[reddragon]

I was interested in finding out the power of illusion. For the test, I had my Beyer dt990 and a pair of earbuds that came with the radio. Its old and sound quality is crap. So to make the dt990 sound as unclear as possible, I eq the dt990's treble all the way down and turn the volume to very low. I listened to that and then I use my earbuds and set it to regular treble level and normal listening volume that I usually listen to. If you doubleblind me, I definitely would not be able to tell you that the first headphone/earphone is the higher end one and has better clarity.

 

[Parall3l]

Where's the illusion? You know that it'll sound terrible, and you've purposefully made the DT770 sound terrible, so both objectively and subjectively it'll sound terrible to you.

I'm not understanding the purpose of this experiment

 

[reddragon]

The purpose to make a technically superior headphone sound "inferior" and compare it with a technically inferior headphone/earphone is to see how messing with the frequency response and volume can confuse one's ears. One can also ask if "better" headphones indeed are indeed better or are they just tuned to sound signatures that are perceived to give better sound quality.

 

[stv014]

A better way to test the power of illusion is to try an experiment with someone who thinks he/she is comparing different amplifiers/DACs/cables/whatever, but in fact the sound is always the same. It can be made more effective if the switching time between the allegedly different sources is longer, or the "better" sound is slightly (e.g. by 1 dB) louder.

 

[reddragon]

So... is there a way to hear "past" those illusions?

 

[streetdragon]

a very trained ear i guess? to see through the confusion

 

[reddragon]

a very trained ear i guess? to see through the confusion

Probably, that, I do not have lol

 

[stv014]

Quote:

So... is there a way to hear "past" those illusions?

 
Yes, by making the comparison double-blind, and eliminating factors (unmatched levels, etc.) that can create "fake" differences, or prevent the test from being really blind (e.g. two DACs playing out of sync).
It is not possible to reliably "switch off" bias consciously (even if you want to hear A being better than B, if you subconsciously expect B to be better than A, then that is what you will hear), or by having more trained ears.

 

[reddragon]

Yes, by making the comparison double-blind, and eliminating factors (unmatched levels, etc.) that can create "fake" differences, or prevent the test from being really blind (e.g. two DACs playing out of sync).
It is not possible to reliably "switch off" bias consciously (even if you want to hear A being better than B, if you subconsciously expect B to be better than A, then that is what you will hear), or by having more trained ears.

I see, how about you? Have you ever tried doing something like this?

 

[stv014]

Quote:

I see, how about you? Have you ever tried doing something like this?

 
If you mean blind testing, I did some using a software ABX comparator.

 

[reddragon]

If you mean blind testing, I did some using a software ABX comparator.

What does that thing do? And about trained ears, do people lose it if they don't critical listen for a long time?

 

[Deus X Machina]

I once saw a friend drink a mug of Ole English under the presumption that he was drinking some obscure microbrew. He thought it was fantastic.