Additional information will bias one to believe claims made

[esldude]

Summary of research article:

 

Pics and you assume it did happen | Ars Technica

 

The article itself (only about a dozen pages plus references):

 

http://web.uvic.ca/~dslind/sites/default/files/Newman,Garry,Bernstein,Kantner,&Lindsay,2013.pdf

 

Research involved asking people to pick true or false about statements. Sometimes photos or written additional information was supplied with the statements, and sometimes nothing. People tended to believe statements when photos or other information was presented whether that additional info was true or even contained anything relating to the truthfulness of the statement. Not definitive research, but interesting nonetheless.

 

Couple of the statements from the paper:

 

"....it would suggest that when people lack knowledge, anything that makes it easier for people to generate thoughts, and images related to a claim should bias them toward believing that claim."

 

"Repeated or semantically primed information is easily retrieved from memory and people often conclude-sometimes falsly- that easy retrieval signals frequency, familiarity and truth."

 

The following is my own opinion or idea related to that paper. Of course I am thinking of the bias involved in sighted listening. When one has visual input, and is supplied with other info it is easier for one to be biased into believing the change in sound is real. That could be putting in more expensive electronics with fancier casework, and being told it has this or that going for it, was made with quantum physical effects taken into account, or the conductors are higher purity or nearly anything then it makes it easier for one to believe it sounds better. Or the reverse, when putting in a lesser, cheaper, or plainer component that hasn't been given any explanation for improvements, it is easier to believe it is not as good sounding.

 

Though barely touched upon in the paper, I think it also helps explain why multiple sensory inputs strengthen one's belief in hearing a difference vs. having no other input than just sound itself without any other knowledge. When you visually see something different, have been primed with an explanation that it is different, perhaps hefted it and felt it was heavier or felt the silkiness of the controls, seen the beauty of the interface, know the cost all of these or feel the heat from tubes or class A circuitry it will make it easier for you to then hear it sound better. It also gives more points of reference to have strength in believing it is better. When all of that is removed in a comparison and you only get to hear it without any other corroborating information or sensory input your sensation is not so clear, not so firm, and you don't feel confident of it. When in fact there is no sonic difference it isn't hard to think people have much less faith in blind listening vs impressions gained in sighted listening. Not hard to see why blind listening leaves one feeling a bit disoriented, is unsettling, and unsatisfying. Compared to the rich sensory/informational experience of sighted listening especially when that richer experience extends over time it seems quite likely that would be the viscerally stronger impression.

 

It is why people will jump to believe very flimsy explanations when given. Silver is better than copper and so sounds better. High purity, oxygen free conductors are better. Teflon is better. Low feedback has a more natural sound. Quantum effects were used in our proprietary circuitry. And on and on with ever increasing reasons someone's approach is the best.

 

Now when differences are genuine, experienced listeners will likely hear the real difference. But it is just when you get near the margins of audibility or even beyond a bit, these other biasing effects can overwhelm what is really heard to hear differences that may not be there. To then firm up your opinion that it is in fact so over time.

 

Now this may not convince anyone, and alone isn't proof of anything. But it is one more data point about how human subjective truth is influenced by other factors and how they are presented. One more reason to be cautious about things you think you hear, when maybe you have been otherwise influenced for reasons having nothing to do with what you hear.

[sandyk]

Now this may not convince anyone, and alone isn't proof of anything. But it is one more data point about how human subjective truth is influenced by other factors and how they are presented. One more reason to be cautious about things you think you hear, when maybe you have been otherwise influenced for reasons having nothing to do with what you hear.

 

Hi Dennis

Perhaps you need to give the majority of regular C.A. posters a little more credit ?

Kijd Regards

Alex

[mayhem13]

Hi Dennis

Perhaps you need to give the majority of regular C.A. posters a little more credit ?

Kijd Regards

Alex

 

Not when there's some long standing members claiming to be able to identify speaker cables and DAC chips by listening.

[Paul R]

Not when there's some long standing members claiming to be able to identify speaker cables and DAC chips by listening.

 

I resemble that remark. I feel the same way about the people who claim they can not hear a difference, and because they cannot, go on a campaign to prove nobody can. Usually pseudo-scientific drivel.

