i have heard disagreements about things like cables and power supplies, whether thay make a difference or not.
that said, the highlighted sentence and the one that follows immediately above seem to have almost opposing connotations.
expectation bias implies doesn't exist and is in people's heads...
to each their own implies honoring the fact that other people may have different experiences than us.
i don't know if i will be trying fancy/expensive cables or power supplies. if i did, and couldn't hear a massive difference, i wouldn't assume that if other people claim to hear things i can't, they are probably "wrong".
i can see the flip side of this, and if cables/power supplies DON'T make a difference, somebody declaring the emperor has no clothes, albeit probably unpopular (you mean that stuff i spent a lot of money on is superfluous?!?!), could actually provide a community service and help save money.
i remember peer pressure pschology experiments which i found to be shocking (no pun intended in case of milgram - but more to the point, i'm thinking of the ones in which a group of planted ringers could seemingly get an unsuspecting subject to ignore what he initially saw correctly and conform to a wrong "consensus" about the length relationship between two lines, same, different, whatever - i forget though if subsequent interviews revealed they actually doubted their senses or were just going along... but i think the former?)...
generally though, i'm uncomfortable with the idea that if i can't hear something, it probably doesn't exist... to use another example, it seems commonplace that some might have more acute hearing and could hear a different part or more extended frequency range in either or both directions.
as noted, though, there would seem to be a scientific way to test whether claims to hear difference in 320 or higher "lossless" sources are real or so called expectation bias. i haven't tried to explore this kind of sonic experimentation, if it has been done, but would be interested if anybody has any cites or references (of course, if some clearly can hear a difference, they may not have been motivated to research something that is to them self-evident, like it may not occur to a fish whether water was real or not)... in a blindfold test, either some people can tell the difference on a consistent basis or not... if so, what is the percentage of the population?
but in the absence of being made aware of this kind of research, if it exists, i wouldn't assume others can't hear something just because i can't (see above, but due to my profound appreciation and respect for in some cases massive differences in perceptual acuity in the population, and what defines the range of possible human experience... which may, and probably does, exceed my own, in some cases, perceptually, ie - sonically/acoustically speaking).
Edited by woophoria - 6/15/13 at 9:36am