IET, Bi-wiring does not work and other myths

[davedotco]

These factors can cause real differences, suffuciant in some cases to tell one amplifier from another (still listening blind of course), but it important to realise that in sighted tests these differences are swamped by the effects of expectation bias, placebo effect etc, etc.

I know it is hard to believe that you will be taken in by such effects, especially when you know what to expect, but you will be, everyone is. It's the way the brain works and there is nothing you can do about it!

With all due respect, I don't think you'll find any psychologists (I mean academic researchers in psychology who study precisely this area) who'd agree with this. It's certainly true that in many situations most people will experience some form of bias in their judgements. It's equally true that most (psychological) biases can be overcome with training. There's a lot of idle talk about how our brains are 'hard-wired' to respond in certain ways. In fact, almost all of this supposed 'hard wiring' is susceptible to e.g. the influence of experience. Those who've advocated the 'hard wiring' form of argument, e.g. people like Paul Ekman, Silvan Tomkins, Paul Griffiths, generally agree that there are only a very small number of 'hard-wired' systems in the human brain that are impervious to training. These are the emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust.

In other words, most people may be susceptible to biases in many situations, but it is possible to overcome most biases if you work at it.

I don't want to take this too far from the realms of hifi but you are correct, there are plenty of researchers who play down the effects of expectation bias and placebo effect, just as there are plenty who do not.

I use these effects, expectation bias in the main to offer an explaination why, in sighted tests differences are often described as huge, night and day etc yet the same observers comprehensively fail to identify very different items in blind test.

This to me is the point, the experimental evidence is overwhelming, time and time again jounalists and other audio professionals fail blind tests comprehensively, so much so that few will now participate in them.

Just for amusement, take alook at this....

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

 

[Overdose]

With all due respect, I don't think you'll find any psychologists (I mean academic researchers in psychology who study precisely this area) who'd agree with this. It's certainly true that in many situations most people will experience some form of bias in their judgements. It's equally true that most (psychological) biases can be overcome with training. There's a lot of idle talk about how our brains are 'hard-wired' to respond in certain ways. In fact, almost all of this supposed 'hard wiring' is susceptible to e.g. the influence of experience. Those who've advocated the 'hard wiring' form of argument, e.g. people like Paul Ekman, Silvan Tomkins, Paul Griffiths, generally agree that there are only a very small number of 'hard-wired' systems in the human brain that are impervious to training. These are the emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust.

In other words, most people may be susceptible to biases in many situations, but it is possible to overcome most biases if you work at it.

I think regardless of the belief in subjective bias or not, the results of such blind tests designed to remove the bias are unequivocal. With such overwhelming evidence, it would be wise to consider this when choosing some new equipment on merits of sound quality alone.

Of course, anyone is free to spend their money however they wish, but personally, I think it better to have a genuine understanding of what is being bought and why.

 

[Covenanter]

These factors can cause real differences, suffuciant in some cases to tell one amplifier from another (still listening blind of course), but it important to realise that in sighted tests these differences are swamped by the effects of expectation bias, placebo effect etc, etc.

I know it is hard to believe that you will be taken in by such effects, especially when you know what to expect, but you will be, everyone is. It's the way the brain works and there is nothing you can do about it!

With all due respect, I don't think you'll find any psychologists (I mean academic researchers in psychology who study precisely this area) who'd agree with this. It's certainly true that in many situations most people will experience some form of bias in their judgements. It's equally true that most (psychological) biases can be overcome with training. There's a lot of idle talk about how our brains are 'hard-wired' to respond in certain ways. In fact, almost all of this supposed 'hard wiring' is susceptible to e.g. the influence of experience. Those who've advocated the 'hard wiring' form of argument, e.g. people like Paul Ekman, Silvan Tomkins, Paul Griffiths, generally agree that there are only a very small number of 'hard-wired' systems in the human brain that are impervious to training. These are the emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust.

In other words, most people may be susceptible to biases in many situations, but it is possible to overcome most biases if you work at it.

I'll take your word for this but do you really think that people who make claims about cables etc want to overcome their biases? They want to believe it and will avoid at all costs anything that might undermine that belief.

Chris

 

[matt49]

I think regardless of the belief in subjective bias or not, the results of such blind tests designed to remove the bias are unequivocal. With such overwhelming evidence, it would be wise to consider this when choosing some new equipment on merits of sound quality alone.

Of course, anyone is free to spend their money however they wish, but personally, I think it better to have a genuine understanding of what is being bought and why.

I agree that knowledge of the technical merits of equipment should play a role in any decision to buy. I'd never suggest otherwise. But that's an entirely different argument.

