[StanD]

It was a fairly straightforward question (I thought) about the potential for listening skill to develop/improve based on placebo based expectation and its impact on listener focus. Sorry it bothered you, but no need for the insults.

Based on your post, I assume you discount the possibility. I'm not convinced our listening skill is static and unable to develop based on expectation. I wonder if this isn't one of the sources of many reports of new gear sounding better despite the measurements indicating it technically shouldn't.

I wasn't singling you out so don't feel insulted. This thread is full of all sorts of weird speculation.

 

[Music Alchemist]

It was a fairly straightforward question (I thought) about the potential for listening skill to develop/improve based on placebo based expectation and its impact on listener focus. Sorry it bothered you, but no need for the insults.

Based on your post, I assume you discount the possibility. I'm not convinced our listening skill is static and unable to develop based on expectation. I wonder if this isn't one of the sources of many reports of new gear sounding better despite the measurements indicating it technically shouldn't.

 
Yes, the ability to perceive differences will inevitably improve as one listens for differences, regardless of whether one expects to (or is expected to) hear them or not.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Is there something wrong with the moon that's bringing out all the goofiness? What's next, werewolves will be posting their theories on how their DACs bring on their transformation while listening to WAV files of howling?

C'mon, Stan. We really need to clean this place up. No more spit wads shot from the sidelines.

se

 

[bfreedma]

It was a fairly straightforward question (I thought) about the potential for listening skill to develop/improve based on placebo based expectation and its impact on listener focus. Sorry it bothered you, but no need for the insults.

Based on your post, I assume you discount the possibility. I'm not convinced our listening skill is static and unable to develop based on expectation. I wonder if this isn't one of the sources of many reports of new gear sounding better despite the measurements indicating it technically shouldn't.

I wasn't singling you out so don't feel insulted. This thread is full of all sorts of weird speculation.

Thanks, and agree that there's been some weirdness lately. I probably should have posted the question in another thread so it wouldn't get lost in the ultrasonic Tesla pyramid of doom....

 

[Steve Eddy]

Yes, the ability to perceive differences will inevitably improve as one listens for differences, regardless of whether one expects to (or is expected to) hear them or not.

No, it improves when the listeners are trained in what exactly to listen for. Simply "listening for differences," any differences, is where expectation bias gets its foot in the door. Listener training is critical.

se

 

[anetode]

Sorry, I don't really see that as the Pygmalion effect. I see it as just priming regular expectation bias. The Pygmalion effect is about people rising to meet the expectations that others have of them. I see that as something completely different from someone's subjective perceptions being influenced by their own expectations of what they will hear.
Again, I see them as two different things. And I would argue that priming one's expectations as to what they may hear would only serve to increase the chances of their subjectively perceiving differences when no audible differences actually exist. The purpose of the test is to provide a control for any existing expectation bias they may have. Not to reinforce those biases.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any Pygmalion effect as you're describing it here working to improve the chances of the test subjects of passing a blind test. I see it as quite the opposite.
 
I really don't think what you are saying is an apt reading of, or representation of the effect.
I really don't see how adding to someone's existing expectation biases will result in an improvement in the pe romance of a test whose primary goal is to control for those biases.

se

 
Yes, by itself it is only priming. If the priming results in increased (objective) performance (versus an unprimed or discouraged control group), only then would there be any evidence of a Pygmalion effect. And yes, in the context of audiophiles there would be a parallel effect whereby priming would also encourage false positives, i.e. increased incidence of subjective impressions which do not correlate to any actual changes in the program material.
 
What I mentioned was certainly a counterintuitive proposal for testing, but it is one way to confirm mine & bfreedma's suspicion of the possible effects of encouragement. The background of the Pygmalion effect was precisely in trying to produce results which contradicted past assumptions about performance metrics, so I feel that this is well within the spirit.
 
 

  Is there something wrong with the moon that's bringing out all the goofiness? What's next, werewolves will be posting their theories on how their DACs bring on their transformation while listening to WAV files of howling?

 
I once saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's. His hair was perfect.

 

[bfreedma]

Yes, the ability to perceive differences will inevitably improve as one listens for differences, regardless of whether one expects to (or is expected to) hear them or not.

No, it improves when the listeners are trained in what exactly to listen for. Simply "listening for differences," any differences, is where expectation bias gets its foot in the door. Listener training is critical.

se

Steve,

I'm familiar with the Harman training program. Any others you can suggest?

 

[StanD]

I found a theme song for the way this thread has been rolling along.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I found a theme song for the way this thread has been rolling along.

You're not helping, Stan.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

I'm familiar with the Harman training program. Any others you can suggest?

Nothing specific. That's why I really wish jj was a participant here. He could bring a trove of knowledge to the subject of blind testing.

se

 

[StanD]

You're not helping, Stan.

se

There's no helping.

 

[knucklehead]

No, it improves when the listeners are trained in what exactly to listen for. Simply "listening for differences," any differences, is where expectation bias gets its foot in the door. Listener training is critical.

se

Not exactly.
 
"Listening for differences" will reasonably make you more likely to notice differences -- Controlled blind testing will sort out the "imagined" from the real differences.
 
Saying that people can only notice real differences that they have been trained to listen for implies that the limits of perception are already clearly defined, and there is nothing left to learn. Check out the question and answer at 1:32:00 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IGmLP3_whI (the whole presentation is excellent!).

 

[Steve Eddy]

Yes, by itself it is only priming. If the priming results in increased (objective) performance (versus an unprimed or discouraged control group), only then would there be any evidence of a Pygmalion effect.

If by itself it is only priming existing expectation bias, then I don't see it as being at all akin to the Pygmalion effect as it's commonly understood.

And it's interesting to note that many audiophiles argue, and have for years, that it is the pressure to perform while being tested that diminishes their ability to hear the differences they claim to be hearing. And if there's any truth to that, then your Pygmalion effect theory pretty much crumbles, because the Pygmalion effect would ultimately place them under more stress.

What I mentioned was certainly a counterintuitive proposal for testing, but it is one way to confirm mine & bfreedma's suspicion of the possible effects of encouragement. The background of the Pygmalion effect was precisely in trying to produce results which contradicted past assumptions about performance metrics, so I feel that this is well within the spirit.

That's fine, but until someone actually puts the theory to the test, it's kind of pointless.

That's been the problem lo these past 30+ years. We're up to our eyeballs in theories, but none of them have ever been put to the test. Because of course it's easy to just sit around spinning theories. Anybody can do that, and have. But from the looks of things, it's just going to be another 30 years of wheel spinning and not getting any further down the road than we were 30 years ago. I'm telling you, I've got some serious theory fatigue.

I once saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's. His hair was perfect.

Oh, you noticed. Thank you.

se

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

Why don't one of you rip a WAV file from a CD, then convert the WAV to FLAC and compare the waveforms of both files in an audio editing tool. That's the best evidence we can get. Math already dictates that they should be identical, so compare the waveforms and prove it. This simple argument has gone on too long.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Why don't one of you rip a WAV file from a CD, then convert the WAV to FLAC and compare the waveforms of both files in an audio editing tool. That's the best evidence we can get. Math already dictates that they should be identical, so compare the waveforms and prove it. This simple argument has gone on too long.

Or better yet, run them through Bill Waslo's Audio DiffMaker software. If the residual isn't audible, then there's no audible difference between the two.

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

I don't know where he has the files now, but at one time he had a challenge. He created two files. One was an orchestral piece I believe. The other file was the same piece, only had added a Sousa band piece playing at something like -70 dB. The challenge was to pick which track had the Sousa band under blind conditions. I'm not aware of anyone who successfully met the challenge, but when you ran the two files through Audio DiffMaker and listened to the residual, you could hear the Sousa band plain as day. It was dramatically reduced in level, but there was no mistaking it.

se