Expectation Bias

[botrytis]

I do not use youtube for listening - you can keep you meh files.

 

Frank this is what you need. All your tweaks can be ignored. Serious.

 

I was impressed - this is the Tigerfox360 system.

 

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Biggest set of headphones I've ever seen ... trouble is, I'm not a headphone guy ... .

 

Nearfield listening, silly. The whole system was less than 1000 USD they used. It was pretty amazing.

[botrytis]

@The Computer Audiophile People don't realize how much it affects them BOTH WAYS.

 

It is interesting and fascinating. Been reading papers on this topic since I really got more heavily into audio 25 years ago. I wanted to make sure I was hearing what I was hearing, not just some bee put in my bonnet by a salesman.

[botrytis]

44 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

I was responding to the contents of Frank's post, not what actually happened.

 

I should have considered how memory is often colored by our biases and checked for myself. 👺

 

 

We all make mistakes - it happens.

[botrytis]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Repetition just ensures that you continue to hear the same thing, since your brain learns to listen (and to hear) what you want it to hear, regardless of what's actually coming in to the ears. Expectation bias... the subject of this thread.

 

 

Agree, repetition is the classic way snake oil salesmen, in the audio industry, get you to think their products do something.

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's also the classic way objectivists convince themselves that certain things can't be heard :~)

 

Like the old philosophical questions, if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound if no one hears it?

 

As I said, I rely on both. But I usually level a spot of skepticism when listening.

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

A good example might be the 'fountain of youth' just might be silver laden springs found by the explorers.   Wonder why the 'holy water' was often in 'silver containers'?   Magic?  You know, silver makes a darned good antibiotic, but was also associated with 'magic' in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly - why silver bullets are used against vampires and werewolves, for example. 

 

https://witchipedia.com/book-of-shadows/minerals/silver/

 

Never knew there was such a thing and Witchipedia 🤣

[botrytis]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we should ignore everything that we do know. 

 

Unfortunately, Frank is doing this...

 

[botrytis]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is an interesting post, titled, “Is Science is a Belief System, Yes it is.”

 

 

https://medium.com/@ngxinzhao/is-science-a-belief-system-yes-it-is-f239f7e4861

 

As a card-carrying and practicing scientist, it is not. I was raised RC, in a Polish church around Chicago, there is a

huge difference.

 

Belief - example - Frank - everything he does is by a hope and a prayer. That is belief. There are no laws of physics that can be used in the way Frank says he does. 

 

Logic - @The Computer Audiophileand others on this forum. I think most are guided by 'Trust but Verify' type. A combination approach, I base many of ideas I have been working on, I can put a new idea based on past knowledge and the inventiveness to help put forth a new idea. Hence, what I am working on now.

 

I science, the reason a paper is published because it is new, it advances the field, and this is where the verify comes in, peer review and even people trying to reproduce your experiment. That means exact instructions, in a condensed form. That is the verify part.

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I think real science is pretty boring, and then all of a sudden someone see's something weird in the data and says, huh, that's odd...

 

I find it quite fun and fast paced, especially in start-ups. Sometimes A + B doesn't equal C, it could be M. Faith would say 'A + B = A miracle occurs here = M'.

 

Science would say 'A + B = A does X process + 1-2 more = M'.

 

Just different ways to think about it.

 

I am trying not to be too philosophical about it.

[botrytis]

Is this Frank?

 

[botrytis]

6 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The debate about science is completly off topic here, as you rightly point out. 

 

Your approach, however, may be limited by a number of factors:

- your technical abilities

- the equipment you use (i.e. powered speakers with digital inputs allow for very limited tweaking)

 

You may also be "re-inventing the wheel" at times. But it is certainly fun to tweak.

 

 

There is a difference between tweaking and delusions. Many of Frank's tweaks are just that.

[botrytis]

2 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Science is overrated. The scientists among us are actually the ones most prone to expectation bias. It starts with humans not understanding the complexity of reality. Next they start simplifying, reducing reality to a few parameters, putting things in boxes. Then they start describing and experiencing reality as seen from these boxes. The result is that they are missing out on most of what reality has to offer. Some people's intuition senses reality more accurately than most people's ratio. Sorry if this sounds like I had a glass of Condrieu -- because I had.

