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

[redjr]

When you rewire your speakers and you are 99% sure (you bought the better brand wires, the fatter gauge, the purer copper/silver...) you did everything as everyone told you to do to get the WOW they did.

Then you sit in your listening chair and listen for what? The music? NO! You listen for differences and guess what, you will hear differences because you have expectation bias AND because you focused more now.

"Oh the cymbals are so much clearer now". Yes, to YOU because you focused on them with googly eyes and ears hoping you did things right to get the results.

This doesn't mean there are no improvements from what you did, but that your expectation bias will influence the overall perception no matter what.

Not only sometimes we hear things that were always there and thing they are new, but sometimes we hear things have not improved but became worse but the expectation bias trumped even that. You thought it was good, in 3 months you realized it sucked.

This is why Sean Olive at Harman International developed the trained listening program. Trained listeners can control their bias and know what to hear and for what reason.

http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NgkP8aABO4

God. What would you guys do without me explaining how things work.

No, you don't listen for differences. You listen and you think you hear something different because you made a change and EXPECT it to sound different. That's expectation bias! If you come in after cutting the grass, not knowing, or seeing the fact your wife swapped out your $1000 cables for zip cord, chances are you'd never know she did it or hear a difference. No expectation bias there at all. I wonder how many would notice? Or how long it would take before they noticed if they did?

 

[robgmn]

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

Prove it man!

Mine are not assumptions. They are proofs that already exist.
The proof that double-blind and ABX testing is valid scientific method.

Do you believe in the laws of physics because you have tested every one of the for yourself, or do you accept things that other people have already proven scientifically?
How about the earth? Have you ever PROVEN the circumference to yourself, or do you accept the proofs that others have established?
How about your audio system? have you PROVEN that the signal going to your speaker is AC current, or have you accepted what others have already proven?

I don't think it should be necessary for me to prove double-blind and ABX testing are valid when it has been done so many times before over the past 200+ years, do you?

So they were performing audio dbt/abx testing since the 1700's? I would sure like to see the audio science you claim existed.

So you admit it is simply your personal opinion. I see no science presented, once again. Since my sis is deaf, I have contacts. For instance, Cochlea Fatigue will cause differences of a selection to decrease and cease under various conditions, including spl, when a selection is played over and over, etc. One of my sources:

Director of Diagnostic Audiology
Children's Hospital
Instructor in Otology and Laryngology

I think his medical degree/credentials speaks for itself.


Where is the science to produce such a claim, "period"?
You remind me of PRs at Zenith, a company I was affiliated some decades ago.

As seen above, my sources are quite high up in the medical community. Please reciprocate with some actual science instead of personal opinion.

Cheers.

I didn't state AUDIO double-blind testing has existed, I stated the method ITSELF has existed (in response to your statement that it has never been proven as a valid method of testing).

Big difference.

As for cochlear fatigue:
If you claim that cochlear fatigue can make the results of double blind and/or ABX testing invalid, then you are stating that no personal preference can have ANY solid basis.

How would you possibly know that you made the correct choice?
Maybe your cochlear fatigue caused you to err and choose the wrong (wire, speaker, cart, amp, etc.).

You invalidate your own argument against testing.

You can't have it both ways, chief.

And, please stop referencing all of your special sources and incidental contacts over the years.

Les Paul was a customer of mine and I sat in is house and talked audio with him.
It doesn't make me any more knowledgeable about playing a guitar or creating music than your "contacts" make YOU about this discussion.

A friend of mine is an Oncologist.
It doesn't qualify me to diagnose cancer in someone.

Stick to the facts, and don't expect me to think you are knowledgeable because you once met or talked to someone who IS.

 

[gvalent]

Those are evaluations to compare to the others and see how they correlate to point 5. It cannot be worse than audio dbt/abx testing with no confounds addressed, which skews the conclusions 100% of the time, can it?
If one knows the big names pushing audio dbt/abx testing, one will see they either own or have friends who own companies. So it is marketing.

You forgot point 5, which I am not going to give away since it took so much time and $ to develop.

Do all audio DBT/abx tests address no confounds at all?

So all manufacturers who are proponents of DBT/abx are strictly being deceptive and only using it as a marketing tool? There are't too many I suppose.

No, I did not forget about point 5. How can one comment on something that does't mean anything.

 

[Pandovski]

For those that have difficulties reading and understanding this thread, here is a helpful guide. Borrowed from the DIY forums.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

+1

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Can we all agree to stop using the word 'confounds'? It hurts my eyes.

 

[robgmn]

And "This is absolutely the best that exists" (I have only tested two and this is the one I like the most).

 

[DougMac]

The AK community doesn't do so good on philosophical questions or methods that incrementally may (or may not) improve sound. There's roughly two camps, the "pragmatic" and the "adventurous". They approach sound improvement from fundamentally different perspectives which usually leads to unpleasantness.

I'm trying to concentrate on the things this community is best at and leave the rest to others.

I wrote this on page 1 of this thread. The next 18 pages tend to support my viewpoint.

