Expectation Bias

[fas42]

17 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You are correct, sir.

 

I've also never experienced levitation during my daily mediation sessions, walking through walls, and breathing underwater.

 

Right, so you want me to point, Yet Again, to examples where other people have experienced this, with systems that have nothing to do with me ... and so we go 'round the mulberry bush, once more, .

[kumakuma]

25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, so you want me to point, Yet Again, to examples where other people have experienced this, with systems that have nothing to do with me ... and so we go 'round the mulberry bush, once more, .

 

Just to make sure we're on the same page, here is your claim again:

 

Quote

What competent playback delivers is a sweet spot which encompasses the entire room; even behind the speakers.

 

Yes, please point to others who have accomplished this using a standard, two-speaker audio system.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Just to make sure we're on the same page, here is your claim again:

 

 

Yes, please point to others who have accomplished this using a standard, two-speaker audio system.

 

I KNOW HOW 😁

 

https://tigerfox360.com/

 

I had a picture of one of the systems - you CAN hear things behind you. Not because of Frank's BS but because of actual physics.

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Just to make sure we're on the same page, here is your claim again:

 

 

Yes, please point to others who have accomplished this using a standard, two-speaker audio system.

 

Since you asked nicely, here is a link to my post on it,

 

 

[botrytis]

Frank has been spewing the same stuff for 6 years? WOW.

 

[fas42]

48 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I KNOW HOW 😁

 

https://tigerfox360.com/

 

I had a picture of one of the systems - you CAN hear things behind you. Not because of Frank's BS but because of actual physics.

 

Things behind me are not particularly interesting; competent replay slices off your listening area beyond the vertical plane the speakers are in, and replaces that with the environment contained on the recording. Any sounds that are forward of that area are the result of the interaction of the sound coming from the speakers, and the listening space.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Frank has been spewing the same stuff for 6 years? WOW.

 

 

Try, 12 years ...

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=general&m=579676

 

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Try, 12 years ...

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=general&m=579676

 

 

 

[fas42]

Yep, about your standard ...

 

I'm pretty motivated to get the audio game to evolve a bit further; so that I can just walk into a store and buy gear at a non ridiculous price that does the job properly; without having to be nursed and pleaded with, to do better . We're not there yet - when we are, then I won't need to bother people like the good folk on this forum, any more ...

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Since you asked nicely, here is a link to my post on it,

 

 

 

Interesting. Are there more examples? 

[kumakuma]

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yep, about your standard ...

 

I'm pretty motivated to get the audio game to evolve a bit further; so that I can just walk into a store and buy gear at a non ridiculous price that does the job properly; without having to be nursed and pleaded with, to do better . We're not there yet - when we are, then I won't need to bother people like the good folk on this forum, any more ...

 

Why are you punishing us for the sins of others?

 

Almost no one here is involved in the production of audio equipment.

[fas42]

44 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Interesting. Are there more examples? 

 

And,

 

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why are you punishing us for the sins of others?

 

Almost no one here is involved in the production of audio equipment.

 

If people realise what can be achieved, then they will put the pressure on manufacturers to come up with the goods - multiple voices are always more effective than one ... QED.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

And,

 

We discussed Tom Danley here. The conclusion is that Mr Danley is referring to something rather different.

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

People have a terribly hard time coming to grips with the fact that the speakers, and system, are a 'window' into the contents of the recording - the latter sets the limits of what it will sound like; a million dollar speaker won't sound a million dollars, it should sound like the recording.

 

The "window" can be opaque, dirty, it can distort the light that shines through, it can be broken. 

 

Glad you enjoy your Edifier Bookshelf speakers. As I said, I enjoy listening to music on my phone as well... (and it's not even tweaked). It must be a very "competent" phone! 

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, Confused said:

We discussed Tom Danley here. The conclusion is that Mr Danley is referring to something rather different.

 

 

 

Yes, his approach and attitude is different, because he's a speaker manufacturer - and the results he gets, got are a function of precisely how well the system he was listening to was performing. And he will form his own explanations. What matters is that the brain is fooled - you do what it takes, to make this happen ...

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

The "window" can be opaque, dirty, it can distort the light that shines through, it can be broken. 