[esldude]

I resemble that remark. I feel the same way about the people who claim they can not hear a difference, and because they cannot, go on a campaign to prove nobody can. Usually pseudo-scientific drivel.

 

Just to remind everyone, once again. I too think I hear many of these same things when listening sighted. Cables, DAC's etc. etc. I have just come to be convinced, by the evidence, by experience watching other people make decisions, by how people go about things in general, that much of what I think I hear is in fact not real differences. That I am much like other people, and that people are able to make incorrect inferences because of these common human traits.

 

So Paul's assumption and almost accusation that I am saying I cannot hear a difference and therefore trying to prove nobody can is simply not so.

[babybear]

Elsdude,

 

So, if you sat a blind person down and as an example, he or she could hear the sonic difference between 2 different interconnects or power cords and could succinctly explain the differences that they heard and also say which one they preferred and why how would you explain that?

 

Arnie

 

Just curious

[esldude]

Elsdude,

 

So, if you sat a blind person down and as an example, he or she could hear the sonic difference between 2 different interconnects or power cords and could succinctly explain the differences that they heard and also say which one they preferred and why how would you explain that?

 

Arnie

 

Just curious

 

Did they know what they were listening to, did other people influence them, were there really differences in the signals for them to hear? Lots of people can listen and explain what they hear, which they prefer and why. But often when they don't know which is which those differences seem to disappear. Or good measurements show no known artifact between the cords or cables that could result in different sound.

 

Now if they beyond being a blind person, also had no idea what was changed, reliably several times distinguished without knowing which was which, no one was there who knew to influence them, then sure they just passed a blind test and there was an audible difference. If they can reliably do this, even if measurements turn up nothing, then still something is audible to them. But so far such appears to be an urban myth.

[esldude]

Yet another bit of research, this on the nocebo effect. Shows how extra information can lead people astray to experience something that really isn't so:

 

NY times summary article-

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/beware-the-nocebo-effect.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all

 

Actual paper on the subject (only 8 pages)-

Deutsches rzteblatt: Archiv "Nocebo Phenomena in Medicine: Their Relevance in Everyday Clinical Practice" (29.06.2012)

 

Maybe like knowing an amp has negative feedback then it must sound less natural, or how knowing the sample rate is only 44.1 khz, the sound will be unnatural and edgy or how cheap wire lacks warmth and resolution. Then hearing exactly that when auditioning such things.

[sandyk]

Maybe like knowing an amp has negative feedback then it must sound less natural, or how knowing the sample rate is only 44.1 khz, the sound will be unnatural and edgy or how cheap wire lacks warmth and resolution. Then hearing exactly that when auditioning such things.

Dennis

That's not a good selection. For starters,almost everybody with some kind of technical background, or who reads reviews will achknowledge that an amplifier with properly implemented negative feedback can sound much better than your average amplifier without any kind of overall negative feedback,or local stage degeneration.Considering that many people are happy with high bit rate MP3, (Yuk !) then equating 44.1kHz to un-natural and edgy is likely to only apply to very few people.(Teresa for example.)

As for cheap wire lacking warmth and resolution, surely you are referring to how cables are constructed, the effectiveness of their screening,(if used) the quality of the dielectric, and also the quality of the connectors used, both with the cable and at the component itself,not the wire itself ?

Regards

Alex

[Paul R]

Just to remind everyone, once again. I too think I hear many of these same things when listening sighted. Cables, DAC's etc. etc. I have just come to be convinced, by the evidence, by experience watching other people make decisions, by how people go about things in general, that much of what I think I hear is in fact not real differences. That I am much like other people, and that people are able to make incorrect inferences because of these common human traits.

 

So Paul's assumption and almost accusation that I am saying I cannot hear a difference and therefore trying to prove nobody can is simply not so.

 

No, I know you can hear differences, you just insist on torturing yourself into believing you are making up what you hear. I was in fact, thinking of some Hydrogen Audio types, and moreover, had replied to Mayhem, who choose his handle quite well.

 

But...

