Expectation Bias

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

What makes you so special that YOU think others cannot achieve their goals. Why such a ignorant statement to others?  Are the people who disagree with your perspective dumb and incapable?

 

Where have I said that you haven't achieved your goal?

[fas42]

As an example of when expectation bias just isn't relevant, I used this CD this morning to warm up the system, after two days powered down,

 

 

A standard issue, greatest hits effort. Especially in the later songs, huge, deep vistas open up - but the sound was a touch too forward, "in your face" - was this warm up, or disk seating? Opened drawer, reloaded, same song - yes, much further back, more 'comfortable' - as significant as changing the speakers, for many people, .

 

As simple as this to change the 'tonality' - but I don't want to have to do this - hence, the need for inserting a Toslink signal conditioner - this has nothing to do with expectation, but purely whether the electronics are more stable, or not.

 

Even the first track, which is a good test for a setup, now worked nicely, very clean,

 

 

[Confused]

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ask three acousticians how to treat a room. You’ll get nine answers. 
 

I’m a fan of creativity. Use scientific principles, but be more creative in the application of them. Don’t let the science guide everything. That’s just me. 

I agree with the sentiment here, although I see this as more of the difference between “science” and engineering.

 

You can consider engineering and design engineering as the practical application of science. The best engineering will use the best and latest science available, but engineering will need to consider many factors, cost, appearance, schedule of work, availability of materials, available skills, and many more.

 

Taking the room treatment example. Different approaches will have different performance, cost, appearance and so on. This is the design engineering side of things, the practical application of science, but the science behind what you are doing remains constant. Similarly, the best results within set criteria will tend to be those where the science is best utilised and implemented. You could even have subjective preferences fine tuned by scientific and engineering considerations, keep the bass slightly underdamped for a “fuller” sound, for example.

 

We like an analogy here. It is a bit like building a bridge over a valley. If you ignore science and the laws of physics, there is a good chance of the bridge will fall down. But with science in place and fully invoked, you could end up with a suspension bridge, a truss bridge, an arch bridge or whatever. The engineering side of things perhaps makes things more varied and interesting, but none of this diminishes the initial importance of science.

 

Or a car analogy, a Mustang and an Alpine 110 are both high performance cars for similar money, they both use science and the laws of physics in their design, the design engineering aspects vary a little though. That's enough analogies I think.

[DuckToller]

34 minutes ago, Confused said:

I agree with the sentiment here, although I see this as more of the difference between “science” and engineering.

 

You can consider engineering and design engineering as the practical application of science. The best engineering will use the best and latest science available, but engineering will need to consider many factors, cost, appearance, schedule of work, availability of materials, available skills, and many more.

 

Taking the room treatment example. Different approaches will have different performance, cost, appearance and so on. This is the design engineering side of things, the practical application of science, but the science behind what you are doing remains constant. Similarly, the best results within set criteria will tend to be those where the science is best utilised and implemented. You could even have subjective preferences fine tuned by scientific and engineering considerations, keep the bass slightly underdamped for a “fuller” sound, for example.

 

We like an analogy here. It is a bit like building a bridge over a valley. If you ignore science and the laws of physics, there is a good chance of the bridge will fall down. But with science in place and fully invoked, you could end up with a suspension bridge, a truss bridge, an arch bridge or whatever. The engineering side of things perhaps makes things more varied and interesting, but none of this diminishes the initial importance of science.

 

Or a car analogy, a Mustang and an Alpine 110 are both high performance cars for similar money, they both use science and the laws of physics in their design, the design engineering aspects vary a little though. That's enough analogies I think.

Excellent posting!!

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

In the example of room treatment, we also have to consider that people have different preferences - some very happy with very little treatment and others preferring more. Some recording engineers even add reverb to recordings to simulate concert hall acoustics. The science does not tell us how much should be applied.

 

There are many other aspects of audio where science gives us explanations but doesn't tell us the significance of those phenomenon in terms of "listening". That's for all of us to evaluate, and it is not always easy as the science only adresses very specific aspects.

 

Take Frank's efforts to adress jitter in his Toslink connection. Science gives us a definition of jitter. Science does explain why optical cables can create jitter, reflections, etc... But do we even know what effect jitter has ? Not really. Do we know what levels of jitter are "audible" ? No. Perhaps some jitter is good in a certain context ? Because we are dealing with imperfect systems, with many possible sources of signal "degradation", there is no way to know whether some aspects offset others, and in some cases attempts to fix one problem may result in new, different problems.

