[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think audiophiles deny the existence of the placebo effect. The question is, when someone asserts that some component sounds better than another, or different, is it due to the placebo effect or do they actually sound different? Certainly no one would say that a car radio sounds as good as a high fidelity home stereo and a preference for the former is solely attributable to placebo? So the issue becomes, how does one determine in any particular case that a preference or determination of a difference is attributable in whole or in part to placebo?

That's exactly my point. If the placebo effect is so prevalent, you could assume that nearly half of the posts on this forum that tout a positive or negative change in sound are simply preconceptions. You have to doubt what everyone says!

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the placebo effect is so prevalent, you could assume that nearly half of the posts on this forum that tout a positive or negative change in sound are simply preconceptions. You have to doubt what everyone says!

I don't agree with those statements. First, I'm not sure what you mean by the placebo effect being "so prevalent." Second, I don't think the conclusion you reach about "nearly half of the posts . . . " has any real basis in fact. At best, it would appear to be an extremely speculative generalization about the possible importance of a certain phenomenon. I also think the notion that you have to doubt what everyone says is an extreme overstatement.

 

[Catharsis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't agree with those statements. First, I'm not sure what you mean by the placebo effect being "so prevalent." Second, I don't think the conclusion you reach about "nearly half of the posts . . . " has any real basis in fact. At best, it would appear to be an extremely speculative generalization about the possible importance of a certain phenomenon. I also think the notion that you have to doubt what everyone says is an extreme overstatement.

There isn't any logical or statistical reason why it shouldn't apply. Please refer to original post and research "placebo" or "expectation bias" and you'll see why I justifiably remain skeptical of self-reported audio assessments that fly in the face of scientific proof. When the differences are REAL (like using different headphones, amps, CD vs mp3 etc) it's easier to assume and expect there to be changes - I'm not disputing claims such as those.

I would admit that MANY or even MOST people's ears are telling the truth, but you can't deny that people's senses will fool them. Are you one of those people who don't see optical illusions?

 

[Bojamijams]

Some people just have better gear then others and can truly tell these differences. They have been able to repeat these differences (distinguishing them and describing them) 100% of the time so it does happen.

Why doesn't it happen to everyone? Probably because some have a weak chain in their rig somewhere and its limiting the user the ability to distinguish between two things (different bitrates, sample frequencies, cables, etc.)

Others just don't know the piece of music that well to be able to discern the difference. Or are just not trained enough

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catharsis /img/forum/go_quote.gif There isn't any logical or statistical reason why it shouldn't apply. Please refer to original post and research "placebo" or "expectation bias" and you'll see why I justifiably remain skeptical of self-reported audio assessments that fly in the face of scientific proof. When the differences are REAL (like using different headphones, amps, CD vs mp3 etc) it's easier to assume and expect there to be changes - I'm not disputing claims such as those. I would admit that MANY or even MOST people's ears are telling the truth, but you can't deny that people's senses will fool them. Are you one of those people who don't see optical illusions?

I think maybe you misunderstood what I've said -- or tried to say. I haven't disputed that the placebo effect or expectation bias applies in the audio field to some extent or in various circumstances, or that people are not fooled on occasion (or maybe even often). I also respect your right to be skeptical of audio assessments that are not confirmed by scientific proof ("fly in the face" is a little strong I think). It's good to be skeptical, even if one ultimately decides based on what one hears that there is an audible difference.

My first point was merely that audiophiles don't ignore the placebo effect. My second point was that it is ambiguous to say the placebo effect is "prevalent" -- as if one could actually estimate a percentage of times people are fooled, or assign a weight or value to how much the placebo effect influences judgments regarding audio differences (still not sure which one of these you meant or if you meant something else). My third point was that I don't think it is reasonable to say that half of all posts on this forum regarding sound differences are based on preconceptions, or that one should doubt everything said on this forum.

And my final point, in response to your most recent post, is that you beg the question when you say that you don't dispute "real" changes.

But I think we're not getting anywhere; we may be just two ships passing in the night.

 

[b0dhi]

I'm not certain of this but I've read that one of the things that can distinguish real effects from placebo is that placebo starts to wear off after about 3 months. If that's true that would go a long way to explaining upgradeitis.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bojamijams /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some people just have better gear then others and can truly tell these differences. They have been able to repeat these differences (distinguishing them and describing them) 100% of the time so it does happen. Why doesn't it happen to everyone? Probably because some have a weak chain in their rig somewhere and its limiting the user the ability to distinguish between two things (different bitrates, sample frequencies, cables, etc.) Others just don't know the piece of music that well to be able to discern the difference. Or are just not trained enough

Ah the o'l, your system isn't good enough routine. If this were the case, then people would not be able to discern differences on their portable systems, yet numerous people claim they do and numerous people claim it is placebo.

Are you saying placebo does not exist in high end systems?

 

[Catharsis]

This is getting Keeraaazzzyee!

I love a good ol' argumentative discussion. Everyone has very valid and well thought out arguements. We have to get these issues out into the open if we're to overcome them.

