A Talk about how the placebo may be a good thing...or not?

[71 dB]

I can't really agree with that. Sure, I agree with a "war on ignorance" in general and specifically when it causes false claims of placebo effects being real physical phenomena. But I don't agree that it's always desirable in some specific cases or that we should be against placebo (only is misrepresentation). For example:

The stereo effect is an illusion. When we perceive the positioning of a sound/instrument between the speakers, that's effectively a placebo effect. Therefore, two questions:

1. Is it possible to educate ourselves away from this ignorance? IE. Train ourselves not to be subject to the stereo (placebo) effect and to perceive what's actually happening, namely, two un-moving mono sound sources with nothing in between.
2. Even if it is possible, is it desirable? IE. Should we be "against [this] placebo"?

I believe the answer to #1 is "No" but I'd be willing to change that belief if anyone knows of some reliable evidence to the contrary. My answer to #2 would be an even stronger "No", not least because this is just one example of many. Another example would be music itself, most of which is largely dependant on expectation bias/placebo. Without that bias/placebo, we would be unable to properly appreciate/experience the vast majority of music.

In other words, placebo is NOT based on ignorance! It's based on human perception and even the most educated/least ignorant are still subject to placebo. In fact in some cases, the more educated/less ignorant you are, the stronger the bias/placebo. Again the example being music itself; structure/form, chord progressions, etc. Ignorance only really comes into it, IMO, when placebo/bias is misrepresented as something else.

G

The placebo I am talking about is placebo created for benefitting for example financially. "Natural" placebo is ok.

 

[castleofargh]

placebo:

a medicine or procedure prescribed for the psychological benefit to the patient rather than for any physiological effect.
a substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.
a measure designed merely to humour or placate someone.
"pacified by the placebos of the previous year, they claimed a moral victory"


I actually don´t think placebo is fake or a misinterpretation of the conscious, or imaginations. Whatever its called...

I think there is more to it, than just prove people wrong and make them "realize" they are wrong of what they are hearing(audio source) or seeing(quality of picture/video).

Placebo has had alot of good effects in medicin and healing...where am I heading? I am trying, give me a chance.

I think as a starting point we have to be objective and think, do we need to convince ourselfs or CAN we actually hear the difference. Staying true to the critiscm, even though we own the products.

Therefore it really doesn´t matter what people think, if you CAN hear the difference, and have your true, own opinion.

I believe placebo may induce the perception and actually improve the TRUE experience. This could be, something about the personality, we have.

...people will believe a man that measures audio hardware with precisions equipment. What they are not taking into consideration, is that they also believe the mans ears, because he said so.

This is where personality comes in. Maybe this man ALSO has a pessimistic vision to audio hardware that are too expensive, in his opinion... will this also effect the placebo?

I know I can hear a difference, and this man says that there is no difference. Its just copper, its the same....

It should be one of those questions:


Except that there is no pill to end cognitive bias, false beliefs, and various placebo effects. The reason why serious experimentation on listening test demands double blind conditions, is because the rest of the time we are never only experiencing the sound and never interpreting only what we're hearing. There is no point in being pro or against, it's happening. And as Gregorio mentioned, knowing the truth often doesn't stop us from being influenced. Only removing the influence is a sure way to stop it.
If a pencil between your lips can make you feel happier, of course we should expect all sorts of non audio factors to influence our impressions of sound.
What we can do is learn a little more about ourselves and stop stubbornly believing that a global life experience with some audio in it, is just an audio one. Or that a feeling about sound can only be caused by sound. Once we know and accept that, we tend to naturally reduce the amount of subjective delusions and made up justifications we try to push onto others and ourselves as truths.

And of course we're having preferences. Even if they weren't factually motivated by sound, we'll still end up with preferences motivated by something else.

edit: small engrish update

 

[gregorio]

And as Gregorio mentioned, knowing the truth often doesn't stop us from the influenced.

It's perhaps worth backing that assertion (and some of the others) up with published/peer reviewed evidence, which was also particularly interesting:

Howick J, Kennedy SJ, Myerscough J, Mosley M, Madigan C (2020). BBC Horizon placebo back pain study: a public trial of the effectiveness of placebos. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare 7(4): 650-655. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v7i4.1787

In 2018, the BBC commissioned a scientific study on the Placebo effect from Oxford University and made a TV documentary of it, which can be viewed on YouTube. 117 test subjects with chronic back pain were enrolled in a trail for a new pain drug: 24 in the control group, 52 in the Placebo group and 41 in the new drug group.

