[BrianovichIV]

There's nothing to "prove" when it comes to subjective preference. Subjective preference simply is what it is. There's nothing to argue, and that sort of stuff is what the other forums are for.

But if you say something sounds better to you, and then either state directly or heavily imply that it sounds better because of some actual audible difference between the two things, then that's something entirely different. And in that case, you need to substantiate that claim. Either by showing measurable differences that are within known thresholds of audibility, or lacking that, show the results of properly controlled listening tests.

You can't just say "I heard it! Just listen for yourself! If you can't hear it then you're either deaf or have crappy equipment."

That doesn't fly here. That's not science. That's just vanity and ego and foot stomping. And if you expect that to fly, you're in the wrong place.

However I will say that I would much prefer if some here would say "that hasn't been shown to be audible" rather than "that's impossible." The emphasis should always be on the person substantiating their claims rather than simply saying they're wrong.

se

I agree with all that. It's mostly just placebo.
 
However, I believe that a placebo effect can still be meaningful to a listener and enhance their enjoyment. If a person believes a cable, or battery, or power supply, or 24bit track is better, and it increases their enjoyment, then it really does. And good for them! It's their money.
 
But that person probably shouldn't be discussing this in the sound science forum. Or maybe, definitely shouldn't
 
I think my music sounds better when I listen to FLACs instead of lossy. My brain knows that's not true. But it makes my listening experience better. And it doesn't really hurt anyone.
 
But you won't see me trying to convince people that FLACs are better.

 

[bfreedma]

Placebo and it's impact on learned listening skills would be a very interesting study - perhaps one has already been done that I haven't located.  If anyone is aware of this type of research and has a link, I would very much appreciate it.
 
I have an (UNPROVEN!) theory that implementing a change that you believe will lead to an audible improvement may actually slowly develop the brain's "listening" skill.  I'm not saying that a new amp/dac/cable creates something in the audio that wasn't there before, but that the belief in the placebo's impact may in essence be making us better listeners, thereby noticing things that were always there but not consciously processed previously.
 
Or at minimum, perhaps we concentrate more on listening when we believe there is something "new" to hear.
 
Not talking night and day type new audio elements, but small nuances.  Again, I want to be clear that I don't believe the amp/dac/cable is enabling us to hear something "new", just that we become better at acquiring the musical data that was always present.
 
Thoughts?  Flames?  Rotten Tomato lobbing?.....

 

[Steve Eddy]

I agree with all that. It's mostly just placebo.

Well, it may be. But those who are claiming it's not are free to step up to the plate and demonstrate that it's not instead of a bunch of hand-waving and empty claims.

However, I believe that a placebo effect can still be meaningful to a listener and enhance their enjoyment. If a person believes a cable, or battery, or power supply, or 24bit track is better, and it increases their enjoyment, then it really does. And good for them! It's their money.

Oh absolutely. I take the very same approach myself, because when it comes to listening to reproduced music, the only thing that matters is my own subjective, hedonistic pleasure.

Where I separate myself is that I don't come to believe that my subjective experience is entirely due to actual audible differences.

But that person probably shouldn't be discussing this in the sound science forum. Or maybe, definitely shouldn't

What, you're saying I should leave?

I see no reason why subjectivity and objectivity can't peacefully coexist. I'm living proof. Just have to heed the advice from Ghostbusters. Don't cross the streams.

And really, that's where all the trouble is. Some people seem to think they can cross the streams. And sadly, many people just can't comprehend that.

I think my music sounds better when I listen to FLACs instead of lossy. My brain knows that's not true. But it makes my listening experience better. And it doesn't really hurt anyone.

Exactly.

But you won't see me trying to convince people that FLACs are better.

Right. Because you saw Ghostbusters too.

se

 

[anetode]

   
The people with all the science, while no doubt well informed, can come over as a just a tiny bit fanatical using every and I mean every opportunity to force the scientific truth down people's necks with relentless zeal. Pounding the little, less intelligent, people into submission. Just my opinion as an observer.

 
A scientific truth is preferable to a pseudoscientific halftruth.

  What makes them fools they're entitled to their opinion. Not nice. 

Fools are entitled to their foolishness. Fools are not entitled to no one calling them out on it.

  If the facts are indisputable and proven, which they may well be,then whats left to discuss. What exactly is the point of the Forum ?
 
Just some place that people can impress each other with their techno babble I suppose. Members only, the elite, I suppose.
 
Bye

You could choose to put in the time and effort to learn. Technobabble would become transparent and you would earn an elite members-only badge (which says "Banned" last time I checked).

 

[StanD]

:
Oh absolutely. I take the very same approach myself, because when it comes to listening to reproduced music, the only thing that matters is my own subjective, hedonistic pleasure.
:
se

And everyday can bring a new subjective experience.  

