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

[usedto]

When I went shopping for a system in the 70s, I happened across a store in Sacramento that had a pair of Khorns in the back room, and I got a listen. I was so impressed that I swore I'd own a pair some day. I went ahead and bought my Sansui setup with some other speakers to "get by".

Fast forward 30+ years, and I finally stumbled across a pair for $1000, which fit right into my budget at the time. I bought them.

I don't care what anyone says, or what kind of proof you might present, but they are the BEST possible speakers to go with my Sansui (that I still have as my main system). Nothing will ever change that. Period. I figure that's 50% speaker quality, and 50% placebo. Doesn't matter, as long as the wife and I like it.

 

[Ken Boyd]

I still stick by my original statement "I don't buy it"!

Lets look at the first part where they used the switch which never actually changed anything but just made a click and the audiophiles all choose the dead Mcintosh amp while all along they were listening to a cheap junky amp by the words of JJ in the video. I stated that was unlikely as most anyone with any time around decent audio would suppect something was up.

Now everyone keeps bring up placebo's. Ok that's great when it comes to something like a head ache where you might get better or the pain is a bit harder to define. But lets take it to a more defined test, you have your test, you chop off the test samples arms and they are bleeding all over and give them each some pills, one to help clot blood, the other a placebo, what is going to be the results, both are going to see themselves bleed to death!

Now if the test was between a few amps close to each other in the quality of sound than I say its a very valid result, but to take a rather poor amp and then use the test where the other item is a much better candidate, I say the testers are going to say "something is up".

My point is if I didn't make it clear, you can't expect total reasoning to be thrown out of the window just because your doing a blind test.

 

[robgmn]

I still stick by my original statement "I don't buy it"!

Lets look at the first part where they used the switch which never actually changed anything but just made a click and the audiophiles all choose the dead Mcintosh amp while all along they were listening to a cheap junky amp by the words of JJ in the video. I stated that was unlikely as most anyone with any time around decent audio would suppect something was up.

Now everyone keeps bring up placebo's. Ok that's great when it comes to something like a head ache where you might get better or the pain is a bit harder to define. But lets take it to a more defined test, you have your test, you chop off the test samples arms and they are bleeding all over and give them each some pills, one to help clot blood, the other a placebo, what is going to be the results, both are going to see themselves bleed to death!

Now if the test was between a few amps close to each other in the quality of sound than I say its a very valid result, but to take a rather poor amp and then use the test where the other item is a much better candidate, I say the testers are going to say "something is up".

My point is if I didn't make it clear, you can't expect total reasoning to be thrown out of the window just because your doing a blind test.

Ken, I don't think we're talking about comparing a tin can and a string to a good quality amp and set of speakers (now THAT would be throwing all reason out the window).

I think we're talking about differences that are perceived but that no one has been able to prove the perception is genuine and not caused by the placebo/expectation bias/ etc. effect.

Staunching the blood flow from a freshly severed artery is not something anyone's mind can readily do or cause.
Stopping the pain of a headache without drugs however, IS very do-able, hence the ability to test the placebo effect on people with a headache.
There are other physical ailments that follow suit.

How many people prefer Coke over Pepsi (or vice-versa) but can't tell them apart when they are given an unlabeled cup of each?
How many people prefer the taste of white American Cheese over Yellow (or vice-versa), even though there is no difference AT ALL except for the color?
I've heard people claim that certian color M & M's taste better than others.

If the mind can make an amputee feel pain in fingers that don't exist, I have no doubt at all that it can cause us to hear differences in audio that don't exist but we WANT or EXPECT them to and thus "hear" them.

This doesn't mean differences are not real, but if they can't be proven in controlled testing, the possibility of the effects we are discussing is VERY real and cannot be discounted.

 

[robgmn]

It will be quite difficult since (audio) "controlled testing" is not controlled, so won't prove anything.

JJ used suggestion with his clicking. Proving this placebo effect occur during all or X % listening sessions is another matter. He provides only speculation, which is not proof.

Cheers.

Audio controlled testing is very real and can be done, but it seems as if no one will accept any parameters of any tests that could prove it (to the minutiae of a person claiming the piezo in a digital watch would skew the results of a double-blind or ABX test).

