How a power supply works

[ellisdj]

I was just about to say about placebo effect.

The cable is the same as the one you take out - but again in the mind of the person its better and better is proven to make a change and to make a change for the positive when sighted.

Yet the result is negative - completely against whats proven to happen in this situation. How can that be explained?

Its not a freak occurance or a one off as other people have experienced this in hifi many time - get a new shiny "better" box plug it in - oh things sound worse - everyone has experienced that in hifi

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I suppose the argument to that Ellis from their perspective is

- hearing can’t be good

- it’s random selection

- you still aren’t hearing it

- what other reason can I use. Aarrrggghhhh......

 

[cheeseboy]

I was just about to say about placebo effect.

The cable is the same as the one you take out - but again in the mind of the person its better and better is proven to make a change and to make a change for the positive when sighted.

Yet the result is negative - completely against whats proven to happen in this situation. How can that be explained?

it depends how far you wanted to dig down in to it. This why people talk about double blind testing. the idea is try and remove external influences such as placebo and expectation bias as much as is possible given the circumstances. Say hypothetically speaking somebody did set up a proper double blind test and was able to discern between the cables, the next step might be to actually investigate the cable. It may turn out to be a faulty cable. then again the flip side if the double blind testing the differences disappeared, then it could also be something odd like for example, the colour of the cable that subconciously affects something in your brain that makes it sound worse (that's just an off the wall hypothetical, but still possible - certain people respond differently to certain colours)

I'm not saying that people should go to these lengths. The companies themselves, like harmon do, should do though if they are going to make a claim. the thing is there's lots of studies and papers about things that can effect the brain (take optical illusions for example) so to try and dismiss them completley out of hand before one has tried to mitigate them is folly.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

You have to apply illusions for what’s going on, not apply a loose general position as you do. We know the reasons like the mcgurk effect and why it happens, but you can’t apply it to hearing. The auditory system is pretty reliable and we’ve learnt to rely on external stimuli from our environment and it’s quality. 49 people out of 50 is seriously credible and I’ve done double blind testing and it was ridiculously easy to discern one good and one bad performing speaker cables in my system.

 

[cheeseboy]

We know the reasons like the mcgurk effect and why it happens, but you can’t apply it to hearing.

Wrong again - the mcgurk effect *is* an auditory illusion.

 

[jjbomber]

Interested in no one else's opinion but his own. Arrogant, argumentative and frankly downright disrespectful.

Which poster? I've narrowed it down to 8 suspects. *biggrin*

 

[nick8858]

We know the reasons like the mcgurk effect and why it happens, but you can’t apply it to hearing.

Wrong again - the mcgurk effect *is* an auditory illusion.

NO.... Surely he must have made a mistake rather than quote something that is incorrect. Can't believe that. And I thought he was the Steven Hawing of Hi Fi! I'm gutted now

 

[ellisdj]

Yes but the results of a correctly done ABX Blind test would be pretty conclusive - thats what Dr Floyd Toole did at Harman over 30 years with actual facilities built to do correct testing

His conclusion from 30 years of study shows that expectation bias exists in hifi and in sighted tests people chose the "better" product as having the better sound.

So unless someone plugs in a mains cable thinking its going to be worse - placebo, expectation bias influcences - if they plug somehting in they think is better they then will hear better sound.

Thats not always the case though thr cable has already been plugged in and a benefit heard (in a different component of the same system in the same room) - the colour, size, smell touch is the same as its the same cable. But plugged into an amplifier in that system worse sound is experienced.

- that goes against what correct science has proven - and once science is proved its correct right? There is no other side to it?

 

[cheeseboy]

Yes but the results of a correctly done ABX Blind test would be pretty conclusive - thats what Dr Floyd Toole did at Harman over 30 years with actual facilities built to do correct testing

His conclusion from 30 years of study shows that expectation bias exists in hifi and in sighted tests people chose the "better" product as having the better sound.

So unless someone plugs in a mains cable thinking its going to be worse - placebo, expectation bias influcences - if they plug somehting in they think is better they then will hear better sound.

Thats not always the case though thr cable has already been plugged in and a benefit heard (in a different component of the same system in the same room) - the colour, size, smell touch is the same as its the same cable

- that goes against what correct science has proven - and once science is proved its correct right? There is no other side to it?

no, please actually read what I said. It could be that it's faulty cable for one example. There are other reasons. It's not all black and white. Again, this is all hypothetical, I'm just trying to float ideas as to why, but more importantly what you (not you personally) could do to try and work out what that outcome happened. Also sample size comes in to play. If somebody has been doing a study for 30 years, then chances are one person heard it worse, but beacuse the sample size is so large, that single entity would not make any difference to the statistical outcome. You are trying to compare a single instance of a single person person plugging in one cable in their home, to a 30 year study done in laboratory conditions. They aren't really comparable I'm afraid.

