"Expectation bias and plecebo effect are much stronger than people care to admit."

[Wigwam Jones]

Let me get this straight ! I have 2 pills, 1 is real and the 2nd is placebo. I give the subjects the real pill (same test, no change) and both get better (or not). I can also give 2 subjects the placebo and both get well or not.

Trickery is cheating. You are giving credence to ''placebo effect'' when the subject is being duped into thinking there is change when there is not. All this proves is dishonesty, barely scientific just to prove subjects can be fooled.

The pill is fake. The effect is real. That's the placebo effect. It has real-world results, although logically, it should not.

I never thought science was to stoop that low to prove a point lol. Your explanation of the placebo effect is proof we will never be able to understand differences if there are no structures to dismiss trickery. Science should not be based on lies. You tell there is a change, you should do the change.

That's a shame ! This is not how I ever intended to enjoy this hobby. It boggles my mind that you give credence to those who lie, cheat and deceit.

You are either not grasping the basic concept, or intentionally choosing not to. Either way, there's not much left to discuss after that statement.

 

[RayW]

For the video to encourage in home blind/dbt/abx testing is nonsense since even the professionals need peer review and referees
in an attempt to get it right.

Again, the test, especially as done in one's own abode, does not have to be "right" to be meaningful.

 

[fpitas]

Hmmm...sounds like we need to swap someone's cables without their knowledge, and wait for the results.

 

[RayW]

Tom B did that at a dealer. Read back a few pages.

 

[fpitas]

Tom B did that at a dealer. Read back a few pages.

I was sort of joking; but you're right, that's essentially what he did.

 

[matteos]

The fact is, trickery is involved, Skate understands.

Let's say we have a headache (so we cannot measure). For a proper test to be administered, the individual should not know he is taking any pill at all. One person gets the placebo, the other aspirin, completely without their knowledge.

There will be no preconceived ideas, suggestions, possible worries, those confounds would pretty much be addressed.

The individual will, without any prompting, from their own voluntary admission, tell us if their headache is better, gone, or still present.

Cheers.

We are talking mind/body interaction here. You are removing the mind out of that interaction. So your test would show that placebo did not work (how could it?)

Your test is similar to clinical drug trials where an individual is given a pill and asked to take it and note whether it has any effect. That person may be in the control group and given a sugar pill. The difference being, there is no placebo. They are not told this will work, they don't believe this will work. It either does something or it doesn't (with or without a nasty side effect) and the results are recorded.

With a placebo the individual must believe it will work. Or it will not. But it is a very different thing that what you outlined.

To pretend the mind has no interaction with the body and does not hold a very powerful force over it runs contrary to the very often recorded use of placebos as medicine.

 

[JBL GUY]

Originally Posted by dogscanskate View Post
Let me get this straight ! I have 2 pills, 1 is real and the 2nd is placebo. I give the subjects the real pill (same test, no change) and both get better (or not). I can also give 2 subjects the placebo and both get well or not.

Trickery is cheating. You are giving credence to ''placebo effect'' when the subject is being duped into thinking there is change when there is not. All this proves is dishonesty, barely scientific just to prove subjects can be fooled.

I never thought science was to stoop that low to prove a point lol. Your explanation of the placebo effect is proof we will never be able to understand differences if there are no structures to dismiss trickery. Science should not be based on lies. You tell there is a change, you should do the change.

That's a shame ! This is not how I ever intended to enjoy this hobby. It boggles my mind that you give credence to those who lie, cheat and deceit

.

To be clear, I am not taking sides in this debate, only pointing out in my last post that dbt/abx testing does not involve there being a wire and not being a wire as you used as an example in your post concerning a placebo.

So you disagree with my example referencing audiological testing and the use of word recognition to help eliminate the subject nature of a hearing test? This is trickery and cheating?

In medical testing, some will receive an inert pill, some will receive the actual drug and some, the control group will not receive either one.

This is trickery and cheating and lying?