What's particularly interesting about this study is that there was no new drug, all those not in the control group received the same placebo. Of the 93 taking the placebo, 40 reported pain reduction. Also interestingly: At the end of the 3 week trail the participants were informed they had been taking a placebo and 11 of the 40 who had reported improvement agreed to continue taking the placebo. After 3 months, 7 of those 11 continued to feel benefit (even knowing it was a placebo).

Caveat: For various reasons we obviously shouldn't extrapolate these numbers/percentages to all instances of placebo/bias in the audiophile world. For starters, audiophiles are typically only aware of audiophile marketing, testimonials and reviews, unlike those on drug trails who are aware there's a very significant probability they are taking a placebo.

G

 

[OCC7N]

So mostly we are agreeing on placebo to be some kind of false hope?

 

[gregorio]

So mostly we are agreeing on placebo to be some kind of false hope?

Not really. Placebo effect is a perceived phenomena that isn’t a real physical phenomena, it’s manufactured by the brain but nonetheless still results in a real experience. However, “Placebo Effect” is not an audio, sound or psycho-acoustic term, it’s a term that has been appropriated from medical science, in order to simplify the explanation of aural illusions/mis-perceptions. For this reason, there is no precise definition of the term in the context of aural perception.

Placebo Effect can be caused by a range of things. It can be purely a consequence of how the human brain (sub-consciously) processes aural information to create a perception of the world around us. This type of Placebo effect tends to apply equally to all humans. Stereo is an example of this type of placebo effect. It can also be caused by various biases, such as “false hope” (expectation bias). Unfortunately though, this is much more complicated than it appears, because generally we are subject to several/many different expectation biases simultaneously. Some conscious, some subconscious and some which may conflict with others. The human brain makes a subconscious judgement between all these biases and manufactures a perception accordingly.

Audiophiles generally do not know or appreciate either the complexity of biases or the magnitude of the changes in perception they can create and therefore commonly dismiss placebo effects, even when that is the ONLY rational explanation for their experience/perception.

G

 

[bigshot]

There is one more factor to it... ego. A lot of audiophiles wrap their ego around their perceptions. This is like a padlock on bias, effectively preventing self awareness.

 

[OCC7N]

Thanks for all inputs. Its always best to have others views on these kinds of subjects. Even though I disagree with some, it doesn´t block me from the insight or opinion.

 

[gregorio]

I'm not allowed to post to the "Testing audiophile myths ..." thread but as it's directly related to this thread:

I worked on clock and PLL design briefly in the past. So I was like the biggest skeptic when Linn came out with their streamer and I got my slimdevices and computer. Damn when what you know conflicts with what you hear you have to take a pause and assess.

Yes, when "what you know conflicts with what you hear" it can make you "take a pause and assess". The obvious question is: So why didn't you? Why did you just accept your work on clock and PLL design as the ONLY thing "you know", conclude that you're "the biggest sceptic" and then assume a conflict with what you hear, all WITHOUT the slightest pause or assessment? I'm not having a go at you personally, it's human nature to blindly accept our perceptions and on top of that, we have a whole industry that largely only exists by making sure that the assessment process ONLY includes the assessment of information/misinformation that justifies buying their products but does NOT include the assessment of perceptual errors or of any other facts that would indicate you should not by their products. They're clearly very successful at this because even though most audiophiles know that placebo/perceptual errors exist, they either just don't consider it all or they quickly dismiss it, even if that means completely ignoring what should be obvious facts.

For example, let's take: "when what you know conflicts with what you hear". To start with, the obvious question is "what do you know"? The answer is:
1. You know that current clock and PLL design mean that clocking issues/jitter isn't an audible issue. However, that isn't the only thing you know, you also know that:
2. Clocking isn't the only thing that can affect performance.
3. The Linn streamer looks different to a laptop, NAS, mobile or other streamers.
4. The Linn unit IS different to other streamers, at least some of the operating hardware/software is different.
5. The Linn unit costs $25k, a hundred or so times more than many other streamers.
6. Extremely expensive things are typically better than equivalent cheap things. You generally "get what you pay for".
7. Linn specialises only in Hi-Fi audio products, unlike Raspberry and most other streaming solutions.
8. Linn is a high end/luxury brand name.
9. You also know the advertising info on the Linn unit and probably some info from reviews, even if you only believe some of it.