People actually still claim that double-blind, ABX and other forms of testing do not prove ANYTHING, even though this is patently false.
(Some people also believe the earth is flat, but that's another thread entirely).

I think it's all too often a case of people being afraid they won't be able to tell a difference (or even express a preference) with enough accuracy to make their choice anything other than chance.
If that happened in the case of a g\"golden ear" having to choose between a $1K amp and a $25K amp, it would really suck for them not to KNOW.

If someone can't prove they can hear a difference in a controlled test that they claimed to hear in a non-controlled test, then it stands to reason that they do not really hear a difference and that some effect (placebo, expectation bias, etc.) has stepped in and influenced their perception.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Audio controlled testing is very real and can be done, but it seems as if no one will accept any parameters of any tests that could prove it (to the minutiae of a person claiming the piezo in a digital watch would skew the results of a double-blind or ABX test).

What I find interesting about it, is that those people are essentially stating that they cannot be expected to tell the difference between two audio components using solely their ears. And then trying to defend that position as the more viable one.

They insist that they must first be told which component is which, after which their golden ears can then detect differences. Even differences which cannot be measured on precision lab equipment.

What's more, they (in general) do not just attack a specific type of blind testing, but pretty much all blind testing. For it is rare when any person of that camp will propose a blind test in which they will agree is fair.

It seems to me that if one truly had a trained, sensitive ear, that some form of blind testing would be a perfect way to demonstrate that.

Those in the anti-blind testing camp like to point out such things as how it is unfair to do short duration audio samples as the listener isn't given enough time to clue into the music, and long duration samples exceed one's audio memory, and how if there are a few seconds of silence how that biases the test, etc.

Yet many of those same people will throw a switch and hear instant differences in sighted tests. Or listen to an amp in a completely different system, on a different day, and somehow retain that audio memory to compare it to a different amp. Reviewers will comment on how this CD player sounds different to one they had in their system 6 months ago.

And it isn't even a visual thing. For if one is blind-folded, they can still tell all of these differences, as long as you tell them which is which.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Rob, I was going back to the video that OP posted which started all this, and the first was of JJ where he took what I understood as a pretty low quality amp and then dummied a dead Mcintosh tube amp and wired a transformer to get the tubes glowing, and then had a switch which was only unknowingly to the testers only connected to the low quality amp while they flipped the switch they thought was switching between the Mcintosh and the other amp, they all choose the Mcintosh as the preferred amp, yet all along it never changed it was the low quality amp.

I am just comparing that to my extreme example, do you honestly think reasonable thinking would be overcome by a placebo effect. I guess I should ask just how much difference between two items would it take before the testers would start picking the better of two items or in this case say something is up I am not hearing an improvement? As in a placebo, extreme pain just how extreme does it have to become before the placebo is exposed as a hoax?

Anyway I don't doubt the mind will have an effluence over choices, but I have to say, if you start getting to extremes, a more experienced person will not be fooled into picking poor quality over good quality.

 

[zebra03]

What I find interesting about it, is that those people are essentially stating that they cannot be expected to tell the difference between two audio components using solely their ears. And then trying to defend that position as the more viable one.

They insist that they must first be told which component is which, after which their golden ears can then detect differences. Even differences which cannot be measured on precision lab equipment.

What's more, they (in general) do not just attack a specific type of blind testing, but pretty much all blind testing. For it is rare when any person of that camp will propose a blind test in which they will agree is fair.

It seems to me that if one truly had a trained, sensitive ear, that some form of blind testing would be a perfect way to demonstrate that.

Those in the anti-blind testing camp like to point out such things as how it is unfair to do short duration audio samples as the listener isn't given enough time to clue into the music, and long duration samples exceed one's audio memory, and how if there are a few seconds of silence how that biases the test, etc.

Yet many of those same people will throw a switch and hear instant differences in sighted tests. Or listen to an amp in a completely different system, on a different day, and somehow retain that audio memory to compare it to a different amp. Reviewers will comment on how this CD player sounds different to one they had in their system 6 months ago.

And it isn't even a visual thing. For if one is blind-folded, they can still tell all of these differences, as long as you tell them which is which.

+1

I think you have it all figured out Tom . If the tests suit them , well then all is good . But when a test shows anything contrary to their beliefs , well then it must be flawed .

