Jump to content
IGNORED

Expectation Bias


kennyb123

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Imagine though what happens when an individual has never heard their own system do this.  Most healthy individuals will react to that by acknowledging to themselves that their system is in need of improvement.  

 

No.

 

The "healthy response" when hearing an extraordinary claim is not belief in the veracity of that claim. 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

No.

 

The "healthy response" when hearing an extraordinary claim is not belief in the veracity of that claim. 

No, because a healthy person doesn’t consider that claim to be extraordinary.  They’ve already heard enough with their own ears to know that it’s possible.  And since they are healthy, their mind is open and they are curious about it and want to know more.  Their hearts aren’t full of disdain for others so they are don’t immediately leap to concluding that others must be imagining this.  That’s what normal looks like.

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

No, because a healthy person doesn’t consider that claim to be extraordinary.  They’ve already heard enough with their own ears to know that it’s possible.  And since they are healthy, their mind is open, they are curious about it and want to know more.  That’s what normal looks like.

 

The openness that you describe isn't "normal" or "healthy". It is just how some people are wired. Doesn't make them any better or worse than others who are wired different.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openness-to-experience-the-gates-of-the-mind/

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

The openness that you describe isn't "normal" or "healthy". It is just how some people are wired. Doesn't make them any better or worse than others who are wired different.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openness-to-experience-the-gates-of-the-mind/

This looks great - thank you.  I will read it over and then return here to acknowledge any mistakes I’ve made.  

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

Having tried Blue Jeans interconnects myself, I can see why you think it must be something others imagine.  
 

The healthy response to hearing what @fas42said he hears would be to wonder what you need to change so you can hear that too.  Instead you shifted the problem to the “outside” and pretty much proved my point.  Thank you.

 

You have proved my point by agreeing with Frank. Everyone knows he is 'Our Crazy Uncle Larry' - the one that sniffed modeling glue for fun, that is what I think of Frank, off in his own little universe where Laws of Science don't exist and basically harmless.

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment

Yes, people are wired differently ... researchers in the field of ASA, Auditory Scene Analysis, have determined this is a factor, and that some sound illusions will not be heard by a certain proportion of the population. That said, I would propose that most people who have no difficulty in deciding whether the music they're hearing, sight unseen, is coming from live instruments or from an audio setup, would appreciate the presentation of a well sorted rig.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

You have proved my point by agreeing with Frank. Everyone knows he is 'Our Crazy Uncle Larry' - the one that sniffed modeling glue for fun, that is what I think of Frank, off in his own little universe where Laws of Science don't exist and basically harmless.

 

I could again point to people who understand perfectly what I'm talking about, as I have done a number of times previously, and as it has obviously gone straight through to the other side without meeting anything in the middle for some people :D, I don't see the point in doing such, Yet Again ...

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

You have proved my point by agreeing with Frank. Everyone knows he is 'Our Crazy Uncle Larry' - the one that sniffed modeling glue for fun, that is what I think of Frank, off in his own little universe where Laws of Science don't exist and basically harmless.


That was your most ridiculous argument yet.  How old are you?

 

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
7 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

Great then I’m sure it would be easy for you to provide support for your claim that expectation bias impacts us all the time when we evaluate audio.  
 

The McGurk effect has no relevance to this topic.  This has nothing to do with bias.  It pertains to the interaction between hearing and vision in speech perception.  Nice that you can call out a study by name.  How about naming one that actually supports your assertions around audio.  I’m genuinely interested in seeing this and have yet to find anything myself.  

I have no interest in  spending my  time  looking for links to provide for you. In your posts I've mostly seen someone who did a quick Google search and then made broad, and incorrect conclusions based on misunderstanding. Probably misunderstanding brought about by a desire not to understand the material in a way that threatens your position. The evidence is overwhelming for perception bias in all forms of human perception. But I get that whatever evidence you are presented with, you will say it doesn't apply/isn't good enough for audio. 

