Expectation Bias

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The point of accurate replay is to have no audibility of the reproduction chain; the only thing you are aware of is the presentation of the musical content. If you can hear "the speaker working", that breaks the illusion. I've had audiophiles disturbed by the fact they can't hear the speaker; to them, it's important to know how the drivers are working ... ummm, yeah .

 

All I hear from my speakers is music. What does a "speaker working" sound like?

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Huhh? A band may have a synthesizer, and electric bass, say - and each has its own sound output amp and speakers. They just sit up on the stage, and contribute to the overall, like the pure acoustic instruments.

 

How would a vocalist be heard over such amplified instruments?

 

From the article I linked to previously:

 

Quote

 

What is a PA system?

 

A public address (PA) system is for amplifying the human voice. In its simplest form, it has a microphone, mixer, and loudspeakers. It all starts with the microphone (mic), which converts sound pressure to voltage. That means when you speak or sing into the mic, its magnetic force outputs a small amount of voltage. That voltage is then sent to either a mixer or loudspeaker for amplification. Once boosted by a power amplifier, the voltage is so high that it forces the speakers to move and recreate the sound pressure changes which first entered the mic. The result is a much louder sounding voice.

 

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It means that you have no difficulty at pointing to exactly where the sound is coming from, which is the front of the speaker.

 

How would stereo imaging (phantom center) work if the sound appears to be coming from two different cabinets?

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Because you sit in the middle of them - hence, the "sweet spot"; that limited area of the room where the illusion manifests; outside of it, the mirage collapses. What competent playback delivers is a sweet spot which encompasses the entire room; even behind the speakers.

 

Sure, Frank.

 

And Donald Trump can declassify documents simply by thinking about it...

 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Which points out that you have never experienced this ...

 

You are correct, sir.

 

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

[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.

[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.

[kumakuma]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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.

 

So after 12 years, tens of thousands of posts, and thousands of alienated fellow audiophiles, how do you feel your campaign is going?

 

As far as I can tell, you haven't made a single convert to your cause in the 5+ years since you've joined this forum.

 

Certainly no critical mass of folks "putting the pressure on manufacturers to come up with the goods".

 

In looking at this situation, I can't help but be reminded of the wisdom of Einstein's words.

 

 

[kumakuma]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Alienated? That's what usually happens when people who don't hop on the train of conventional wisdom speak up; there has been a steady, now and again, posting by people on all the audio forums remarking on some audio system behaviour that they've come across, which confirms what I keep mentioning. Of course, these posts are barely commented upon, or completely ignored - they don't fit the pattern, and so fall through the cracks. Also reminds me of the last audio show - the one room which had the best SQ in it was empty; and the one that was packed had classic "hifi" sound; loud, bass thumping, classy PA signature - the sort of thing people are comfortable with, .

 

 

Some things take time ...

 

I like keeping touch with how thinking is going - in spite of the slow progress, most certainly there has been movement - as evidenced by the fact that highly capable stuff is now available, at remarkably low prices; this was completely absent, even a decade ago. Asia is where the action is, has taken over from the West - they'll put the first true "giant killer", in terms of competency, on the market.

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

Do you think the thousands and thousands of hours you have spent posting your ideas to this forum to have been a good use of your time?

 

It seems to me to be the least efficient way possible to affect change in the audio industry.

[kumakuma]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The trail that most audiophiles follow:

• Most recordings are just OK, or mediocre. Only a special few are really worthy of being played on the best systems
• The best systems just keep getting better and better, the more money is poured in
• Only extreme levels of fiddling with the room can extract the best from a system or recordings, because playback of recordings is such a flawed, fragile mechanism

 

The trail I follow:

• All recordings are treasures, of creations by musicians. The aim is to extract the best out of each one, by doing the least damage in the replay
• A system merely has to be sufficiently accurate, to extract an acceptable reproduction. More money may or may not help; and flaws in the links of the playback chain normally do enough damage to undermine the ability of the setup to give a reasonable account of what's on the recording
• Any reasonable listening area is fine. A well sorted chain extracts enough information, of sufficient integrity, for the ear/brain to be drawn into the world of the recording. Unfortunately, the history of the audio game has made this much harder than it needs to be, because not enough research has been done to understand things better

 

Now, I wonder which trail would look more "ridiculous!" to someone who has no interest in audio ...

