Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:YDR0c.160642$uV3.708646@attbi_s51...
*snip*
(snip)


After going through these amps several times, I began to note which
ones had a particular sound, and that sound was consistent from one
trial to the next.

And each time you listened to 'A' which you thought you found bright, you
reinforced that it did, in fact, sound bright.

Not so. I listened again, and confirmed that 'A' sounded bright AFTER
listening. I cannot make this any plainer.

Repeated trials confirmed initial impressions.


The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.

If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

Then you will hear the differences.

I've already heard exactly such differences between cables, right up until I
realized I was hearing the attributes I'd ascribed to cable 'A', only I was
really listening to cable 'B'. Until you allow for the existence of sighted
bias, a phenomenon that is universally acknowledged to exist, you are
correct in that further conversation on the subject is meaningless.

How can 'bias' lead me to believe that two amps that I have never
heard before. know nothing about, and have no opinion of, sound
consistently different, that is, have consistent sonic characteristics
from one trial to another and that mark them as different from each
other? That is impossible, I put it to you.

It's quite possible, ineed predictable from standard
psychological principles. Your first impression is based on an
expectation of difference; from then on you have the memory
of what you thought they sounded like the first time.

It's *possible* the amps sounded different. It's at least
as likely , and arguably *rather more* likely, that they didn't. Your
method by itself cannot resolve the question. That's due to
simple facts of human psychology.

I had formed no opinion of 'Hafler' sound or 'Harmon Kardon' sound or
'Denon' sound. I had no idea what to expect. The Harmon Kardon
Citation amp had the most impressive literature, and I expected this
one to be rather good-sounding. It was not. It was rather
disappointing, in fact among the very worst. The Denon was clearly
superior. I had no expectation that this would be the case.

You misunderstand what is meant by 'expectation bias'.
The 'expectation' in question is that apparently
different devices will *sound* different.

The point is that I was judging only how they sounded. I did not allow
the sales literature to sway me.

Even if that's true, it does *not* eliminate a fundamental source of bias:
the certain knowledge that the component you are listening to at point B is not
the same one that you listened to at point A. That;s *all* that's required
to generate expectation bias.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

I would like you to explain how 'sighted bias' explains what I heard
in detail, not just in general.

If what you "heard" you only imagined, then we can't explain in detail what
you "heard," because we can't know everything that was going on in your head
at the time. What you *imagined* you heard could have been affected by the
order in which you listened to the amps, for all we know. All "sighted bias"
offers is a *possible* explanation for two things: 1) the fact that you
perceived a difference among these amps at all; and 2) the fact that, once
having identified a certain sound with each amp, your subsequent auditions
confirmed those impressions. That this explanation is indeed possible is a
proven scientific fact, and Steven Sullivan has suggested a few textbooks
which will confirm that.

A basic truth about listening comparisons is this: If you know what you are
listening to, then everything you've ever heard, read or thought about that
component can affect how you hear it. That's inescapable, my friend.

To claim 'you heard differences
because you expected to' is not an explanation at all. It does not
account for, for instance, the nature of the differences I heard
(dynamic compression, brightness, dullness, etc.). It is the same as
explaining fire by invoking 'phlogiston'. It 'explains' nothing.

If you really want to understand this, may I respectfully suggest that you
acquire some background in the science behind it. Sullivan has given you a
place to start.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:B0b1c.102451$Xp.438688@attbi_s54...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

I would like you to explain how 'sighted bias' explains what I heard
in detail, not just in general.

If what you "heard" you only imagined, then we can't explain in detail what
you "heard," because we can't know everything that was going on in your head
at the time. What you *imagined* you heard could have been affected by the
order in which you listened to the amps, for all we know. All "sighted bias"
offers is a *possible* explanation for two things: 1) the fact that you
perceived a difference among these amps at all; and 2) the fact that, once
having identified a certain sound with each amp, your subsequent auditions
confirmed those impressions. That this explanation is indeed possible is a
proven scientific fact, and Steven Sullivan has suggested a few textbooks
which will confirm that.

Repeated trials that confirm earlier trials are not considered in
science to be indicative of bias. Quite the contrary.

A basic truth about listening comparisons is this: If you know what you are
listening to, then everything you've ever heard, read or thought about that
component can affect how you hear it. That's inescapable, my friend.

False on its face.

In article uxp1c.31737$ko6.305019@attbi_s02,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:B0b1c.102451$Xp.438688@attbi_s54...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

I would like you to explain how 'sighted bias' explains what I heard
in detail, not just in general.

If what you "heard" you only imagined, then we can't explain in detail what
you "heard," because we can't know everything that was going on in your
head
at the time. What you *imagined* you heard could have been affected by the
order in which you listened to the amps, for all we know. All "sighted
bias"
offers is a *possible* explanation for two things: 1) the fact that you
perceived a difference among these amps at all; and 2) the fact that, once
having identified a certain sound with each amp, your subsequent auditions
confirmed those impressions. That this explanation is indeed possible is a
proven scientific fact, and Steven Sullivan has suggested a few textbooks
which will confirm that.

Repeated trials that confirm earlier trials are not considered in
science to be indicative of bias. Quite the contrary.

Since no bias controls were implemented, there are two possible
explanations for your initial outcome and repetition. One is that you
were biased. The other is that you were observing something real.
There is no way to know which is the case, so science says "Come back
when you've implemented bias controls."

Now you will protest that you are pure as the driven snow and cannot
possibly be biased. In science, it doesn't matter how much you believe
in yourself. Real science is done by eliminating the very possibility
of human weakness affecting the outcome, because nobody is perfect.
Science learned long ago that no matter how good the conscious intent of
the experimenter, bias is not only possible, it's very common.

So, your statement above is simply wrong. Repeated trials tainted by
bias do not purify the test, because multiple biased results don't add
up to unbiased any more than multiple wrongs add up to a right.

A basic truth about listening comparisons is this: If you know what you are
listening to, then everything you've ever heard, read or thought about that
component can affect how you hear it. That's inescapable, my friend.

False on its face.

You are deluding yourself.

--
Tim