I could do it.

[BigH]

Expectation bias is a nonesense for that reason. we all have the ability to take into consideration our enviroment and changes such as mentioned above ref postioning we can also filter through such changes and make judgements based on what we know - question is do you trust your own judgement or do you allow others to influence or make you doubt your own judgement.

I am not stopping anyone from thinking and giving their pov......

oh, Ive done blind test too and difference were clear - even the old change nothing test....I trust my senses.

But how much compensation do you know you have to make?

Maybe you overcompensate? I'm sure you don't you get it spot on everytime.

 

[matt49]

Oh great. I see the armchair psychologists are out in force again.

Does anyone here actually have any expertise in experimental or cognitive psychology? Because at the moment it looks to me as if shreds of information picked up off the Internet are being peddled as psychological science.

No doubt davedotco is right to say that taking an informal blind test can be a useful wake-up call. But informal tests aren't robust evidence.

There's a large body of knowledge about 'sensory evaluation testing', knowledge that's underpinned by well established work in cognitive psychology and psychophysics. As things stand, none of the hifi blind tests I've seen have shown the slightest awareness of this scientific work. Until they do -- and I can't see it happening, as proper blind testing is complex and expensive -- these tests will only have anecdotal status and will be worth little more than sighted tests.

 

[davedotco]

Oh great. I see the armchair psychologists are out in force again.

Does anyone here actually have any expertise in experimental or cognitive psychology? Because at the moment it looks to me as if shreds of information picked up off the Internet are being peddled as psychological science.

No doubt davedotco is right to say that taking an informal blind test can be a useful wake-up call. But informal tests aren't robust evidence.

There's a large body of knowledge about 'sensory evaluation testing', knowledge that's underpinned by well established work in cognitive psychology and psychophysics. As things stand, none of the hifi blind tests I've seen have shown the slightest awareness of this scientific work. Until they do -- and I can't see it happening, as proper blind testing is complex and expensive -- these tests will only have anecdotal status and will be worth little more than sighted tests.

All quite true Matt, but I think you are making more of this than is necessary.

This is not an academic debate or an attempt to prove anything so the levels of robustness that are required in that situation do not apply.

In my view, getting people to try blind tests, even simple ones that would not even come close to meeting your criteria for robustness, can show just how similar many presumed different components actually are when the (primarily) visual cues are not available.

My hope is that people can take this experience onboard and use it to provide at least some understanding of what is going on and use it to make more informed judgements.

 

[matt49]

All quite true Matt, but I think you are making more of this than is necessary.

This is not an academic debate or an attempt to prove anything so the levels of robustness that are required in that situation do not apply.

In my view, getting people to try blind tests, even simple ones that would not even come close to meeting your criteria for robustness, can show just how similar many presumed different components actually are when the (primarily) visual cues are not available.

My hope is that people can take this experience onboard and use it to provide at least some understanding of what is going on and use it to make more informed judgements.

Dave, I already agreed with you on this point. My argument is directed at those people who seem to think that blind tests constitute good science. There are such people around on this forum.

I agree with you that blind testing can be helpful. My post just made the point that we need to be careful what claims we make for the results of blind tests.

Matt

 

[Alec]

You don't really seem to have researched expectation bias though?

What?

What-what?

 

[Alec]

lol...... I see why you try to get by with the one liners.

can you understand what I'm saying making a judgement when all things considered, do you intend to disect and take each sentence/line litrally.

You... tell me why you don't trust your senses,

No, the no change test is one were nothing is changed in a set up, after a few changes have been made that you have called on. just to see if the listner hears changes were there are none its a plasebo test .

Ok, I've given you the grace to reply nicely and expand as you've asked and replied to point. All I'm still getting back is "I trust my ears and everything I don't agree with is tosh". I've heard better constructive reposts from my 2 year old quite frankly!

So quote them, it'd be more entertaining.

 

[davedotco]

Dave, I already agreed with you on this point. My argument is directed at those people who seem to think that blind tests constitute good science. There are such people around on this forum.

I agree with you that blind testing can be helpful. My post just made the point that we need to be careful what claims we make for the results of blind tests.

Matt

Sorry Matt, I was really just pointing out that bringing any kind of science, let alone scientific method into threads in this forum tends to be counter productive.

 

[Alec]

Dave, I already agreed with you on this point. My argument is directed at those people who seem to think that blind tests constitute good science. There are such people around on this forum.

I agree with you that blind testing can be helpful. My post just made the point that we need to be careful what claims we make for the results of blind tests.

Matt

Sorry Matt, I was really just pointing out that bringing any kind of science, let alone scientific method into threads in this forum tends to be counter productive.

But then they'd all consist of "I can hear the difference"

"No you can't".

"Oh...".

 

[matt49]

Sorry Matt, I was really just pointing out that bringing any kind of science, let alone scientific method into threads in this forum tends to be counter productive.

