Pedro said:
because a placebo has a psychogical effect, but it doesn't mean in the example I gave that the ear isn't hearing the sound frequencies emanating. Alternativeky that would be like being on an acid trip.
-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
because a placebo has a psychogical effect, but it doesn't mean in the example I gave that the ear isn't hearing the sound frequencies emanating. Alternativeky that would be like being on an acid trip.
QuestForThe13thNote said:
I was not expressing an opinion about the effects of comfirmation bias and similar effects that affect the reliability of your senses.
These are established scientific principals that have an effect on all kinds of human behaviour, it's not just audio, look up placebo effect for instance.
Though you clearly dont believe it, it is a scientific fact that our senses can be manipulated in the ways we have been discussing so that subjective evaluations that you hold so dear are quite meaningless. You simply cannot make subjective evaluations obout hi-fi and then express them as having the same value as objective facts.
Returning to the subject of cables, subjective evaluations may well 'work' for you, ie you are convinced that what you here is real and that they may well advance your listening pleasure, so in that sense such evaluations are real.
That they are all in the mind is the difficult concept to grasp, just because they 'work' in practice does not make them 'real'.
For examble, I can not listen to a (passive) system if I 'know' that the speaker cables are of different lengths, the soundstage will always pull to one side. If the cables are of different lengths, but I do not 'know' this to be the case, no such effect is present. So when setting up a system I always make sure the speaker connections are the same length, the system sounds better because I am more relaxed and not worrying about the soundstage effects.
And there's also echoic memory, that's ultra-short memory (2-4 seconds).
Plug the El cheapo cables, play a song, stop playing, disconnect the cables, plug the expensive ones, press play and compare. By now you have no memory of the first sound you heard. But you know you're listening with the esoteric cable. The one with raving reviews...
Echoic memory is not up to subjective debate.
Plug the El cheapo cables, play a song, stop playing, disconnect the cables, plug the expensive ones, press play and compare. By now you have no memory of the first sound you heard. But you know you're listening with the esoteric cable. The one with raving reviews...
Echoic memory is not up to subjective debate.
ellisdj said:
Nice video.
There are some engineers (as I said originally) that embrace (hi-fi style) sound quality in this way and many of them are into analogue equipment, which is absolutely brilliant, but they are not the norm. This guy seems really absorbed by what he is doing which is great to see, I would love to see more engineers/studios produce music in that manner, not specifically analogue or using 'audiophile' equipment but just with the commitment to quality that he so obviously portrays.
By the way, no-one sets up microphones using near field monitors, well not when there is the option to use main monitors.
davedotco said:
placebo effect is more a psychological effect which isn't autonomic or automatic. If you look at things with open minds and objectively and have no preference then we have capacity as human being to override any effect of placebo. It's our hearing not overriding our brain but us talking ourselves into or out of something due to fallibility as human beings. Placebo happens in hearing aid trials but understandably as people get told the new aid is better in medical setting, but it can actually be the same device. But tell them it could or couldn't be the same one, they will come at it from the perspective of objectivity as in deciding cable a or cable b, which they have no interest in to buy if it's more expensive but degrades sound quality.
thats where you argument falls downs, as it doesn't account these human capabilities. I certainly look at it this way when I listen to hi fi. If I'm splitting hairs and I'm umming and arring, it's probably bias and I go no further in buying something new.
If I couldn't make objective evaluations and all were subjective as you describe, then that would mean all decisions about buying a hi fi are meaningless in the way you describe. Clearly objective to me, but comparing two items to someone else, they are subjective.
To then say someone can't make a objective evaluation with a cable which is miles apart from another within how it goes in the system, is hugely presumptuous and a little bit arrogant. But this is hi fi after all!
What you are describing with the cable being long or short, if you don't actually hear any difference, is bias. But we aren't describing bias over one cable which dulls the sound and another which has a good or dramatic effect changing it for the better. Just the same as a better tv over a less good screen.
Pedro said:
no I don't think so, this is up for debate too.
if I have a sip of some wine, wait a bit, then a different one a minute later. I could tell it's a different one. I bet I could.
Same with hearing if the sound is dramatically different and obvious. But I get how if it's slight the thing you describe is problematic. That's why you can only tell between two very similar sources if you have the same cables and you flick between inputs , but one set of cables hooking up to one and listening and then on the other, your thing would probably come into play.
Thats why it's important to know what the difference is. Did I hear more detail, dynamics etc. Then you've given something to benchmark the difference.
If you simply refuse to accept that our senses are easily fooled then this discussion is going nowhere.
Human perception, in all fields, is heavily influenced by psycological factors and this is well researced.
The idea that an hi-fi enthusiast can control these factors in the way that you claim you can is, frankly, ludicrous. That you continue to insist that you can, simply shows your lack of understanding of the subject.
Hi-fi, in the widest sense is a pretty trivial endevour, so hi-fi orientated research is pretty thin on the ground but if you research subjects like placebo effect, comfirmation bias, suggestion bias and the rest you might get an idea just how powerful these effects are.
Human perception, in all fields, is heavily influenced by psycological factors and this is well researced.
