[LazyListener]

   
You attempted to do the opposite to educating the thread, you attempted to mislead and provide false information to the thread, either deliberately or because you yourself are mislead. Either way, people don't want to hear it because it's nonsense!
 
 
Great argument, if you're trying to sell some expensive, unnecessary bit of kit but it falls apart pretty rapidly in the real world and has undesirable consequences.
 
1. We can't eliminate all biases which affect our perception in real world listening situations but some/many of the placebo effect biases can be eliminated/reduced because the placebo effect largely depends on expectation. For example, the placebo effect will often reduce or fail entirely once the subject knows it's a placebo.
 
2. Yes, it is part of the formula but only for that particular point in time. Maybe a day later you learn that it was a placebo and therefore the placebo effect no longer works on you. There are numerous biases which affect our perception, each of which can (independently of our other biases) stay static,  evolve over time or change rapidly. The undesirable consequence (for most) is that a piece of kit we believed was wonderful at one point in time is entirely likely to be perceived very differently the next day/week/month, leading to an unending, unfulfillable quest for "wonderful". If "perception is reality" then reality is constantly changing and therefore the sound quality of every audio component in my system is constantly changing and needs to be changed constantly! I personally therefore want to eliminate as many of those biases as possible, I don't for example want to be second guessing (and changing my perception) of my DAC with it's pico second accurate clock because someone is marketing a DAC with a femto clock which is apparently "night and day" better. Science helps here because it dictates there's no audible difference due to this femto clock and/or a DBT would confirm that. I can now be satisfied with my DAC, realise any changes to my perception are not real (and realign my perception), look for improvements elsewhere in my setup and spend my money on something which really does affect the audible sound quality (rather than just my momentary perception of it).
 
DBT is admittedly not perfect BUT it is BY FAR THE MOST effective method of eliminating or at least reducing more biases than any other method. Sighted tests are certainly not worthless, they're obviously a more effective evaluation tool than just accepting marketing material or someone's anecdotal evidence but they're still relatively worthless compared to DBT, not least because the marketers have spent over a century developing techniques specifically designed to influence/manipulate sighted tests to their benefit!
 
G

I don't disagree with you in the least.  Except, I'm of the opinion, that unless you can eliminate all biases permanently (which we can't), then there is no real point in trying to eliminate any of them, as some biases will always remain.  As long as some biases remain, one can never be sure which one actually sounds "better" from an objective point of view.  Therefore, IMO, I think it better to accept all biases as are present in real world listening.  Sure, those biases may change or evolve over time.  Nothing wrong with that.  Finally seeing what you've been listening to may trigger some biases that will affect how you hear it/them from that point on.  Plus, this only really matters in cases where actual sound differences are minimal between products.  In cases where you're not sure you hear a difference, even after going back and forth several times, then just go with whatever is cheaper/prettier/more comfy, etc.
 
I personally don't see much value in others' ABX or DBT testing.  It's still OTHER people doing the listening, and their subjective perception of hearing is the biggest factor of all.  I'd rather do my own real world testing with any and all biases in tact and in play (since I can't eliminate them all).  I guess some people are more susceptible to expectation bias and other biases.  I don't think I'm one of those people.  Not saying I'm immune, just can tell the difference between something that obviously sounds different than something else.  Also, most people's decisions are limited by their budgets.  So even though that $3000 headphone may sound better than my $150 598, it's not something I have to worry about with my budget.

 

[castleofargh]

it's your right to embrace biases and go full subjectivist (the real ones, not the lame excuse many audiophiles call themselves when they're wrong and ignorant). because indeed if you are affected by biases and it's making you enjoy something more, then why not benefit from it and keep enjoying the music more for unrelated reasons? a pretty bow is pretty, it can make the experience more enjoyable while not doing anything for sound.  at a personal level, I'm actually doing just that all the time. but then the purpose is clearly to enjoy ourselves. not to know the truth. 
 
 the drawback is that you do not know for sure what's happening, and you do not have the right to tell others how a device is. all you can reasonably do is tell how you feel about it and stay on the subjective side of things. 
to know for a fact what the sound is like and what a device does, you need controls and measurements. and only then, perhaps, we'll be able to say to everybody else with certainty what a device does or doesn't do. the problem with subjective impressions, it's that other people can have a different subjectivity. being a subjectivist shouldn't be limited to forcing our views of the world onto others. it should be about understanding that we're all different. that's why I care about objectivity, because it's relatively easy to share meaningful data and verify it. it's something that is still true if I'm not the one listening and experiencing. that's why it's such a great world view when sharing information. 
 
but alone in my house with my music, I'm rarely more objective than you are

. because there is no point, I like stuff or I don't that's all I really care about when listening to music.
 
different needs for different purposes.

 

[watchnerd]

The biggest problem I see with embracing subjectivism 100% is slippery slope between acknowledging our biased nature, and living with them, and full blown audiophilia nervosa.
 
Leaning towards objectivism may be a bit of a killjoy to some, but it keeps me sane and listening to music instead of fixating on gear.

 

[chaos215bar2]

 
I don't disagree with you in the least.  Except, I'm of the opinion, that unless you can eliminate all biases permanently (which we can't), then there is no real point in trying to eliminate any of them, as some biases will always remain.  As long as some biases remain, one can never be sure which one actually sounds "better" from an objective point of view.  Therefore, IMO, I think it better to accept all biases as are present in real world listening.  Sure, those biases may change or evolve over time.  Nothing wrong with that.  Finally seeing what you've been listening to may trigger some biases that will affect how you hear it/them from that point on.  Plus, this only really matters in cases where actual sound differences are minimal between products.  In cases where you're not sure you hear a difference, even after going back and forth several times, then just go with whatever is cheaper/prettier/more comfy, etc.
 