As for the evidence for subjective bias, you've missed my point. I didn't say there wasn't any evidence. What I said was that the scientific evidence doesn't support categorical statements of this kind:

I know it is hard to believe that you will be taken in by such effects, especially when you know what to expect, but you will be, everyone is. It's the way the brain works and there is nothing you can do about it!

I also think statements like that do a disservice to open-minded debate. By all means let's be mildly and politely sceptical about some of the claims people make to have heard differences between pieces of kit. But scepticism has to be accompanied by a bit of humility about one's own knowledge/ignorance, e.g. in the matter of the psychology of expectation bias. That's the point I was making.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Lol...... you're so crazy...... :rofl:

No, just educated.

The crazy i'm picking up....the educated...no...no..naaah, its not coming through.....just teasing.

Seriously Pauln, do you think that makes sense 'sonic illusions' - I mean think about it, sonic illusions, if your music sounds more detailed or bassier after the change of a cable say, its more likely a sonic illusion than that your speakers getting more or less of a signal and altering the sound accordingly that the human ear/brain can actually hear/differenciate ....seriously?

Yes seriously, you really need to do your homework.

Just for amusement, a very simple illustration of how easily the brain can be fooled by what we do or do not hear.

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

Honestly, utter piffle.....

What does playing various tones at varing phase shifts really have to do with listening to music on a domestic set in your home?

I mean c'mon...this is why I throw down the 'come lets have a listen' challenge to you guys, its nonesense and in real world terms is about as useful has...er...something thats totally useless ... I mean really really useless.

music is recorded - sources, amps and speakers play it back - on a given amp it will play back said track exactly the same if nothing is changed, my argument to you is if one part of said system is changed lets say the interconnect between source and amp, audible differences can be heard by the human ear, variations on certain aspects of said track can be picked up.

you don't need to do a 3year study on the subject just set your own kit up and try it for youself.....and believe your ears.

wow.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

If you think otherwise I strongly advise you to take a blind or an ABX test to find out just how difficult it is.

The incredible power of expectation bias, placebo effect and the general ability of all listeners to 'hear' with their eyes is quite astonishing and, if you have never taken part in such a test, it is probably impossible to convince anyone of the truth of these statements.

Good luck, I think you're wasting your time though.

Told you...

Quite...... :rofl:

I'm reminded of the old motto. "Never argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience".

I can't help myself, I love arguing with idiots, its so entertaining....its what the internet was made for...... :roll:

 

[Overdose]

I agree that knowledge of the technical merits of equipment should play a role in any decision to buy. I'd never suggest otherwise. But that's an entirely different argument.

As for the evidence for subjective bias, you've missed my point. I didn't say there wasn't any evidence. What I said was that the scientific evidence doesn't support categorical statements of this kind:

I would say that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that expectation bias exists and is so powerful. The point being that it does exist and the reasons for it are largely academic, but it's effects are obvious to see. Better to be aware of the phenomena and take it into consideration when making purchases in hifi equipment.

The only categorical statement that might be contestable is that everyone is affected by expectation bias, as this is how the brain works. However, there is little evidence that I can see that points to the contrary.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Look, the argument is going in the same direction all these genuinly interesting threads go. But lets stop and look at this objectively.

Setting a hi-end amp up to sound like a budget amp is folly - and what does that have to do with anything anyway?

You want to believe you ears/brain can be fooled by your kit...thats fine, laughable...actually laugh out loudable, but fine. But the so called science, blogs by some unknown with an alleged Phd and guff easily picked up on the internet should be dismissed and like I said a genuine listening session organised, then there will be nowhere to hide differences will ether be heard or not - I can't fatham why no one wants to do this.

I have a pair of Chord Crimson plus, QED performance 2 (subtle differences), Cambridge Pacific (definate step down compared to the other 2 in my set up) some Tandy (remember them) interconnects and numerous cheapo freebie cable lying around, I alos have a QED Quenex 1 and a QED sr75 coax, I'll bring these and challenge the whole lot of you to a dare to compare session (close to me) anywhere.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Lol...I'm sitting here laughing to myself, whilst Jill Scott is singing in the background reading through this thread again thinking I should have added Winston Churchills 'fight them on the beaches' speech in that last post.....sorry, I just had to share.

 

[matt49]

I would say that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that expectation bias exists and is so powerful. The point being that it does exist and the reasons for it are largely academic, but it's effects are obvious to see. Better to be aware of the phenomena and take it into consideration when making purchases in hifi equipment.

No-one denies that expectation bias exists: that would be sheer folly. All you're doing here is setting up a straw man.