 

The McGurk effect has everything to do with this: it's one example of how ideas in our brain effect what we hear. It's just a different form of perception bias. Do you think listening to music is so different that somehow our brains totally change how they work when the aural stimuli come from a speaker?

At Harmon, they found that even experienced listeners' perceptions of speakers were effected by visual clues, such seeing the size of the speaker or the brand of the speaker. Get it? Visual clues can effect audio perception.

 

A few years ago research was published showing people's  evaluation of volume: the same volume signal was perceived as having different loudness levels, depending on the graphic shown when the audio was playing. The audio was accompanied by the picture of electronics, all of which were the same except for the color of the volume knob on the device. The one with the red knob was perceived as having the loudest volume, even though there was no volume change.

 

But none of that has anything to do with audio, right?

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, firedog said:

I have no interest in  spending my  time  looking for links to provide for you.

It's because you know it will be difficult to prove you assertion.  You make sweeping assertions and then use logical fallacies as proof.  

 

23 minutes ago, firedog said:

The McGurk effect has everything to do with this: it's one example of how ideas in our brain effect what we hear.

Of course our brain effects what we hear - no one is disputing that.  It's fallacious to say this proves any thing about the impact of expectation bias on audio.   The McGurk effect is an illusion we experience when lobes of our brain try to make sense of a video that's been altered intentionally to fool us.  It's a very unique case that is in no way applicable to how our bias can effect us.

 

I don't know about you, but I was able to adjust my thinking to be able to prioritize what I heard over what I saw.  So if there is any relevance to expectation bias, this would suggest that if I know my biases, I can adjust my perception to remove that bias.  

 

33 minutes ago, firedog said:

But none of that has anything to do with audio, right?

Of course it does but again it doesn't prove your argument about expectation bias.  All that proves is under those specific conditions, it was possible to influence bias in the observers.  No one is disputing that manipulation is possible.  But these findings can only be applied to the home if similar conditions are present.  I often turn off the lights and close my eyes when I do serious listening comparisons just so I can better focus on what I'm doing.    I know many other audiophiles who take similar steps.  Where are the studies on how much less of a factor expectation bias when care is taken to approach the comparison fairly?  There are none.

 

36 minutes ago, firedog said:

But I get that whatever evidence you are presented with, you will say it doesn't apply/isn't good enough for audio. 

 

No, it's that you are doing a terrible job of backing your assertion.  It's laughable in fact.  

 

Your dismissive tone suggests that you know that you know you've failed to make a winning argument and think it's beneath you to have do so.  That's fine with me.  Just please don't respond again.  Let's allow the thread to get back on topic.

 

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Most people want a persistent illusion, not one that only works when you first acquire a system/device or install a tweak or listen to it at a dealer, that then dissipates because it is caused by something other than the actual sound. Expectation bias is much more complex than is usually portrayed on audio forums. It's very often not about price, looks, or what you've think about a device (although that enters into it).

 

Oh, the illusion that's the real thing is most certainly persistent. But it can frequently fail simply because the setup goes 'out of alignment' - if you think of a reproduction system as a precision measuring tool, then most who deal with the latter know that it's an ongoing exercise to maintain that precision; simply expecting it to always perform to the highest level without care and attention to detail is just asking be disappointed at some stage.

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's mostly that you hear differences when you listen intently which happens with most audiophiles installing any new tweak. Not because any differences are there, but because you notice them when trying hard. When you relax over a period of time, settling in to extended listening, the initial differences often fade away, because they really weren't there in the first place.

 

If you have to listen intently to hear the improvement, then it ain't the real deal :) ... a key point about competent SQ is that it's effortless to listen to - like having a car engine that always responds to being asked to deliver more power, without ever hinting that it's starting to reach some limit. Being satisfying to listen to in every circumstance is a key marker for capable replay; and is achievable.