The other confusing thing is you are trying to use the example that the demo you went to 49 out 50 people heard a difference in a sighted test, which is riddled with scientfic inconsistancies that nothing scientifically could be concluded from it, then conversley using the harmon example to basically disprove what you believe about the demo you went to. I'm confused.

 

[cheeseboy]

But we know we don’t have auditory illusions in everyday hi fi,

sigh, wrong again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA

you're like the forums very own trump. Narcissistic to the extreme - everything you say is true, and when proven wrong you still can't admit it.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

We know the reasons like the mcgurk effect and why it happens, but you can’t apply it to hearing.

Wrong again - the mcgurk effect *is* an auditory illusion.

the visual part of the brain makes us hear the word differently in the mcgurk effect, that’s because we process a reliance on visual clues first, like we think we are moving when one train next to us moves off at the platform. Our balance system in the ear doesn’t tell our brain we can feel no forward acceleration because the visual system takes precedence in processing. That makes sense as our visual environment is more important in an evolutionary survival context. It’s not because the auditory cortex is not hearing the word correctly in mcgurk, because the higher priority visual centre is what we rely on from millions of years of evolution, that’s making the word different. So it’s not an auditory illusion in the sense on our brains which is what I meant.

But we know we don’t have auditory illusions in everyday hi fi, not unless you are taking some acid, or high power drugs. We do have similar effects when we don’t know what the sound is, we can mistake it, but again that’s because the memory recall functions comes into the sound. We hear a paper bag and it sounded like a dangerous animal noise we heard before and stored when we saw a tiger, we jump! But I’ve not had any illusions listening to hi fi because there aren’t any we know of. We know what most instruments sound like...

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

You’ll have to explain your point there cheeseboy on that link.

 

[ellisdj]

Your twisting my words and changing things not deliberately I am sure

I didnt say 49 people hearing a difference is scientifically proven thats just what happened on the day in a sighted listening test.

But I am saying that correctly done ABX Blind testing at Harman actually scientifically proved if people think its best they hear it as best when sighted - but when tested blind the outcome is different. 30 years of testing all different people proved that.

That was proved correctly under correct scientific ABX conditions - so that is proven when it comes to hifi. No disputing that from me I cant.

Let me clarify what that test proved - it proved that in hifi we perceive something as "better" which can influence our perceptions to think something sounds better than something else when actually it doesnt. This was not a does or doesnt it make a difference test - one was actually better than the other in this testing.

If that is the case and it is because its proven - if there is a placebo or 2 products with no difference and the person sighted testing them thinks one is better it Has to sound betterto them, it cant sound worse to them. Thats been proven

But how do you account for all the instances like what happened with Quest, CNo has brought them up I have experienced it and I bet everyone has.

We plug in what we think is better and therefore expect better sound but what we hear is actually worse.

The only way this can be the case as is proven in the Harman testing one has to be better than the other - they cant be the same

 

[nick8858]

you're like the forums very own trump. Narcissistic to the extreme - everything you say is true, and when proven wrong you still can't admit it.

Plus 1 for that concise summing up.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

But we know we don’t have auditory illusions in everyday hi fi,

sigh, wrong again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA

you're like the forums very own trump. Narcissistic to the extreme - everything you say is true, and when proven wrong you still can't admit it.

but what I’ve said may be wrong, but I’ve reasoned it the best I can with thought. What you do is move onto the next ‘illusion’ when you don’t want to explain your perspective....

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

This is the reply I got from Galen
Hi Simon,
Thanks for your note, happy to respond. In short, don't waste your time. There are people who trust their ears and those that are unwilling to do so - and you'll never be able to change the mind of those who aren't. These folks assume that everything we hear can be easily measured, and this is simply not the case. Further, they generally assume that if something isn't a currently accepted theory, it doesn't exist. To those folks I offer the following:"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein.Simply put, don't get involved in the argument, it's a waste of time. Plain and simple: Trust your ears.

 

[nick8858]

but what I’ve said may be wrong, but I’ve reasoned it the best I can with thought. What you do is move onto the next ‘illusion’ when you don’t want to explain your perspective....

Are you a politician in real life by the way. If not you should be. Your form of argument is just what they are looking for these days.