Though it pains me to say it, I think you're right.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Expectation bias...o.k, let me try and explain why expectation bias is a nonesense.

You enter a simple listening test expecting to hear differences you are presented with two cables in a sighted test, both are played you hear distinct differences but at the end of the test you are told the differences do not exsist differences were expected so you heard differences. You laugh amongst yourselve "that expectation bias got me...silly me".

Thing is once aware an hour later you come to the same test aware and you/the brain has adjusted, this time you expect no differences, but you re-do the test and those differences are still heard - expectation bias is thrown out the window, those differences are now real.

your expectation has now shifted but the result is the same. You will still doubt yourself?

Most do adjust we take into consideration all that can affect our senses and make a judgement with whats left - there was a line on Sherlock the other week which discribed this perfectly... something like when all probababiltys have been removed no matter how improbable whats left is the truth.... or something like that.

anyway hope this clears up why I say expectation bias is a nonesense.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Sorry Matt, I was really just pointing out that bringing any kind of science, let alone scientific method into threads in this forum tends to be counter productive.

Though it pains me to say it, I think you're right.

Lol... seriously science really has nothing to do with these arguments, these are simple listening test - there are differences in what you hear or not. Nothing to do with psycology. Just trying to see how many actually trust their own ability/sense is all.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Remember that £50 Argos system I said we should replace our systems with? Buy it, and expect it to sound like £10k's worth of high quality system (or ADM9's for AVI users).

Amazing what expectation bias can do

(Hang on! .....naah, I'm not even going to suggest what I just thought!!)

 

[davedotco]

Sorry Matt, I was really just pointing out that bringing any kind of science, let alone scientific method into threads in this forum tends to be counter productive.

Though it pains me to say it, I think you're right.

Lol... seriously science really has nothing to do with these arguments, these are simple listening test - there are differences in what you hear or not. Nothing to do with psycology. Just trying to see how many actually trust their own ability/sense is all.

Beautifully put Thompson, couldn't have put it better..... ray:

 

[davedotco]

Remember that £50 Argos system I said we should replace our systems with? Buy it, and expect it to sound like £10k's worth of high quality system (or ADM9's for AVI users).

Amazing what expectation bias can do

(Hang on! .....naah, I'm not even going to suggest what I just thought!!)

Ahhhh, Go one David, do tell.

For entertainment value you are getting close to the inimitable Thompsonuxb. Keep up the good work.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Remember that £50 Argos system I said we should replace our systems with? Buy it, and expect it to sound like £10k's worth of high quality system (or ADM9's for AVI users).

Amazing what expectation bias can do

(Hang on! .....naah, I'm not even going to suggest what I just thought!!)

Lol.....David stop, I do not want people blameing me for drawing the monster out of you...... looks like they feel I'm responsible for world famine, Eygypt and the collapse of the economy already..... :O

 

[Alec]

Remember that £50 Argos system I said we should replace our systems with? Buy it, and expect it to sound like £10k's worth of high quality system (or ADM9's for AVI users).

Amazing what expectation bias can do

(Hang on! .....naah, I'm not even going to suggest what I just thought!!)

Lol.....David stop, I do not want people blameing me for drawing the monster out of you...... looks like they feel I'm responsible for world famine, Eygypt and the collapse of the economy already..... :O

No it does not.

 

[davedotco]

Remember that £50 Argos system I said we should replace our systems with? Buy it, and expect it to sound like £10k's worth of high quality system (or ADM9's for AVI users).

Amazing what expectation bias can do

(Hang on! .....naah, I'm not even going to suggest what I just thought!!)

Lol.....David stop, I do not want people blameing me for drawing the monster out of you...... looks like they feel I'm responsible for world famine, Eygypt and the collapse of the economy already..... :O

Don't worry Thompson, bringing out the inner idiot in someone is a talent on an altogether different level from that required to collapse the world economy.

Look how well it is working on me.

 

[BenLaw]

I've heard better constructive reposts from my 2 year old quite frankly!

So quote them, it'd be more entertaining.

Is it ok if I quote my one year old? His posts are also more constructive:

Da-da-da-da-da

Vvvvv-vv-v-vv-vv-vv

And upon being given wiggly worm as a new toy:

Wi! Wi! Wi!

 

[Alec]

Seems a smart lad.

 

[BenLaw]

Smarter than some.

 

[spiny norman]

And upon being given wiggly worm as a new toy:

Wi! Wi! Wi!

Just goes to show that a £3 toy, properly designed by a tertiary qualified engineer, can easily outperform a £150 legacy games console, provided you avoid expectation bias.

 

[BenLaw]

And upon being given wiggly worm as a new toy:

Wi! Wi! Wi!

Just goes to show that a £3 toy, properly designed by a tertiary qualified engineer, can easily outperform a £150 legacy games console, provided you avoid expectation bias.

£1.99 actually. Sounds like I avoided the dealer mark up.