First, your response is pure squirrel food. If you hear it, you hear it, and it does not mtter one jot or tittle what the objective universe has to say about it. Music reproduction in the home is, or should be, purely for pleasure. We are not navigating an aircraft, killing babies, or anything else like that.

 

Second, your tests are good, but are not conclusive. You know that and ignore it in your own case.

 

Third, as has been said elsewhere, taking airs about being scientifically superior is always a fools rush. I fall far more on the objective side than you do in fact. But I do not have the boneheaded need to prove something to other people, especially at the cost of spoiling their own enjoyment.

 

The people around here who really know their stuff are the ones who come in, say their peice, shake their heads and go off to do things that interest them more.

 

The Hydrogen audio types think they are quite scientific, but in reality are sprouting tons of psuedo-scientific swill.

 

We don't have many of those around here, despite your accusations. I am pretty confident I know what I know, and I am evn more confident I do not know nearly enough about other subjects. As a side effect, it means I get to really enjoy learning new things, and testing and exploring ideas and theories in my hobbies. In other words, it is fun, not agony.

 

Most of the time.

[esldude]

To Alex,

 

Yes, I know all that stuff. But I was just giving examples that commonly appear. I didn't invent the negative feedback sounds bad, but some around believe it. Same for 44.1 (Teresa is who I had in mind, but she isn't the only one), and yes cables need to be properly constructed for their use. But I have met people in person more than once who found out the answers to those things and then proceeded to hear all the ills of them. Seems like nocebo fits perfectly in that case.

 

Myself, I have heard very good low or no feedback amps, and pretty funnily colored ones. Same for almost any other amp topology. Ditto for 44.1 or other sample rates. Wire, other than odd impedance/capacitance mismatches/shielding issues, I don't believe what I think I have heard at times has really been so.

[sandyk]

Not when there's some long standing members claiming to be able to identify speaker cables and DAC chips by listening.

mayhem13

I think you are oversimplifying this. You of all people, would be well aware that the characteristics of a speaker cable are more important than the brand , despite manufacturers claims to the contrary.You wouldn't connect up your speakers using bell wire or a length of 2 pair Telecoms cable, would you ? As for identifying DAC chips by listening, that would be a really neat trick, because again, it comes down much more to the actual implementation, including the input stage, it's Xtal oscillator(s) stability,the PLL and the PSU implementation etc.

Perhaps I have missed something, because I dont remember seeing anybody claiming to be able to identify the actual chip in use. Perhaps that is possible with some of the cheap and nasty ebay offerings, but not with a well designed DAC.

Alex

[mayhem13]

I resemble that remark. I feel the same way about the people who claim they can not hear a difference, and because they cannot, go on a campaign to prove nobody can. Usually pseudo-scientific drivel.

 

But tHe difference between grilles or sans grilles where there's a mechanical device physically acting on sound wave propagation and measurable and audible attenuation of high frequency energy......that you can't discern?......I suspect that since you can't hear a difference, not unlike most men above 40, you can't hear a lick above 14khz either.

 

I didn't name you in my first post, but since you decided to speak up anyways, there you have it......Which is it Paul?......speaker grills or cables?....or maybe you'd like to again a accredit these 'phenomena' to something outside the known universe?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Mayhem - Tone it down a bit. This is a fun hobby that most readers like to keep this way.

[mayhem13]

Mayhem - Tone it down a bit. This is a fun hobby that most readers like to keep this way.

 

Really Chris?......you've seen countless threads where Paul and other long term members have been far more aggressive than I in responses, and this thread is NO different. You chose to sit by in another thread where I was attacked personally over an over again but yet no direct moderation. Just keepin it real..........

 

On second thought, this forum doesn't need me, there's a growing fan base here either way.....later.

[sandyk]

On second thought, this forum doesn't need me, there's a growing fan base here either way.....later

 

 

Mayhem13

That would be a damn shame, because you have offered a lot of very good advice re speakers, the room they are in etc.

Regards

Alex

[The Computer Audiophile]

Really Chris?......you've seen countless threads where Paul and other long term members have been far more aggressive than I in responses, and this thread is NO different. You chose to sit by in another thread where I was attacked personally over an over again but yet no direct moderation. Just keepin it real..........

