Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Allan F]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Speaking of PIM, here: he discusses the need to develop new type of measurements to improve his new designs: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/146693-john-curls-blowtorch-preamplifier-ii-9538.html#post5164494

 

You can stop chasing your tail. It doesn't alter what he said or the opinion that he holds regarding the correlation between measurements and sound quality. The final tuning of his designs is done by listening, not measuring.

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

You can stop chasing your tail. It doesn't alter what he said or the opinion that he holds regarding the correlation between measurements and sound quality.

 

Ah but that is an entirely different issue: we can measure down to individual subatomic particles yet that does not imply that we understand the correlation between these measurements and sound quality. I have no doubt that what he actually said is that the correlation between measurements and sound quality is not well understood.

 

I am hardly chasing my tail. I thoroughly enjoy reading through certain threads on DIYA to glean the thinking of industry luminaries. I also read textbooks to relax. That is just me.

[Allan F]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Ah but that is an entirely different issue: we can measure down to individual subatomic particles yet that does not imply that we understand the correlation between these measurements and sound quality. I have no doubt that what he actually said is that the correlation between measurements and sound quality is not well understood.

 

Have it your way. If you want to see it as a separate issue (it's not), be my guest. I'm out of this discussion.

[fas42]

As I see it, the rundown to geting good sound is something like this:

 

1) If I can hear a problem with the sound there is a problem with the sound - any number of people,  no matter how "illustrious" some people perceive them to be, screaming, "There can't be a problem because I haven't measured it to be so!!!" has zero meaning.

 

2) Next step, using observation, experience, thoughtful examination and analysis of how the system is put together, create a list of likely offenders.

 

3) Investigate each in turn, starting with the most obvious weakness, the most likely culprits - fix, replace, bypass, re-engineer - whatever it takes to eliminate or mitiigate that possible source of distortion or interference.

 

4) Keep going through that list until the sound is "good enough" - or, a fundamental quality lacking is found which makes continuing the exercise pointless for that set of equipment, because it's too expensive to sort it, the value is not there in doing so.

 

Works every time - for me .

 

Addendum: if people want screeds of data showing the before and after of some performance parameters ... tough!!! The perceived quality of the playback has changed from unacceptable, to acceptable - and that's the only criterion that has any worth, for me.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

I don't even quite understand why the post was thought of as ridicule - it's very clear about the debate that ensues about digital cables  - the idea of burning-in digital cables have triggered some entertaining debates. On top of that there is the pop corn thing. That means it will be entertaining to read the debate.

 

From what I read people around here think they are really smart - I am amazed that interpretation is off the mark - I think people are reacting to me, my previous posts and my known stance. That is fine, just, well, reply to appropriate post.

 

if you read my other posts you will know my stance. However, if you really read and think about it, I oppose an idea, not people. I always phrase my posts so it always goes after the big picture situation. 

 

I know that is useless - once you challenge peoples beliefs (not the person even) many audiophiles, will take it personal - make sense to me, once the stance and idea is internalized and becomes part of someone, the line between challenging the idea and person blurs. They will get offended even if the challenge is not personal. Still offends me that my efforts to make it about the idea have been in vain.

 

v

 

 

It is not unreasonable to interpret a post in context. Taking it personal or investing one's identity in a certain belief are quite different things and applies equally to audiophiles or engineers or anyone else. Posts that ridicule  *may* offend so if you do not want to offend, *try* and take context into account.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

lucretius said:

Expectation impacts on our perceptual system by biasing perception towards reporting the expected signal.

 

Allan F said:

Not if one starts out with no pre-conceived notion. Furthermore, expectation bias works both ways. If one is convinced that there is no difference, it won't be heard notwithstanding that it actually exists.

 

Mansr said:

Not possible

 

Allan F said:

 

In your opinion

 

Esldude said:

No point of fact. No one that is human is immune to such things.

 

Allan F said

It just doesn't make sense that one will always have an expectation of a particular result. Open minds do exist

 

One definition says

Experimenter's or expectation bias. The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.

