Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[jabbr]

10 hours ago, marce said:

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

Doesn’t everything have to do with RF ? ??

 

Interesting nonlinearities that mix the two, actually, which is why DACs tend to do better with an LPF output filter.

 

One I learned of which caused a major lightbulb moment for me: a nonlinearity links 1/f component noise to 1/f offset phase error so eg 1Hz voltage noise is linked with 1Hz phase offset noise at 50 Mhz crystal oscillator.

[kumakuma]

43 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Coincidentally,  you and elsdude also bring to mind an image.

 

 

I can't see any reason why the findings of this recent study wouldn't also apply to audio products:

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/the-mysterious-nocebo-effect-a-drugs-side-effects-may-hinge-on-its-price-tag/ 

[wgscott]

On 10/9/2017 at 7:05 PM, wgscott said:

 

Something else worth a read:  https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/the-mysterious-nocebo-effect-a-drugs-side-effects-may-hinge-on-its-price-tag/

 

We were already told to shut up and go away:

 

Thanks Bill, nothing new here (for me). Not sure if you are suggesting parallels?

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

We were already told to shut up and go away.

 

Regardless of how many times Alex posts something with the "Audiophile" portion of "Computer Audiophile" highlighted in bold, I refuse to give into the bullying tactics of the hardline audiophiles that have overrun this site.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

While one may think that "a difference was "somewhat probable/possible", your conclusion simply that "you are prone to find one" does not logically follow. To talk about "without realizing it" or "without even being conscious of it" is nothing more than speculation on your part, absent an evidentiary basis. To suggest that physical differences are inevitably going to influence what one hears is similarly speculative and, IMO, simply wrong. I readily agree that some or,  perhaps, many people may conform to your scenario but, IMO,  it does not apply to experienced listeners whose focus is limited to the fundamental issue.

It isn't about logic.  It is about being human.  You are telling me you are different than the other 7 billion humans on the planet fundamentally.  I don't believe you.  The odds are heavily against you.  Nor are your objections speculation on my part.  The testing has been done in many ways.  Physical differences you can see will influence you. You even agree many people conform, and then talk the usual talk of experienced listeners.  These experienced listeners are NOT that SPECIAL.  

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

These experienced listeners are NOT that SPECIAL.  

 

The deal is that these "experienced listeners" are are so deep in their own confidence that the objective truth of bias.  

 

The Audiophile confidence game is not so much about the consumer trusting the designer/manufacturer/digital voodoo salesman, as it is about getting the consumer to trust his own varied and variable perceptions and manipulating those through suggestion, looks, vague claims, and price.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

While one may think that "a difference was "somewhat probable/possible", your conclusion simply that "you are prone to find one" does not logically follow.

 

It is empirical (per studies) not logical.

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, marce said:

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

 

yes, noise, gnd loops, EMF 

 

and I said plausible -- not proven

 

but a plausible mechanism is a LOT better than witchcraft that cannot work except via conf. bias

[Ralf11]

11 hours 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.

 

the question is first transformed into a testable hypothesis, i.e. one that can be falsified

 

but most of the time, an experimenter is testing a claim by someone else

 

I also have some books for you to read - Thomas Kuhn

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Then try asking for it in a Forum that doesn't have  Audiophile in it's name !

...

 

 

you mean Audiophool 

[Ralf11]

5 hours ago, marce said:

This is part of creating the aura and belief in audio... hand made, tuned by ear, we can't measure, etc. create and build the myths it helps sell hi end audio.

 

 

also organic, sustainable, worker-owned coop-operatives - that's where I get the Mpingo wood I use to smoke my cables

 

 

 

... after that I age them in old sherry casks

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Don't forget "designed, engineered, and built by renowned, respected and revered craftsmen utterly committed to the highest quality sound reproduction".

 

 

I believe the 3 of us are on the verge of founding a top level audio cable company!

 

I suggest we set up a GoFunkme account for the initial $$ flow and call it Confirmation Bias Cable Company

 

maybe Bill will join us

[Ralf11]

re: "expect all kinds of influences from past experiences (smells and whatever other factors influencing your decision"

 

I posted a direct link some time ago, but a research group at Cambridge* on Cross-Sensory studies has indeed found that smells or sounds can bais visual perception, and vice-versa.