 

[anetode]

 
I have an (UNPROVEN!) theory that implementing a change that you believe will lead to an audible improvement may actually slowly develop the brain's "listening" skill.  I'm not saying that a new amp/dac/cable creates something in the audio that wasn't there before, but that the belief in the placebo's impact may in essence be making us better listeners, thereby noticing things that were always there but not consciously processed previously.

 
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

 

[bfreedma]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

Thanks for that. Was under no illusion that I had an original thought

I wonder how much of the subjectivist view that cables etc. make an "audible" improvement can be explained by the Pygmallion Effect. Any future PHDs out there looking for a thesis topic?.....

 

[Steve Eddy]

And everyday can bring a new subjective experience.  

Absolutely!

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

I wonder how much of the subjectivist view that cables etc. make an "audible" improvement can be explained by the Pygmallion Effect. Any future PHDs out there looking for a thesis topic?.....

False premise.

That would not be a subjectivist view. A subjectivist would never make such a claim. You can call them pseudo objectivists, or "audiophiles" if you like. But they are decidedly NOT subjectivists.

se

 

[bfreedma]

I wonder how much of the subjectivist view that cables etc. make an "audible" improvement can be explained by the Pygmallion Effect. Any future PHDs out there looking for a thesis topic?.....

False premise.

That would not be a subjectivist view. A subjectivist would never make such a claim. You can call them pseudo objectivists, or "audiophiles" if you like. But they are decidedly NOT subjectivists.

se

Ok. Any thoughts regarding the Pygmallion Effect on Pseudo or Objectionable Audiophiles in terms of listener "brain training" via expectation bias and/or placebo effect enabling the hearing of the preexistent audio cues they ascribe to hardware changes?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Ok. Any thoughts regarding the Pygmallion Effect on Pseudo or Objectionable Audiophiles in terms of listener "brain training" via expectation bias and/or placebo effect enabling the hearing of the preexistent audio cues they ascribe to hardware changes?

I'd rather watch My Fair Lady with Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn.

I don't really see any relevance here to expectation bias and/or placebo. But then anetode doesn't say anything. He just lobs a Wikipedia link. Don't think there's really anything to say other than asking what his point is. Tossing out links isn't an argument. They're useful for supporting an argument, but just tossing out a link like that is just laziness. We're not psychics.

se

 

[anetode]

I'd rather watch My Fair Lady with Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn.

I don't really see any relevance here to expectation bias and/or placebo. But then anetode doesn't say anything. He just lobs a Wikipedia link. Don't think there's really anything to say other than asking what his point is. Tossing out links isn't an argument. They're useful for supporting an argument, but just tossing out a link like that is just laziness. We're not psychics.

se

 
 

Spoiler: Not a psychic? Click here! ;)

Kinda obvious, I thought: an audiophile "authority" claims that this sounds like that, mentions something like "careful listeners will notice..." or "my clever readers..." and so primes their audience. Pygmalion effect then works in step with expectation bias: even if the audiophile imagines hearing some differences, their perception is still made more acute by focus, allowing them to pick out minor details they wouldn't have otherwise.  
For example, say you prepare an ABX test with the protocol including telling the testers that they were specially selected as experienced and capable listeners and that they are more likely to hear the difference than mere mortals. Then regardless of the results of the testing the participants will expend more effort and do better (provided an actual audible difference) than if you were to introduce the test by saying "this test has a foregone conclusion, you're not going to hear a difference".
 
That is what the pygmalion hypothesis suggests will happen. Olive's trained listener research offers contradicting evidence, but I wonder if there's any potential for quantifiable improvement in critical listening abilities to be gained by blowing smoke up audiophiles' asses. As did bfreedma, hence the link.

 

[StanD]

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?

 

[Steve Eddy]

Kinda obvious, I thought: an audiophile "authority" claims that this sounds like that, mentions something like "careful listeners will notice..." or "my clever readers..." and so primes their audience.

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.

Pygmalion effect then works in step with expectation bias: even if the audiophile imagines hearing some differences, their perception is still made more acute by focus, allowing them to pick out minor details they wouldn't have otherwise.

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.

For example, say you prepare an ABX test with the protocol including telling the testers that they were specially selected as experienced and capable listeners and that they are more likely to hear the difference than mere mortals. Then regardless of the results of the testing the participants will expend more effort and do better (provided an actual audible difference) than if you were to introduce the test by saying "this test has a foregone conclusion, you're not going to hear a difference".

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.
 

That is what the pygmalion hypothesis suggests will happen.

I really don't think what you are saying is an apt reading of, or representation of the effect.

Olive's trained listener research offers contradicting evidence, but I wonder if there's any potential for quantifiable improvement in critical listening abilities to be gained by blowing smoke up audiophiles' asses. As did bfreedma, hence the link.

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

 

[bfreedma]

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?

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.