My post was more about your thought process and logic than taking sides in this debate.

Again, I am not taking sides, but our senses are easily mislead.

An simple example. 3 tubs of water. On is ice water, one is hot water and one is lukewarm. Left hand goes into the tub of ice water, right hand goes into the tub of hot water.

After a few minutes both hands are placed in the tub of lukewarm water and it will feel hot to the left hand and cool the right hand.

Now, if this person is blindfolded and not told that the tub of lukewarm water is just a single tub of water, this person might just come to the conclusion that his left hand was placed in a tub of hot water and his right hand was placed in a tub of cool water.

Ok, this is a rather sophomoric example, however in principle, it applies to our other senses as well.

There is no mystery here.

It does not mean that in the context of our hobby all tests are invalid, neither does it mean that all tests are valid.

As long as there is a difference of opinion and both sides are able to point to testing that validates their position, then basically the possibilities are limited.

Possibly the tests and the methodology are flawed, this race is just too close to call or see the title of this thread.

 

[robgmn]

The main problem is the practical size of such a venture would probably be limited.

Cheers.

I'm confused by your posts.

They read to me as if you think placebo testing is something that has not been used successfully for the past 50 years or so in hundreds (if not thousands) of trials.

You DO realize these facts, right?

 

[gvalent]

Positron, you've given us many reasons why testing procedures such as abx are invalid and will give null results 100% of the time and why Tom Bombadill's work is wrong.
As an audio manufacturer what is your more valid way of testing and evaluating differences in equipment?
I don't believe you have touched on this.
Please enlighten us.

 

[matteos]

I did not remove the mind at all with the headache experiment. One simply does not know if he or she took the medicine, thus addressing some confounds. Remember we are testing if the medicine works, not the placebo. The mind is still in "play".

If the aspirin works, their headache will be relieved.
If the placebo does not work, they will still have the headache.
If the placebo relieves the headache, did they know they were given medicine?

The next step is to elicit a response, on their own to their condition.

The main problem is the practical size of such a venture would probably be limited.

Cheers.

The basis of a placebo is in knowing that you took the "medicine" and being very certain that it will work. If you don't know you took a "medicine" then how could it work as a placebo?

Placebos don't work like ordinary medicine. Testing a placebo where the person does not know they are taking anything is very very likely to give you a 100% failure rate.

 

[robgmn]

Of course it has its place, wonderful drugs have been produced.
But are you claiming all the tests have been 100% accurate?
Check the call backs, drugs taken off the market, legal law suits.

Cheers.

Didn't you just state that the "practical size of such a venture would probably be limited"?

You also sate that a placebo test should be done in which the participant doesn't know they've been given ANYTHING and discuss ideas of the "tickery" of placebo tests.

Do you actually know what the placebo effect is, how it is tested, and what the results can mean (or ABX and double/triple-blind testing for that matter)?

Your statements read like a conversation with Chance the gardener.

 

[estreeter]

Surely audiophilia nervosa is on the same continuum as clinical depression ? I say that without wanting to trivialise depression in any way, but a-n seems to be right up there with other 21st century, developed world obsessions : hoarding, rabid consumerism, designer goodies etc. A new 'Vette to ease the pain of divorce - hey, if it works, I say do it.

If they can treat depression with placebo, is it possible that we are 'self-medicating' our a-n with the placebo of new toy joy ?

(I dont want any new toys - I want ALL the new toys )

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I never stated Tom's work was wrong, but he was unable to
produce spl levels, time intervals, how many ABs back and forth etc.

I can address some of these.

SPL Levels: In all cases where we used equipment where their output levels were diffferent, we level matched them. Using pink noise reference CDs. In most of the cases where cables were being compared, this wasn't necesssary. I allowed participants to select whatever SPL level they desired for their comparisons. My goal was to not impose an artificial constraint upon them. If they felt they could more easily detect a difference at low levels, I let them use low levels. The same for moderate or loud levels. Most of the time they selected moderate levels in the mid-80 db range. But some cranked it for symphonic music.