 

Golden Ear claims aside, everyone is subject to confirmation bias even without any conscious expectations.  AFAK, that is true or all animal life on this planet, certainly for vertebrates and the higher cephalopods

 

 

 

or maybe it is at Oxford - either a ford or a bridge, whaaatevah

[Don Hills]

4 hours ago, marce said:

... the wife in the kitchen told me in no uncertain terms what I could do with a large studio monitor, it was not pleasant. 

 

On the plus side, your flatulence would be more tuneful.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

It isn't about logic.  It is about being human.  You are telling me you are different than the other 7 billion humans on the planet fundamentally.  I don't believe you.  The odds are heavily against you.  Nor are your objections speculation on my part.  The testing has been done in many ways.  Physical differences you can see will influence you. You even agree many people conform, and then talk the usual talk of experienced listeners.  These experienced listeners are NOT that SPECIAL.  

 

Simply control for the biases that you suppose might affect the outcome, including appearance,smell or whatever.It of course might help if you had some evidence that a particular thing is *relevant* and biases the outcome rather than an *assumption*. You could assume subjects with long toe nails will be biased to not hearing differences (or vice versa) but specific evidence would likely be called for.

 

We are all subject to bias. It is another thing to say it HAS to be in operation. It is prevalent therefore control for it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

everyone is subject to confirmation bias even without any conscious expectations

 

confirmation bias

noun

noun: confirmation bias

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

 

There would be people without existing beliefs or theories or in the alternative where those theories or beliefs are not applicable.

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, kumakuma said:

Regardless of how many times Alex posts something with the "Audiophile" portion of "Computer Audiophile" highlighted in bold, I refuse to give into the bullying tactics of the hardline audiophiles that have overrun this site.

 

 

So it's O.K. to demand proof by way of measurements from all those who post subjective reports, or as some from the Objective side have done previously, tell them to "put up or shut up" ? 

To most reasonable members, THAT is bullying !

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

Audiophile confidence game is not so much about the consumer trusting the designer/manufacturer/digital voodoo salesman, as it is about getting the consumer to trust his own varied and variable perceptions and manipulating those through suggestion, looks, vague claims, and price.

 

 So what is so different there from most sales techniques with the majority of products ?

 Take new cars for example .

[sandyk]

51 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

So it's O.K. to demand proof by way of measurements from all those who post subjective reports, or as some from the Objective side have done previously, tell them to "put up or shut up" ? 

To most reasonable members, THAT is bullying !

Tom

 BTW, Calling people you don't agree with Delusional, is another form of Bullying, as is subjecting them to ridicule .

It tends to make some members think twice about posting again, and often  stops others with similar views from posting at all.

 

Alex

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

confirmation bias

 

There would be people without existing beliefs or theories or in the alternative where those theories or beliefs are not applicable.

 

Those would be blinded listeners. 

 

You look at a phat spendy cable & that's all it takes - not to mention newness bias.

 

I hope you are not being delusional about this

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 So what is so different there from most sales techniques with the majority of products ?

 Take new cars for example .

 

 

read The Hidden Persuaders, by Vance Packard

[Speed Racer]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

the question is first transformed into a testable hypothesis, i.e. one that can be falsified

 

but most of the time, an experimenter is testing a claim by someone else

 

I also have some books for you to read - Thomas Kuhn

 

A testable hypothesis that can falsified or proved. You left the second part out. To be done correctly and without bias, the goal of the process cannot be to be prove the hypothesis false. The goal is to test the hypothesis to see if it is true or false. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Those would be blinded listeners. 

 

You look at a phat spendy cable & that's all it takes - not to mention newness bias.

 

I hope you are not being delusional about this

 

Re read the definition of confirmation bias. You are confusing different biases in a biased way ;-). Carry On.

 

 

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

you mean Audiophool 

 

 This begs the question of your motives for participating in a forum where you believe the majority of members are "Phools", or Delusional.

 Are you here to teach us "how to suck eggs" , or are you on an Evangelical mission to save us from ourselves ?

[opus101]

38 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

A testable hypothesis that can falsified or proved. You left the second part out. To be done correctly and without bias, the goal of the process cannot be to be prove the hypothesis false. The goal is to test the hypothesis to see if it is true or false. 

 

A hypothesis can never be 'proved' in science. Proof is limited to mathematics, in science a hypothesis can only be falsified. Absence of falsification is not an indication that the hypothesis is 'true'.