ALL of the above can/will affect perception and with the exception of #1, NONE of "what you know conflicts with what you hear", in fact it all completely agrees with it! For some reason you didn't "pause and assess" what you know, you just ignored/dismissed it. Also, knowing all the above obviously does not make you "the biggest sceptic", however your level of scepticism is irrelevant because even a high level of scepticism does not provide immunity against perceptual errors/placebo.

yeah it took me going to the dealer months after months for about a year to prove to myself Linn was a vastly better sounding machine than slimdevices.

It only took me about 1 minute to come up with the list of what you know and prove, at least "on the balance of probability", that the Linn sounds no better than any other competent streamer. If I wanted to prove beyond any rational doubt then I'd objectively measure the output of the Linn and/or do a listening test which eliminates any bias caused by the above list, IE. A double blind test. Both of which would take a great deal less than "about a year"! Also, there's a seeming contradiction in your assertion: If the Linn were "vastly better sounding" why did it take you about a year to prove it to yourself? Surely a "vastly better sounding machine" would be obvious from the get go, only if the difference were marginal/near inaudible or there were no audible differences at all would it take much longer?

OP: This is clearly an example of when the Placebo Effect is a bad thing!!

G

 

[gregorio]

And likewise:

But as I've said it's not all marketing. Many many... Most end users have plenty of bias and exaggeration as well.

As explained earlier in this thread, there are biases which are a consequence of how all humans perceive sound. However, most of what is asserted/discussed in the audiophile world is in fact biases which are the result of marketing. For example, take point #3 in my previous post, if something looks different to something else, nearly all humans will have an expectation bias that it will also sound at least somewhat different. This is an example of the former type of bias but even so, it can still be manipulated by marketing. For example, not just making a unit look different but making it look more fashionable, durable, high tech or competent. All the other points from #4 onwards, plus numerous others I didn't list, are all just marketing.

The vast majority here is happy to share all the many differences with all the gear they have heard or owned... Without even getting to wires and streams... So now with the ability to poll so much data from end users on what is real.... It's definitely not all producers and marketing.

Oh the irony! What "so much data from end users on what is real"? If it's only real because marketing says it's real, which causes a whole bunch of people to believe it's real and tell still more people it's real, then it DEFINITELY IS all producers and marketing. If it is actually real, then we can measure it ... But that's obviously a big problem for marketers falsely claiming something is real. However it's a big problem with a simple solution, just include more falsehoods in the marketing to discredit measurement, such as: Our hearing is more sensitive and/or reliable than measurements, audio is different to everything else, we can't measure everything, science doesn't know everything, audio is purely subjective, digital audio isn't just ones and zeroes, double blind testing is unrepresentative/unreliable, etc. etc. etc. Even when these falsehoods should be recognisable as such by middle school students, they still seem to work on audiophiles, even otherwise well educated ones. Marketing and the resulting "group think" are obviously very powerful and effective, even superseding simple logic and obvious basic facts.

Regardless, I will admit that audio is a different animal from pretty much any other thing I have been involved with. Most everything else is tied to real measurable performance. ... Most generally know what matters and doesn't or can figure it out. But audio is purely subjective with very few ties to the truth.

And there's the irony, Every single assertion in this quote is pure marketing falsehood: Audio is not a different animal, it's the same animal as all other digital information and electromagnetic signals and obeys the same laws of physics. Audio IS tied to measurable performance, in fact that's the only thing it's tied to! Audio is purely objective, there's absolutely no subjectivity involved, humans can't even sense audio, let alone be subjective about it. And, most clearly do not know what matters and what doesn't and obviously cannot "figure it out", as nearly all the information they're relying on is marketing misinformation and those influenced/biased by it.