The only categorical statement that might be contestable is that everyone is affected by expectation bias, as this is how the brain works. However, there is little evidence that I can see that points to the contrary.

I see where you're coming from, and several people on this forum have said similar things, but I'm afraid the scientific evidence says that you're wrong. All the evidence I'm aware of -- and I've read more of it than I care to remember over 25 years of academic study of the subject -- says that expectation bias and other similar cognitive biases can be overcome. If you're interested in the scientific evidence, I'd recommend starting with Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman argues that we do suffer from all manner of cognitive biases (the 'thinking fast' of his title) but we're also capable of thinking without them ('thinking slow'). Kahneman's a very interesting thinker, the only psychologist I can think of who's won a Nobel Prize (there being no Nobel Prize for psychology).

 

[busb]

These factors can cause real differences, suffuciant in some cases to tell one amplifier from another (still listening blind of course), but it important to realise that in sighted tests these differences are swamped by the effects of expectation bias, placebo effect etc, etc.

I know it is hard to believe that you will be taken in by such effects, especially when you know what to expect, but you will be, everyone is. It's the way the brain works and there is nothing you can do about it!

With all due respect, I don't think you'll find any psychologists (I mean academic researchers in psychology who study precisely this area) who'd agree with this. It's certainly true that in many situations most people will experience some form of bias in their judgements. It's equally true that most (psychological) biases can be overcome with training. There's a lot of idle talk about how our brains are 'hard-wired' to respond in certain ways. In fact, almost all of this supposed 'hard wiring' is susceptible to e.g. the influence of experience. Those who've advocated the 'hard wiring' form of argument, e.g. people like Paul Ekman, Silvan Tomkins, Paul Griffiths, generally agree that there are only a very small number of 'hard-wired' systems in the human brain that are impervious to training. These are the emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust.

In other words, most people may be susceptible to biases in many situations, but it is possible to overcome most biases if you work at it.

I don't want to take this too far from the realms of hifi but you are correct, there are plenty of researchers who play down the effects of expectation bias and placebo effect, just as there are plenty who do not.

I use these effects, expectation bias in the main to offer an explaination why, in sighted tests differences are often described as huge, night and day etc yet the same observers comprehensively fail to identify very different items in blind test.

This to me is the point, the experimental evidence is overwhelming, time and time again jounalists and other audio professionals fail blind tests comprehensively, so much so that few will now participate in them.

Just for amusement, take alook at this....

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I know I run the risk of boring many by my repetition but far too many seem to think that double blind ABX testing is incontrovertibly flawless. Please, someone put both myself & others out of our misery & show proof it works or I'll just keep repeating my doubts.

It's very important for the curious to acknowlwdge the existance of expectation bias - if we know it can colour our thinking, we can at least take quite simple steps to lessen its effects. However, some seem to assume its very existance renders all human experience suspect which ain't that enlightening or useful. I note from this thread that its not just audio fans that are dogged by opinions masquerading as facts - formally trained psychologists appear to be no better!

 

[Overdose]

I would say that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that expectation bias exists and is so powerful. The point being that it does exist and the reasons for it are largely academic, but it's effects are obvious to see. Better to be aware of the phenomena and take it into consideration when making purchases in hifi equipment.

No-one denies that expectation bias exists: that would be sheer folly. All you're doing here is setting up a straw man.

The only categorical statement that might be contestable is that everyone is affected by expectation bias, as this is how the brain works. However, there is little evidence that I can see that points to the contrary.

I see where you're coming from, and several people on this forum have said similar things, but I'm afraid the scientific evidence says that you're wrong. All the evidence I'm aware of -- and I've read more of it than I care to remember over 25 years of academic study of the subject -- says that expectation bias and other similar cognitive biases can be overcome. If you're interested in the scientific evidence, I'd recommend starting with Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman argues that we do suffer from all manner of cognitive biases (the 'thinking fast' of his title) but we're also capable of thinking without them ('thinking slow'). Kahneman's a very interesting thinker, the only psychologist I can think of who's won a Nobel Prize (there being no Nobel Prize for psychology).

To assume that the theory is correct simply assumes that most people think 'fast' as shown by the results of expectation bias tests and it is the default human setting, it also suggests that people can be trained to think 'slow' to negotiate expectation bias and other perception bias and discount those superficial differences.

Whether people can be trained to think 'slow' or not is not the point. The point is that naturally people think in automatic 'fast' mode. If this were not the case, then expectation bias would not appear so prevalent.

It also doesn't change the fact that most people hear things that do not exist in certain circumstances.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

These factors can cause real differences, suffuciant in some cases to tell one amplifier from another (still listening blind of course), but it important to realise that in sighted tests these differences are swamped by the effects of expectation bias, placebo effect etc, etc.