I personally don't see much value in others' ABX or DBT testing.  It's still OTHER people doing the listening, and their subjective perception of hearing is the biggest factor of all.  I'd rather do my own real world testing with any and all biases in tact and in play (since I can't eliminate them all).  I guess some people are more susceptible to expectation bias and other biases.  I don't think I'm one of those people.  Not saying I'm immune, just can tell the difference between something that obviously sounds different than something else.  Also, most people's decisions are limited by their budgets.  So even though that $3000 headphone may sound better than my $150 598, it's not something I have to worry about with my budget.

 
I don't think you're fundamentally wrong in concept, but you do seem to be confused about what constitutes an objective vs. subjective evaluation.
 
In response to the bolded point, nothing sounds better than anything else objectively. "Sounds better" is a purely subjective concept. In this respect you're correct, there is no substitute for going and listening to a piece of equipment yourself to see how it sounds to you. From this perspective, anyone else's opinion is useless unless you've already established some baseline for comparison. This is the entire basis of objective analysis. Very reasonably, the most common objective definition for "sounds better" is simply "introduces the least amount of perceived inaccuracy from the recorded audio". This is where the entire study of what kinds of inaccuracies are and are not perceivable comes in.
 
From this point, ABX and DBT testing lets you ask two fundamental questions:

• Does A sound different from B?
• Does A sound better than B? Where better is left up to the listener or based on some specific criteria.

 
The first is simple. This is how you can, for instance, objectively show that some compression scheme does not degrade audio quality or that a given sample and bit rate is sufficient to reproduce all audible content in your recording. If either is not true, the subject will be able to tell a difference between your two audio samples.
 
The second is, almost by definition, subjective. After all, if you had a well-defined objective measurement for the quality you're trying to evaluate, you'd use it. What you're doing here is to eliminate any biases beyond the subject's perception of the audio itself, including but not limited to component bands, prices, and appearances. Again, what sounds better to you (within the test's criteria) is subjective, but at least this kind of test provides confidence that the reason a subject believes, for instance, one piece of equipment sounds better isn't simply because they're fond of the brand.
 
If you want to know whether you'll perceive one piece of equipment to be better than another and you believe you'll have a similar reaction to the non-audible factors as the subject, then a sighted test may certainly be more informative. The trouble is, at this point you're introducing so many additional factors it's quite hard to attribute a subject's response to any one of them. This is the point where, if you're trying to draw any definitive conclusions, you're probably much better off finding and listening to the equipment yourself.

 

[gregorio]

  I'm of the opinion, that unless you can eliminate all biases permanently (which we can't), then there is no real point in trying to eliminate any of them, as some biases will always remain.  As long as some biases remain, one can never be sure which one actually sounds "better" from an objective point of view.  Therefore, IMO, I think it better to accept all biases as are present in real world listening.

 
You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, I believe that your opinion is based on a vast over-simplification of the situation and is therefore incorrect. Given the actual facts, your opinion would logically have to change, although in practise, people are not always entirely logical of course and many simply do not posses an open enough mind to change their opinions, especially strongly held opinions. The mistake I believe your making is in treating all biases as equal, when that's demonstrably NOT the case. The cognitive biases, by definition, depend on cognition (what you know or think you know) and cognition can of course change rapidly, some new fact or fact of which we were previously unaware may come to light, change our cognition and therefore our perception. Alternatively, cognition may have no effect whatsoever on our perception, especially in cases where conscious cognition conflicts with sub-conscious cognition. An example of this is the McGurk Effect, where we continue to perceive the Faa even after we learn/know that there is no Faa. Furthermore, in practise, not all biases are equally bad and even just looking at one of the biases, it maybe bad (undesirable) in one context but good (desirable) in another, see #3a below.
 
 Furthermore, you seem to be saying that: As perfection (in eliminating biases or in other senses) can never be achieved, why bother trying? We bother in order to get closer to perfection or at least to improve. This is a fundamental axiom of our species, without it we'd still be hunter/gatherers using tools no more advanced than the unmodified sticks and stones we just happened to stumble across. Surely this is a bizarre contradiction; isn't being an audiophile all about "bothering"? And by definition, bothering specifically and PRIMARILY about the audio, rather than primarily about the cost/status symbol/ownership pride/etc., of the equipment?
 

  I guess some people are more susceptible to expectation bias and other biases.  I don't think I'm one of those people.  Not saying I'm immune, just can tell the difference between something that obviously sounds different than something else.

 
1. A fundamental fallacy shared by many/most audiophiles is that they are immune or immune enough from those bias susceptibilities most likely to lead to erroneous (undesirable) perceptions. Ironically, this belief leads to the exact opposite, an even higher susceptibility! This is due to an over-confidence in their perceptive (unbiased) abilities and has a further highly undesirable consequence: Perception is easily fooled, so a group of consumers with an over-reliance on perception present a particularly attractive target to those willing and able to fool perception. There are few sectors which experience more snake oil products than the audiophile sector!
 
2. Your last sentence is not only entirely common amongst audiophiles, to the point of being taken for almost or entirely for granted, it's also demonstrably FALSE! Going back to the quoted McGurk Effect, are you saying you are immune to it, that you only ever hear the Baa? If you're not immune to it, the Faa "obviously sounds different" to the Baa, can you "tell [to us] the difference" between the Baa and the Faa?
 