 

Science is overrated? Really? Everything we talk about on this forum comes from science. All your medicines, etc. Your new cars, etc.

 

Why not just go back to the stone age if you don't want science?

 

 

[botrytis]

26 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

 

Science is needed and very valuable, but overrated by audiophiles. Put a rocket on the moon and I am convinced. But for most audiophiles it is just reducing cognitive dissonance.

 

It is not. Audio is controlled by science laws, if you don't think so then why are people treating their rooms, etc. because science says where and how to treat the room. Believing false or mis-informed ideas is audio IS the dissonance, not the other way around. 

[botrytis]

33 minutes 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. 

 

Not disagreeing. If one type was perfect, we wouldn't have all the choices we do.

 

Until an accurate 3D model can be done, without any negative reactions, well choices happen. It is like speaker design and, look at the different DSP powered speakers and how they approach it. It is based on the philosophy of the company, same with room treatments currently. It happens, the designers all do follow the laws of physics some just bias to some laws over others. We don't have the ability to do them all.

 

Look at RNA vaccines. Scientists have been working on them for over 25 years, and some experimental ones, tested, were quite effective. It wasn't until multiplex sequencing and other tech (like faster computers became cheaper) made it more reasonable to do. Before, it was too expensive. Just saying...

 

When I started in Science, Molecular Biology was in its infancy (1990 for Grad School), look at it now. Things advance.

[botrytis]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, that would be the normal approach. But if you read at the end of my Edifying thread you will see that my intention is to create a "universal" solution - that is, switching of inputs, and anything that can source a digital stream will be fed in, conditioned, and then be of the right characteristics for the speakers to give a good account of the track.

No such thing. You might as well say you are using The Holy Grail. Same fake idea.

[botrytis]

For me, if he has to ask, he can't afford me.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[botrytis]

41 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Where's the fun in that? 🙃

 

Loss of Your sanity?

[botrytis]

Laws of physics also determines HOW you hear.

[botrytis]

Frank doesn't understand that room interactions are one of the issues all audiophiles deal with. Whether treated or not is another issue. An amazing sounding audio system can be deterred by a bad room and a mediocre system can sound decent, if the room is dealt with properly.

 

He thinks it is all part and parcel of the audio chain itself, that is only 1 part of the equation.

 

 

[botrytis]

37 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Frank,

 

I think things are a lot simpler than this.

 

Essentially, if something is bothering us on a conscious level while we are listening to music, we're not going to be able to lose ourselves into the music.

 

What this impediment to "the magic" is will vary greatly from person to person.

 

For you, it's "a lack of integrity" and "distortion".

 

For me, it's poor recording quality and certain types of music.

 

These things may not bother others, such as my daughter, who can enjoy music I consider to be absolute crap on the shitty sound system in her car.

 

Bottom line.

 

You've come up with an explanation for how your brain operates but I don't believe that it's a universal explanation of how everyone's brain operates.

 

It is not even with a brain that has a chemical imbalance, that is really what mental illness is really, it is various things that can cause it. It is the balance between all the interconnections in the brain that goes off (one possible cause out of many and some still not understood).

 

A recent paper, I read in Psychology was interesting People underestimate the time enjoyed just thinking....

 

This is Frank's fault, he overthinks everything. We all do it, but Frank has a D.Sc. in it (Doctor of Science - in some EU countries this is a step above a Ph.D. as one has to have expertise knowledge in more than one field of study. My Post Doc advisor, at the University of Georgia, had both a Ph.D. and a D.Sc. He was Swedish too.

 

Well, back on point, this is what Frank does. Not everything HAS to have an explanation. The Mona Lisa, we know Da Vinci's style, and this is one classic expressions of him. Can't things just be?

 

Sorry, Saturday morning coffee philosophical thoughts. 🤣

[botrytis]