 

[cheeseboy]

Your twisting my words and changing things not deliberately I am sure

I didnt say 49 people hearing a difference is scientifically proven thats just what happened on the day in a sighted listening test.

apologies if it came across like that, not meant like that. However, I do believe that you have used the fact the 49 people heard a difference, and therefore you have come to the conclusion that it was because of the product, even though nothing was done to remove any form of bias. I'm saying it would folly to say that it *was* the product exclusively because you haven't tried to rule anything else out. I'm not saying that the product was not responsible for the change however, don't get me wrong, just that if you want to establish if it does make a difference, then there is a lot more to it that a demo like the one you went to, which was basically a sales pitch.

But I am saying that correctly done ABX Blind testing at Harman actually scientifically proved if people think its best they hear it as best when sighted - but when tested blind the outcome is different. 30 years of testing all different people proved that.

That was proved correctly under correct scientific ABX conditions - so that is proven when it comes to hifi. No disputing that from me I cant.

quest would dispute it though, he already has, maybe ask him 😉

Let me clarify what that test proved - it proved that in hifi we perceive something as "better" which can influence our perceptions to think something sounds better than something else when actually it doesnt. This was not a does or doesnt it make a difference test - one was actually better than the other in this testing.

If that is the case and it is because its proven - if there is a placebo or 2 products with no difference and the person sighted testing them thinks one is better it Has to sound betterto them, it cant sound worse to them. Thats been proven

it can though, and I have already given you reasons and a hypothetical why. Again, refer to the fact of sample size.

But how do you account for all the instances like what happened with Quest, CNo has brought them up I have experienced it and I bet everyone has.

We plug in what we think is better and therefore expect better sound but what we hear is actually worse.

The only way this can be the case as is proven in the Harman testing one has to be better than the other - they cant be the same

ellis - Im not repeating myself again, sorry. I've already explained. You are trying to compare a 30 year double blind study to a single instance of somebody doing a sighted test in their home. The sample size is not comparable, you can't compare one and use it for the other.

Unless you are admitting that the Isotek demo was all just a placebo?

 

[cheeseboy]

This is the reply I got from Galen
Hi Simon, Thanks for your note, happy to respond. In short, don't waste your time. There are people who trust their ears and those that are unwilling to do so - and you'll never be able to change the mind of those who aren't. These folks assume that everything we hear can be easily measured, and this is simply not the case. Further, they generally assume that if something isn't a currently accepted theory, it doesn't exist. To those folks I offer the following: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein.Simply put, don't get involved in the argument, it's a waste of time. Plain and simple: Trust your ears.

we told you. chalk up another one to you being wrong. To quote Questforthe13thNote - he's written it off before he's even tried it.

 

[jimmy1]

A theory isnt the same as a guess or an opinion, in general a theory has some facts and or proof to back it up, in science anyway.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

You have to have a balanced playing field so other people can make or try and make, their mind up. I say something, he comes back to tell me illusions happen, we look at those illusions and how we can explain them, and then he comes back. If he doesn’t how the hell are we going to debate it, but he moves onto next point. His last one failed......

 

[abacus]

Quest

Power supply’s come in many forms and Andyjm has explained a very small part of one type, so wait until he has finished as you will find all the questions you are asking, (And experiences you are alluding too) will be answered.

In the meantime, here is a question for you:

You have a top notch stereo system, you play a track that has the singer in the centre of the stage, you sit back (Close your eyes if you want) and hear the singer right in front of you (Assuming you are listening in the sweet spot) and it sounds complete bliss, is there any actual sound coming from between the speakers or do you just think there is? (You imagine it)

Bill

 

[cheeseboy]

Are you a politician in real life by the way. If not you should be. Your form of argument is just what they are looking for these days.

like I said - very trumpesque - narcissism. Believe everything you say is correct, even if you contradict yourself, project what you do on to other people and accuse them of it, and just dismiss large swathes of evidence without anything to back up what you are saying.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

This is the reply I got from Galen
Hi Simon, Thanks for your note, happy to respond. In short, don't waste your time. There are people who trust their ears and those that are unwilling to do so - and you'll never be able to change the mind of those who aren't. These folks assume that everything we hear can be easily measured, and this is simply not the case. Further, they generally assume that if something isn't a currently accepted theory, it doesn't exist. To those folks I offer the following: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein.Simply put, don't get involved in the argument, it's a waste of time. Plain and simple: Trust your ears.

we told you. chalk up another one to you being wrong. To quote Questforthe13thNote - he's written it off before he's even tried it.

id like fo explore the illusion point of yours if you want to properly debate this. You indicated You think that is applies in hi Fi, but I didn’t think so....

he may have written it off but I suspect he has had countless similar debates and he has to run his business. But at least I tried. Oh well.

 

[cheeseboy]

id like fo explore the illusion point of yours if you want to properly debate this. Y

If I thought for one minute you could actually and were interesting in properly debating, I would, but you aren't, so I shall have to pass on your kind offer.