The idea that an hi-fi enthusiast can control these factors in the way that you claim you can is, frankly, ludicrous. That you continue to insist that you can, simply shows your lack of understanding of the subject.
Hi-fi, in the widest sense is a pretty trivial endevour, so hi-fi orientated research is pretty thin on the ground but if you research subjects like placebo effect, comfirmation bias, suggestion bias and the rest you might get an idea just how powerful these effects are.
davedotco said:
+1
I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote on this thread.
Science is not a system of belief to which you adhere by faith, taste or disposition.
Indeed the human senses are highly fallible. I wonder if the subjectivists don't use rulers, scales, voltmeters, barometers, thermometers etc and just trust their senses like they trust their golden hearing.
davedotco said:
no I'd refuse to accept that anyone can tell me my senses are fooled without good argument. But then tell you it's going nowhere as a way of shutting it down.
Our perceptions don't get influenced where there are no contradictions, no bias. What factors are you referring too?
and then say a vaguery like failing to understand, trying to shut it down further.
i can control and be aware of bias if I am alive to it, sure. Anyone can. It just requires open mindedness and awareness. These human reactions as I say are not automatic and set in stone. Ie that you must react to bias.
Confirmation bias and acceptance bias can no less be affected by realisation, as with a placebo. I suspect if you trialled telling people a hearing aid was a better model, but it was the same, they would succumb to placebo. An expert in a medical type setting would convince them. But tell them it could be worse or better , then they would make their minds up, but we come at it from this perspective when buying hi fi, to be cautious and dubious don't we? Especially with hard earned at stake. Well I do, you may not if you do believe what people tell you.
This shows I think for myself, but the diatribe of stuff people come out with, with no thought. Beggars belief. Maybe you could explain your thinking? An interesting debate
QuestForThe13thNote said:
OK. Refering to the highlighted sections.
Firstly you can not control bias conciously, you may think you can but you can't, no-one can. This is the primary sticking point in the discussion.
The McGurk effect I linked to earier is a simple, clear example of how easily the brain is fooled, even though you know you are listening to baa, you hear faa. Even when you know. You simply can not control what you hear in a really simple test, why on earth do you think you control yout senses listening to hi-fi?
Secondly your hearing aid anology is an example of sugestion bias, not placebo which is entirely different. It also shows a complete lack of understanding as to how such testing is carried out.
Suggestion bias is the most common obvious effect in sighted, subjective testing. If you are asked to try something in your system the implication is that it will make a difference, so of course you hear a difference.
It really is a simple as that.
Electro
Well-known member
Me too.
Although no longer involved professionally, I just love the whole recording studio vibe and it is wonderful to visit great studios that really 'have a mission' rather than just making a living.
Although no longer involved professionally, I just love the whole recording studio vibe and it is wonderful to visit great studios that really 'have a mission' rather than just making a living.
davedotco said:
Unfortunately you are dealing with an irrational person who is anti-science. He has not even bothered to look at the link I posted earlier. It gives examples of people who changed their minds after undergoing blind testing and seeing how wrong they were.
"This shows I think for myself, "
You have proven beyond doubt that you do not think.
"the diatribe of stuff people come out with, with no thought. Beggars belief. "
I could not agree more. But you carry on regardless. Incidentally, how come all those studies I linked to - not diatribes - come to the consistent conclusions, contrary to the views you express. How come? Are they all liars? Or gullible? And you are the only intelligent person with good hearing? My view is that you are deluded, due to being stubborn and over confident. I suspect you have an emotional personality, and cannot handle rational thought.
We have been through all this before.
You need to be a trained listener to pass a true abx blind test so the average person doesnt have a chance so how does that make this a good test.
I think the average jo stands a better chance on their own system.
You need to be a trained listener to pass a true abx blind test so the average person doesnt have a chance so how does that make this a good test.
I think the average jo stands a better chance on their own system.
ellisdj said:
I can't make head nor tail of that. All they do is test systems with a range of listeners. Studies have found that so called golden ears do not have special powers. Speaking for myself, most hifi equipment reviews come across as florid and pretentious.
Leif said:
No one is suggesting that anyone has to pass a blind test. All that is happening is that someone is being taught some of the realities of perception and that simple, sighted tests are extremely unreliable.
Given the large differences that people claim in subjective testing, a reasonable person might expect them to be audible when listened to blind, but this is not so in most cases.
In this thread blind testing was put forward firstly as a more scientific alternative to sighted tests but mostly as an exercise to teach just how much these differences dissappear when tested blind.
As I have said many times, I do not advocate the use of blind testing to prove anything, let alone as a method for choosing a setup, but simply as an eye opener to what is actually happening. To this end a relatively simple test conducted by a third party is all that is required to make the point.
abacus
Well-known member
When somebody believes their right and everybody else is wrong, no matter how many facts you show them (Or other people tell them) they will always dismiss them as nonsense, so best just to let them grow out of it. (So long as the facts have been put over to provide a balance, that’s all you can do)
Bil
Bil
Leif said:
the thing is mate you aren't posting any studies. Which ones. You just seem a bit angry and can't debate with people.