3. Even ignoring the "other biases", there is rarely (if ever) just one expectation bias. While some people are more susceptible than others to some of the expectation biases, they maybe less susceptible to other expectation biases and equally susceptible to others. For example, many audiophiles are susceptible to the expectation bias of cost, they expect a high cost product to be better than a cheap one. It's extremely difficult to completely eliminate this expectation bias (without a blind test). Some audiophiles might be immune enough from cost expectation to believe that a $5,000 DAC has little or no perceivable SQ benefits over a $3,000 DAC but what about a $5,000 DAC compared to a $49.99 DAC? It's easy to believe the SQ difference might not be as great as the price difference suggests but not so easy to believe that there's absolutely no SQ difference at all! There are a number of additional expectation biases; reputation of the manufacturer, third party (allegedly!) testimonials, expectation of high quality components to perform better than cheap/standard quality ones, expectation that newer technology is necessarily better than older, expectation that more data and faster processing is better than less and slower or expectation of any claimed science/pseudo-science, the just to name a few. Are you immune or immune enough from all of them? And if you are, aren't you also immune or immune enough from all the other expectation biases, the desirable ones, the ones without which you couldn't appreciate audio at all, let alone be an audiophile? ...
 
3a. Classical music composers have relied on expectation for many centuries. Bach (and many others) was writing counterpoint which depended on implied harmonies, harmonies which were not actually present in the music but manufacturered/assumed by the listeners' perception. In fact, almost the entire history of western classical music for the last 500 years or so, is predicated on expectation! That sequences of chords create an expectation of a cadence (resolution) and how that expectation is managed/manipulated by the composer to create tensions and resolutions. And of course, this is true of pretty much all western music (pop, rock, jazz, etc.), as it's based on the basic "rules" developed by the classical world. Additionally, all narrative film and TV absolutely depends on expectation and other biases, along with a number of other quirks of perception. If you were able to perceive the actual reality of the audio, all films and nearly all TV would be an almost unimaginable confusion of random sounds, neither related to each other nor the picture they're accompanying. The same is true of music, the vast majority of it wouldn't be music, it would just be random unrelated notes.
 

  1. Finally seeing what you've been listening to may trigger some biases that will affect how you hear it/them from that point on.
 
2. Plus, this only really matters in cases where actual sound differences are minimal between products.
 
3. I personally don't see much value in others' ABX or DBT testing.  It's still OTHER people doing the listening, and their subjective perception of hearing is the biggest factor of all.  I'd rather do my own real world testing with any and all biases in tact and in play (since I can't eliminate them all).

 
1. From that point on? You mean until: You close your eyes, learn it was a placebo, hear something else which for that moment sounds better, hear some other information (accurate or not) which triggers a stronger bias or anything else which may affect your perception?
 
2. This is demonstrably incorrect. How do you know if differences are minimal, "night and day" or non-existent? Isn't the difference between Baa and Faa both a "night and day" difference and non-existent? You're severely over-confident in your perceptive abilities.
 
3. I'd rather do my own real testing too, since I can completely eliminate all biases (on occasion) and when that's inconclusive, I would resort to the next best thing and try to eliminate as many of the most undesirable biases as possible, which is what DBT does. In this latter case, I can't absolutely guarantee that I won't fall for one of the countless snake oil products and waste my money but I can massively reduce the chances of it. This is important to me because I'm a real audiophile, I actually love audio and the money I have available I want to spend on real improvements to the audio, not on something that makes no difference or as is quite commonly the case with expensive audiophile products, actually makes it worse!! Sometimes, doing my own real testing is impossible before purchase, in which case I've no choice but to rely on other people's opinions (if the science is inconclusive). In which case I'm still going to look for the least biased opinions, rather than the most!
 
G

 

[LazyListener]

  The biggest problem I see with embracing subjectivism 100% is slippery slope between acknowledging our biased nature, and living with them, and full blown audiophilia nervosa.
 
Leaning towards objectivism may be a bit of a killjoy to some, but it keeps me sane and listening to music instead of fixating on gear.

It's not about embracing subjectivity 100%.  It's about realizing that the listening experience consists of both objective truths and subjective perceptions.  It is literally impossible to eliminate the subjectivity and certain biases, and still have a listening experience.  Therefore, I find these listening tests that eliminate some biases, but not others, not all that useful in terms of the complete listening experience.

 

[LazyListener]

   
I don't think you're fundamentally wrong in concept, but you do seem to be confused about what constitutes an objective vs. subjective evaluation.
 
In response to the bolded point, nothing sounds better than anything else objectively. "Sounds better" is a purely subjective concept. In this respect you're correct, there is no substitute for going and listening to a piece of equipment yourself to see how it sounds to you. From this perspective, anyone else's opinion is useless unless you've already established some baseline for comparison. This is the entire basis of objective analysis. Very reasonably, the most common objective definition for "sounds better" is simply "introduces the least amount of perceived inaccuracy from the recorded audio". This is where the entire study of what kinds of inaccuracies are and are not perceivable comes in.
 
From this point, ABX and DBT testing lets you ask two fundamental questions:

• Does A sound different from B?
• Does A sound better than B? Where better is left up to the listener or based on some specific criteria.

 
The first is simple. This is how you can, for instance, objectively show that some compression scheme does not degrade audio quality or that a given sample and bit rate is sufficient to reproduce all audible content in your recording. If either is not true, the subject will be able to tell a difference between your two audio samples.
 