 

Glad you enjoy your Edifier Bookshelf speakers. As I said, I enjoy listening to music on my phone as well... (and it's not even tweaked). It must be a very "competent" phone! 

 

A phone can do very well ... why? Because, it's a completely integrated system, run by battery - so many of the areas that allow weaknesses to intrude have been eliminated.

 

Yes, I'm enjoying my setup - literally just before played the first album of the Rolling Stones, with tracks as roughly recorded as it gets; and playing now, a collection of pop hits as recorded in the 20's and 30's - I had an idea of changing how to start the playback, and so far it seems to be helping. The point being, it's all about the music - no negative qualities of the replay chain are intruding.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

A phone can do very well ... why? Because, it's a completely integrated system, run by battery - so many of the areas that allow weaknesses to intrude have been eliminated.

 

I am speechless...

 

Do you think that if I play music on my phone while recharging it the integrity will be lost and the sound will suffer? 😁

[fas42]

Just now, hopkins said:

 

I am speechless!

 

N. up the road, mentioned some posts ago, has spent years playing with palm sized media players - and has had extremely good results using them; our listening sessions mostly rely on these as source ... just a phone, minus the phone .

[Confused]

Back on topic.

 

I suffer from expectation bias. Even just typing such a statement here makes me feel a bit like someone attending attending an addiction recovery group session. "Hello, my name is Confused, and I suffer from expectation bias". Those sat in the circle around me look sympathetic yet concerned, they nod knowingly....

 

The thing is though, it is not like that at all. For me, I almost feel like expectation bias is like a friend who follows me around on my audio journey. He is a good friend, he can be good fun, but he is a mischievous little rascal sometimes, best to keep an eye (ear?) out for what what he is up to. Furthermore, expectation bias is not like some kind of addiction or disorder that can be cured, it is an intrinsic part of what makes me what I am.

 

There was a time earlier in my audio journey when I had no idea about the existence of expectation bias, it is not something I had heard off, not something I can even recall being mentioned. Back in those early days I would often buy and read hifi magazines. Indeed, if I was thinking of getting a new CD player or something, it would be with great excitement if I found a magazine with something like "Mega group test, best CD player under £500" on the front cover. Such a magazine would be purchased and studied in detail, I would wonder to myself if I could pick up all of these subtle details and differences in sound that the expert reviewers mention, but undeterred I would contact the dealers and arrange to audition for myself. I could write many anecdotes relating to stuff I read in the hifi magazines, subsequent visits to dealers, what correlated to what I'd read in the magazines and what seemed so very different when sat listening in the dealers demo room, but the point here is what I had not read in those magazines. Not once was there and interesting article about expectation bias, or anything remotely related this this. I was on the early steps of my audio journey, my friend expectation bias was already with me, but I had no idea he was there. For some reason these expert hifi dealers never mentioned expectation bias either.

 

During this time things were good though, I could visit dealers, visit shows, establish what I liked or do not like. I was quite happy auditioning item A versus item B at a dealer, buying the one that sounded best, setting it up at home and enjoying the music. Heck, it is almost like expectation bias did not exist, there was no evidence presented to me that it existed, I had not noticed it was there, and it did not seem to be holding me back.

 

It was only later in life that I discovered my friend expectation bias. Not only did I discover it, and verify that I suffer from it, to a degree I have been able to calibrate it. Like many audiophiles I consider my ear-brain system to be a precision measuring instrument, but like any other precision measuring instrument it requires calibration, and it is important to understand the accuracy of performance within various ranges.

 

So how did this happen for me? Primarily thanks to blind testing. I know blind testing can be a controversial thing, with endless discussion of protocols, tells and suchlike. It need not be like this though for discovering and calibrating your own expectation bias. You just need someone who can swap item A for item B, and to be reasonably honest with yourself, and not cheat and look for tells. In addition to this there are are number of "blind test" type initiatives available on the 'net. @Archimago has offered a few of these, Mark Waldrep's HD audio challenge was good fun, there are very many more covering a vast array of audio topics.