G

 

[Powermankw]

And likewise:

As explained earlier in this thread, there are biases which are a consequence of how all humans perceive sound. However, most of what is asserted/discussed in the audiophile world is in fact biases which are the result of marketing. For example, take point #3 in my previous post, if something looks different to something else, nearly all humans will have an expectation bias that it will also sound at least somewhat different. This is an example of the former type of bias but even so, it can still be manipulated by marketing. For example, not just making a unit look different but making it look more fashionable, durable, high tech or competent. All the other points from #4 onwards, plus numerous others I didn't list, are all just marketing.

Oh the irony! What "so much data from end users on what is real"? If it's only real because marketing says it's real, which causes a whole bunch of people to believe it's real and tell still more people it's real, then it DEFINITELY IS all producers and marketing. If it is actually real, then we can measure it ... But that's obviously a big problem for marketers falsely claiming something is real. However it's a big problem with a simple solution, just include more falsehoods in the marketing to discredit measurement, such as: Our hearing is more sensitive and/or reliable than measurements, audio is different to everything else, we can't measure everything, science doesn't know everything, audio is purely subjective, digital audio isn't just ones and zeroes, double blind testing is unrepresentative/unreliable, etc. etc. etc. Even when these falsehoods should be recognisable as such by middle school students, they still seem to work on audiophiles, even otherwise well educated ones. Marketing and the resulting "group think" are obviously very powerful and effective, even superseding simple logic and obvious basic facts.

And there's the irony, Every single assertion in this quote is pure marketing falsehood: Audio is not a different animal, it's the same animal as all other digital information and electromagnetic signals and obeys the same laws of physics. Audio IS tied to measurable performance, in fact that's the only thing it's tied to! Audio is purely objective, there's absolutely no subjectivity involved, humans can't even sense audio, let alone be subjective about it. And, most clearly do not know what matters and what doesn't and obviously cannot "figure it out", as nearly all the information they're relying on is marketing misinformation and those influenced/biased by it.

G

Ya, and the kid finally said the emporer was naked. Yes, I agree with you to a point... All certainly true, but not 100%... It is not 100% of the people mindlessly hypnotised by marketers barking like a chicken.

As I have said... I have clear biases. I had the expectation it will be a lot better, the stage was set, I was ripe... Yet no real difference. So... I'm the only one in millions?

For no reason I was getting something at best buy last night... I've heard their stuff before but not really... So I have to know... B&W 802s, all McIntosh, mono blocks all TOTL cables... $80K easy... Play my favorite two go tos... Ya, its good... It's not next level. Not drastically better than what I've heard. Summit gear. So... Another saying... You can fool some of the people some of the time... But not all/all.

I'm all good with marketing and group think. .. I'm just baffled that the only ones that say the truth are what 1%???

Now to your point... NAIM founder, forget name... Talking about their NAC5 cables... Which are reasonably priced, "I can't prove it, I can't measure it, we just know they sound better"... Straight from a horses mouth... Who then went on to produce their reference cables that are what... 50X the cost? Cool stuff.

 

[castleofargh]

@gregorio you now should be able to post in "testing audiophile claims ...". Let me know if you're blocked in another thread(within SS). I can't move your posts, so either ask an admin to do it, or, it is what it is.

 

[gregorio]

It is not 100% of the people mindlessly hypnotised by marketers barking like a chicken.

Agreed, marketing never works on 100% of people. Also, "people mindlessly hypnotised" is not not true or rather, it's not true for many. Sure, some audiophiles seem to be mindless but most don't. The problem is that no matter how intelligent, sceptical or otherwise educated you are, you can't critically/rationally evaluate something if virtually all the information upon which you're basing that evaluation is false. The only escape is if you realise the information is at least questionable AND you're not "all good with marketing and group think" AND you can be bothered to spend a considerable amount of time locating and understanding the applicable areas of scientific research and engineering going back over a century. The vast majority either do not fulfil any of these conditions or only fulfil the first and/or second, extremely few can be bothered to fulfil the last one!

I had the expectation it will be a lot better, the stage was set, I was ripe... Yet no real difference. So... I'm the only one in millions?

No, as stated earlier in this thread, these types of placebo effects are unpredictable. They may work for a large or small percentage of people and the effect may last anywhere from a life-time to just a few moments. So, you are not "the only one in millions" but you are probably in fairly small minority. The medical study referenced several posts above, demonstrated that about 45% of participants were susceptible to the placebo effect but of course they did not have their entire community telling them that the (supposed) new medication was definitely much better. Additionally, it may seem that you are "the only one in millions" within the audiophile community because being susceptible to placebo effects is almost a requirement of audiophile community membership!