 

[fr0g]

Expectation bias...o.k, let me try and explain why expectation bias is a nonesense.

You enter a simple listening test expecting to hear differences you are presented with two cables in a sighted test, both are played you hear distinct differences but at the end of the test you are told the differences do not exsist differences were expected so you heard differences. You laugh amongst yourselve "that expectation bias got me...silly me".

Thing is once aware an hour later you come to the same test aware and you/the brain has adjusted, this time you expect no differences, but you re-do the test and those differences are still heard - expectation bias is thrown out the window, those differences are now real.

your expectation has now shifted but the result is the same. You will still doubt yourself?

Most do adjust we take into consideration all that can affect our senses and make a judgement with whats left - there was a line on Sherlock the other week which discribed this perfectly... something like when all probababiltys have been removed no matter how improbable whats left is the truth.... or something like that.

anyway hope this clears up why I say expectation bias is a nonesense.

Not very scientific.

Expectation bias is a very real, scientifically provable phenomenom. It works on ALL our senses. Your brain is responsible for taste, touch, hearing, sight, smell. And your brain does deceive you.

For a start, we all have a rather large blind spot where the optic nerve passes. There are no photo-recepors there, so we see "nothing". But you don't experience that spot because the brain fills in the details.

People tasting wines can easily be fooled by price tags, or even dye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-_nTyQmju8

The above talk is interesting as he explains that we don't just think that an expensive wine tastes better, the pleasure centres in the brain actually fire more when we drink the "more expensive" wine, even compared to an identical wine that is labelled much cheaper.

The same happens with audio. Unless you take out other senses whilst listening, they WILL affect what you hear, or rather the way your brain interpretes what you hear. And to you, it WILL sound different.

So when you test something, whether it be wine, or audio, you MUST take out other influences from the equation, or else you are just kidding yourself.

It's like if you have something wrong with a computer. It could be the memory, the hard-drive, the PSU, the motherboard...what you don't do is change all at once...

And to rehash an old favourite...How our eyes affect what we hear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

 

[fishheads]

A question for those who follow the science :

I'm interested in what role you believe it has in hi-fi?

The reason I ask is that, taken at face-value, I find quotes like this to be rather strange

With regards to music, I've done enough of it in my time to know that my ears are not the best judgement.

Don't trust your ears, in my experience, they really aren't trustworthy.

Most of you don't appear to advicate ABX testing for all audio purchasing and rightly point out that it is not practical to do so. So how do you apply it in your decision making?

Elsewhere, someone said that it is "almost impossible" to overcome expectation bias/the brain process

So even if science/ABX is part of your decision to buy, once the equipment is sat in your listening room, surely the bias takes over again? The brain process kicks in and you start to hear what you want to hear not what is there? In other words, what you are left with is your ears so to not trust them in the decision to purchase appears to be counter-intuitive.

I realise that my argument is a 'dangerous' path to go down and allows for all kinds of rubbish

But I'm not sure how your argument stacks up in terms of real-world listening

(Note the above are genuine questions, I'm not looking to wind anyone up and generally I'd side with the science, I just don't see how it is applied here)

 

[davedotco]

A question for those who follow the science :

I'm interested in what role you believe it has in hi-fi?

The reason I ask is that, taken at face-value, I find quotes like this to be rather strange

With regards to music, I've done enough of it in my time to know that my ears are not the best judgement.

Don't trust your ears, in my experience, they really aren't trustworthy.

Most of you don't appear to advicate ABX testing for all audio purchasing and rightly point out that it is not practical to do so. So how do you apply it in your decision making?

Elsewhere, someone said that it is "almost impossible" to overcome expectation bias/the brain process

So even if science/ABX is part of your decision to buy, once the equipment is sat in your listening room, surely the bias takes over again? The brain process kicks in and you start to hear what you want to hear not what is there? In other words, what you are left with is your ears so to not trust them in the decision to purchase appears to be counter-intuitive.

I realise that my argument is a 'dangerous' path to go down and allows for all kinds of rubbish

But I'm not sure how your argument stacks up in terms of real-world listening

(Note the above are genuine questions, I'm not looking to wind anyone up and generally I'd side with the science, I just don't see how it is applied here)

I do not think that anyone has said that a methodical scientific approach will get you the perfect hi-fi or that double blind or ABX testing is the only way to audition components.

I can not speak for others, but I have always attenpted to make people aware that when auditioning hi-fi many things are not what they seem.

These can be technical issues, a better loudspeaker auditioning as less good than an inferior one perhaps due to a poorly matched system, one CD player auditioning as better than another due to it's higher output, simple examples but there are many more complex ones.

Similarly there are the psyco-acoustic issues too, expectation bias may be currently a subject of ridicule but it is real and does have a huge effect on peoples perception as does the state of mind of the listener.

Some of these effects can be overcome, some not, but what is important is that if you are making an important decision it helps if you have at least some idea of what is going on. Try different things, approach them in different ways and take your time.