Expectation Bias

[pkane2001]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Last time I checked, no, . Umm, it's also the method used in hospitals - unless you take scrupulous care with hygiene, and procedures, there's a good chance that you can make the patient worse; or even kill them. So, repetition of people falling over with problems there, gradually(?!!) made them aware that things couldn't be dealt with at anything less than a certain standard - humans have looong learning times, especially when the 'experts' of the moment "know everything!".

 

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

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Who's ignoring what we do know?    ... The word here is "inertia" 

 

Science, Frank. Don't ignore science. Ignoring facts that don't fit your opinion is the worst kind of inertia.  

 

 

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, a smart move ... dropping in a picture of a scientist who said in so many words, "SpaceX can be ignored - they'll never be able to land a rocket like in the comics!" ... to paraphrase, when an expert in a field says something can't be done, then he can be safely disregarded ...  .

 

Magic is where it's at, right Frank? So I should ignore a scientist and listen to you, instead? ;)

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

When people say, "You're arguing against science!", what they really mean is, "You're arguing against my current belief system!" ...

 

Right. Science is a belief system. And audio is based on magic. I got it, Frank. No need to go any further.

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute 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

 

Clearly the author is confused. Science never requires blind faith. And how science is taught in schools is sadly not representative of real Science.

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It doesn't seem many are reading the post ...

 

 

I've got to my current position from number 3. above. All the screaming, say in the ASR forum, that what I believe can't be true counts for nought - it's a level of belief that I would call, as above, "knowing".

 

The silliness of the arguments, here, is encapsulated in saying that somehow I'm "breaking the Laws of Physics!" - twaddle of the first order, . We're talking about, yes, conjuring up an illusion - persuading the mind to accept a 'mirage' - which can done numerous ways. Refining, and varying the method used to do this is just a mechanical process, and one gets better at it, the more you know, understand what's going on.

 

 

Rrright... breaking laws of Physics is a silly argument. I can see X-rays and molecules with my unaided eyes. I can hear frequencies well into the GHz range and noise down to -300dB. Prove me wrong.

[pkane2001]

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, what's that got to do with audio ... if a playback system can run at realistic volume levels, and do it well enough that someone listening through a curtain can't pick it, what terrible sin has been committed?

 

Magic is all in your head, Frank. 

 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The mental block in your head appears to be that sound replay can't be engineered to be subjectively convincing - why that should be so, I have no idea ...

 

I've engineered my subjectively convincing sound replay, so I know it can be done, and I know how. You, on the other hand, want to convince me and others that you must use magic. Magic went out at least 3-4 centuries ago as an approach to making anything, but you continue to stick to it. Good luck pulling rabbits out of a hat -- you  do know that's all just a trick, right? ;) 

 

[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. 

[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. 

 

[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? 🙃

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Your sanity?

 

Too late for that, I'm afraid... ;)

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What's the problem with it?

 

There are no stacks of old newspapers on top of the speakers, how good could it be?

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, close to 24 hours since this was posted - and no posts responding ... this tells me everything I need to know, .

 

The Edifiers have gradually been pushed to a point where they are about 95% there; the illusion holds, depending on how happy the DVD player is, to within a foot or so ...

 

Don't know what you expect, Frank. Unless my ear is right next to the speaker, I don't hear the sound coming out of it, directly. Is that your "trick"? You want to tell me that only you can do this? Seriously? You're again assuming too many things about others without a shred of evidence.

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, I forgot one of the most special tweaks - at a certain point, you replace the old newspapers with new newspapers ... this freshens up the SQ like you wouldn't believe ...

 

Now you tell me! Is there a proper "age" for these newspapers? I'm afraid that a very recent one will have a little of that fresh, crisp paper sound... maybe ones that are a little faded will be more subtle, less bright?

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

People want things like, what are the measurable levels of THD+N that are necessary? Well, currently it doesn't work that way; people haven't evolved the right measuring tools, to give meaningful numbers. So, in the interim, you use recordings which audibly demonstrate flaws in the playback - things like, yes, original mastering of Led Zep I  !! And do simple experiments which allow one to pinpoint where an inadequate link may lie. And do what is necessary to resolve that. And continue, until enough audible defects are eliminated - you know when you're there, because the SQ becomes, 'natural'.

 

Seems to me you've perfectly demonstrated the force of Expectation Bias in this thread, Frank. Everything you do is obviously influenced by your experience  that one time, 35 years ago. Time to move on and try something different, something that actually accomplishes what you imagine it might. Imagination is a powerful drug, but it's not reality.

[pkane2001]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

That's true ... everything I do is influenced by my experience, 35 years ago - of course, we won't mention that I could repeat it, over and over again, with the certainty of the sun rising in the morning, ad nauseum, .

 

Yes, you repeat the claims about it, ad nauseum, over and over again. That's absolutely true ;) 

 

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

In what universe are those the same?

Frankiverse?

[pkane2001]

27 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Pictures or it doesn't exist.

 

I happen to have a photo of Frank's system. This was before the stacks of newspapers, though, so probably didn't sound as good as it does now:

 

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Crap AI was used for that one! ... Give it a couple of years ...

 

C'mon, Frank, it's just that your monitor is not sorted. There's no such thing as crap images, there are only crap monitors. Once you get above that threshold level, you can't tell the image from real.

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Wonder if there are such things, as ... crap listeners ...

 

I wouldn't say that! They just don't have as powerful an imagination as you, Frank. That's why they have such a hard time imagining that a crap recording sounds wonderful.  In politically correct terms,  these people are imagination-challenged.

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, Confused said:

I've just noticed that this thread is in the Objective-fi sub-forum.

 

Does anyone have any objective data re expectation bias?

 

I think I may have got close to being objective with my earlier post describing how blind testing can be used to attempt to "calibrate" one's personal level of expectation bias.

 

Anything else?

 

 

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, Confused said:

Yes, I read the article you posted a couple of weeks ago. It reminded me of some of my past experiences with blind testing, subtle differences that seemed clear in sighted listening mysteriously vanished when tried blind.

 

I have found that using blind testing to provide clarity to myself as to what I can discern to be incredibly useful self knowledge. What I can indeed discern, what I cannot, where I might be fooled, and so on.

 

I think that's the real value of blind testing. It is to reveal what you can really hear, rather than what you think you hear. It's just too easy to hear huge differences, many veils lifted, improved microdynamics, wider soundstage, better instrument separation, more air, more slam, etc., etc., etc., if you think that something has changed. Even if nothing was changed in reality.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

This is a contradiction. One either hears it with DBT or it doesn't exist - there is no middle ground. That is the point.

 

Reality is overrated, as demonstrated by the first few Matrix movies :) Red pill vs blue pill. We all know which one Frank picked.