Originally Posted by diamondears
That's the best thing about technology...you can measure everything and you can rely on and trust them, removes any or separates us from subjectivity...I think its a level up, and it's sad that some argues otherwise to support their subjective views. I think people should look at the objective measurements first, because they're reliable, and from there see if they are looking at what they want. I understand though that some looks first at the subjective aspect, and even favors it, which is perfectly ok.
I agree that we should not dismiss objective data. But, looking at objective data before you listen to a headphone and then making the claim that you are positive that you have never heard a headphone that contradicts the objective data, while not a false statement, is completely against the very logic that says we should accept objective data. I can imagine experiments we could try to determine whether or not an experience of listening to a headphone always agrees with the objective data presented that accounts for confirmation bias, it is just that you didn't do anything to normalize for it and so your statement is suspect. The same logic that infers:
"Originally Posted by diamondears
The psycho-acoustic bias can also be argued inversely---you've been told or led to believe that FR graphs doesn't reflect the true frequency reaponse of a HP in the real world, hence FR graphs indeed doesn't reflect true frequency response!"
Means that the opposite is also true: That looking at a graph before you listen to a headphone, will influence how you experience the headphone.
There are lots of things that audiophiles hear that aren't yet measurable, for example, a holographic three dimensional soundfield when there is no special soundfield algorythms applied to the stereo (not 5.1) signal. Don't you sometimes hear depth in placement of instruments? Most people say they do, but we don't know how to measure that. So it could be that something else tricks us into believing we can. Just like audiophiles who first look at a graph and claim that everything they hear is accounted for when they later look at a headphone. I guarantee that if we try the opposite, you listen to a headphone and try to draw the graph, you graph will be filled with meaningful divergences from the actual measurement. Trying to argue against confirmation bias, but claiming that there are objective measurements that always are consistent with the perceived sound of a headphone is using your brain in one instance and turning the same part of your brain that you just used off in the second instance. My experience is that most people can't make logical jumps when to do so will contradict a cherished belief. There is a good deal of recent scientific evidence to back this up. Maybe just take a breath and think about what I said before writing the next post. It's not a big deal, I also get caught in this trap. It is human nature.
Anyway, Sorry for going off thread topic.