So I have to know... B&W 802s, all McIntosh, mono blocks all TOTL cables... $80K easy... Play my favorite two go tos... Ya, its good... It's not next level.

That's because it's not "next level", with the exception of transducers (speakers/headphones), there is no "next level"! Yes, it is good but no better than relatively cheap equivalents. For example, a $9 Apple dongle is audibly transparent, which effectively means it's audibly perfect. All anyone else can provide is either the same (also audibly perfect) or something different, which by definition has to be imperfect. The only audible reason to spend more than $9 on a DAC/HP Amp is for operating requirements outside what the Apple dongle is designed for. The same basic facts/logic apply to cables and broadly to amps, though not necessarily to transducers.

I'm all good with marketing and group think. .. I'm just baffled that the only ones that say the truth are what 1%???

But you've answered your own question! Why are you baffled that only 1% say the truth within a "group think" that ignores/dismisses the truth in favour of marketing misinformation? I'd be baffled if it were a lot more than 1%. That's the problem with "group think", by definition it obviously only thinks in terms of that group. But what about all the other groups, for example; pro-audio equipment designers and engineers, professional music recording and sound engineers, telecom engineers and system designers, scientists working in those fields, all the teachers/lecturers and students of those fields, plus some other related fields/professions? Over the decades, that's many millions of people. Take all these audio and audio related groups, including audiophiles and your figures are roughly reversed: It's probably only about 1% that do not say the truth and virtually all of that 1% belong to the (minority) audiophile group, because obviously in the other groups they would fail their exams or get fired from their professions!

NAIM founder, forget name... Talking about their NAC5 cables... Which are reasonably priced, "I can't prove it, I can't measure it, we just know they sound better"... Straight from a horses mouth... Who then went on to produce their reference cables that are what... 50X the cost?

Exactly my point, that "horse's mouth" is an audiophile marketing horse and within the audiophile world, what other sort of horse is there? We see extremely few commercial sound/music engineers or scientists or engineers from other audio groups in audiophile sites like this one because they get banned or hounded out by the audiophile marketers or their shills, by reviewers, administrators and others who rely on audiophile sponsorship or advertising revenue and by those defending their audiophile purchases and false beliefs. If the NAIM founder tried to make that assertion to any other audio related group, he wouldn't just be challenged, he'd be ridiculed to death! What he asserted and the consequences if it were true are just too ridiculous. Of course we could measure it and thereby prove it, we've been doing that for well over a century and if we couldn't then it would not be possible to design even a small regional telecom system, let alone a national or global one. Who would sanely argue that we've never had a national/international telephony system, that the internet and the digital age do not exist? That's effectively what many audiophiles argue but they don't realise that's the consequence of their false beliefs because of all the direct lies and lies of omission by the marketers (and the lack of other types of "horses" within their community). Incidentally, comparing the performance difference between cables with an objective measurement is both cheap and easy.

G

 

[Powermankw]

Agreed, marketing never works on 100% of people. Also, "people mindlessly hypnotised" is not not true or rather, it's not true for many. Sure, some audiophiles seem to be mindless but most don't. The problem is that no matter how intelligent, sceptical or otherwise educated you are, you can't critically/rationally evaluate something if virtually all the information upon which you're basing that evaluation is false. The only escape is if you realise the information is at least questionable AND you're not "all good with marketing and group think" AND you can be bothered to spend a considerable amount of time locating and understanding the applicable areas of scientific research and engineering going back over a century. The vast majority either do not fulfil any of these conditions or only fulfil the first and/or second, extremely few can be bothered to fulfil the last one!

No, as stated earlier in this thread, these types of placebo effects are unpredictable. They may work for a large or small percentage of people and the effect may last anywhere from a life-time to just a few moments. So, you are not "the only one in millions" but you are probably in fairly small minority. The medical study referenced several posts above, demonstrated that about 45% of participants were susceptible to the placebo effect but of course they did not have their entire community telling them that the (supposed) new medication was definitely much better. Additionally, it may seem that you are "the only one in millions" within the audiophile community because being susceptible to placebo effects is almost a requirement of audiophile community membership!