The second is, almost by definition, subjective. After all, if you had a well-defined objective measurement for the quality you're trying to evaluate, you'd use it. What you're doing here is to eliminate any biases beyond the subject's perception of the audio itself, including but not limited to component bands, prices, and appearances. Again, what sounds better to you (within the test's criteria) is subjective, but at least this kind of test provides confidence that the reason a subject believes, for instance, one piece of equipment sounds better isn't simply because they're fond of the brand.
 
If you want to know whether you'll perceive one piece of equipment to be better than another and you believe you'll have a similar reaction to the non-audible factors as the subject, then a sighted test may certainly be more informative. The trouble is, at this point you're introducing so many additional factors it's quite hard to attribute a subject's response to any one of them. This is the point where, if you're trying to draw any definitive conclusions, you're probably much better off finding and listening to the equipment yourself.

Agree, except to say that even #1 is subjective if you're describing how something "sounds" or more accurately, how one perceives (hears) the sound that is produced.  If you're only using measuring equipment and recording data, to determine how accurately sound is being reproduced, then I'd say it's a objective test.  Once you introduce multiple human subjects performing their own DBT listening tests and giving their opinions of which "sounds different" or "sounds better" then the testing is now subjective.

 

[LazyListener]

   
You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, I believe that your opinion is based on a vast over-simplification of the situation and is therefore incorrect. Given the actual facts, your opinion would logically have to change, although in practise, people are not always entirely logical of course and many simply do not posses an open enough mind to change their opinions, especially strongly held opinions. The mistake I believe your making is in treating all biases as equal, when that's demonstrably NOT the case. The cognitive biases, by definition, depend on cognition (what you know or think you know) and cognition can of course change rapidly, some new fact or fact of which we were previously unaware may come to light, change our cognition and therefore our perception. Alternatively, cognition may have no effect whatsoever on our perception, especially in cases where conscious cognition conflicts with sub-conscious cognition. An example of this is the McGurk Effect, where we continue to perceive the Faa even after we learn/know that there is no Faa. Furthermore, in practise, not all biases are equally bad and even just looking at one of the biases, it maybe bad (undesirable) in one context but good (desirable) in another, see #3a below.
 
 Furthermore, you seem to be saying that: As perfection (in eliminating biases or in other senses) can never be achieved, why bother trying? We bother in order to get closer to perfection or at least to improve. This is a fundamental axiom of our species, without it we'd still be hunter/gatherers using tools no more advanced than the unmodified sticks and stones we just happened to stumble across. Surely this is a bizarre contradiction; isn't being an audiophile all about "bothering"? And by definition, bothering specifically and PRIMARILY about the audio, rather than primarily about the cost/status symbol/ownership pride/etc., of the equipment?
 
 
1. A fundamental fallacy shared by many/most audiophiles is that they are immune or immune enough from those bias susceptibilities most likely to lead to erroneous (undesirable) perceptions. Ironically, this belief leads to the exact opposite, an even higher susceptibility! This is due to an over-confidence in their perceptive (unbiased) abilities and has a further highly undesirable consequence: Perception is easily fooled, so a group of consumers with an over-reliance on perception present a particularly attractive target to those willing and able to fool perception. There are few sectors which experience more snake oil products than the audiophile sector!
 
2. Your last sentence is not only entirely common amongst audiophiles, to the point of being taken for almost or entirely for granted, it's also demonstrably FALSE! Going back to the quoted McGurk Effect, are you saying you are immune to it, that you only ever hear the Baa? If you're not immune to it, the Faa "obviously sounds different" to the Baa, can you "tell [to us] the difference" between the Baa and the Faa?
 
3. Even ignoring the "other biases", there is rarely (if ever) just one expectation bias. While some people are more susceptible than others to some of the expectation biases, they maybe less susceptible to other expectation biases and equally susceptible to others. For example, many audiophiles are susceptible to the expectation bias of cost, they expect a high cost product to be better than a cheap one. It's extremely difficult to completely eliminate this expectation bias (without a blind test). Some audiophiles might be immune enough from cost expectation to believe that a $5,000 DAC has little or no perceivable SQ benefits over a $3,000 DAC but what about a $5,000 DAC compared to a $49.99 DAC? It's easy to believe the SQ difference might not be as great as the price difference suggests but not so easy to believe that there's absolutely no SQ difference at all! There are a number of additional expectation biases; reputation of the manufacturer, third party (allegedly!) testimonials, expectation of high quality components to perform better than cheap/standard quality ones, expectation that newer technology is necessarily better than older, expectation that more data and faster processing is better than less and slower or expectation of any claimed science/pseudo-science, the just to name a few. Are you immune or immune enough from all of them? And if you are, aren't you also immune or immune enough from all the other expectation biases, the desirable ones, the ones without which you couldn't appreciate audio at all, let alone be an audiophile? ...
 
3a. Classical music composers have relied on expectation for many centuries. Bach (and many others) was writing counterpoint which depended on implied harmonies, harmonies which were not actually present in the music but manufacturered/assumed by the listeners' perception. In fact, almost the entire history of western classical music for the last 500 years or so, is predicated on expectation! That sequences of chords create an expectation of a cadence (resolution) and how that expectation is managed/manipulated by the composer to create tensions and resolutions. And of course, this is true of pretty much all western music (pop, rock, jazz, etc.), as it's based on the basic "rules" developed by the classical world. Additionally, all narrative film and TV absolutely depends on expectation and other biases, along with a number of other quirks of perception. If you were able to perceive the actual reality of the audio, all films and nearly all TV would be an almost unimaginable confusion of random sounds, neither related to each other nor the picture they're accompanying. The same is true of music, the vast majority of it wouldn't be music, it would just be random unrelated notes.
 
