Expectation Bias

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

If the connector can be shown to add contact noise, then solder it. If it doesn't appear to be a problem, then leave it alone, until more urgent things are sorted.

 

How do you find out if it's a problem or not?

 

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

How do you find out if it's a problem or not?

 

 

Use the system, with a variety of albums, CDs - until you find a track that has an edgy, uncomfortable, irritating quality about it. Listen to it enough to get a good handle on how it sounds - and then reseat the specific connection and play the track again; best if you can do it while the music keeps playing. If there is any change to the SQ, in any manner, whether for better or worse, then you have located a weakness. Typically, the rough edge to the music will be sweetened to some degree; if there are many poor connections, then the improvement may be very subtle, because all the sub-par contacts need to fixed, for the full benefit to be heard.

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Use the system, with a variety of albums, CDs - until you find a track that has an edgy, uncomfortable, irritating quality about it. Listen to it enough to get a good handle on how it sounds - and then reseat the specific connection and play the track again; best if you can do it while the music keeps playing. If there is any change to the SQ, in any manner, whether for better or worse, then you have located a weakness. Typically, the rough edge to the music will be sweetened to some degree; if there are many poor connections, then the improvement may be very subtle, because all the sub-par contacts need to fixed, for the full benefit to be heard.

Except… we already discussed how what you hear may not be real. So how do you find that you’re really hearing what you think you are?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

Except… we already discussed how what you hear may not be real. So how do you find that you’re really hearing what you think you are?

 

Yes, it may not be real ... but repetition, over as long a time frame as you want, as many times as you want, will end up confirming if there's an issue. 35 years ago, I was driven nuts because I would clean the contacts, as recommended, but the corrosion conditions, and noise come back very quickly - try reseating, yep, it's gone bad again! It made sense that soldering would finally cure things, since all the rest of the circuit was working fine using this method - and, yes, the problem then went away.

 

If the SQ at some point is making you uncomfortable then that's a giveaway - you might try gritting your teeth, and putting up with noise and interference degradation ... but personally I want to solve it, permanently .

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, it may not be real ... but repetition, over as long a time frame as you want, as many times as you want, will end up confirming if there's an issue. 35 years ago, I was driven nuts because I would clean the contacts, as recommended, but the corrosion conditions, and noise come back very quickly - try reseating, yep, it's gone bad again! It made sense that soldering would finally cure things, since all the rest of the circuit was working fine using this method - and, yes, the problem then went away.

 

If the SQ at some point is making you uncomfortable then that's a giveaway - you might try gritting your teeth, and putting up with noise and interference degradation ... but personally I want to solve it, permanently .

 

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.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes 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.

 

Or, it ensures that you don’t hear anything, since your brain learns to hear what you want to hear. Expectation bias… the subject of this thread. 
 

I couldn’t resist. 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Or, it ensures that you don’t hear anything, since your brain learns to hear what you want to hear. Expectation bias… the subject of this thread. 
 

I couldn’t resist. 

 

I totally don't disagree 😄 Expectation bias is not a conscious process. 

 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

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

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

[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.

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

That argument isn't new. Science knows how to objectively eliminate the influences of subconscious bias, or at least how to factor it out from test results. Saying that the "other side" is also subject to expectation bias simply says that everyone is human. Everyone is subject to it, and that's hardly news. Admitting that such subconscious influences are a fact of life and trying to act on this is something that appears to be foreign to the subjectivist side. Frank being an extreme example of this ;)

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That argument isn't new. Science knows how to objectively eliminate the influences of subconscious bias, or at least how to factor it out from test results. Saying that the "other side" is also subject to expectation bias simply says that everyone is human. Everyone is subject to it, and that's hardly news. Admitting that such subconscious influences are a fact of life and trying to act on this is something that appears to be foreign to the subjectivist side. Frank being an extreme example of this ;)

I'm with you on this, with the exception of how it relates to people listening at home. We don't have formal testing environments and many of the things we discuss haven't been the subject of formal testing with bias factored out etc.. 

 

Digital filtering is one area that comes to mind. Some will never hear a difference because they say there can't be a difference. Others will always here a difference because they "know" there is a difference. The truth is somewhere in the middle. 

[davide256]

6 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.

 

I'm sorry but you just demonstrated you haven't developed proficiency with any musical instrument... no musician learns their craft without a lot of repetition.