I know it is hard to believe that you will be taken in by such effects, especially when you know what to expect, but you will be, everyone is. It's the way the brain works and there is nothing you can do about it!

With all due respect, I don't think you'll find any psychologists (I mean academic researchers in psychology who study precisely this area) who'd agree with this. It's certainly true that in many situations most people will experience some form of bias in their judgements. It's equally true that most (psychological) biases can be overcome with training. There's a lot of idle talk about how our brains are 'hard-wired' to respond in certain ways. In fact, almost all of this supposed 'hard wiring' is susceptible to e.g. the influence of experience. Those who've advocated the 'hard wiring' form of argument, e.g. people like Paul Ekman, Silvan Tomkins, Paul Griffiths, generally agree that there are only a very small number of 'hard-wired' systems in the human brain that are impervious to training. These are the emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust.

In other words, most people may be susceptible to biases in many situations, but it is possible to overcome most biases if you work at it.

I don't want to take this too far from the realms of hifi but you are correct, there are plenty of researchers who play down the effects of expectation bias and placebo effect, just as there are plenty who do not.

I use these effects, expectation bias in the main to offer an explaination why, in sighted tests differences are often described as huge, night and day etc yet the same observers comprehensively fail to identify very different items in blind test.

This to me is the point, the experimental evidence is overwhelming, time and time again jounalists and other audio professionals fail blind tests comprehensively, so much so that few will now participate in them.

Just for amusement, take alook at this....

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I know I run the risk of boring many by my repetition but far too many seem to think that double blind ABX testing is incontrovertibly flawless. Please, someone put both myself & others out of our misery & show proof it works or I'll just keep repeating my doubts.

It's very important for the curious to acknowlwdge the existance of expectation bias - if we know it can colour our thinking, we can at least take quite simple steps to lessen its effects. However, some seem to assume its very existance renders all human experience suspect which ain't that enlightening or useful. I note from this thread that its not just audio fans that are dogged by opinions masquerading as facts - formally trained psychologists appear to be no better!

Lol ...i'd wager most of these so called psycologist bought their certificates off the internet........this issue can be rsolved so easily, I swear.

 

[matt49]

It's very important for the curious to acknowlwdge the existance of expectation bias - if we know it can colour our thinking, we can at least take quite simple steps to lessen its effects. However, some seem to assume its very existance renders all human experience suspect which ain't that enlightening or useful.

Couldn't agree more.

I note from this thread that its not just audio fans that are dogged by opinions masquerading as facts - formally trained psychologists appear to be no better!

Can you point us to evidence of this? What are you referring to? I'm interested.

 

[visionary]

I can't believe I let myself get suckered into reading ANOTHER of these threads.

The only thing I got out of it was this

I'm reminded of the old motto. "Never argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience".

Which made me lol 'cos I hadn't heard it before.

As I write this Eleanor McEvoy is singing in a space between my speakers. I know she isn't and I know the sound is coming from those boxes but it doesn't sound that way and that is the power of the auditory illusion. Your brain can interpret auditory and visual clues and create an illusion which does not need to have any bearing on reality. This is why it is too easy to convince oneself that A is better than B.

If you like it, listen to it and stop wasting time arguing. We all believe what we believe and 'resistance is futile'

 

[busb]

I can't believe I let myself get suckered into reading ANOTHER of these threads.

The only thing I got out of it was this

I'm reminded of the old motto. "Never argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience".

Which made me lol 'cos I hadn't heard it before.

As I write this Eleanor McEvoy is singing in a space between my speakers. I know she isn't and I know the sound is coming from those boxes but it doesn't sound that way and that is the power of the auditory illusion. Your brain can interpret auditory and visual clues and create an illusion which does not need to have any bearing on reality. This is why it is too easy to convince oneself that A is better than B.

If you like it, listen to it and stop wasting time arguing. We all believe what we believe and 'resistance is futile'

No one is forcing you to read, let alone reply!

Anyway, it seems you ar suffering from expectation bias - you expect to enjoy the music on your equally enjoyable system so you do!

 

[matt49]

To assume that the theory is correct simply assumes that most people think 'fast' as shown by the results of expectation bias tests and it is the default human setting, it also suggests that people can be trained to think 'slow' to negotiate expectation bias and other perception bias and discount those superficial differences.

Yes, I agree.

Whether people can be trained to think 'slow' or not is not the point.

Well, it was my point, because davedotco said it was impossible for people to train themselves to overcome expectation bias. I only contributed to this thread to contest davedotco's claim.