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

I agree with the sentiment here, although I see this as more of the difference between “science” and engineering.

 

You can consider engineering and design engineering as the practical application of science. The best engineering will use the best and latest science available, but engineering will need to consider many factors, cost, appearance, schedule of work, availability of materials, available skills, and many more.

 

Taking the room treatment example. Different approaches will have different performance, cost, appearance and so on. This is the design engineering side of things, the practical application of science, but the science behind what you are doing remains constant. Similarly, the best results within set criteria will tend to be those where the science is best utilised and implemented. You could even have subjective preferences fine tuned by scientific and engineering considerations, keep the bass slightly underdamped for a “fuller” sound, for example.

 

We like an analogy here. It is a bit like building a bridge over a valley. If you ignore science and the laws of physics, there is a good chance of the bridge will fall down. But with science in place and fully invoked, you could end up with a suspension bridge, a truss bridge, an arch bridge or whatever. The engineering side of things perhaps makes things more varied and interesting, but none of this diminishes the initial importance of science.

 

Or a car analogy, a Mustang and an Alpine 110 are both high performance cars for similar money, they both use science and the laws of physics in their design, the design engineering aspects vary a little though. That's enough analogies I think.

 

Engineering is what it's all about. The complexities of the task in audio are immense because there are so many variables involved.

 

Here is a very interesting example of an audio engineer's viewpoint on the complexities involved in designing audio equipment (DACs in this example), at least some aspects. Compound this with all other aspects of a DAC's design and you get an infinity of variables, interdependencies, and complexities. The point here is not to generate argument on the technical content, that none of us are probably equipped to fully understand anyway,  but simply to illustrate the challenges involved in designing audio equipment, - "science" does not give us a complete model that we can apply to achieve optimal results: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/is-jitter-an-issue-with-usb-signals.290973/post-4722474

 

I would quote another better known engineer if I could find one offering such an honest and humble viewpoint... 

 

This is why I think it is important to have a healthy does of skepticism towards "science" in audio.

 

How does this have anything to do with expectation bias ? "Science", or "objective data" is constantly discussed in audiophile circles, and it influences our purchasing decisions. Whether the science is provided by the manufacturers/designers, or by other sources (established reviewers, youtube influenceres, ASR, etc...), does not really matter. The temptation for us to "look under the hood" and try to understand what is going on is very strong. Given the wide range of technologiese available, it is no suprise that we use this as a way to make sense of things. 

 

This thread is a good example to illustrate how we may be guided by (our -including mine - limited understanding of) science in our choices: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/64370-schiit-cd-transport-whatever-happened-to-it/page/2/. There are a million other examples.

 

 

 

[bodiebill]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The room treatment thing is required, because the accuracy of the playback is sub-par. And anything you do to reduce the obviousness of reproduction anomalies will help, because the mind has to work less hard to hear what matters, the music. A fully capable replay chain doesn't require such crutches, because the integrity of the presentation is then good enough for the mind to 'see' the illusion without the extra assistance of an 'optimised' room.

 

The above is fundamental. Anyone who doesn't 'know' this will always have to work so much harder to achieve satisfying playback. Of course, the audio game is so obsessed with "dealing with the room!" that it doesn't put the necessary energy into something far more effective - understanding how to improve the integrity of the reproduction chain.

 

Do you really mean to say that "a fully capable replay chain" sounds optimal in any room? In my experience rooms are good at messing up even the best setups.

[botrytis]

24 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

 

Do you really mean to say that "a fully capable replay chain" sounds optimal in any room? In my experience rooms are good at messing up even the best setups.

 

No, What he said that is what Frank thinks.

[Allan F]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The room treatment thing is required, because the accuracy of the playback is sub-par... A fully capable replay chain doesn't require such crutches, because the integrity of the presentation is then good enough for the mind to 'see' the illusion without the extra assistance of an 'optimised' room.

 

The above is fundamental. Anyone who doesn't 'know' this will always have to work so much harder to achieve satisfying playback.

 

Sorry, but there is no way to describe the above as anything other than absolute nonsense. "A fully capable replay chain" cannot escape the laws of physics.

[botrytis]

13 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Sorry, but there is no way to describe the above as anything other than absolute nonsense. "A fully capable replay chain" cannot escape the laws of physics.