 

[Currawong]

Allow me to give a different take on this:

I used to practice Aikido and previously various sports. Now with experience in any martial art or sport, you gain an ability to see subtleties in the martial art or sport that an ordinary person wouldn't pick up on. In many sports, things happen so fast and judges have to pick up what's happened instantly. Familiarity, of course, with a player or players results in one developing an appreciation of their capabilities.

Another example: Have you ever watched a Disney cartoon? One of my friends draws for them. She can watch any Disney cartoon and tell who's drawing made up the cartoon, watching it at regular movie speed! Think about that for a second.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if audio was any different, in that subtle differences between music, recordings and equipment become easier to appreciate over time, and also become more significant if one is trained to listen for these things. The average person who isn't wont notice them.

 

[Bojamijams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah the o'l, your system isn't good enough routine. If this were the case, then people would not be able to discern differences on their portable systems, yet numerous people claim they do and numerous people claim it is placebo. Are you saying placebo does not exist in high end systems?

Placebo exists in high end systems sure. Some things are just a placebo product, period. For example, 'performance' digital cables (monster, etc.)

And portable systems can be better then a lot of high end desktop systems. After all, your system is as good as its weakest link right? So if a portable system is designed and built well it may very well beat a desktop solution.

Lets say you have $50,000 invested in a source, amp and speaker/headphone. Thats all fine and well, but if your source is soldered with crappy unshielded wire, then its gonna sound like crap right? Only as good as your weakest link. You can change out the amp and speakers and make it a $100,000 system and you would call the changes placebo, and they would be, because the crappy wire inside the source is still holding EVERYTHING back.

Also, not everyone has the same ears for detail. Some people have perfect pitch. They can tell you a note just by hearing it. Most people CANNOT do that.

Therefore, if there are people with such differences in audible comprehension in regards to perfect pitch, then there are people that can tell a difference between a $6 and a $600 power cord.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Allow me to give a different take on this: I used to practice Aikido and previously various sports. Now with experience in any martial art or sport, you gain an ability to see subtleties in the martial art or sport that an ordinary person wouldn't pick up on. In many sports, things happen so fast and judges have to pick up what's happened instantly. Familiarity, of course, with a player or players results in one developing an appreciation of their capabilities. It wouldn't surprise me at all if audio was any different, in that subtle differences between music, recordings and equipment become easier to appreciate over time, and also become more significant if one is trained to listen for these things. The average person who isn't wont notice them.

Thank you. I assume that we can agree that a person with perfect pitch is going to hear music a bit differently than those of us who don't have that capability.

However, it's also important to remember that many auditory discriminations are learned phenomena. The more we experience and learn, the better we will be at making small discriminations. To switch areas, look at wine tasting. A good wine taster may be able to taste a wine, tell where it came from, and approximately when it was made. I don't drink wine, so give me the same test, and I'll simply say "I like it" or "I don't like it", but wouldn't have a clue about going further. You can't identify what a Bordeaux wine tastes like unless you've tasted Bordeaux wines, along with other wines, and learned to tell the difference. The same type of learning applies to audio. If you haven't had a wide variety of audio experiences, you're not going to be able to interpret the raw sensory input in the same way as someone who has had a lot of experience with different gear.

 

[mark_h]

What if stronger psychotropic substances are used where there is no question of physiological and psychological effects?

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif What if stronger psychotropic substances are used where there is no question of physiological and psychological effects?

+ YouTube Video​

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could you tell us about any examples or times when DBT failed to uncover a difference? I mean, have significant discoveries been made in fields other than audio that were hidden or obscured by DBT? Has a researcher in a field other than audio (assuming, arguendo, that there is a scientific basis to cable differences) made significant, observable and repeatable discoveries using non-traditional methods of testing?

You're asking the wrong question. DBT is used in a limited subset of scientific investigations, particularly those involving human research. The vast majority of scientific experiments have no need for blinding the subject, simply because it is not done with humans, or even living organisms. A better question might be, what percentage of significant scientific advances were found using DBT, and what percentage were discovered using other methods that may well be standard for the field, or that time. Ask for a set of significant scientific discoveries, and historically, the ones people identify as changing the way we view the world, among them Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, even Einstein, never needed DBT to interpret their results.

However, to answer the question that you asked, you only need to go back through the news looking for times when the FDA forced a company to withdraw a drug from the market (or a company pulled a drug prior to FDA action). This occurs when a drug has an unexpected toxicity that is potentially dangerous, possibly lethal. However, before the drug can be marketed at all, it needs to go through several DBT clinical trials. The withdrawal of a drug means that the DBT scrutiny was not sensitive enough to pick up the toxicity, which only appeared after the drug was marketed and out in a much larger population than can be studied in a trial. Other toxicities might appear only after a long period of time, so would not appear in a clinical trial of limited duration.
Remember Vioxx? Fen-phen? Those all had cleared DBT clinical trials before marketing. There are many more.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bojamijams /img/forum/go_quote.gif Therefore, if there are people with such differences in audible comprehension in regards to perfect pitch, then there are people that can tell a difference between a $6 and a $600 power cord.

And therefore, if there are people who can tell a difference between a $6 and a $600 power cord then there are people who can wave their arms and fly.