[Claritas]

You're going to have to do better than that. Otherwise, you're talking out of your hat.

 

[Happy Camper]

Commentary used to refute Blades was directly quoted from his comments. So if there seems to be a negative tone, it's a purpose to tone down the opinion. And with that, I'm out of this conversation. That's what this forum does.

 

[blades]

An unhappy camper after all.  Sorry to have wounded you in some way. Perhaps the best approach for you is to ignore what I wrote.  Best of luck.

 

[Lenni]

   
Expectation bias.  It just takes one person to claim the audible difference and that expectation will transfer to others.  Where do you think all the cable nonsense originated (hint: audio magazines.)  All you need to do is conduct a bias controlled, level matched comparison to understand what I'm talking about.  All I'm saying is that a bias controlled test will make those audible differences disappear.  How do I know?  I've done hundreds of bias controlled listening tests.  Feel free to prove me wrong.  But giving me the same subjective argument I've heard a jillion times isn't meaningful at all.
 
Now there is one thing that can mess up the sound presentation of headphones and that is having an amplifier with too high an output impedance.  If you were making your comparison between a high impedance source and a low impedance power amp, then what you say makes sense.  But it has zero to do with the power.  Do a blind test and choose a low impedance model on the headphone amp side.  As long as you remove all the potential bias and level match accurately, there won't be an audible difference.  I'm certain of it. 
 
As we all know, power amps designed to drive speakers all have very low output impedance so there won't be an issue with low impedance heaphones such as yours.  Some headphone amps have output impedances higher than your headphones.  That's a no no.

 
I think you're placing too much faith in the expectation bias as the reason for everything...
 
what if these audible differences become evident when someone is not actually doing a test, or listening for differences? in other word, not expecting differences.
 
there goes you expectation bias applied theory out of the window. 

 

[ab initio]

   
I think you're placing too much faith in the expectation bias as the reason for everything...
 
what if these audible differences become evident when someone is not actually doing a test, or listening for differences? in other word, not expecting differences.
 
there goes you expectation bias applied theory out of the window. 

 
That's not how expectation bias works...
 
Here is an article on confirmation bias and for general interest, here are other congnitive biases.
 
 
Cheers

 

[mikeaj]

Expectation bias is one thing, but it's just one of many factors.
 
The reality is that no two experiences are exactly the same. No matter what, every listening session is a bit different than any other one in multiple ways, so any conclusion like "X is what caused Y" is on shaky ground unless sufficiently randomized and properly controlled as best as able. Physically, any small difference in positioning (headphone on the head) and so on has an impact on sound. Mentally, your thoughts, moods, and the way you listen have an impact on what you perceive and remember. This is where prior expectations and biases can color results in an unintended fashion, whether or not you think there are any expectations. But it's not just that. Anything from listening to something the n+1st time instead of the nth time to it being a later time of day may influence how you listen and what you get out of it. Critical listening may produce different results (generally more sensitive to changes, but still: different) than more causal listening. It goes on.
 
You can't account for everything, but on the other hand, you certainly aren't accounting for a whole bunch of stuff with anecdotal, uncontrolled listening examples.

 

[blades]

   
I think you're placing too much faith in the expectation bias as the reason for everything...
 
what if these audible differences become evident when someone is not actually doing a test, or listening for differences? in other word, not expecting differences.
 
there goes you expectation bias applied theory out of the window. 

You think so?  Just because you don't like it?  Perhaps we need to understand better how expectation bias works.  It is subconscious.  Somebody reads a review in a magazine that some gadget has liquid, flowing sound.  He buys one.  The expectation bias is now set.  If he compares it to something that sounds exactly the same, he will still hear that liquid, flowing sound from the gadget.  Can't help it.  It is human nature.  Getting him involved in a bias controlled test will correct it assuming there was actually no audible difference.
 
If an audible difference exists in a sighted, biased test then disappears in a bias controlled test, how do you explain it if it isn't bias?

 

[blades]

  Expectation bias is one thing, but it's just one of many factors.
 
The reality is that no two experiences are exactly the same. No matter what, every listening session is a bit different than any other one in multiple ways, so any conclusion like "X is what caused Y" is on shaky ground unless sufficiently randomized and properly controlled as best as able. Physically, any small difference in positioning (headphone on the head) and so on has an impact on sound. Mentally, your thoughts, moods, and the way you listen have an impact on what you perceive and remember. This is where prior expectations and biases can color results in an unintended fashion, whether or not you think there are any expectations. But it's not just that. Anything from listening to something the n+1st time instead of the nth time to it being a later time of day may influence how you listen and what you get out of it. Critical listening may produce different results (generally more sensitive to changes, but still: different) than more causal listening. It goes on.
 
You can't account for everything, but on the other hand, you certainly aren't accounting for a whole bunch of stuff with anecdotal, uncontrolled listening examples.