Which is done to fine tune playing, weed out imperfections. develop repeatable fine quality performance.

[pkane2001]

46 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I'm sorry but you just demonstrated you haven't developed proficiency with any musical instrument... no musician learns their craft without a lot of repetition.

Which is done to fine tune playing, weed out imperfections. develop repeatable fine quality performance.

 

I did, did I?  As one who's been playing the piano most of his adult life, I'd have to disagree. But I don't get how this is an argument (assuming it is one?) against building an expectation bias through repetitive reinforcement learning.

 

[fas42]

How about just saying, that the human organism is an extremely complex mechanism. Objectivists just want to reduce all behaviour to robotic, mechanical processes - so that they can get a handle on what's going on. Which is an excellent way of understanding some aspects - but it doesn't explain, everything.

 

We humans use a combination of processing to get through life - some things are set in concrete, like how to drive the same route to work each day; and other things "blow us away", because they are so outside the normal, yes, expectations. The smart thing to do, is to take notice, really take notice, of the latter - because that's how the human condition evolves ... .

 

The learning then occurs - as an example, how convincing SQ presents true mono recordings. Sub-par reproduction means the image will collapse into a side speaker when you move off centre; competent replay maintains the illusion even directly in front of one of the speakers. This happened to me decades ago; and repetition  taught me that I had to improve the integrity of a rig to achieve this; which is where I have pushed the current active speakers to. Now, I can stand in front of some impressive rig, and heave and grunt internally to try and force myself to believe that this setup should do this, because "It's so good!!" - but if it ain't happening, then it ain't happening.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

How about just saying, that the human organism is an extremely complex mechanism. Objectivists just want to reduce all behaviour to robotic, mechanical processes - so that they can get a handle on what's going on. Which is an excellent way of understanding some aspects - but it doesn't explain, everything.

 

We humans use a combination of processing to get through life - some things are set in concrete, like how to drive the same route to work each day; and other things "blow us away", because they are so outside the normal, yes, expectations. The smart thing to do, is to take notice, really take notice, of the latter - because that's how the human condition evolves ... .

 

The learning then occurs - as an example, how convincing SQ presents true mono recordings. Sub-par reproduction means the image will collapse into a side speaker when you move off centre; competent replay maintains the illusion even directly in front of one of the speakers. This happened to me decades ago; and repetition  taught me that I had to improve the integrity of a rig to achieve this; which is where I have pushed the current active speakers to. Now, I can stand in front of some impressive rig, and heave and grunt internally to try and force myself to believe that this setup should do this, because "It's so good!!" - but if it ain't happening, then it ain't happening.

 

How about just admitting that science has won over magic as an explanation for natural phenomena centuries ago, and leave it at that? ;)

 

[fas42]

https://lab.cccb.org/en/arthur-c-clarke-any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-magic/

 

Or, "Any sufficiently advanced method of achieving something is indistinguishable from magic" ...

[pkane2001]

58 minutes ago, fas42 said:

https://lab.cccb.org/en/arthur-c-clarke-any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-magic/

 

Or, "Any sufficiently advanced method of achieving something is indistinguishable from magic" ...

 

Clarke was talking about very advanced civilizations in that quote. Unless you’re an alien (are you?) your method simply doesn’t qualify.

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Clarke was talking about very advanced civilizations in that quote. Unless you’re an alien (are you?) your method simply doesn’t qualify.

 

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!".

[John Dyson]

4 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!".

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.

 

 

 

 

[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 🤣

[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. 

[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...

 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

Who's ignoring what we do know? ... The word here is "inertia" - the, "What we already know is good enough, stop rocking the boat!" mindset. This is why the word to move towards is, "evolution" - in thinking, that is - you add on to what you already know, discarding the bits that show themselves to be workarounds, kludges to help what you currently know do a reasonable job. The sort of thing scientists have always done; drop in a fudge factor to get what they're trying to understand make enough sense, so that the picture you then have of things is usable enough to be of value. Eventually, understanding develops of the underlying mechanism enough to make the fudge factors unnecessary - and they can be discarded.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Unfortunately, Frank is doing this...

 

 

The elephant, "just is" - and can be said to represent, the true contents of the recording. IME, most rigs are trapped in the lands of all the poor blinded observers; showing a small portion of the whole - very few are capable of properly removing the listener's blindfold, and revealing, the "full elephant" ...