 

 

 

In my experience, very few audiophiles hold either of the extreme positions that you have outlined above.

 

[kumakuma]

59 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

All of the members who are negative to what I'm saying have expressed the attitudes in the first set of points at some stage - a classic is GIGO; whenever a recording doesn't sound good, then that's the first 'line of defence', ...

 

No, Frank, you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the views of others.

 

Folks here have said that they have some recordings in their collection which are flawed and have expressed doubt that your methods will be able to "debug" such recordings.

 

You have turned that into this:

 

Quote

Most recordings are just OK, or mediocre. Only a special few are really worthy of being played on the best systems.

 

In what universe are those the same?

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, so all those audiophile labels churning out "premium!!" masterings, those recording studios very specially set up to create "proper!!" captures of some piece, those people making some good coin by acquiring, and selling THE version which is "the best!", can all shut up shop, and go home ... because they are quite unnecessary?

 

Your logic engine is misfiring today.

 

Does the existence of luxury car companies mean that all drivers believe that most cars are just OK, or mediocre and that only a special few are really worthy of being driven?

[kumakuma]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Luxury car companies tend to produce items which are very clearly superior, in various ways, to the normal fare ... that is, you don't have to be an "autophile", to appreciate their virtues ... .

 

As is the case with many companies reissuing music in new remasterings.

 

For example, the SACD jazz remasters from Analogue Productions are almost all clearly better than any other available version of the same albums.

 

I could give other examples but I suspect that it would fall on deaf ears... 👺

 

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Overly compressed recordings are an interesting case ... they are the hardest to get under control; my setup 2 rounds ago struggled with these, because the inherent weaknesses of that combo tended to make them sound LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME - wearing, not endearing over longer stretches; only in peak tune would some of that type really work. The current actives are of higher raw quality, and now provide albums in that category a significantly better outing - a relatively easy fix for the worst offenders would be to apply a simple decompression processing, to create a 'remaster' - works well enough, IME.

 

This is clear evidence that your methods can't fix flawed recording but confirmation bias is preventing you from seeing what's obvious to the rest of us.

 

The lead paragraph from the Wikipedia entry on the subject couldn't be more fitting.

 

Quote

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.

 

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A doctor couldn't a save a patient from dying. This is clear evidence that the world of medicine can't help ill people, but ...

 

 

That's a single data point.

 

Quite different from your inability to "debug" certain types of flawed recordings despite your claims that your methods are a universal panacea.

 

 

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm certainly seeing a lot of confirmation bias amongst audio people on forums - that is,

 

The deeply entrenched belief, of course, is that the way they do hifi now, is "as good as it gets" - no other way is possible, over their dead bodies!

 

Yeah, so what?

 

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

100% accurate replay of a recording which is intended to have certain characteristics will mean that you hear those characteristics. That's why, Jimi Hendrix's guitar will sound, highly distorted - I'm not aiming to 'fix', the sound of his Marshall amp, okay?

 

 

100% accurate replay of a recording is a given. 

 

However, not all recordings are accurate representations of the underlying music event.

 

The idea that you can "tweak" the playback device to fix these flawed recordings is absolute poppycock!

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

What I'm tweaking out are the audible deficiencies of the playback chain ... not the recording! The latter lives or dies by what was captured, and all the following handling, prior to reaching me. And IME that's enough - for any 'sensible' recording, the event comes through, every time.

 

Fortunately, the vast majority of recording in my collection are of the "sensible" variety and there are no audible deficiencies in my playback chain. 

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm still searching for those true DBTs and the results. Can't find any. 

 

Perhaps you could share with us your definition of a "true DBT".

 

To me, it simply means a test in which both parties are unaware of which equipment they are listening to during the test.

 

I'm pretty sure that the tests Fred Toole designed for Harman met this criteria.

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Thanks for the follow up. I still don't see how random selection can control for bias. If one's expectation bias, which isn't a conscious process, tells him there can't be a difference, he won't hear a difference.

 

My feeling is that any difference so slight that it disappears due to expectation bias isn't moving the dial much from an SQ standpoint.