 

What I have found for myself is that there is a level where my ear brain system is working as this highly sensitive instrument, able to decern the tiniest differences in sound, the most subtle of distortions with one thing versus another. Then try this blind, and in some cases these previously obvious differences vanish.

 

There are two important points here. Firstly that it is only in some cases, there are things that I have discerned in sighted listening, that I can still pick up when listening blind. The second point is that again, it is only in some some cases, but it those cases there are things that did subjectively seem very clear in sighted listening, that slight distortion in item B versus item A, that slight improvement in resolution when a certain device in in use, or whatever, but when you try the same thing blind, these apparently very clear observations made is sighted listening simply vanish. Understanding these effects and establishing a base line from your own tests, experiments and experience is incredibly useful, consider it as calibrating your own highly sensitive ear brain system.

 

You need to have an open mind, and you need to make the effort to try this kind of thing, and perhaps most important of all, you have to be completely honest with yourself.

 

The rewards are there if you do. Having a clear understanding of what your own ear brain system can do, being clear regarding what you mischievous companion expectation bias might be up to is useful. It is not a handicap or admission of failure. This is knowledge that can guide you when considering buying new kit, when trying some kind of tweak or another, useful and powerful knowledge that can help you make good decisions. It can prevent you making mistakes, wasting money, or going around in circles with things. Embrace it, expectation bias can become your friend, no matter how mischievous he might be. Your ear brain system is a very powerful instrument, calibrate it, understand it, use it wisely.

 

I am also a little saddened that expectation bias sometimes becomes yet another subset of the subjective versus objective debate. It is as if the very mention of expectation bias means that then all subjective considerations become invalid. This is utter nonsense. Ultimately all audio experiences are subjective, personally I really enjoy subjective comparisons of audio kit, at dealers, going to shows, trying things at home. I love objective data, but ultimately it is achieving the best subjective experience that interests me. I will use any data I can get my hands on to achieve good subjective results, I will study measurements, I will listen to things to see if I can correlate the measured to the subjective, sometimes I will listen to things just to establish if they subjectively please me or not. Within all this, my friend expectation bias is with me, playing his cheeky little games. Having a reasonable handle on what he is up to makes the whole thing a lot more fun and rewarding, it removes many frustrations, provides clarity, and can lead to better results.

 

 

 

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Also, he gets things very wrong. As in, the loudspeakers not being right are the cause of bad sound - by that criterion, Wilson speakers are junk, because every rig I've heard using them has made some pretty awful noises - the reality is, what you hear from a system is the sum total of the behaviour of all the components in it, at that moment.

 

Yes and no. 

 

Loudspeakers provide the sound signature of the system - changes in loudspeakers are the most easily identifable changes in a system. A change to a DAC, a preamp, an amp, are less obvious to non-audiophiles - it does not mean they are not as significant for audiophiles.

 

Obviously what you hear is the sum total of the components, but that is besides the point.

 

My pair of open baffle speakers, rated 102db, with a driver surface area 4 times the size of the drivers on your Edifier speakers may sound like "crap" to your ears where you to listen to them (even though the sound does float through my flat - they just happen to be sitting in the living room, so that's where I listen to them, and they do pass your irrelevant mono replay trick), but the sound you get from your Edifier speakers is simply never going to be the same as the sound I get from those open baffle. You can put whatever components behind, it is physically impossible to achiever the same sound. That's not a value statement, it's a fact. 

 

I am starting to see a pattern in your way of thinking, which is basically to debunk everything to prove that you can get "great" sound from your small bookshelf speakers and your tweaks, and that high-end sucks. You provide no arguments to back up your claims. But no argumentation is in fact needed, because the world is filled with people who are happy with their stereo systems, at all price points, and enjoy all types of music. 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

Back on topic.

 

I suffer from expectation bias. Even just typing such a statement here makes me feel a bit like someone attending attending an addiction recovery group session. "Hello, my name is Confused, and I suffer from expectation bias". Those sat in the circle around me look sympathetic yet concerned, they nod knowingly....

 

The thing is though, it is not like that at all. For me, I almost feel like expectation bias is like a friend who follows me around on my audio journey. He is a good friend, he can be good fun, but he is a mischievous little rascal sometimes, best to keep an eye (ear?) out for what what he is up to. Furthermore, expectation bias is not like some kind of addiction or disorder that can be cured, it is an intrinsic part of what makes me what I am.