 

Hence, why Frank always uses the term 'magic'. It is something he can endlessly argue about in circles. This is exactly how he does it.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

16 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Sorry, but there is no way to describe the above as anything other than absolute nonsense. "A fully capable replay chain" cannot escape the laws of physics.

 

Yes and that of course applies both to home audio and live music. Frank seems to be taking things a little too far here. But perhaps his room is OK without added treatment? You can go a long way without audiophile panels and other studio type sound treatment. Even so, the premise is undefendable. 

[fas42]

11 hours ago, bodiebill said:

 

Do you really mean to say that "a fully capable replay chain" sounds optimal in any room? In my experience rooms are good at messing up even the best setups.

 

Yes. Because convincing replay is exactly that - you're transported to the environment of the recording, whether it's a beautifully captured real world acoustic, or a completely artificial contrivance generated in synthesizers. Where you're listening is then a 'shell' hooked over your back, so to speak, which has come along for the ride. It's a conjuring act, right - your brain takes over in insisting that what you're listening to is the dominant acoustic event - if you drop the volume right, right down that place is still there - but now it's a long way away.

 

If the sound is "messed up" by the room, then the setup ain't workin' right ...

 

5 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Sorry, but there is no way to describe the above as anything other than absolute nonsense. "A fully capable replay chain" cannot escape the laws of physics.

 

The laws of physics don't apply to how the brain interprets the data! Let's consider a visual behaviour that is well known ... people put on glasses which invert, vertically, what they see; after enough time, the brain says, "I've had enough of this silliness! I'll just flip it over, so it matches how I know it really is." The raw data is now processed to 'correct' things - bingo, "the laws of physics have been broken!".

 

And the same can happen with audio; what's coming into the ears is processed to 'correct' things, to match what the mind knows 'is really there'.

[pkane2001]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes. Because convincing replay is exactly that - you're transported to the environment of the recording, whether it's a beautifully captured real world acoustic, or a completely artificial contrivance generated in synthesizers. Where you're listening is then a 'shell' hooked over your back, so to speak, which has come along for the ride. It's a conjuring act, right - your brain takes over in insisting that what you're listening to is the dominant acoustic event - if you drop the volume right, right down that place is still there - but now it's a long way away.

 

If the sound is "messed up" by the room, then the setup ain't workin' right ...

 

 

The laws of physics don't apply to how the brain interprets the data! Let's consider a visual behaviour that is well known ... people put on glasses which invert, vertically, what they see; after enough time, the brain says, "I've had enough of this silliness! I'll just flip it over, so it matches how I know it really is." The raw data is now processed to 'correct' things - bingo, "the laws of physics have been broken!".

 

And the same can happen with audio; what's coming into the ears is processed to 'correct' things, to match what the mind knows 'is really there'.

 

It would be appropriate (if not truly amazing!) for you, Frank, to admit that you have no idea what it takes for someone else's mind to be convinced in the way that yours is. You're extrapolating on the basis of your own "revelatory" experience of 35 years ago.  There's no science, fact, or even simple engineering behind any of your conjuring act. You continue to post and argue on the basis of your own, personal illusion, insisting that it applies to everyone with not a shred of evidence that it applies to anyone other than you. 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Yes and that of course applies both to home audio and live music. Frank seems to be taking things a little too far here. But perhaps his room is OK without added treatment? You can go a long way without audiophile panels and other studio type sound treatment. Even so, the premise is undefendable. 

 

People seem to vary on what they are sensitive to - if I take a top class pianist, and appropriate piano, and drop them into a hundred different environments for him to play in, I belong to the class of people who will always be enthralled by what they're hearing, because it has the energy and vitality of what music is all about, what the magic is. If you are someone who can't stand it, because the acoustics don't measure up in a particular location, and walk out, well then, you do have the right to be fussy in this area.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It would be appropriate (if not truly amazing!) for you, Frank, to admit that you have no idea what it takes for someone else's mind to be convinced in the way that yours is. You're extrapolating on the basis of your own "revelatory" experience of 35 years ago.  There's no science, fact, or even simple engineering behind any of your conjuring act. You continue to post and argue on the basis of your own, personal illusion, insisting that it applies to everyone with not a shred of evidence that it applies to anyone else but you. 