Time Intervals: Used a very wide range of these. In some cases we used very short ones, like 3 to 10 seconds. In others 10 to 20 seconds. In a few people used entire songs, to try to soak up the sound. For me, there were times when I had my daughter set up the cables and I would listen to just one of them for 2 weeks or longer, then switch to see if I perceive a difference after such a long exposure.

In the end, it didn't matter. No matter what time interval was used, no one could detect a difference between cables under blind conditions. However in other tests, different time intervals were effective in sensing differences.

Number of AB's: Also varied. Typically we went for the standard 16, but sometimes would continue out to 25 to 30. In a couple of cases, we only did 7 or 8, because the participate would concede that he didn't have slightest clue and had been reduced to guessing. That is, he would give up.

There was one where we were comparing DACs in a store, with the store owner as the main participant. We were comparing an inexpensive DAC to a very expensive one. We had them level-matched and were using them in a very high end system. The store owner correctly selected the expensive DAC 12 out of 16 times, which passes. He then said that he had locked onto the difference and could really pick it now. So we ran 6 more comparisons, he got 4 correct. He really thought he got all 6 right. At that point, with 16 out of 22 correct, he quit. He wanted to savor his "victory" but said, "That was sure a lot more difficult than I expected! They sound so much more alike than I had ever imagined."

In comparing a Marantz CD-63SE via its analog outs vs using it as a transport into a Parasound D/AC-2000, I once got 16 out of 16 correct. I found a 12 second or so passage on a Holly Cole CD where I was able to tune into the difference.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

These tests can be humbling. I was once trying to find out if I could hear a difference between two solid state amps. I would listen to one for a few days, then switch to the other. Did this several times. After some period of time, I became convinced that I had locked into a nuanced difference in their presentation. Switched them back and forth a few times, convincing myself that I had it nailed.

Then had a friend assist me on a blind test. I failed.

 

[rcspkramp]

Sheesh guys......no-ones going to loose a limb over this, just relax and go and listen to some music.....
Is it really that important?

A new indie rock band called Placebo just released a killer new album, it's entitled Get A Life.

 

[matteos]

A new indie rock band called Placebo just released a killer new album, it's entitled Get A Life.

Placebo's latest album is Loud like love...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_(band)

I don't know whether they still suck or not, they sure did last time I heard them.

 

[rcspkramp]

I was trying to be lighthearted, I had no idea there was a band named Placebo.
Do they do A/B/X testing of their masters? Or maybe you thought they sucked because
you head the placebo of Placebo and not the real band?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I think a couple of suggestions might help fine tune your methodology.

I would reduce spl to upper 70s dbs if possible to lower chances of cochlea fatigue.
I would also reduce the number of ABs at a time to no more than 5.

Just thoughts that might help Tom.

Thanks again.

Oh, when I said there were 16, I didn't mean in one setting. Sometimes that was true. But when I compared cables and amps at home, getting to 16 would sometimes take me a few months. Sometimes I took 3 weeks to make a single pick.

I haven't done hardly any of these over the past 6 to 7 years, and most of it was done 10-12 years ago. I got to where I was very comfortable in what made a difference to me and in my system and then spent my dollars accordingly. I feel I was able to significantly reduce the "placebo" effect in my buying decisions and in how it impacted my satisfaction with my system.

I occasionally conduct a comparison to make a decision on what to swap into and out of my primary and secondary systems. Or what to use with different types of music. I like using matched, blind comparisons to verify my impressions. For example I recently did one between two tube preamps (both of which I already own), to see if I could determine which I liked better on different types of music. And to compare those blind results with my sighted observations. Then I rolled some different tubes into each to see if that affected my perceptions. Fun stuff!