 
1. From that point on? You mean until: You close your eyes, learn it was a placebo, hear something else which for that moment sounds better, hear some other information (accurate or not) which triggers a stronger bias or anything else which may affect your perception?
 
2. This is demonstrably incorrect. How do you know if differences are minimal, "night and day" or non-existent? Isn't the difference between Baa and Faa both a "night and day" difference and non-existent? You're severely over-confident in your perceptive abilities.
 
3. I'd rather do my own real testing too, since I can completely eliminate all biases (on occasion) and when that's inconclusive, I would resort to the next best thing and try to eliminate as many of the most undesirable biases as possible, which is what DBT does. In this latter case, I can't absolutely guarantee that I won't fall for one of the countless snake oil products and waste my money but I can massively reduce the chances of it. This is important to me because I'm a real audiophile, I actually love audio and the money I have available I want to spend on real improvements to the audio, not on something that makes no difference or as is quite commonly the case with expensive audiophile products, actually makes it worse!! Sometimes, doing my own real testing is impossible before purchase, in which case I've no choice but to rely on other people's opinions (if the science is inconclusive). In which case I'm still going to look for the least biased opinions, rather than the most!
 
G

The McGurk Effect is only appropriate if you're trying to make a very specific point that the movement of someone's lips may affect the sounds we think we hear them making.  This is an expectation bias that comes from years and years of looking at people's mouths move when they speak and associating specific sounds with specific lip and mouth movements.  Nothing like this happens with headphones.  When we listen to them we don't see them, and there hasn't been any preconditioning of the human species by the headphone industry that certain looks of headphones sound a certain way.  It's not like the entire headphone industry over a generation or more has made black headphones to sound a certain way and silver or white headphones to sound a certain way, and preconditioned us with a specific visual to auditory association, like is the case with the McGurk Effect.
 
I am not treating all biases as equal.  I am simply saying that it's impossible to eliminate all biases in order to arrive at some absolute truth as to what really sounds better.  The "sounds better" part of that statement implies subjective, biased human hearing that varies from individual to individual.
 
I'm not saying "perfection cannot be achieved, so why bother trying."  I'm not even sure what these means.  Define "perfection."  I think you're saying we should continue to strive to eliminate (or account for) as many human biases as possible in our testing methodology, in order to arrive at some..... I don't know what -- perfection?  As long as you have human subjects doing listening tests, you won't be able to account for or control all biases, and will therefore never end up with a truly objective test result.
 
You say you can completely eliminate all biases on occasion.  Please explain how, because everything you said before that pretty much states that it's not possible. 
 
Finally, I did say I was NOT immune to biases.  And it's a FACT, that I can tell the difference between some headphones quite easily, while others sound more similar TO ME and therefore are more difficult to discern the differences.  Everyone should be able to do this to some degree, but abilities and thresholds vary from person to person.  For example, my uncle can barely hear a difference between my Koss Porta Pro and my HD 598.  I think they sound very different, with the 598 sounding superior.  Again, all subjective and all biases involved.  And no amount of raw data, or DBT testing will convince my uncle that one sounds noticeably better than the other, or convince me that they sound nearly the same.  Subjectivity wins in the end.

 

[gregorio]

  The McGurk Effect is only appropriate if you're trying to make a very specific point that the movement of someone's lips may affect the sounds we think we hear them making.

 
No it's not. The McGurk Effect is entirely appropriate for disputing that you always know what you hear. It proves that your assertion, that you "can tell the difference between something that obviously sounds different than something else." is not always true, unless you're saying that you are immune to the McGurk Effect?
 
Quote:

  [1] Nothing like this happens with headphones.  [2] When we listen to them we don't see them,  [3] and there hasn't been any preconditioning of the human species by the headphone industry that certain looks of headphones sound a certain way.
 
[4] I am simply saying that it's impossible to eliminate all biases in order to arrive at some absolute truth as to what really sounds better. 
 
[5] You say you can completely eliminate all biases on occasion.  [5a] Please explain how, because everything you said before that pretty much states that it's not possible. 

 
1. Yes it does. The McGurk Effect sets up a conflict between what our hearing tells us and what our brain knows/expects, in this case from visual data. The McGurk Effect demonstrates that in this equation our ears can be the looser, that what we actually hear can be changed significantly and that our brain is the final arbiter of what we hear, not our ears. Something very like this can happen with headphones.
 
2. How do you put them on if you can't see them and have never seen them? It's about what the brain knows (or think it knows) and expects vs what you actually hear. And of course, the McGurk Effect is not the only piece of evidence we have that demonstrates the brain can influence or even override our ears. You don't need to actually see Bach playing the harpsichord for your perception to be influenced by the expectation bias that his harmonic structure was designed to elicit.
 
3. Are you saying that marketing doesn't exist? Or just that marketing is not designed to change our perception of a product?
 
4. Agreed, that is almost always true. However, what do we do with this information? Use it to justify doing nothing at all and leave ourselves wide open to every marketing trick ever invented or accept that we can rarely ever attain absolute truth but nonetheless do the best we can and try to avoid being continuously suckered? A DB test is one of the most reliable, best methods we have to achieve the latter, sighted tests are about the most reliable, best methods we have to achieve the former!
 