 

The only people who haven't tuned into the type of sound I work towards have been, ahem, "audiophiles" ... . 'Normal' people just get that it sounds good; they have zero interest in "balance between bass, mid-range and treble" and all the other twaddle that audio people fret about - it sounds good, therefore, it is good, for these people ...

 

 

[fas42]

Okay, let's do a role call ... who here has a system that can do the mono replay trick; that is, the soundstage remains completely disconnected from the speakers, irrespective of how far left or right of the centre of the two speakers you are?

[pkane2001]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The only people who haven't tuned into the type of sound I work towards have been, ahem, "audiophiles" ... . 'Normal' people just get that it sounds good; they have zero interest in "balance between bass, mid-range and treble" and all the other twaddle that audio people fret about - it sounds good, therefore, it is good, for these people ...

 

Again, you're making assumptions about others with nothing to support them but the illusion that existed 35 years ago in your own brain. 

 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Again, you're making assumptions about others with nothing to support them but the illusion that existed 35 years ago in your own brain. 

 

 

You do realise I'm talking about people who have actually listened to what my setups sound like, right? Or who have tweaked the rigs to a standard I push them towards - the audio friend up the road?

[botrytis]

Put Frank on ignore - your mental health will be we better.

 

Frank believes his own BS and it is his truth. Understand that. It will help you understand nothing you can say will change Frank 's mind.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You do realise I'm talking about people who have actually listened to what my setups sound like, right? Or who have tweaked the rigs to a standard I push them towards - the audio friend up the road?

 

Frank, you do realize that you're talking to people here that have not heard your system, met you in person, or know anything about you except for what you've been constantly repeating here. We've not met any of these people (are there more than one?), including this mysterious friend up the road. Is he real, flesh and blood? I've heard of him and your amazing results when helping him tune his system ;)

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Put Frank on ignore - your mental health will be we better.

 

Frank believes his own BS and it is his truth. Understand that. It will help you understand nothing you can say will change Frank 's mind.

Where's the fun in that? 🙃

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

People seem to vary on what they are sensitive to - if I take a top class pianist, and appropriate piano, and drop them into a hundred different environments for him to play in, I belong to the class of people who will always be enthralled by what they're hearing, because it has the energy and vitality of what music is all about, what the magic is. If you are someone who can't stand it, because the acoustics don't measure up in a particular location, and walk out, well then, you do have the right to be fussy in this area.

 

We are not talking about the musical content here. You are confusing two very different things. There is no "magic" in a system - the magic is in the music, the system only serves to enhance our enjoyment of the music that we appreciate listening to.

 

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The only people who haven't tuned into the type of sound I work towards have been, ahem, "audiophiles" ... . 'Normal' people just get that it sounds good; they have zero interest in "balance between bass, mid-range and treble" and all the other twaddle that audio people fret about - it sounds good, therefore, it is good, for these people ...

 

 

 

There again you are confusing things. Non-audiophiles may very well enjoy your system, and anyone else's system as far as you know (my twenty year old sone loves my desktop setup and my living room setup). Audiophiles may point out ways of improving things. Is that so bad ? Probably not, because this is exactly what you are claiming to do.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, hopkins said:

 

We are not talking about the musical content here. You are confusing two very different things. There is no "magic" in a system - the magic is in the music, the system only serves to enhance our enjoyment of the music that we appreciate listening to.

 

 

 

A key word there is, "enhance" - I want the music to be as is was for the musicians, and the people who listened to them at the time. Thought experiment: you listen to a string quartet in a room; then put a soundproof barrier between them and you, put up a couple of microphones on their side at stereo speaker positions, send that signal to speakers on your side, and have them again play - I want the same experience, no more, no less.

 

Some people like TVs with colour which blinds you with its "Wow!"ness - I carefully adjust our sets so that the most natural, realistic image comes through; that's what's important to me ...

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

There again you are confusing things. Non-audiophiles may very well enjoy your system, and anyone else's system as far as you know (my twenty year old sone loves my desktop setup and my living room setup). Audiophiles may point out ways of improving things. Is that so bad ? Probably not, because this is exactly what you are claiming to do.

 

No problem with audio people making suggestions, . But their insistence that the room has to be, "just right!", has never made sense - I have heard systems sounding pretty wacky, bizarre even, with huge amounts of room treatment - to me, it smelt of being in a dentist's chair - as in, I'll be mighty glad to get out of here!