 

On second thought, this forum doesn't need me, there's a growing fan base here either way.....later.

 

hi Mayhem - I'm sure you're right about other people posting things far worse and my lack of interjection. However, I'm not standing by idlely. I simply can't moderate all posts. The truth is someone unrelated to this thread brought it to my attention. It doesn't make sense for me to single anyone out. Everyone has positive contributions to make and I try to make CA an encouraging environment for such contributions.

[esldude]

Listen, maybe some see my posts as stirring the pot.

 

That isn't what I want. I don't want to foment disagreement, and ill will or contentious debate.

 

I do wish to create debate. Please be respectful, and refrain from making it personal. Make it about the ideas put forth. Be as vociferous as you wish, just keep it about the ideas expressed.

 

I do strongly believe many audiophiles let themselves be overly biased and therefore open to manipulation. This isn't disrespectful toward them. I am no different. I do find it fascinating. I do think taking a more objective approach can pay dividends to all of us. You might disagree. That is okay.

 

My goals are the same as any audiophile. My approach might differ some. We are wanting the same thing however. Keep that in mind, and it will help keep things in perspective because I think pretty much all of us here are after the same thing. The highest fidelity reproduction of our beloved music. That is what we have in common. That is what can guide us.

[Paul R]

(*sigh*)

 

I can certainly hear the difference between speaker cables here.

 

I --> think <-- I can identify the sound of several different DACs, and tentatively think that has something to do with the chip sets in them. ESS Dacs have a certain twang to their sound I like and believe I notice.

 

I cannot hear the difference in *my* speakers with the grills on or off.

 

The calibrated set of ears I carry around can, in a test chamber and a standard hearing test, reliably detect frequencies up to just above 16K, above that, I do have hearing drop off. Whether that is relevant or not, I would not venture to say. I don't even know if they test for frequencies much higher in standard tests.

 

So yes, there it is. I have no problem at all with admitting I can hear one thing and not another. Whatever the trigger or triggers are that cause people to hear and enjoy reproduced music differently, I seriously doubt that any of these points are conclusive or otherwise definitive. Interesting? Certainly. Showstopping evidence? Hardly.

 

But tHe difference between grilles or sans grilles where there's a mechanical device physically acting on sound wave propagation and measurable and audible attenuation of high frequency energy......that you can't discern?......I suspect that since you can't hear a difference, not unlike most men above 40, you can't hear a lick above 14khz either.

 

I didn't name you in my first post, but since you decided to speak up anyways, there you have it......Which is it Paul?......speaker grills or cables?....or maybe you'd like to again a accredit these 'phenomena' to something outside the known universe?

[Paul R]

hi Mayhem - I'm sure you're right about other people posting things far worse and my lack of interjection. However, I'm not standing by idlely. I simply can't moderate all posts. The truth is someone unrelated to this thread brought it to my attention. It doesn't make sense for me to single anyone out. Everyone has positive contributions to make and I try to make CA an encouraging environment for such contributions.

 

Yeah, I am sorry if I was a bit passionate and was personally insulting.

 

But I really really hate it when people start beating themselves up worrying over if they are fooling themselves or not. It's one thing if you are considering investing your life savings in something, and quite another if you are talking about s set of speakers or a DAC.

 

In any case, I'll offer apologies, especially to Dennis. He really did think I was jumping on him when that was not at all what I was thinking.

 

Mayhem, I think you offer a lot of good advice, but to be honest? You hide behind a controversial moniker - nobody knows who you are or what you know. You ask for controversy that way - and you should expect it.

 

-Paul

[Julf]

The people around here who really know their stuff are the ones who come in, say their peice, shake their heads and go off to do things that interest them more.

 

That is indeed one of the problems - far too many of the people who really know their stuff seem to come in, say their piece, shake their heads and go off - permanently - to do things that interest them more.

[Julf]

Paul,

 

I really really hate it when people start beating themselves up worrying over if they are fooling themselves or not.

 

Isn't that their problem? Why does it bother you that some of us keep worrying about whether we are fooling ourselves or not?