5. Yes, sometimes what I'm hearing perfectly correlates with say a spectogram or null test.
5a. Sometimes it's just luck. For example, the signal may just happen to correlate with my hearing. But generally when it does happen it's a combination of luck and design. The design part being; I have a very accurate listening environment, my hearing has been continuously trained (by myself and others) since I was a young teenager and when practical, I DB test. Because I'm intimately aware of the audio tools and audio tricks, I can identify and separate them. That doesn't make me always immune of course, just sometimes with some material and generally better than the average person who doesn't have that training, experience and listening environment.
 
G

 

[LazyListener]

   
1. Yes it does. The McGurk Effect sets up a conflict between what our hearing tells us and what our brain knows/expects, in this case from visual data. The McGurk Effect demonstrates that in this equation our ears can be the looser, that what we actually hear can be changed significantly and that our brain is the final arbiter of what we hear, not our ears. Something very like this can happen with headphones.
 
2. How do you put them on if you can't see them and have never seen them? It's about what the brain knows (or think it knows) and expects vs what you actually hear. And of course, the McGurk Effect is not the only piece of evidence we have that demonstrates the brain can influence or even override our ears. You don't need to actually see Bach playing the harpsichord for your perception to be influenced by the expectation bias that his harmonic structure was designed to elicit.
 
3. Are you saying that marketing doesn't exist? Or just that marketing is not designed to change our perception of a product?
 
4. Agreed, that is almost always true. However, what do we do with this information? Use it to justify doing nothing at all and leave ourselves wide open to every marketing trick ever invented or accept that we can rarely ever attain absolute truth but nonetheless do the best we can and try to avoid being continuously suckered? A DB test is one of the most reliable, best methods we have to achieve the latter, sighted tests are about the most reliable, best methods we have to achieve the former!
 
5. Yes, sometimes what I'm hearing perfectly correlates with say a spectogram or null test.
5a. Sometimes it's just luck. For example, the signal may just happen to correlate with my hearing. But generally when it does happen it's a combination of luck and design. The design part being; I have a very accurate listening environment, my hearing has been continuously trained (by myself and others) since I was a young teenager and when practical, I DB test. Because I'm intimately aware of the audio tools and audio tricks, I can identify and separate them. That doesn't make me always immune of course, just sometimes with some material and generally better than the average person who doesn't have that training, experience and listening environment.
 
G

 
 
McGurk effect is based on preconditioning or training a subject over many years to specific and simultaneous visual/auditory associations (lip/mouth movements to vocals).  This does not happen when listening to headphones.  Sure marketing exists.  But that's not the same as years of preconditioning of specific visual to auditory associations.  If you have evidence of headphone industry as a whole for years, for example, making a black headphone with a specific sound signature and a silver headphone with a different, specific sound signature, then please provide the evidence.  I'll give you that the looks or feel of headphone may affect one's overall preference for it, regardless of its sound quality.  This is another reason why DB testing has little value to me.  A headphone is more than just its sound.  Those other attributes, like comfort, fit, build quality, and even looks, matter, in real world use.  Each person values each attribute differently, and of course, as discussed, has their own personal biases that they MUST deal with in real world use.  Are you trying to tell me that the headphones you listen to, you've never actually seen, or touched, or felt on your head, or what brand they are, or how much they cost?  Are you telling me that all you know about them is their sound?  No, I'm sure after testing, you check out all their other attributes, and by doing so, you then know what they look like, which could affect how you perceive their sound from that point on.  Your affinity for a certain headphone's appearance may change the way it sounds to you, after testing.
 
Let me flip this on you a bit.  You're saying that a headphone's appearance can influence how one perceives its sound.  I don't disagree.  It may or may not.  You can't say that it will.  I'd add that a headphone's comfort or lack thereof, may also influence how one perceives its sound.  So far, it's always been about our other senses (visual, touch) affecting our perception of hearing.  But our perception of hearing can also affect how we feel about a headphone's comfort or appearance.  For cans we concluded sound best based on DB testing, we may subconsciously convince ourselves that they're more comfortable or look better than we'd thought had we just done a purely subjective, normal use test.  The pendulum swings both ways.
 
My point is that a headphone is not just about the sound it produces.  Other attributes like price, fit, comfort, materials, build quality, and appearance/style, are all very relevant and matter to most consumers.  Which is why I believe that personal, normal usage testing is much more valuable than DB testing, because you are evaluating the complete package at the same time, exactly the way it's going to be used.  You can also evaluate and determine a value on each attribute and on the equipment as a whole.

 

[NeoG]

I think if you unwrap the hard-liner approach and boil it down, it's more that once you get to a certain point it's more variations on a theme than any real benefit from an audio perspective. For me personally that's usually about $150 for a set of cans. After that point I'm choosing a curve that I like as well as an appearance and comfort level I like. I might spend much more to get all of that together. Or not even that and put up with the aesthetics.
 
However, there are many that would ascribe the feeling they get when using an esoteric set to some kind of ethereal fidelity that is impossible to quantify. I'm not against people buying whatever their hearts desire, but to then turn around and say it's because it's producing audio unquantifiably way beyond what another set of competently designed cans is doing, is that bias in action.

 

[gregorio]

  [1] McGurk effect is based on preconditioning or training a subject over many years to specific and simultaneous visual/auditory associations (lip/mouth movements to vocals).  This does not happen when listening to headphones. 
 
[2] Each person values each attribute differently ...
 
[3] You're saying that a headphone's appearance can influence how one perceives its sound.  I don't disagree.  It may or may not.  You can't say that it will.
 