----------------------------

I say: None of us are immune to expectation bias - that is not the same as it always must apply. Unbiased minds can exist ie the absence of bias. Bias and competing interests must be declared in studies and/or controlled, sure. It is still possible to conceive of situations of  listening without expectation. Even hearing things that one *didn't expect*. I believe Jud said something similar in the past (apologies Jud if quoting out of context)

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 It is still possible to conceive of situations of  listening without expectation. Even hearing things that one *didn't expect*. I believe Jud said something similar in the past (apologies Jud if quoting out of context)

 

I had the "perfect" example of this 30 years ago - the speakers of my system completely disappeared, as perceivable sources of sound. This was staggering, to me ... I had never heard such a thing before, nor had such a concept ever entered my mind, it was never something I came across in my reading about audio. Yet - there it was ... and, it was fully controllable - I could make the 'mirage' be, or not be, any number of times ... it fascinated me; a very intense memory, to this day ...

[vmartell22]

45 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It is not unreasonable to interpret a post in context. Taking it personal or investing one's identity in a certain belief are quite different things and applies equally to audiophiles or engineers or anyone else. Posts that ridicule  *may* offend so if you do not want to offend, *try* and take context into account.

 

That is true - in other words - NEWSFLASH  - there's grudges around here !

 

I think you are confirming that the reply from (I forgot) is reacting to ideas and a stance NOT expressed in the post   - I will be a bit more explicit, risking people feeling insulted - the reply was completely nonsensical against the meaning of the post which is "this will be entertaining".  I would have preferred if the reply was "you suck because of posts such, such and such".

 

Guess I should try ridiculing someone just for reference...

 

Or I could let it go!

v

 

[lucretius]

56 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

One definition says

Experimenter's or expectation bias. The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.

----------------------------

I say: None of us are immune to expectation bias - that is not the same as it always must apply. Unbiased minds can exist ie the absence of bias. Bias and competing interests must be declared in studies and/or controlled, sure. It is still possible to conceive of situations of  listening without expectation. Even hearing things that one *didn't expect*. I believe Jud said something similar in the past (apologies Jud if quoting out of context)

 

The thing is,  I wasn't talking generically about expectation bias; I was specifically talking about it as it applies to listeners.  Many studies confirm the phenomenon. 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

The thing is,  I wasn't talking generically about expectation bias; I was specifically talking about it as it applies to listeners.  Many studies confirm the phenomenon. 

 

 

 

Listeners don't necessarily have to have bias.The fact that many or most do, are not immune, and/or studies control for bias, have revealed bias, doesn't mean every listener has to have it. You may not be immune to hepatitis but doesn't mean you have it even if hepatitis is highly contagious and prevalent.

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Listeners don't necessarily have to have bias.

 

Well, at the moment, I can't rule that out.  Can this be confirmed?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Well, at the moment, I can't rule that out.  Can this be confirmed?

 

It comes down to the research design but I totally agree bias needs to be "controlled".

In less scientific methodology, one might be in say a situation where he/she is listening to two pieces of gear that cost the same and knows little or nothing of the manufacturer, thinks each looks much the same and has no other identified conflicting interest in the outcome. They simply compare A and B and choose whichever sounds best. You could reasonably say the choice was not biased.It doesnt prove there *was* a difference, just saying the choice was not biased.

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It comes down to the research design but I totally agree bias needs to be "controlled".

In less scientific methodology, one might be in say a situation where he/she is listening to two pieces of gear that cost the same and knows little or nothing of the manufacturer, thinks each looks much the same and has no other identified conflicting interest in the outcome. They simply compare A and B and choose whichever sounds best. You could reasonably say the choice was not biased.It doesnt prove there *was* a difference, just saying the choice was not biased.

 

Of course, investigators should "control" for bias.  But there is a more fundamental question: Is it the nature of perception (and in particular in perceiving sound) that there is necessarily bias? 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, lucretius said:

 But there is a more fundamental question: Is it the nature of perception (and in particular in perceiving sound) that there is necessarily bias? 

 

None that I am aware of. They key word here is *necessarily*

[Ralf11]

The real problem is not that "experimenters may believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment" it is that certain areas may not even be pursued or investigated at all.

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The real problem is not that "experimenters may believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment" it is that certain areas may not even be pursued or investigated at all.

 

And that applies just as much to the "Archimago's" of the world !