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Many temporary illusions are created this way, frequently resulting in the persistent upgraditis in audiophilia. After a while, the attention bias is gone and everything starts to sound plain again. Easy enough to test for this "attention bias", which is a form of expectation bias: have someone randomly remove or put in the device you're testing, without telling you what they did, but telling you that something was changed (even if it wasn't). If you hear differences even when the device is not there, you're suffering from expectation bias. Happens all the time and to everyone. If you expect a change, you'll hear it. And all audiophiles expect a change when replacing components -- after all, everything matters in sound quality, right, Frank? ;)

 

Yep, it matters - but the process of switching is quite likely to upset the balance ... let's say we have some magical creature hanging off the side of the James Webb telescope, who quite happily moves bits and piece of it around, so people can test the importance of various aspects; what do you think the chances are of the system maintaining optimum precision?

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Like all black magic, conjuring works, but only for a little bit, requiring more and more sacrifice from the poor audiophile to keep the illusion going. That's my explanation for what's going on, and my "expectation" (bias?) is that very few here would agree with me ;)
 

 

Good conjuring always moves things forward; which is why I only deal with resolving issues in what I have currently "on the stand" - if someone literally gave me speakers 10 time more expensive to play with, right now, I would leave them in the boxes in a back room for possibly years; until, "the next system". A major step sideways is a waste of energy, in my world - it's not how you get answers, as to what is important, and what isn't ... to maintain the integrity of the illusion being thrown up, ^_^.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Oh, the illusion that's the real thing is most certainly persistent. But it can frequently fail simply because the setup goes 'out of alignment' - if you think of a reproduction system as a precision measuring tool, then most who deal with the latter know that it's an ongoing exercise to maintain that precision; simply expecting it to always perform to the highest level without care and attention to detail is just asking be disappointed at some stage.

 

 

If you have to listen intently to hear the improvement, then it ain't the real deal :) ... a key point about competent SQ is that it's effortless to listen to - like having a car engine that always responds to being asked to deliver more power, without ever hinting that it's starting to reach some limit. Being satisfying to listen to in every circumstance is a key marker for capable replay; and is achievable.

 

 

Yep, it matters - but the process of switching is quite likely to upset the balance ... let's say we have some magical creature hanging off the side of the James Webb telescope, who quite happily moves bits and piece of it around, so people can test the importance of various aspects; what do you think the chances are of the system maintaining optimum precision?

 

 

Good conjuring always moves things forward; which is why I only deal with resolving issues in what I have currently "on the stand" - if someone literally gave me speakers 10 time more expensive to play with, right now, I would leave them in the boxes in a back room for possibly years; until, "the next system". A major step sideways is a waste of energy, in my world - it's not how you get answers, as to what is important, and what isn't ... to maintain the integrity of the illusion being thrown up, ^_^.

 

As the chief conjurer, I defer to your skills in the space of illusions, Frank :)

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

t's because you know it will be difficult to prove you assertion.  You make sweeping assertions and then use logical fallacies as proof.  

No, it's because I really don't think it's worth my time. Find the links to stuff I've mentionsed 

 

7 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

I don't know about you, but I was able to adjust my thinking to be able to prioritize what I heard over what I saw.  So if there is any relevance to expectation bias, this would suggest that if I know my biases, I can adjust my perception to remove that bias.  

No. And this shows you misunderstand the whole concept. Expectation biases aren't conscious. You can't know with certainty what they are and you can't control them as you think. This is typical wrong and arrogant thinking of audiophiles that they are exempt from a basic fact of human behavior and perception.

 

7 hours ago, kennyb123 said:
7 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

Of course it does but again it doesn't prove your argument about expectation bias.  All that proves is under those specific conditions, it was possible to influence bias in the observers.  No one is disputing that manipulation is possible.  But these findings can only be applied to the home if similar conditions are present.  I often turn off the lights and close my eyes when I do serious listening comparisons just so I can better focus on what I'm doing.    I know many other audiophiles who take similar steps.  Where are the studies on how much less of a factor expectation bias when care is taken to approach the comparison fairly?  There are none.