The point is that naturally people think in automatic 'fast' mode.

If by 'naturally' and 'automatic' you mean that people prefer to think in fast mode in most circumstances, then yes you're right. But if you mean people always do so by default, then no. No-one prefers to think in fast mode when doing quadratic equations or translating Ancient Greek poetry. Horses for courses.

 

[busb]

It's very important for the curious to acknowlwdge the existance of expectation bias - if we know it can colour our thinking, we can at least take quite simple steps to lessen its effects. However, some seem to assume its very existance renders all human experience suspect which ain't that enlightening or useful.

Couldn't agree more.

I note from this thread that its not just audio fans that are dogged by opinions masquerading as facts - formally trained psychologists appear to be no better!

Can you point us to evidence of this? What are you referring to? I'm interested.

Only evidence that it was stated in this thread:

"I don't want to take this too far from the realms of hifi but you are correct, there are plenty of researchers who play down the effects of expectation bias and placebo effect, just as there are plenty who do not."

My comment was more about observing the irony than factual edification. As a general observation, professionals in any field for all their training that instills rigor in the so-called scientific Method, are just as likely to disagree with each other than not.

 

[davedotco]

I do not think that I said that people could not be trained to overcome expectation bias, I have no idea whether they can or can not, just that most people are subject to it and that knowing about it does not, in itself, minimise it's effects

If I said or implied differently then I take it back, I was not being precise.

To paraphrase the great Arthur C Clarke.......

"The brain is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think".

 

[matt49]

Only evidence that it was stated in this thread:

"I don't want to take this too far from the realms of hifi but you are correct, there are plenty of researchers who play down the effects of expectation bias and placebo effect, just as there are plenty who do not."

Ah, I see. But davedotco was just putting up a smokescreen. There was no actual substance in that statement.

My comment was more about observing the irony than factual edification. As a general observation, professionals in any field for all their training that instills rigor in the so-called scientific Method, are just as likely to disagree with each other than not.

In any given field of science scientists agree with one another 99% of the time. The 1% where they disagree is at the cutting edge of science, where new knowledge is being produced and new and controversial theories have to be thought up to explain it. Scientists disagree, then they resolve their disagreements and move on. That's how science works. What would be the point in endlessly repeating Faraday's Law once it's known to work? We pay these people to disagree for a very good reason.

 

[matt49]

I do not think that I said that people could not be trained to overcome expectation bias, I have no idea whether they can or can not, just that most people are subject to it and that knowing about it does not, in itself, minimise it's effects

If I said or implied differently then I take it back, I was not being precise.

Well, you sort of did say that people can't learn to overcome expectation bias, and that's what I was getting at. The scientific evidence is very clear: people can learn to overcome cognitive biases, including expectation bias. And learning to overcome expectation bias must begin with awareness that it happens. Of course, whether people can be bothered to learn to overcome expectation bias is a different matter. And there your comments about the failure of hi-fi 'experts' in blind tests are all too true.

I've said before on this forum that there ought to be much more blind testing of hifi. Even if it proved nothing, it'd be great fun. It'd be an education. But it ain't gonna happen. Too much resistance, too much inertia.

 

[andyjm]

I've said before on this forum that there ought to be much more blind testing of hifi. Even if it proved nothing, it'd be great fun. It'd be an education. But it ain't gonna happen. Too much resistance, too much inertia.

I think it would be naive to assume that the lack of blind testing wasn't driven primarily by commercial considerations.

 

[cheeseboy]

Honestly, utter piffle.....

What does playing various tones at varing phase shifts really have to do with listening to music on a domestic set in your home?

I mean c'mon...this is why I throw down the 'come lets have a listen' challenge to you guys, its nonesense and in real world terms is about as useful has...er...something thats totally useless ... I mean really really useless.

music is recorded - sources, amps and speakers play it back - on a given amp it will play back said track exactly the same if nothing is changed, my argument to you is if one part of said system is changed lets say the interconnect between source and amp, audible differences can be heard by the human ear, variations on certain aspects of said track can be picked up.

you don't need to do a 3year study on the subject just set your own kit up and try it for youself.....and believe your ears.

wow.

did you try the tests I linked to? Were your ears fooled? Simple yes or no.....

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Here's a video from the AES conference on audio myths. Interesting stuff, particularly the Poppy Crum segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

 

[matt49]

I've said before on this forum that there ought to be much more blind testing of hifi. Even if it proved nothing, it'd be great fun. It'd be an education. But it ain't gonna happen. Too much resistance, too much inertia.

I think it would be naive to assume that the lack of blind testing wasn't driven primarily by commercial considerations.

Agreed.