Far too many set out with the objective of proving someone wrong, rather than trying to find out why they reported what they did.

[Ralf11]

The crux of the scientific method is proving someone wrong

[firedog]

9 hours ago, Allan F said:

Not if one starts out with no pre-conceived notion. Furthermore, expectation bias works both ways. If one is convinced that there is no difference, it won't be heard notwithstanding that it actually exists.

 

I don't think this is possible. Even if you have no knowledge of something your brains perception of sight, sense, and smell is pre programmed from previous experience. Your brain makes all sorts of  assumptions and the interpretation is what you see, sense, and smell. It's one of the reasons illusions work. 

 

No functioning human perceives the world as a tabula rasa.

 

Beyond that, you have no way of knowing what your preconceived notions are*(you might have multiple ones and some may contradict each other) and how your brain is applying them. They aren't on the level of conscious knowledge that you control. 

 

 8 hours ago, Allan F said:

Open minds do exist, notwithstanding your view to the contrary.

 

Having an "open mind" means you consciously try to be objective. Has little or nothing to do with expectation bias, which you can be totally unaware of. 

[marce]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

The bulk of participants in this nasty thread would demand proof from their own mother !

 It's not just John Swenson that you guys demand proof from. It's virtually every C.A. member who makes a subjective claim that you guys believe is impossible. This is often followed by calling the poster/s delusional.

Pathetic, all we are doing is asking for data, that's how design works in the real world. Must admit some on here do act like my Granddaughter's sometimes... 

[marce]

11 hours ago, esldude said:

Gordon found some audiophile USB cable offerings didn't meet USB spec.  Some did.  Of course inexpensive cables did.  He also says they sound different from each other, but that is from sighted subjective evaluation of them.  He has written that he gives up determining why they sound different as any measurements he has made show no reason for it.  He has some gear not commonly available to carry out extensive measurements.  

 

So the big elephant to me is the sighted evaluation.  We know for certain those are always suspect.  

Thank you, yes sighted is always flawed, much more than unlighted.

[marce]

9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

One thing we do have is a plausible mechanism by which USB and/or Ethernet cables could degrade SQ.

 

Testing would be nice and a DBL study is easy -- you guys could do it at a show, or a club meeting in a large city.

 

If I used such cables and a fix to the hypothesized problem were cheap & easy I'd implement it right away.

Do you mean noise... EMC susceptibility of the downstream kit... Ouch!

[marce]

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

That was for you

 

Confused, the paper was regarding RF a different ball game.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

44 minutes ago, firedog said:

I don't think this is possible. Even if you have no knowledge of something your brains perception of sight, sense, and smell is pre programmed from previous experience. Your brain makes all sorts of  assumptions and the interpretation is what you see, sense, and smell. It's one of the reasons illusions work. 

 

No functioning human perceives the world as a tabula rasa.

 

Beyond that, you have no way of knowing what your preconceived notions are*(you might have multiple ones and some may contradict each other) and how your brain is applying them. They aren't on the level of conscious knowledge that you control. 

 

 8 hours ago, Allan F said:

Open minds do exist, notwithstanding your view to the contrary.

 

Having an "open mind" means you consciously try to be objective. Has little or nothing to do with expectation bias, which you can be totally unaware of. 

 

yes but it is reasonable only to control known and relevant variables (in this case biases) -you set those in the study and describe how you have controlled them. One can never set up a research design that controls for every known and *unknown variable*.

 

It would be expected and acceptable IMO to expect all kinds of influences from past experiences (smells and whatever other factors influencing your decision. If the study population is large enough there should be some averaging of such things, and whatever the case the outcome is still valid in that the study population remains  representative and therefore generalizable to the real population.

 

Edit-if you are talking about a single case study then I suppose yes, the subject may have chosen the speakers saying it sounded better but biased because of its smell or something. I still think its overreaching a bit IMO

[Speed Racer]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

The crux of the scientific method is proving someone wrong

 

No, that is not the crux. The crux of the scientific method is asking a question and going through a process to find the answer.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, Speed Racer said:

 

No, that is not the crux. The crux of the scientific method is asking a question and going through a process to find the answer.

 

I think Ralph is saying that - rejecting the null hypothesis

 

?