And as to nobody being fooled by bias, please enlighten me and explain how I have to be fooled. Where does bias happen. Doesn't it really happen when the sound differences are small. So if I'm alive to that, and I'm also alive to the fact I may want an item to sound better because of a brand, I'm alive to that too. And I don't let it affect my judgement.
There is a very real mechanism of why that effect happens in mcgurk which we understandl, but say I was to shut my eyes for a moment in a listening test, where would that leave your mcgurk effect being analogous to affecting all. If anything you are using science to suggest it must apply, but science looks for explanations and you ain't doing that mate,
my motivation centres of my brain don't make me think that pineapple is an orange if I want it to be orange. I will still taste pineapple and that analogy will apply to what we hear. Are you seriously suggesting that we hear totally different things every day to our environment, based on what we want to hear. Ludicrous.
i think Leif is probably lacking a bit of intelligence
davedotco said:
this has never been tested scientifically like genetics or game theory or other science studies with a hypothesis, analysis and conclusion, so it can be critiqued. It's just some bod on a forum saying differences dissapear in hi fi when tested blind. But which tests, where are they, and can we think them reliable. Just because someone presents a test in science it doesn't mean it's fact. It's open to discussion and critism. It's generally accepted or not and if so, until better things come along. And I studied biological sciences, so know how science studies test things and work. But if I asked this guy to name this study for showing blind testing means people can't discern speaker cables with marked differences, he wouldn't be able to tell me which study it is. The reason being because there aren't any. Just amateur online tests of small sample size, with no hypothesis, analysis etc. No consideration of what they are testing. Many people won't understand that, what it's trying to achieve, the control samples and more than one test to test variables within the test.
Why not get someone with a hi fi and two cables, one poor and another good for them in a-b sighted tests. Then do a double blind on them. They've had the stuff for many months, no familiarity errors, good continuity with a test box to flick between cables at the press of a button.
Then some other guy says you can't make people like me change my mind. I'm open to persuasion if people can show me a test with all the controls we need and we know we need things like familiarity built in, that you can't do a blind test on someone who doesn't own and know the hi fi. Also can anyone say what the rate of success to knowing the kit and not knowing the kit would have on blind tests. Again this would be what science does to try to get to the bottom of the issue, presenting the stats and using a control. Does anyone actually understand what I'm getting at........ anyone studied science matters, read a science paper???
id love to know where he can show me the 'this is not the case in most cases' it's supposition.
Thanks for posting that.Andrewjvt said:
Typical moronic modern sound engineer. Going on about "beautiful compressors" and how they bring all the details up.
Well yes, of course they make low level detail louder relative to transient peaks and therefore easier to hear. They also kill the music from a natural impact and breathing point of view.
Big ATC's are good speakers. For some people it'd be fair to describe them as great speakers. However no speaker's perfect. And the larger ATC's I've heard have had a certain amount of dynamic compression. Which would be to Chuck Ainlay's taste with his idiotic love of compression.
That video is a prime example of why anyone looking to get the best sound quality they can at home should completely ignore any examples set in the modern professional recording world. Where they have elevated the ability to hear low level detail way above maintaining natural dynamics as a priority. These morons don't seem to realise how flat, uninvolving, unnatural that makes 99.8% of modern CD's sound. In the last 18 months, Neil Young appears to be the only mainstream artist with an engineer that realises this (or more likely did as he was told by Neil)!
davedotco said:
the auditory cortex is hearing the same sound it's just the brain processes it because of reliance on sight as a primary source of information. It doesn't mean because you see a cable you prefer this makes you hear it better like this effect.
But where does it leave us if the auditory cortex has no other effect on it. We know it's not intergrated with by bias etc. These are perceptions which affect are understanding of the sound, not how the sound actually sounds.
if a train moves off next to us, we think our train is moving. That's a similar effect. Your inner ear knows you aren't moving and through seat of the pants, you can't feel movement, but the brain processes it as movement. It's years of evolution and primary use of the visual world.
but what if I have no such contradicting senses just sitting listening to hi fi. Are you really suggesting that because I want something to be better, I hear it like var and not bar. That's ridiculous, and doesn't account how our ears and brains work. It's the thinking and rationalising parts which are making judgements over the sound, not telling the audiotory cortex to hear var and not bar, surely you must understand that where there are no contradictions at play. What if I'm blindfolded when I listen to the hi fi.
The last time I baked-off interconnects in my own system, the test included a £15 one that I'd be given for free many years ago and a £125 one that had been very well reviewed on hi-fi forums that looked like it was constructed better - fancier plugs, nicer sheathes. I heard no difference between them. Was this because, please tick as appropriate:davedotco said:
[ ] I was affected by suggestion bias, so of course I heard a difference. I'm just telling lies to avoid being embarassed in front of other people.
[ ] I was not golden eared enough to hear any differences.
[ ] Davedotco is talking nonsense when going on about suggestion bias. There were no audible differences between the cables in the system used. And so therefore I heard no differences despite davedotco saying that I should have been affected by suggestion bias.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram