[fordgtlover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashnolan /img/forum/go_quote.gif snip Since the way we perceive sound is subjective already it is not hard to imagine that if someone thinks it is better it will sound better to them.

And, of course [pointing out the bleeding obvious] that is why the more the consumer pays for an audio tweak, the more inclined he is to believe that, a) it does improve the SQ, and b) that it does improve the SQ to a greater extent than a less expensive alternative.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilency /img/forum/go_quote.gif The placebo effect can be further encouraged by enthusiastic recommendations and opinions of hi-fi equipment. How I wish there was an objectiveness forum. I'd love top see randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled studies on headphones, amplifiers and DAC's (or lack of...) and of course, cables. And yes, I know sound is very subjective, but we don't even know what percent of individuals would prefer phone X over phone Y. Or, are there certain characteristics or traits which would allow us to predict with a reasonable degree of certainty which individuals would prefer a certain kind of sound or headphones? And who would sponsor unbiased studies? Headphone companies?

Sounds like a (probably very expensive) market study.
Any sponsors yet?

 

[Hirsch]

It gets worse. In pharmacology, some genetic markers have been identified that indicate whether or not certain dependent measures will be sensitive to placebo effects or not. Actual study of placebo effects in pharmacology are rare, for ethical reasons, so only a few exist.

However, "placebo" is probably the incorrect term for audio. "Expectancy effects" is a better fit. But even then, it cuts both ways.

Consider: If testing an individual who doesn't believe that cables can make a difference, what do expectancy effects predict that the results would be in a cable comparison, blinded test or otherwise.

If perceived differences can be due to expectancy, so can their absence. Getting around this requires a much more sophisticated experimental design than has been used in audio to date.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hirsch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Consider: If testing an individual who doesn't believe that cables can make a difference, what do expectancy effects predict that the results would be in a cable comparison, blinded test or otherwise.

When Masters and Clark did their "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same" blind tests in the 1980s they asked participants before the tests to describe themselves as either believers (in major differences between amps) or skeptics. The listening tests revealed that both groups performed equally randomly with regard to detecting differences.

 

[G-man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif When Masters and Clark did their "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same" blind tests in the 1980s they asked participants before the tests to describe themselves as either believers (in major differences between amps) or skeptics. The listening tests revealed that both groups performed equally randomly with regard to detecting differences.

any idea where that information is available online? i don't even know who masters and clark are. but that doesn't surprise me, considering it is a blind test (i presume). what i would like is to see a similar test but for "audiophiles" vs normal people. this would test whether or not audiophiles really do train their ears to listen to the claimed differences.

 

[saint.panda]

Does a Wine's Pricetag Affect it's Taste? : Research News: News: Stanford GSB

It's been posted before, but it's a very interesting study.

Edit: Hirsch's comment on expectancy effects are pretty much what the Stanford scientists also applied to wine.

 

[acidbasement]

Link to the Masters & Clark study: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

Thanks Nick - that's a good read.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif Link to the Masters & Clark study: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf Thanks Nick - that's a good read.

You are most welcome. The Futterman vs Pioneer tests are the most interesting given that they are about as different in design terms and well let's not be coy about it , price, as they could be and yet...

 

[synaesthetic]

Reality is merely our perception of the world around us, after all.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Reality is merely our perception of the world around us, after all.

 

[jonathanjong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Reality is merely our perception of the world around us, after all.

But this entails a denial of an observer-independent, objective reality; a denial that there are states of affairs that are the case when no one knows they are the case; a denial that there are true propositions which are unknown. I'm nailing my metaphysical and epistemological colours to the mast here, but I'd be surprised if you (and Kees) are not realists in of one stripe or another. Or are you really anti-realists (e.g., Berkeleyians, Solipsists, Radical Sceptics) of some sort?

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif But this entails a denial of an observer-independent, objective reality;

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif a denial that there are states of affairs that are the case when no one knows they are the case; a denial that there are true propositions which are unknown.

No. Just that they cannot be known.
And we are very good at working with assumtions, hypothesis and approximations. Most so called exact science is "just" that.
In most cases we know no more than that something has a certain chance of being true at a given moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm nailing my metaphysical and epistemological colours to the mast here, but I'd be surprised if you (and Kees) are not realists in of one stripe or another. Or are you really anti-realists (e.g., Berkeleyians, Solipsists, Radical Sceptics) of some sort?

I can assure you that this is very realistic. More so than the opposite proposition I'm sure.

 

[fwojciec]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Reality is merely our perception of the world around us, after all.

That is not correct. Perception is necessarily subtractive, since the brain's "processing power" is not unlimited, and so it only registers what is useful, interesting or a concern. This is why moving objects draw out attention, especially if they're moving towards us, while the "background" fades away -- for example. Reality, therefore, is always *more* than perception.

 

[dvessel]

When I was a kid I would close my eyes only to have the world disappear. I thought I was god but eventually learned that pinching heads through my line of sight didn't do anything useful except make me look a fool.

I perceived crushing heads but reality didn't agree with me.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is not correct. Perception is necessarily subtractive, since the brain's "processing power" is not unlimited, and so it only registers what is useful, interesting or a concern.

Sorry????
We don't know any of the facts that you present here.
Quote:

Originally Posted by fwojciec /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is why moving objects draw out attention, especially if they're moving towards us, while the "background" fades away -- for example. Reality, therefore, is always *more* than perception.

The processing power of our brain is in no way a limiting factor.
It is merely survival tactics to do things that way in our world (experience). It works, that's why we (mankind) survived.
It only says something about the usability of our way to build a model of the world (reality). Nothing about this model or reality itself.