Therefore, people should use zipcord, saving the $$ for more effective or useful things. At first, that seems quite logical. But that leaves us with the conclusion that something which improves the sound (in the mind of the listener -- which is the only thing that matters) should be eliminated. Somehow, the physical aspects of audio are legimitate, but the perceptual processes involved are not? Your point is valid: If psychological processes do indeed add to the pleasure of listening--even though there is absolutely no sonic difference--why not take advantage of those psychological processes? The problem is: Will they work even when you know beyond peradventure that you are paying $1000 for a component that you KNOW makes no sonic improvement, but is strictly a matter of psychology. Probably not. Certainly not in my case. I would not enjoy spending $1000 on speaker cables that I knew at the time of purchase would deliver exactly the same signal to the speakers as $5 worth of zipcord. Norm Strong |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
First, I'd like to thank those who have responded (except for the guy
that called me a troll). But so far, nobody has attempted to answer my original question. I'm trying to understand expectation bias. I'm trying to find out how well it is understood. I'm curious how much progress has been made in really understanding it, and if it can (has?) been characterized sufficiently for engineering purposes. To me, that means that we have sufficient analytical skills and knowledge to predict the outcome of experiments that involve expectation bias. For example, I was wondering how robust expectation bias is, and in particular how effective DBT experience might be in changing expectation bias. So I ask for predictions of the outcome of the following experiment. 1. Start with a group of people who are convinced they hear differences in cables (in sighted conditions) (shouldn't be too hard to find such a group). 2. Run that group through a DBT of those cables. Now take the subset of the group that can't distinguish the cables. (Given enough trials, this should be about 100% of the group, right?) 3. Return that group to their previous condition --- sighted listening. Now, predict: What percentage of the group will still believe they hear a difference between the cables in sighted listening? 100% ?? Nobody's expectation bias will be affected by their DBT experience? 0% ?? Nobody will have expectation bias anymore, or their expectation bias will now be "there is no difference" ?? Somewhere in-between? In that case, what additional information would you need to predict their response? If the response is 100% still believing they hear a difference, what additional information or experience whould they need to change their perception? Does their response depend on their opinion of the DBT's validity? Has anybody actually done this experiment? Have anybody done similar experiments? |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the answer is yes, for two reasons:
1. There are entire departments or fields of Advertising, Marketing, Industrial Design, Ergonomics, and Psychology at major universities. These people have studied expectation bias extensively. "Managing customer expectations" is part of the job of any skilled marketeer or salesman. People are trained in how to do this. 2. The commercial success of products whose sole content is the manipulation of expectation bias. But you may be up against an issue of semantics -- among mainstream engineers, manipulation of expectation bias is considered to be outside of engineering. Having "expectation bias engineering" may be as much of an oxymoron as "creation science." wrote: But so far, nobody has attempted to answer my original question. I'm trying to understand expectation bias. I'm trying to find out how well it is understood. I'm curious how much progress has been made in really understanding it, and if it can (has?) been characterized sufficiently for engineering purposes. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 10 Dec 2004 01:08:21 GMT, wrote: All I can offer is an anecdote. (But remember: the plural of anecdote is data.) I was introduced to the green pen in an audio shop some years ago. It sounded like a total crock to me, but I let the guy play me an untreated CD (Barbra Streisand--ugh!), then color the rim and play it again. Damn if it didn't sound better the second time! I don't think doing a DBT could have made me any more skeptical than I already was, and yet I heard a difference. That is exactly how expectation bias works, and if a thousand people 'hear' the same thing, it's not data, it's just confirmation that expectation bias works - but we already knew that. OTOH, I can offer a DBT. Four of us got together many years ago, after hours in a record store, and we had six identical copies of Dave Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', an Arcam carousel player, and a rather nice system comprising a Naim amplifier and a pair of Epos ES11 speakers, carefully set up in the store (one of those 'enthusiast' record stores where the owner was an audiophile as well as a record buff). After checking that all the naked CDs sounded the same (and rejecting two that semed a little different), two of the discs were 'greened', and the four discs were loaded into the player by one of the participants. Another, who hadn't seen the discs loaded, was assigned to the remote control, to play the same track from the four discs in random order, while we all ticked off score sheets for 'green' or 'untreated', and the operator/listener noted which disc was playing on each occasion. Two exhausting hours later, we compared notes over a few beers, and the result was that we had a completely random scatter, with no apparent sonic effect whatever from the green pen. Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Dec 2004 16:10:10 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 10 Dec 2004 01:08:21 GMT, wrote: All I can offer is an anecdote. (But remember: the plural of anecdote is data.) I was introduced to the green pen in an audio shop some years ago. It sounded like a total crock to me, but I let the guy play me an untreated CD (Barbra Streisand--ugh!), then color the rim and play it again. Damn if it didn't sound better the second time! I don't think doing a DBT could have made me any more skeptical than I already was, and yet I heard a difference. That is exactly how expectation bias works, and if a thousand people 'hear' the same thing, it's not data, it's just confirmation that expectation bias works - but we already knew that. OTOH, I can offer a DBT. Four of us got together many years ago, after hours in a record store, and we had six identical copies of Dave Brubeck's 'Late Night Brubeck', an Arcam carousel player, and a rather nice system comprising a Naim amplifier and a pair of Epos ES11 speakers, carefully set up in the store (one of those 'enthusiast' record stores where the owner was an audiophile as well as a record buff). After checking that all the naked CDs sounded the same (and rejecting two that semed a little different), two of the discs were 'greened', and the four discs were loaded into the player by one of the participants. Another, who hadn't seen the discs loaded, was assigned to the remote control, to play the same track from the four discs in random order, while we all ticked off score sheets for 'green' or 'untreated', and the operator/listener noted which disc was playing on each occasion. Two exhausting hours later, we compared notes over a few beers, and the result was that we had a completely random scatter, with no apparent sonic effect whatever from the green pen. Just out of curiousity, did you listen "sighted" first and did you determine what you thought you were hearing / what you were "listening for"? No, we only listened blind, and we were listening for *any* differences. Two of the 'panel', including the store owner, were convinced that green pens made the sound smoother. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is effectively the perfect argument against DBT -- the testing
environment is psychologically invasive in a way that disables our perception of audio effects. How convenient. It is also a stock argument against objective testing of paranormal effects in general. What it does is to eliminate the possibility of further discussion. People can train themselves to perform amazing feats in psychologically hostile environments. For instance, you can learn to trick a polygraph test (it helps that polygraph testing is a crock to begin with). There are people who have reportedly figured out how to detect WMD's in aerial photographs while everybody in the world watches on live TV. This is analogous to hearing the effect of the green pen or the magic stones. If that is possible, then surely someone willing to win a million bucks can train themselves to detect the magic stones in a DBT. wrote: All I can offer is an anecdote. (But remember: the plural of anecdote is data.) I was introduced to the green pen in an audio shop some years ago. It sounded like a total crock to me, but I let the guy play me an untreated CD (Barbra Streisand--ugh!), then color the rim and play it again. Damn if it didn't sound better the second time! I don't think doing a DBT could have made me any more skeptical than I already was, and yet I heard a difference. Based on that, I'd say that doing DBTs might change people's attitudes to the extent that it would make them skeptical of what they heard in sighted comparisons, but it wouldn't change what they heard in those sighted comparisons. (And I suspect a fair number of them would rationalize away the results of the DBT and continue to believe what they heard sighted.) bob |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Step up transformer | High End Audio | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 4/5) | Car Audio | |||
| FS HEWLETT-PACKARD 204D Audio Oscillator with Step Attenuator | Pro Audio | |||
| step by step photo guides | Car Audio | |||
| FS HEWLETT-PACKARD 204D Audio Oscillator with 10 dB Step Attenuator | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
