[Music Alchemist]

No, it improves when the listeners are trained in what exactly to listen for. Simply "listening for differences," any differences, is where expectation bias gets its foot in the door. Listener training is critical.

 
The more music you listen to, the more subtleties you notice and the easier it is for you to hear small details -- even more so with higher quality equipment. Although it can certainly help, you don't need formal "listener training" to be able to hear details in music. Anyone with intact hearing can do it, even when not consciously looking for details.

 

[Steve Eddy]

The more music you listen to, the more subtleties you notice and the easier it is for you to hear small details -- even more so with higher quality equipment. Although it can certainly help, you don't need formal "listener training" to be able to hear details in music. Anyone with intact hearing can do it, even when not consciously looking for details.

Great. Looking forward to your controlled listening test results.

se

 

[Music Alchemist]

Great. Looking forward to your controlled listening test results.

 
Controlled listening tests...of what? I was referring to everyone's ability to hear details in music in general -- not to hear details that don't exist between formats or anything like that.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Controlled listening tests...of what? I was referring to everyone's ability to hear details in music in general -- not to hear details that don't exist between formats or anything like that.

Ok. But what I said, what you quoted of me, was in the context of controlled listening tests.

se

 

[anetode]

And it's interesting to note that many audiophiles argue, and have for years, that it is the pressure to perform while being tested that diminishes their ability to hear the differences they claim to be hearing. And if there's any truth to that, then your Pygmalion effect theory pretty much crumbles, because the Pygmalion effect would ultimately place them under more stress.
That's fine, but until someone actually puts the theory to the test, it's kind of pointless.

That's been the problem lo these past 30+ years. We're up to our eyeballs in theories, but none of them have ever been put to the test. Because of course it's easy to just sit around spinning theories. Anybody can do that, and have. But from the looks of things, it's just going to be another 30 years of wheel spinning and not getting any further down the road than we were 30 years ago. I'm telling you, I've got some serious theory fatigue.
 

 
I assume that there's some validity to the phenomenon from the basis of current research into test performance, so I'd expect it to come up naturally. This assertion is falsifiable, but testing it out is not of vital importance. There are other things I'd like to test first, but to do so properly is a giant PITA. Maybe I'll finally set up a DBT at a large meet sometime, hire a college kid to run it.