[4] Which is why I believe that personal, normal usage testing is much more valuable than DB testing, because you are evaluating the complete package at the same time, exactly the way it's going to be used.

 
1. Yes it does! We are conditioned over many years to expect a much more expensive product to be better than a much cheaper one, for a newer, better looking product to be better than an old one, for a designer brand to be better than a mass market brand, etc., etc. There are countless potential biases and the McGurk Effect proves that a bias can override what we are actually hearing, so can Bach and virtually all other western composers.
 
2. Yes they do. Some people for example have relatively little interest in a headphone's sound quality and are far more interested in them as a fashion statement. I on the other hand, value the sound quality most highly, although I don't discount comfort, and therefore I want to be sure I'm actually buying the best sound quality for my money, rather than the most convincing marketing trick!
 
3. No, I'm saying that there are a very wide range of biases based on what our brain knows or assumes. And, what the brain knows/assumes maybe on instant visual data such as appearance (or the McGurk Effect) or, it maybe from price, manufacturer, testimonials and a whole range of other marketing techniques. But let me put it another way, why do you own headphones? Do you own them purely as a fashion statement or to actually listen and enjoy music and/or films? If it's to actually listen, then all the music and films to which you listen are based on audio tricks and techniques which only work because your hearing can be fooled! Again, you don't need to actually see Bach performing to be taken in by all the compositional tricks/techniques. You've said that your hearing is immune from bias, if so, why would you even buy headphones as pretty much all music and films would just sound like a random bunch of unrelated noises? So, I can say with a very high degree of certainty that yes, you do listen with biases and yes, your hearing is almost constantly influenced by them.
 
4. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse? I've not said that DB testing is suitable for evaluating everything or that a DB test is necessarily the only test one should ever perform. I'm saying that specifically for identifying the audibility of differences between sounds that DB testing is essential because it eliminates the visual data AND other knowledge/assumptions which comes from knowing what we're listening to! So, in answer to your statement, I agree with you, providing of course that sound quality is very low in your list of requirements/priorities when buying headphones.
 
G

 

[castleofargh]

   
McGurk effect is based on preconditioning or training a subject over many years to specific and simultaneous visual/auditory associations (lip/mouth movements to vocals).  This does not happen when listening to headphones.  Sure marketing exists.  But that's not the same as years of preconditioning of specific visual to auditory associations.  If you have evidence of headphone industry as a whole for years, for example, making a black headphone with a specific sound signature and a silver headphone with a different, specific sound signature, then please provide the evidence.  I'll give you that the looks or feel of headphone may affect one's overall preference for it, regardless of its sound quality.  This is another reason why DB testing has little value to me.  A headphone is more than just its sound.  Those other attributes, like comfort, fit, build quality, and even looks, matter, in real world use.  Each person values each attribute differently, and of course, as discussed, has their own personal biases that they MUST deal with in real world use.  Are you trying to tell me that the headphones you listen to, you've never actually seen, or touched, or felt on your head, or what brand they are, or how much they cost?  Are you telling me that all you know about them is their sound?  No, I'm sure after testing, you check out all their other attributes, and by doing so, you then know what they look like, which could affect how you perceive their sound from that point on.  Your affinity for a certain headphone's appearance may change the way it sounds to you, after testing.
 
Let me flip this on you a bit.  You're saying that a headphone's appearance can influence how one perceives its sound.  I don't disagree.  It may or may not.  You can't say that it will.  I'd add that a headphone's comfort or lack thereof, may also influence how one perceives its sound.  So far, it's always been about our other senses (visual, touch) affecting our perception of hearing.  But our perception of hearing can also affect how we feel about a headphone's comfort or appearance.  For cans we concluded sound best based on DB testing, we may subconsciously convince ourselves that they're more comfortable or look better than we'd thought had we just done a purely subjective, normal use test.  The pendulum swings both ways.
 
My point is that a headphone is not just about the sound it produces.  Other attributes like price, fit, comfort, materials, build quality, and appearance/style, are all very relevant and matter to most consumers.  Which is why I believe that personal, normal usage testing is much more valuable than DB testing, because you are evaluating the complete package at the same time, exactly the way it's going to be used.  You can also evaluate and determine a value on each attribute and on the equipment as a whole.

 
if you're looking at a general subjective preference, then obviously DBT is not much better than a hammer. the tool is made to serve a specific purpose of removing biases(the hammer too sometimes^_^). if you care about the biases, then don't use DBT. but also don't claim to know how the headphone sounds. because in a sighted test, you only tried to check how it makes you feel instead of trying to check how it sounds.
 
about patterns, our brain is a magnificent parrot, but still a parrot. we see a tree like shape many times, and we learn the name. now when we see a tree the brain repeats the memory of trees and finds that it looks similar enough. of course it's never similar even if it's the same tree, but we're good at approximating stuff and finding patterns in everything(so good we see patterns where there aren't any). the McGurk effect is just one obvious demonstration of how our brain will assume stuff based on everything it already knows. the red cable has more bass, the silver cable has bigger soundstage, the planar drivers are neutral, that song was playing the first time I had sex and I can't dissociate the 2....
if you ever care about how something sounds like, trying to remove all information that isn't sound becomes the only answer. it might not be your question, but if it is, then proper listening test is a necessity.
 
if you only care about how you feel in general, then obviously blind tests are a waste of time. just remember to make it clear that your feedbacks are talking about you using a device, and not about the actual sound of the device.