 

[Pandovski]

I remember the tests about Coke vs Pepsi when they mapped areas of the brain as they react when test subject try both drinks with and without the knowledge which one is it. The outcome was clear win for Pepsi in the unsighted test for intensive activity over the pleasure areas and in the sighted test for Coke with predominant memory and thinking areas. Which shows people are influenced by Coke's marketing and the whole lifestyle and brand culture. When we make choices we use the part of the brain Coke dominates, unfortunately.

Same results happen in DBT and ABX tests with audio.

Now please give me the whole "the brain is a mystery" speech.

 

[river25]

The biggest mystery regarding the brain is how little it appears to be used by some people.

Also I can tell the difference between coke and pepsi without looking at it. I often enjoy a scotch and coke and can tell instantly if the bar person has used pepsi instead of coke. They do taste different. Also coke zero tastes different to normal coke, and diet coke tastes like crap.

 

[Pandovski]

The biggest mystery regarding the brain is how little it appears to be used by some people.

Also I can tell the difference between coke and pepsi without looking at it. I often enjoy a scotch and coke and can tell instantly if the bar person has used pepsi instead of coke. They do taste different. Also coke zero tastes different to normal coke, and diet coke tastes like crap.

I can easily tell the difference but the test was about which one you think tastes best vs which one really tastes best.

Despite Pepsi "winning" Coke is still the champ of sales.

 

[fpitas]

Is there a third choice in this test, where you can choose whiskey without Coke or Pepsi?

 

[Pandovski]

Is there a third choice in this test, where you can choose whiskey without Coke or Pepsi?

Brilliant thinking! Checking liquor cabinet for lab props.

 

[Hyperion]

But suppose they substituted a Bourbon for the Whiskey? what then?

 

[fpitas]

But suppose they substituted a Bourbon for the Whiskey? what then?

More testing is then required. For science!

 

[Pandovski]

Pepsi?

 

[gvalent]

No way is absolutely perfect, so I use a variety of ways, some more scientific than others. Most of a time a component, but also the entire system. I won't give all my listening ways, as one is proprietary, took years to develop.
All my listening testing takes years. Obviously most listed are not that accurate, but still enjoy and still compare.

1) I use normal listening over long periods of time and take notes,
almost every day.

I am sure others also probably take at least months of testing as well.
This is a more general type, does it sound natural compared to live instrument. Yes, I sometimes use a live instrument or two.

2) I check my spl levels because some will home listen at the most
sensitive level spls. I am sure other manufacturers do this as well.

3) I have performed testing at the store on customers. Sometimes
even unsuspecting.

But that is limited in the number of subjects. They are asked to
describe what they hear. That is a little different than simply checking A or
B, which they do not see. Of course I limit the number of ABs to just two or three at a time.

4) Off angle listening will reveal differences that direct in front will not reveal.

Interesting when the beautiful looking/more expensive part is considered
inferior.

5) I have my own proprietary listening sessions, taking years before marketing. I will leave it at that.

As you can see, I don't give away my proprietary method, but the others I use in conjunction, but more for the entire system, to check for naturalness. The preamplifier and ICs are the only pieces that can be checked in absolute terms. The others have to be dealt with in other ways.

It seems there a number of confounds in your own evaluations as well.

 

[robgmn]

Statements are easy to make, now please prove it. It is up to you to prove your scientific test is accurate, even applicable.


Please prove all the confounds have been accounted for. Please prove any confound, besides sight has been addressed. For instance, demonstrate cochlea fatigue has been addressed.
The video sure does not mention any confounds to address, except sight.

Cheers.

Uhmm, instead of asking me to prove it, would you accept the fact that it has been used successfully since the late 1700's in trials involving medicine, "mysticism" (psychics and so-forth), forensics, physics, product marketing, etc.?

Unless you are suggesting that all of the tests performed in history, and all of the results that come form them are bunk, I would think that they should be enough to convince you that it is real (though you may be in the flat-earth-we-never-went-to-the-moon-Elvis-is-alive camp, in which my argument is f&$#@!)

As for "cochlear fatigue", I call it another excuse in an attempt to avoid the scientific test and the possible results.