I admit I didn't read every single post. I tried, but was confounded.

 

[Pandovski]

I wrote this on page 1 of this thread. The next 18 pages tend to support my viewpoint.

I admit I didn't read every single post. I tried, but was confounded.

How good is your karate?

 

[robgmn]

Because you are attempting to justify yourself. Audio has different confounds than other fields.


You are now discussing "personal preference". Please stay on topic.


That is why you address the confound Rob. The Video and others certainly do not.
If you have a connection to the video, some company, friends of some company, please let us know.


If you don't understand the Doctor's/PHDs comments, please don't argue. The confound has been known for years.


The PHD is who explained it. He is even involved in the research. Other docs over the decades are as well. He presents facts/knowledge, not opinion.
Attempting to make this an opinion vs opinion is ridiculous since the medical science is out there.

If you will not accept the scientific knowledge/facts presented by the PHDs, who do the research, please do not take it out on me. Go after the ones who took you for a ride with their false information about audio testing. Since you are so angry, and refuse science, I am not posting anymore.


Cheers.

You talk in so many nonsensical circles, you must live in a vortex.

Please answer the following to clarify your position on this topic:

Do you believe DBT and ABX are valid testing methodologies?
If not, please provide facts to support your statement.

Do you believe that by constantly using the word "confounds'', you are strengthening your posts or argument in some way?
Unfortunately, you use it as a noun when it is a transitive verb.
Perhaps you mean confines, as in "within the confines of this dfiscussion"?


Can you provide the test results from these PhDs that you keep talking about?
You have not made it clear whether they were debunking or validating test methodologies, or doing actual ABX and DBT testing on audio equipment to determine preferences.

Can you give some indication that you even know what this thread is a about?

Can you explain what you mean by "you are attempting to justify yourself"?
The statement has no relevance at all to what I said about DBT and ABX testing.

Wait a minute.
Are you the guy who writes the ad copy for those rambling John Ellis ads in the back of Popular Science?
That would explain a lot.

 

[zebra03]

You talk in so many nonsensical circles, you must live in a vortex.

Please answer the following to clarify your position on this topic:

Do you believe DBT and ABX are valid testing methodologies?
If not, please provide facts to support your statement.

Do you believe that by constantly using the word "confounds'', you are strengthening your posts or argument in some way?
Unfortunately, you use it as a noun when it is a transitive verb.
Perhaps you mean confines, as in "within the confines of this dfiscussion"?


Can you provide the test results from these PhDs that you keep talking about?
You have not made it clear whether they were debunking or validating test methodologies, or doing actual ABX and DBT testing on audio equipment to determine preferences.

Can you give some indication that you even know what this thread is a about?

Can you explain what you mean by "you are attempting to justify yourself"?
The statement has no relevance at all to what I said about DBT and ABX testing.

Wait a minute.
Are you the guy who writes the ad copy for those rambling John Ellis ads in the back of Popular Science?
That would explain a lot.

Posi sure does talk in circles .

 

[Gang-Twanger]

Placebo effect, my buttocks...



Nah, I'm just kiddin' with ya'...

 

[ofajen]

I admit I didn't read every single post. I tried, but was confounded.

MEGO.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[jazzmans]

con·found
kənˈfound/
verb
3rd person present: confounds

1.
cause surprise or confusion in (someone), esp. by acting against their expectations.
"the inflation figure confounded economic analysts"
synonyms: amaze, astonish, dumbfound, stagger, surprise, startle, stun, throw, shake, discompose, bewilder, bedazzle, baffle, mystify, bemuse, perplex, puzzle, confuse; More
take aback, shake up, catch off balance;
informalflabbergast, blow someone's mind, blow away, flummox, faze, stump, beat, fox, discombobulate
"the figures confounded analysts"
prove (a theory, expectation, or prediction) wrong.
"the rise in prices confounded expectations"
synonyms: contradict, counter, invalidate, negate, go against, quash, explode, demolish, shoot down, destroy, disprove; More
informalpoke holes in
"he has always confounded expectations"
defeat (a plan, aim, or hope).
"we will confound these tactics by the pressure groups"
archaic
overthrow (an enemy).
2.
mix up (something) with something else so that the individual elements become difficult to distinguish.
"'nuke' is now a cooking technique, as microwave radiation is confounded with nuclear radiation"



Yep, the turn this thread has taken Confounds me.

 

[Bob_in_OKC]

You guys realize Google could tell you what a confound is, right?

 

[robgmn]

You guys realize Google could tell you what a confound is, right?

Yes, and it has nothing to do with any of positrons' use of the word.
A point which jazzmans and I have both made.

 

[zebra03]

"Where's that confounded bridge?"


Everytime Posi says Confound , it makes me crunge .

 

[robgmn]

"Where's that confounded bridge?"

Maybe posi crossed it?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

<Message Deleted by poster>

 

[RichPA]

This thread is approaching its end, I fear. When we shift from the topic at hand to talking about the posters, it's time to get back on track or give it up.