 

There was a time earlier in my audio journey when I had no idea about the existence of expectation bias, it is not something I had heard off, not something I can even recall being mentioned. Back in those early days I would often buy and read hifi magazines. Indeed, if I was thinking of getting a new CD player or something, it would be with great excitement if I found a magazine with something like "Mega group test, best CD player under £500" on the front cover. Such a magazine would be purchased and studied in detail, I would wonder to myself if I could pick up all of these subtle details and differences in sound that the expert reviewers mention, but undeterred I would contact the dealers and arrange to audition for myself. I could write many anecdotes relating to stuff I read in the hifi magazines, subsequent visits to dealers, what correlated to what I'd read in the magazines and what seemed so very different when sat listening in the dealers demo room, but the point here is what I had not read in those magazines. Not once was there and interesting article about expectation bias, or anything remotely related this this. I was on the early steps of my audio journey, my friend expectation bias was already with me, but I had no idea he was there. For some reason these expert hifi dealers never mentioned expectation bias either.

 

During this time things were good though, I could visit dealers, visit shows, establish what I liked or do not like. I was quite happy auditioning item A versus item B at a dealer, buying the one that sounded best, setting it up at home and enjoying the music. Heck, it is almost like expectation bias did not exist, there was no evidence presented to me that it existed, I had not noticed it was there, and it did not seem to be holding me back.

 

It was only later in life that I discovered my friend expectation bias. Not only did I discover it, and verify that I suffer from it, to a degree I have been able to calibrate it. Like many audiophiles I consider my ear-brain system to be a precision measuring instrument, but like any other precision measuring instrument it requires calibration, and it is important to understand the accuracy of performance within various ranges.

 

So how did this happen for me? Primarily thanks to blind testing. I know blind testing can be a controversial thing, with endless discussion of protocols, tells and suchlike. It need not be like this though for discovering and calibrating your own expectation bias. You just need someone who can swap item A for item B, and to be reasonably honest with yourself, and not cheat and look for tells. In addition to this there are are number of "blind test" type initiatives available on the 'net. @Archimago has offered a few of these, Mark Waldrep's HD audio challenge was good fun, there are very many more covering a vast array of audio topics.

 

What I have found for myself is that there is a level where my ear brain system is working as this highly sensitive instrument, able to decern the tiniest differences in sound, the most subtle of distortions with one thing versus another. Then try this blind, and in some cases these previously obvious differences vanish.

 

There are two important points here. Firstly that it is only in some cases, there are things that I have discerned in sighted listening, that I can still pick up when listening blind. The second point is that again, it is only in some some cases, but it those cases there are things that did subjectively seem very clear in sighted listening, that slight distortion in item B versus item A, that slight improvement in resolution when a certain device in in use, or whatever, but when you try the same thing blind, these apparently very clear observations made is sighted listening simply vanish. Understanding these effects and establishing a base line from your own tests, experiments and experience is incredibly useful, consider it as calibrating your own highly sensitive ear brain system.

 

You need to have an open mind, and you need to make the effort to try this kind of thing, and perhaps most important of all, you have to be completely honest with yourself.

 

The rewards are there if you do. Having a clear understanding of what your own ear brain system can do, being clear regarding what you mischievous companion expectation bias might be up to is useful. It is not a handicap or admission of failure. This is knowledge that can guide you when considering buying new kit, when trying some kind of tweak or another, useful and powerful knowledge that can help you make good decisions. It can prevent you making mistakes, wasting money, or going around in circles with things. Embrace it, expectation bias can become your friend, no matter how mischievous he might be. Your ear brain system is a very powerful instrument, calibrate it, understand it, use it wisely.