It's much like the people who invent a perpetual motion machine that works great until they are asked to demonstrate it to the public (or the self-defense "masters" who can knock their 250lb. students on their @sss with a "mental blast of power", but cannot budge a 90lb. female reporter).
It always seems to work until proof is asked for.

If you experience a difference between two of anything, it can be proven scientifically whether you REALLY can or whether other factors bias your perceptions.

Period.

If you just enjoy playing a devil's advocate, at least stick to the devil's side of the discussion, and try to back up your assertions with a little research and possibly some facts.
You make me think of the gif below:

 

[dogscanskate]

Uhmm, instead of asking me to prove it, would you accept the fact that it has been used successfully since the late 1700's in trials involving medicine, "mysticism" (psychics and so-forth), forensics, physics, product marketing, etc.?

Unless you are suggesting that all of the tests performed in history, and all of the results that come form them are bunk, I would think that they should be enough to convince you that it is real (though you may be in the flat-earth-we-never-went-to-the-moon-Elvis-is-alive camp, in which my argument is f&$#@!)

As for "cochlear fatigue", I call it another excuse in an attempt to avoid the scientific test and the possible results.

It's much like the people who invent a perpetual motion machine that works great until they are asked to demonstrate it to the public (or the self-defense "masters" who can knock their 250lb. students on their @sss with a "mental blast of power", but cannot budge a 90lb. female reporter).
It always seems to work until proof is asked for.

If you experience a difference between two of anything, it can be proven scientifically whether you REALLY can or whether other factors bias your perceptions.

Period.

If you just enjoy playing a devil's advocate, at least stick to the devil's side of the discussion, and try to back up your assertions with a little research and possibly some facts.
You make me think of the gif below:

You want him to back up his assumptions but you are exempt of backing yours up?

Prove it man!

 

[redjr]

I don't even think it's that. I think that people become emotionally invested in things they like, and take it as a personal attack if others do not agree with their conclusions. I say that not as a negative thing or to insult others, I think we all do it, no matter what it is we personally prefer.

However, having said that, I also think that the further up the hi-fi ladder one climbs, the more precarious the perch. I do believe that people who invest in ultimate-quality, price-no-object kit to please themselves are keenly aware that they are often subject to ridicule and mockery, and quite naturally tend to develop sensitivity to that. I get it.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the given kit is actually all it is claimed to be; it has to do with how people feel about and treat one another, and I'm as guilty of casting aspersions at the very high-end gear without a valid basis for it as anyone.

I am very much trying to not do that anymore (witness my confession that RCMs are clearly quite good, just stating that I do indeed clean my records in the sink with soap and a paint pad). I don't wish to engage in warfare with those who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on an RCM, and in reality, I believe that the results of either method are more subjective than objective, so it's down to personal preference.

I have heard top-end gear that left me in awe, and other top-end gear that left me underwhelmed to say the least. I have been astounded by cheap kit that should not sound as good as it does, and had my ears assaulted by cheap gear that is more than worthy of being labeled crap.

In the end, all I really know is that I like some things more than others, and no one is going to agree with my choices, any more than I will agree with theirs. Live and let live and all of that.

As to the whole bit about expectation bias and placebo effect, I know my ears can play tricks on me; really nice ones sometimes. I was listening to a cheap set of Ampex full-range speakers recently and I really liked them. So detailed, so clean, and even the bass seemed more than acceptable for a 5x7 oval driver. Then I switched to a pair of 2-way speakers with 8-inch woofers and my perception just instantly fell apart; the bass in the 8-inch woofers made the Ampex speakers seem thin, reedy, and wholly unacceptable.

So which is it? Are they good or are they crap? It appears that there is no objective answer to that question.

And therein lies the problem. We all have subjective opinions, and we all want them to be objective fact. But they are not, and they never will be. Hopefully we will all learn to live with that notion (it's one I struggle with myself).

That was even a better summation. It's no different than politics and religion... Each side believes firmly God is on their side and the other is wrong. Life is too short for such debate. After all, with audio we're not settling the meaning of life. Then again, maybe we are.

 

[cnh2]

Gee, I thought becoming a member of AK was a Placebo effect? And if that's the case; where does one "go" from there? lol

cnh2