 

Again, audiophile myths with no connection to reality. There are studies showing education about a specific bias under specific controlled circumstances can have some effect on results. But that doesn't prove your point or disprove mine. You can't control your expectation biases in your listening room as you keep claiming. Especially since you don't even know what they are.

It's simply false thinking to think that you can.  That's why  blind testing and double blind testing is used when scientific evaluations are made. They are necessary because the ability to eliminate expectation bias as you claim doesn't exist. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
11 hours ago, kennyb123 said:


That was your most ridiculous argument yet.  How old are you?

 

Ahhh, please don't fall into ad hominem attacks. I'm sure you know the saying about arguing with (choose a term)...:)

 

A question not answered (for me) is "How does expectation bias affect my perception when I go into a listening comparison to learn if I can actually hear a difference rather than with an expectation?" I'm sure4 there are many people who exercise curiosity rather than expectation. (BTW, I have 45+ years as a clinical psychotherapist and trainer.)

 

For instance I bought some highly reviewed interconnects years ago and it didn't take me long to realise that they sounded much worse to me than the plain ones thrown in with the equipment purchase. I now cut them up when I need a bit of wire for something non-audio.x-D

Link to comment
2 hours ago, firedog said:

Okay, I've decided to relent.

Good stuff.  I’ll do some reading tonight.  Thank you for taking the time.

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There may be good reasons why interconnects may sound different, like poor connectors, incorrect wiring, shields miswired, etc.

 

But, expectation bias isn't a conscious state. Whether you realize it or not, you are expecting to hear something when you're listening to any new device.  The knowledge of that device being in the circuit already sets up subconscious expectations. The act of careful, focused listening helps you notice new things. Even if these things were already there before the new device.

 

Audio memory is very short (seconds), and the tiny details in soundstage or airiness or pace, or musicality, or whatever you think you're hearing, are easily faked by our minds. These are not easy to test for and to compare unless you do fast switching blind test without the knowledge of what device is playing. If you do that, you'll discover quickly how frequently your mind makes s**t up.

 

Just like you can't easily examine your subconscious, you can't tell what influences you to hear one thing or another. Sometimes it's the subconscious mind making stuff up by filling in "new" details, sometimes it's what you had for dinner, and sometimes it's what you read online or what a buddy told you about it. Sometimes it's what you think about the whole idea of interconnects making (or not making) a difference. 

 

Requoting - This hits to the heart of the discussion.

 

 

Current:  Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590

Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier

Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers

Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects

Link to comment
7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There may be good reasons why interconnects may sound different, like poor connectors, incorrect wiring, shields miswired, etc.

 

Correct.

 

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

But, expectation bias isn't a conscious state. Whether you realize it or not, you are expecting to hear something when you're listening to any new device.  The knowledge of that device being in the circuit already sets up subconscious expectations. The act of careful, focused listening helps you notice new things. Even if these things were already there before the new device.

 

Ah, you're expecting to hear something, most likely 'new', meaning 'better', with some major change. And this is where I see most audio people largely not understanding the process - a change should reduce the presence of quite obvious faults in the reproduction accuracy; anything else is just shifting the ship's deck chairs.

 

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Audio memory is very short (seconds), and the tiny details in soundstage or airiness or pace, or musicality, or whatever you think you're hearing, are easily faked by our minds. These are not easy to test for and to compare unless you do fast switching blind test without the knowledge of what device is playing. If you do that, you'll discover quickly how frequently your mind makes s**t up.

 

The "tiny details in soundstage ...", etc, are evidence of the improved accuracy of the system - these are qualities that remain constant, whether you concentrate with bulging eyes intensity on what you're hearing, or suddenly notice that a highly attractive person of the opposite sex has entered the room, :). Strangely enough, this is also how it works with live music ...