I have a tube and a passive preamp, a tube and a solid state amp, two CD players and a DAC, in my equipment rack. Before I start it I think about what I'm in the mood for. All tubes? Tube Pre & SS amp? Passive Pre & Tube amp? DAC or no DAC (may depend if I'm going to play SACD or DVD-A material)? Or do I go into my other system and swap that tube pre into this one? I know each combination imparts its own signature on the music, and due to all of my blind comparisons, I have a good idea of what each signature is.

I don't worry about which interconnects or power cords I'm using, as I'm 99% confident they make no perceptible difference. I don't use isolation devices under my equipment, as I was never able to hear a difference with them. I don't worry about my speaker cables. I don't place magic pucks on my CD player.

In the end, I love how my system sounds. And how the variations of it sound.

(I do wish I had a pair of Sonus Faber Electa Amator mini-monitors, to swap in on certain days. On certain types of music, those give me chills.)

 

[blackfly]

Surely audiophilia nervosa is on the same continuum as clinical depression ? I say that without wanting to trivialise depression in any way, but a-n seems to be right up there with other 21st century, developed world obsessions : hoarding, rabid consumerism, designer goodies etc. A new 'Vette to ease the pain of divorce - hey, if it works, I say do it.

If they can treat depression with placebo, is it possible that we are 'self-medicating' our a-n with the placebo of new toy joy ?

(I dont want any new toys - I want ALL the new toys )

I really hate to do this to you but your association with depression is really off base. The placebo effects with depression medication might be documented, but depression is a PHYSICAL malady due to chemical imbalances in the brain; no wishing it away if one legitimately has it. Triggers can be constant, consistent, or non-existant. Depression can lead to hoarding, excessive intake etc.. but it is not "in the head" and can be wished away. Trust me, I wish so.

In regards to audio, the placebo effect to me seems always skewed towards the bias the listener EXPECTS, not is critically listening for. That is why it is so easy to lead, mislead and judge. By subjecting one to a test noting there are two (or more) competitors one already is primed for difference when in fact there might be none at all. Imagine the ABX test where neither the tester or listener know they are listening to the same speaker/CDP/turntable and yet come out with one being better than the other.... wonder if it has ever been done.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I did conduct one blind test where there was considerable stress on the participant. This guy went on and on about how he could hear huge differences between solid state amps. And maybe some people can. But I wasn't convinced about him, as I knew how difficult that can be.

He owned an expensive audio system. Krell CD player and amp. High end Conrad Johnson preamp. And whatever the top of the line Martin Logan speakers were out back then (circa 2001). Lots of expensive cables.

I proposed a comparison which he thought would be childsplay. His Krell vs my Rotel RB850. The 850 is a late 80s amp, 50 wpc, largely a dual mono internal design. List was $300, I picked up a used one years ago for $100. It's actually a pretty nice little amp. I use it in my bedroom system.

Amp tests are tedious and take much longer to switch. I don't put as much faith into a quick amp test, I like to take weeks to do them for myself. But he was so confident that it would easy that we went ahead. He thought the differences would be vast and instantaneous.

So I go over, set things up, level match it all, put in his favorite demo CD and he settles into his listening chair. Right off the start, I could see how astonished he was at how similar they sounded, once he didn't know which was which. So it did get stressful for him, to back up his boasts. After a few trials he was sweating.

It took a couple of hours for him to make 10 selections, with him trying to identify the Krell. He got 7 correct. Which is a fail. But as he got the last 2 correct, he felt that he was now zero'ed in. We did two more, but it took several more minutes. He got 1 right and 1 wrong. So he was now 8 out of 12. Still a fail.

Running the switches, it was a sighted test for me. I have to say that I was surprised at how much they sounded the same. If there was a difference, and there could have been, certainly nothing was proven, it was anything but obvious.

Based upon what one reads in audiophile magazines, who would think it would difficult to discern a difference between a low-end Rotel vs a very expensive Krell? But it sure was! I guess it would have been easy to tell the difference if I cranked it up to where the Rotel was clipping!

I have always appreciated my little Rotel more since that day.