 

I am also a little saddened that expectation bias sometimes becomes yet another subset of the subjective versus objective debate. It is as if the very mention of expectation bias means that then all subjective considerations become invalid. This is utter nonsense. Ultimately all audio experiences are subjective, personally I really enjoy subjective comparisons of audio kit, at dealers, going to shows, trying things at home. I love objective data, but ultimately it is achieving the best subjective experience that interests me. I will use any data I can get my hands on to achieve good subjective results, I will study measurements, I will listen to things to see if I can correlate the measured to the subjective, sometimes I will listen to things just to establish if they subjectively please me or not. Within all this, my friend expectation bias is with me, playing his cheeky little games. Having a reasonable handle on what he is up to makes the whole thing a lot more fun and rewarding, it removes many frustrations, provides clarity, and can lead to better results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expectation bias is the result of the promises which are put forward and our own eagerness to improve our systems. There is a snowball effect, because one person's bias is going to influence another, especially nowadays where information is, so easily accessible and opinions can be quickly amplified. Who can you trust? No one but yourself? 

 

In an ideal world reviews would all be based on double-blind tests, but that is impossible.

 

Objective data is  a poor indicator for actual performance, IMO. 

 

So we just have to take everything with a grain of salt (but especially Frank 😁). 

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Loudspeakers provide the sound signature of the system - changes in loudspeakers are the most easily identifable changes in a system. A change to a DAC, a preamp, an amp, are less obvious to non-audiophiles - it does not mean they are not as significant for audiophiles.

 

IME, with less optimised systems, loudspeaker changes make the variations more obvious; and in higher performance rigs, the speaker are far less relevant.

 

37 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

My pair of open baffle speakers, rated 102db, with a driver surface area 4 times the size of the drivers on your Edifier speakers may sound like "crap" to your ears where you to listen to them (even though the sound does float through my flat - they just happen to be sitting in the living room, so that's where I listen to them, and they do pass your irrelevant mono replay trick), but the sound you get from your Edifier speakers is simply never going to be the same as the sound I get from those open baffle. You can put whatever components behind, it is physically impossible to achiever the same sound. That's not a value statement, it's a fact. 

 

Where have I suggested your speakers sound "crap"? I have been impressed by your accounts of the SQ achieved, and have said so, several times.

 

The sound that an accurate system delivers is that of the recording. It's not of the speakers, whether open baffle, omni, or whatever; it can't be any other way, otherwise the system is not accurate. Yes, speaker setups will never be perfectly the same, especially in the bass area; but in the vital other regions of the spectrum there should be an excellent matching.

 

37 minutes ago, hopkins said:

I am starting to see a pattern in your way of thinking, which is basically to debunk everything to prove that you can get "great" sound from your small bookshelf speakers and your tweaks, and that high-end sucks. Y, becasue ou provide no arguments to back up your claims. But no argumentation is in fact needed, because the world is filled with people who are happy with their stereo systems, at all price points, and enjoy all types of music. 

 

High-end only sucks if it provides very poor value for money. Poor setup and sorting out severely undermine the potential of many rigs, IME, and that's something that should be understood - the world needs more good systems! I use low end gear to find out things; because if I wreck stuff in the process, then not much has been lost. Plus, it's a challenge - to see how far value for money components can be pushed.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Just now, fas42 said:

Where have I suggested your speakers sound "crap"? 

I was not implying that. It's irrelevant anyway. 

 

I won't respond to the rest of your replies because I think we are wasting our time here repeating ourselves indefinitely. 

[Confused]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

Expectation bias is the result of the promises which are put forward and our own eagerness to improve our systems. There is a snowball effect, because one person's bias is going to influence another, especially nowadays where information is, so easily accessible and opinions can be quickly amplified. Who can you trust? No one but yourself? 

 

In an ideal world reviews would all be based on double-blind tests, but that is impossible.

 

Objective data is  a poor indicator for actual performance, IMO. 

 

So we just have to take everything with a grain of salt (but especially Frank 😁). 

It does sometimes look like this, expectation bias meets herd mentality, then ends in mob rule if dissenting voices appear.

 

So maybe it is best to trust yourself, which was part of the point I was making in my earlier post. To trust yourself you do need to calibrate your own biases and listening abilities, otherwise it is all too easy to get sucked into expectation bias and the herd mentality.

 

I would not say that it is wise to trust no one but yourself, but always keep in mind that we are all subject to individual fallibilities. So yes, that grain of salt can come in handy.