 
No two experiences are the same with a sighted comparison would be more accurate.  With bias controlled experiments, they are always exactly the same.  Audio gadgets either provide an audible difference or they don't.  It isn't a matter of preference or environment.  It is black and white.  The gadgets either sound different or they don't.
 
As to your last sentence, what I'm describing are very well controlled tests.  It is sighted comparisons that are uncontrolled.  Also you can accept my "bunch of stuff" or not as you see fit.  But it is part of my personal experience just like your comments are part of yours.

 

[Lenni]

  Expectation bias is one thing, but it's just one of many factors.
 
The reality is that no two experiences are exactly the same. No matter what, every listening session is a bit different than any other one in multiple ways, so any conclusion like "X is what caused Y" is on shaky ground unless sufficiently randomized and properly controlled as best as able. Physically, any small difference in positioning (headphone on the head) and so on has an impact on sound. Mentally, your thoughts, moods, and the way you listen have an impact on what you perceive and remember. This is where prior expectations and biases can color results in an unintended fashion, whether or not you think there are any expectations. But it's not just that. Anything from listening to something the n+1st time instead of the nth time to it being a later time of day may influence how you listen and what you get out of it. Critical listening may produce different results (generally more sensitive to changes, but still: different) than more causal listening. It goes on.
 
You can't account for everything, but on the other hand, you certainly aren't accounting for a whole bunch of stuff with anecdotal, uncontrolled listening examples.

 
I cannot disagree with everything you said, even the expectation biases to some extent. I know because I have experience all the differences you mentioned at some points or another.
However, the differences I'm referring to are different kinds of differences. these are differences that the brain picks up when is completely focused on something else, but they make you stop and take notice.

 

[ab initio]

   
No two experiences are the same with a sighted comparison would be more accurate.  With bias controlled experiments, they are always exactly the same.  Audio gadgets either provide an audible difference or they don't.  It isn't a matter of preference or environment.  It is black and white.  The gadgets either sound different or they don't.

 
Be careful here. You're arguing a false dilemma. 
 
The difference between two devices can vary from very obviously different to not different at all (and anywhere in between). The degree of difference may be subtle. Whether a difference is within the audibility of human hearing can also be established; however, it is wrong to try and make this issue black and white in general.
 
Cheers

 

[Lenni]

 
You think so?  Just because you don't like it?  Perhaps we need to understand better how expectation bias works.  It is subconscious.  Somebody reads a review in a magazine that some gadget has liquid, flowing sound.  He buys one.  The expectation bias is now set.  If he compares it to something that sounds exactly the same, he will still hear that liquid, flowing sound from the gadget.  Can't help it.  It is human nature.  Getting him involved in a bias controlled test will correct it assuming there was actually no audible difference.
 
If an audible difference exists in a sighted, biased test then disappears in a bias controlled test, how do you explain it if it isn't bias?

 
it seems to me that most of these expectation bias arguments are based on the assumption that audiophiles spend all day swapping gear when they get a new piece of equipment. I pretty sure most don't.
 
I haven't swapped my speaker cables once, since I got them. didn't need to. 
 
nothing wrong with swapping and testing, but I really don't feel like these "controlled tests" are as effective or reliable as you believe them to be.

 

[Lenni]

   
That's not how expectation bias works...
 
Here is an article on confirmation bias and for general interest, here are other congnitive biases.
 
 
Cheers

Interesting, but tl;dr. one day maybe... thanks

 

[Claritas]

1. Has anyone run credible tests about this specific topic? Not related topics--this specific topic.

2. If there is an actual difference in how the two sorts of set ups sound (whether or not it's ever been tested for), what do you think might account for it? Blue skying is perfectly fine.

 

[blades]

   
it seems to me that most of these expectation bias arguments are based on the assumption that audiophiles spend all day swapping gear when they get a new piece of equipment. I pretty sure most don't.
 
I haven't swapped my speaker cables once, since I got them. didn't need to. 
 
nothing wrong with swapping and testing, but I really don't feel like these "controlled tests" are as effective or reliable as you believe them to be.

 
I never suggested that audiophiles spend a lot of time doing comparisons.  I agree that there is no need to swap speaker cables.  I can assure you that bias controlled tests are reliable while sighted comparisons are not.  But you don't want to believe that so we'll leave it there.

 

[blades]

   
Be careful here. You're arguing a false dilemma. 
 
The difference between two devices can vary from very obviously different to not different at all (and anywhere in between). The degree of difference may be subtle. Whether a difference is within the audibility of human hearing can also be established; however, it is wrong to try and make this issue black and white in general.
 
Cheers

I explained in an earlier post how to score subtle differences.  Despite how subtle an audible difference might be, it is still audible.  Audible.  Not audible.  Black and white.