That's because it's not "next level", with the exception of transducers (speakers/headphones), there is no "next level"! Yes, it is good but no better than relatively cheap equivalents. For example, a $9 Apple dongle is audibly transparent, which effectively means it's audibly perfect. All anyone else can provide is either the same (also audibly perfect) or something different, which by definition has to be imperfect. The only audible reason to spend more than $9 on a DAC/HP Amp is for operating requirements outside what the Apple dongle is designed for. The same basic facts/logic apply to cables and broadly to amps, though not necessarily to transducers.

But you've answered your own question! Why are you baffled that only 1% say the truth within a "group think" that ignores/dismisses the truth in favour of marketing misinformation? I'd be baffled if it were a lot more than 1%. That's the problem with "group think", by definition it obviously only thinks in terms of that group. But what about all the other groups, for example; pro-audio equipment designers and engineers, professional music recording and sound engineers, telecom engineers and system designers, scientists working in those fields, all the teachers/lecturers and students of those fields, plus some other related fields/professions? Over the decades, that's many millions of people. Take all these audio and audio related groups, including audiophiles and your figures are roughly reversed: It's probably only about 1% that do not say the truth and virtually all of that 1% belong to the (minority) audiophile group, because obviously in the other groups they would fail their exams or get fired from their professions!

Exactly my point, that "horse's mouth" is an audiophile marketing horse and within the audiophile world, what other sort of horse is there? We see extremely few commercial sound/music engineers or scientists or engineers from other audio groups in audiophile sites like this one because they get banned or hounded out by the audiophile marketers or their shills, by reviewers, administrators and others who rely on audiophile sponsorship or advertising revenue and by those defending their audiophile purchases and false beliefs. If the NAIM founder tried to make that assertion to any other audio related group, he wouldn't just be challenged, he'd be ridiculed to death! What he asserted and the consequences if it were true are just too ridiculous. Of course we could measure it and thereby prove it, we've been doing that for well over a century and if we couldn't then it would not be possible to design even a small regional telecom system, let alone a national or global one. Who would sanely argue that we've never had a national/international telephony system, that the internet and the digital age do not exist? That's effectively what many audiophiles argue but they don't realise that's the consequence of their false beliefs because of all the direct lies and lies of omission by the marketers (and the lack of other types of "horses" within their community). Incidentally, comparing the performance difference between cables with an objective measurement is both cheap and easy.

G

We are arguing degrees. I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just find it hard to believe the extent. But what I do agree with is still interesting. Humans are a trip. In other interests I have I have been involved in many forums. I have always been skeptical of the sample group. While we are exposed to magnitudes of opinions we never had access to before, it is still a narrow segment of whole group that samples quality audio. I'm not a statistical researcher, I just like sounding like I understand it on line. It's a really interesting subject.

 

[gregorio]

I just find it hard to believe the extent.

Me too! I've been engaging on and off with the audiophile community for about 15 years and after all that time I'm well accustomed to all the marketing BS, but I'm still taken aback by the sheer amount, width and depth of it all. I should mention that I have an outside view, I've been a professional recording and sound engineer for nearly 30 years and instructed others at university for a number of years, which is what enables me to spot the audiophile BS. Although some of it can be very sophisticated and even I have to go and research it.

I understand why the extent is so great, there's really no other option. DACs and amps were perfected (within the limits of audibility) decades ago and even a couple of decades ago could be audibly perfect at very low prices, what are audiophile manufacturers/retailers to do? There's really only two choices, make-up nonsense problems which your new DAC fixes and therefore sounds like the "next level" or, go bust. We've got to the stage now, where it's just nonsense piled on nonsense, all joined together with circular logic, other logical fallacies and denial of even the most well proven/established scientific facts.

G

 

[bigshot]

When you are selling a product that has essentially achieved peak performance for its purpose, and all your competitors have reached the same level, how do you find a way to separate your product from the pack? Audiophile equipment manufacturers have solved that problem by focusing on improvements that can’t be heard and make no difference in normal use. They also develop different ways to do the same thing, and try to convince consumers that their technology is theoretically better than other ways. It doesn’t matter that none of any of this matters. The goal is to create a perception of their product as better, so expectation bias will reinforce that. Just about all audiophile marketing is based on this.