 

 

[LazyListener]

  I think if you unwrap the hard-liner approach and boil it down, it's more that once you get to a certain point it's more variations on a theme than any real benefit from an audio perspective. For me personally that's usually about $150 for a set of cans. After that point I'm choosing a curve that I like as well as an appearance and comfort level I like. I might spend much more to get all of that together. Or not even that and put up with the aesthetics.
 
However, there are many that would ascribe the feeling they get when using an esoteric set to some kind of ethereal fidelity that is impossible to quantify. I'm not against people buying whatever their hearts desire, but to then turn around and say it's because it's producing audio unquantifiably way beyond what another set of competently designed cans is doing, is that bias in action.

I agree with you from a practical sense, but I personally wouldn't narrow it down to a certain price threshold.  I don't think price has any absolute correlation with sound quality, except for the general idea that it's probably much easier for engineers to make a more realistic sounding can with a bigger project budget.  I think many of the high priced cans out now, cost that much only because there are more and more people willing to pay those prices (for various reasons), not because it actually costs that much in R&D, materials, testing, manufacturing, and marketing.  Most expensive can I heard was the PM-3, and other than high resolution and planar speed, it didn't have much going for it.  No soundstage.  A thinness and dryness to the mids and lacked warmth.  There are a few cheaper cans, even planar, I've tried that I prefer.

 

[LazyListener]

   
1. Yes it does! We are conditioned over many years to expect a much more expensive product to be better than a much cheaper one, for a newer, better looking product to be better than an old one, for a designer brand to be better than a mass market brand, etc., etc. There are countless potential biases and the McGurk Effect proves that a bias can override what we are actually hearing, so can Bach and virtually all other western composers.
 
2. Yes they do. Some people for example have relatively little interest in a headphone's sound quality and are far more interested in them as a fashion statement. I on the other hand, value the sound quality most highly, although I don't discount comfort, and therefore I want to be sure I'm actually buying the best sound quality for my money, rather than the most convincing marketing trick!
 
3. No, I'm saying that there are a very wide range of biases based on what our brain knows or assumes. And, what the brain knows/assumes maybe on instant visual data such as appearance (or the McGurk Effect) or, it maybe from price, manufacturer, testimonials and a whole range of other marketing techniques. But let me put it another way, why do you own headphones? Do you own them purely as a fashion statement or to actually listen and enjoy music and/or films? If it's to actually listen, then all the music and films to which you listen are based on audio tricks and techniques which only work because your hearing can be fooled! Again, you don't need to actually see Bach performing to be taken in by all the compositional tricks/techniques. You've said that your hearing is immune from bias, if so, why would you even buy headphones as pretty much all music and films would just sound like a random bunch of unrelated noises? So, I can say with a very high degree of certainty that yes, you do listen with biases and yes, your hearing is almost constantly influenced by them.
 
4. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse? I've not said that DB testing is suitable for evaluating everything or that a DB test is necessarily the only test one should ever perform. I'm saying that specifically for identifying the audibility of differences between sounds that DB testing is essential because it eliminates the visual data AND other knowledge/assumptions which comes from knowing what we're listening to! So, in answer to your statement, I agree with you, providing of course that sound quality is very low in your list of requirements/priorities when buying headphones.
 
G

If we're going to continue to have a worthwhile discussion, we need to stop cherry-picking quotes for our responses and acknowledge when the other makes a valid point.  I've made several points in my last reply that you didn't respond to.  Am I to assume you agree with them?  And also lets refrain from saying the other said something they didn't say.  You said "you've said that your hearing is immune from biases."  I said no such thing.  I explicitly said the opposite.  I've been saying that we're all full of biases, which all play into how we hear something, so why do testing that only eliminates a few of those biases and that's not practical for real world listening?  During normal listening you'll have to face those biases whether you want to or not.  No one listens DB all the time.  As soon as you lift the veil from the DB test and see what you're listening to, touch it, smell it, feel it, etc., know its price, brand, at least some of those biases may change your mind about that equipment and how it sounds from that point forward.  You may be able to temporarily reduce or eliminate some potential biases, but not permanently, not in real world use.  Disagree?  Just like in McGurk effect demo, if I close my eyes, I hear the "Baa" the entire time (similar to DB testing), but as soon as I open my eyes and see those lip/mouth movements (normal, real world listening), I again hear both "Baa" and "Faa" alternating.  So that shows that being able to temporarily eliminate certain biases or associations, and even becoming fully aware of them and how they affect you or your hearing, doesn't necessarily allow you to override those biases going forward.  You're still stuck with the "Faa" after your DB test is over.  You'd have to listen DB all the time and never see or touch your equipment, to ensure your biases never have an effect on you hearing.  That's not practical in the real world.
 
I gave you that the McGurk Effect can be used to make a general point that sometimes what we think we hear doesn't correlate to actual sound produced.  I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.  McGurk effect is entirely based on lip/mouth movement to hearing associations, at least as demonstrated in the clip you posted.  Yes, the brain is the final arbiter when it comes to hearing, when it comes to human perception.  All that said, please provide an example of how the headphone industry has conditioned us in the same way.  Please provide specific examples of simultaneous visual to auditory associations, like those demonstrated in the McGurk effect, when it comes to headphones.  My point is you're using McGurk effect to make a very general point, which I don't disagree with.  I'm just asking for specific examples (because the McGurk effect demonstration shows a specific example) of the same thing in the headphone industry.  I'm not asking for general marketing tactics used in headphones and all other types of products.  I'm personally not aware of any specific visual to auditory associations being made by the headphone industry to condition us in any way.  If you know of anything specific, please share.