[Paul R]

Oh, it is until you make it everyone else' bain. Or until you essentially decide to make anyone who disagrees with you look or feel stupid.

 

Let me put that another way, i ran into a chap the other day who has been reading CA for about a year. He was very conflicted, because he had been carefully auditioning different software on his Mac. He knew he could hear a difference and preffered one particular package, but from reading some of the stuff here, he was really worried he was fooling himself.

 

This guy, who is anything but stupid, and whose system is midlevel astounding (mid level in this case being $80k of incredible sounding stuff) was really worried he was being stupid over a $50 program.

 

We spent some time listening and when he found I could hear some of what he could hear (differences) well then... He was greatly relieved to put it mildly.

 

So if your goal in life is to try to make people feel stupid, or deny that other people can hear what they hear, or have to follow some souless, joyless, path to achieve audio excellence, or that by not agreeing with you cannot get great results, ormthat your way is the "best" way, then yeah- I have a problem with that.

 

Dennis, I am specifically not referring to you in the context of this conversation. Julf, I am not specifically directing that to you either, though you probably posted that comment in a defensive tone. There is no offense offered from me to you, in any sense. I disagree with your point of view, at least I think I do.

 

I am referring to the people that cannot resist making the smart ass remarks with the sole purpose of irritating someone else, or trying to make someone else feel stupid.

 

And believe it or not this is at least partially at the core of what Dennis' original post is all about. People are easily misled into believing things that are simply untrue. It is terrifically easy to undemine someone's confidence or self assurance, leading them to doubt everything they see, hear, or experience.

 

That is a good thing in some cases. It is almost always a good thing in very small doses.

 

It is a vey bad thing when done in a forum like this without consideration, or to make one feel smarter than someone else, or because being a forum, one feels safe from being called out on it, or any of dozens of other reasons.

 

And I will totally shut up on this now, and go back to working...

 

Paul

[thesurfingalien]

Hi Paul,

 

With due respect I am sort of left wondering about what you write... You talk about people who think they are smarter than the rest and making people feel bad or insecure. The way I see it nothing like that is going on here. People post messages on CA based on their personal experience or based on what they believe to be true / valid.

 

Everyone has their own "threshold" (by lack of a better word). What some people accept as truth is another man's BS. That is simply a fact of life. People active on any forum just voice their opinion; that is what forums are for.

 

You yourself have voiced serious doubts about bit-identical files sounding different on a couple of occasions while for others this is very real. At that point, your own threshold was reached.

 

Honestly Paul, you can not have it both ways... Just because other people's thresholds are lower than yours you can not make these type of remarks when you basically do exactly the same thing. Maybe you voice your opinion more careful or perhaps in a more "political correct" way, but the message is the same.

 

Please do not think of this as a personal attack as it is not meant this way. Just offering some food for thought.

 

Regards,

Peter

[Paul R]

Hi Peter -

 

Perhaps I see a difference you do not. And I thought I was clear I was talking mostly about people on other boards, as well as the few instances of such behavior here. I thought I was very clear I was not talking about Dennis or Julf.

 

Personally, I do not think I have ever told someone here they are or are not hearing something, or made fun or ridiculed someone because they can or can not hear something. (Edit -that isn't exactly true. I do owe Julf an apology. Sorry Julf.) Or because they believe something I disagree with. For example, I disagree with you on several issues, but I do not believe I have ever said or implied anything that would make you feel bad.

 

All I can say, is go read some of the other audio boards. Take especial note of how they gather like vultures around anyone with an outlier opinion or theory. Look here, even doing a bit of semantic analysis, and I think you will easily be able to identify what I am talking about purely by the difference.

 

CA is much better about freedom of expression, respecting other people, and supporting people with outlier opinions. That applies if those outlier opinions are conventional or un-conventional.

 

As for me posting things to make me appear "smarter than" someone else - huh. Well, as dumb and ignorant as I feel most of the time, that is a remark I do not think I resemble. Especially as I do not write for publication or pay here.

 

When I do write for pay or publication, that requires a whole different level of care, thought, and editing before publication. This is more like a "pub" conversation to me. YMMV.

 

-Paul