The Placebo Effect

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you want to map meaning onto sense with precision then you're basically doing a young Wittgenstein -- he had to later correct himself, started talking about "language-games", and never wrote another book (out of embarrassment?). I'm not saying that it is wrong to seek consensus with regard to meaning, but I am saying that language, by its very nature, doesn't lend itself to unambiguous interpretation, so it's futile to try to bully people into using it in a particular way. Saying that we can't use the term "placebo" to describe what we're discussing here is like saying that we can't call a computer mouse a "mouse", and that we should call it a "rolling cursor control device" instead.

I agree with Wittgenstein about the language games. It is too often that philosophical (logical) discussions end in confusion because our language limits us too much to accurately express what we are meaning.
That's why there are formal languages in math.
And it is not futile to bully people who want to do math into "speaking math language".
It helps.

But I can see why you don't want to do it in general.
I only warn you: there will be a heck of a lot of confusion if you don't do it (at least at some points) ...

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree. The placebo effect is more than that. The medical test is only one specific example where the effect is used to determine if a new medicine is at least "better than nothing". The medical on-line library gives the following definition: "An effect usually, but not necessarily, beneficial that is attributable to an expectation that the regimen will have an effect, i.e., the effect is due to the power of suggestion." This seems to me perfectly applicable to other situations. Like audio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif The word "placebo", as it is applied to audio, is here to stay -- regardless whether it makes sense in definitional terms or not. Language has its own inertia, it's own pragmatics that's quite independent of reason. The word "placebo", when applied to audio, does a particular kind of "work", it is useful as a metaphor. To give an analogy... We say, for example, that someone "holds" an opinion, which is clearly an absurdity if one is pedantic about the definition of "holding". We nevertheless say it and no argument can prevent it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but it is also necessary to establish a common understanding of the meaning. Otherwise a discussion would be quite confusing I think.

In audio, the Placebo effect is an effect that appears perfectly real to the person experiencing it, but is not able to be substantiated, verified or replicated under scientific testing conditions..... (or something like that....let's work on the definition, since we're going to be using the term)

And if you philosophy majors don't mind, would you take it down about 10 clicks so we can come up with an audio definition suitable for the general masses. LOL

USG

 

[jonathanjong]

LOL, sure:

Placebo effects are expectancy-based effects.

I think this definition is more suitable than those which refer to cost or expenditure because it's broader. It can apply to equipment we've been given or that's said to be cheap but excellent (e.g., KSC75). There.

 

[fwojciec]

Or something like that:
placebo = effect of expectation(s) on perceived quality of sound
Pretty much the same thing jonathanjong said.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL, sure: Placebo effects are expectancy-based effects. I think this definition is more suitable than those which refer to cost or expenditure because it's broader. It can apply to equipment we've been given or that's said to be cheap but excellent (e.g., KSC75). There.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or something like that: placebo = effect of expectation(s) on perceived quality of sound Pretty much the same thing jonathanjong said.

Why does it have to be realated to expectancy?

I expected the USB2 cable to sound better than the USB1, but that was not the case and I was surprised.

Do you want to say what I "expected" was to hear some sort of difference.....

USG

 

[jonathanjong]

Right, but that just means the placebo effect didn't happen. The definition still holds, but it's not the case that our experience is always congruent to our expectation.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Right, but that just means the placebo effect didn't happen. The definition still holds, but it's not the case that our experience is always congruent to our expectation.

How do I know the effect didn't happen? I think it happened, but in reverse. The thing is, that as long as I knew which cable I was listening to, any differences I might have thought I heard could have been placebo effect.

As far as "what" I heard, my feeling about it was that the differences I heard would have been measurable if I had the equipment. But, I also feel, and felt this the entire time I was comparing the two cables, that it was very possible that what I was experiencing was nothing more than Placebo effect and in a real ABX test between these two cables, I might not be able to tell the difference because the new USB 2 cable should have sounded at least equal to or better than the old USB1..... ugh!!!

USG

 

[jonathanjong]

You're right, but my definition's general enough to accomodate.

Say you expected USB2 to sound better than USB1 by 15 eargasmetres (let's pretend an eargasmetre is a unit of audio goodness). But USB2 only sounded better by 5 eargasmetres. So, it underwhelmed. Now, because you were expectecting a difference of 15 eargasmetres, you failed to pick up the 5 eargasmetre improvement. So, you experience was still affected by expectations, albeit in the opposite direction.

Does that make sense?

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're right, but my definition's general enough to accomodate. Say you expected USB2 to sound better than USB1 by 15 eargasmetres (let's pretend an eargasmetre is a unit of audio goodness). But USB2 only sounded better by 5 eargasmetres. So, it underwhelmed. Now, because you were expectecting a difference of 15 eargasmetres, you failed to pick up the 5 eargasmetre improvement. So, you experience was still affected by expectations, albeit in the opposite direction. Does that make sense?

I understand what you're saying, but the reality of the test was that I was listening to my headphones while I was reading the forum, then decided to go get one of my USB2 cables to replace the old USB1 I was using. I plugged in one of the new USB2 cables not expecting it to be worse.... but it was. I figured that couldn't be right, so I got some more USB2 cables out and tried them too. No go. The old USB1 was cleaner and clearer and maybe even a little brighter than any of the USB2 cables. So I left the old USB1 on the Stello...... and I'm not happy about it.

Does your definition fit what happened?

USG

 

[jonathanjong]

I think so. It's like your perceptual faculties (e.g., brain) made anticipatory adjustments based on your expectations. Consider the following:

Bob regularly takes drugs in his bathroom. Say he usually takes 10 mg of cocaine. (I have no idea if this is a lot). One day, he shoots up 10 mg of cocaine while on a road trip, in a hotel bathroom. He ODs and dies.

This happens regularly. Why? Because Bob's body anticipates the cocaine when he is in his bathroom. However, in another context, his body is not prepared, so he ODs. These sorts of anticipatory effects also explain why the amount of drug needs to be increased over time.

Does this make sense? Does the analogy make sense?

 

[tomjtx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think so. It's like your perceptual faculties (e.g., brain) made anticipatory adjustments based on your expectations. Consider the following: Bob regularly takes drugs in his bathroom. Say he usually takes 10 mg of cocaine. (I have no idea if this is a lot). One day, he shoots up 10 mg of cocaine while on a road trip, in a hotel bathroom. He ODs and dies. This happens regularly. Why? Because Bob's body anticipates the cocaine when he is in his bathroom. However, in another context, his body is not prepared, so he ODs. These sorts of anticipatory effects also explain why the amount of drug needs to be increased over time. Does this make sense? Does the analogy make sense?

It does if you are a cokehead

 

[jonathanjong]

LOL.

 

[Edwood]

It's less placebo than it is misconception.

The biggest one, I've found is with headphone amps in particular. Whenever I hear, "OMG teh Bass!" or "So much more dynamic!" I am 99% sure they were just listening to the amp louder than they normally do at home. At least this phenomenom is very common in meet conditions.

-Ed

 

[digger945]

I wonder what kind of cables Bob had?

 

[Know Talent]

what I find interesting is the Jitter snake oil... jitter is measureable but generally found to be inaudible under a threshold of roughly 250ps (or is it ppm???).
So with jitter, you have something that can be measured but manufacturers still claim audible improvements when lowering jitter below already inaudible thresholds.