 

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Just like you can't easily examine your subconscious, you can't tell what influences you to hear one thing or another. Sometimes it's the subconscious mind making stuff up by filling in "new" details, sometimes it's what you had for dinner, and sometimes it's what you read online or what a buddy told you about it. Sometimes it's what you think about the whole idea of interconnects making (or not making) a difference. 

 

 

If you have to make it an exercise, to decide whether a setup is working better ... then it ain't. This is a remarkably effective touchstone - as soon as some track or music makes you aware that you are not entirely comfortable with what you're hearing - which is not related to the style of music, or musicianship, etc - then you have become aware of some subjectively audible misbehaviour of the system. The latter is what you don't want - any further changes should be aimed at resolving that lacking.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Correct.

 

 

Ah, you're expecting to hear something, most likely 'new', meaning 'better', with some major change. And this is where I see most audio people largely not understanding the process - a change should reduce the presence of quite obvious faults in the reproduction accuracy; anything else is just shifting the ship's deck chairs.

 

 

The "tiny details in soundstage ...", etc, are evidence of the improved accuracy of the system - these are qualities that remain constant, whether you concentrate with bulging eyes intensity on what you're hearing, or suddenly notice that a highly attractive person of the opposite sex has entered the room, :). Strangely enough, this is also how it works with live music ...

 

 

If you have to make it an exercise, to decide whether a setup is working better ... then it ain't. This is a remarkably effective touchstone - as soon as some track or music makes you aware that you are not entirely comfortable with what you're hearing - which is not related to the style of music, or musicianship, etc - then you have become aware of some subjectively audible misbehaviour of the system. The latter is what you don't want - any further changes should be aimed at resolving that lacking.

 

When you listen for "quite obvious faults", you're already subject to expectation bias. No way out of this other than to validate what you're hearing through bias-controlled listening. Sure, large differences can be quite obvious. But these are not attributable to interconnects unless these are completely broken.

 

Oh, and when you do notice a very attractive person of the opposite sex, you may find that there are many things that make her very unattractive once you get to know her better. That temporary illusion that wears off strikes again! And like with audio equipment, one is then likely to start looking for an upgrade, only to fall again for that same illusion 😎 [not based on my own experience - happily married with two grown kids who've been out of the house for many years]


 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

When you listen for "quite obvious faults", you're already subject to expectation bias. No way out of this other than to validate what you're hearing through bias-controlled listening. Sure, large differences can be quite obvious. But these are not attributable to interconnects unless these are completely broken.

 

Let's say you hop into a very expensive car, belonging to someone else. And as you go along, you hear various rattles and noises, from things loose in the cabin, and, from body parts not secured properly. And at a certain speed a pronounced vibration comes through the body. If you mentions these, er, behaviours to the owner, most probably an unwise choice :), do think he would say, it's all in your head; a bias controlled experiencing session will demonstrate that my vehicle is, um, perfect?

 

If you hear a recording replayed very accurately, just once, and from then on it falls far short of this standard, then you have a reference experience - "faults" are all the shortcomings of the rig that you happen to be listening to, right now, that prevent that peak accuracy from being replicated.

 

Poor interconnects, etc, cause inaccuracy by allowing noise and interference to enter the reproduction chain electronics - these disturb the correct working of some part of at least one component; and the fine detail in the recording is blurred. It then becomes impossible for the ear/brain to decipher what's going on - and in the worst situation, you say, "This sounds a mess!". And this is an "obvious example" of a faulty rig.

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Oh, and when you do notice a very attractive person of the opposite sex, you may find that there are many things that make her very unattractive once you get to know her better. That temporary illusion that wears off strikes again! And like with audio equipment, one is then likely to start looking for an upgrade, only to fall again for that same illusion 😎 [not based on my own experience - happily married with two grown kids who've been out of the house for many years]


 

 

Ah, you did well, getting on top of that "wearing off" issue ... 👍.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...