It's very important for the curious to acknowlwdge the existance of expectation bias - if we know it can colour our thinking, we can at least take quite simple steps to lessen its effects. However, some seem to assume its very existance renders all human experience suspect which ain't that enlightening or useful.
Couldn't agree more.
I note from this thread that its not just audio fans that are dogged by opinions masquerading as facts - formally trained psychologists appear to be no better!
Can you point us to evidence of this? What are you referring to? I'm interested.
What classical music are you listening to?
I can't believe I let myself get suckered into reading ANOTHER of these threads.
The only thing I got out of it was this
I'm reminded of the old motto. "Never argue with idiots, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience".
Which made me lol 'cos I hadn't heard it before.
As I write this Eleanor McEvoy is singing in a space between my speakers. I know she isn't and I know the sound is coming from those boxes but it doesn't sound that way and that is the power of the auditory illusion. Your brain can interpret auditory and visual clues and create an illusion which does not need to have any bearing on reality. This is why it is too easy to convince oneself that A is better than B.
If you like it, listen to it and stop wasting time arguing. We all believe what we believe and 'resistance is futile'
Sonos ZP90>Missing Link "Digit">Dacmagic>Chord Cadenza>Leema Tucana I>Van Damme UP LC-OFC>ATC SCM40s
Sonos Connect:Amp>Mission 760i and MA Radius 90HD in series
Sonos Play 5 x2, Play 3
No one is forcing you to read, let alone reply!
Anyway, it seems you ar suffering from expectation bias - you expect to enjoy the music on your equally enjoyable system so you do!
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2, Mac Mini & iTunes Match, CA Azur 751BD or Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros.
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 5S/Sennheiser MM450.
To assume that the theory is correct simply assumes that most people think 'fast' as shown by the results of expectation bias tests and it is the default human setting, it also suggests that people can be trained to think 'slow' to negotiate expectation bias and other perception bias and discount those superficial differences.
Yes, I agree.
Whether people can be trained to think 'slow' or not is not the point.
Well, it was my point, because davedotco said it was impossible for people to train themselves to overcome expectation bias. I only contributed to this thread to contest davedotco's claim.
The point is that naturally people think in automatic 'fast' mode.
If by 'naturally' and 'automatic' you mean that people prefer to think in fast mode in most circumstances, then yes you're right. But if you mean people always do so by default, then no. No-one prefers to think in fast mode when doing quadratic equations or translating Ancient Greek poetry. Horses for courses.
Only evidence that it was stated in this thread:
"I don't want to take this too far from the realms of hifi but you are correct, there are plenty of researchers who play down the effects of expectation bias and placebo effect, just as there are plenty who do not."
My comment was more about observing the irony than factual edification. As a general observation, professionals in any field for all their training that instills rigor in the so-called scientific Method, are just as likely to disagree with each other than not.
I do not think that I said that people could not be trained to overcome expectation bias, I have no idea whether they can or can not, just that most people are subject to it and that knowing about it does not, in itself, minimise it's effects
If I said or implied differently then I take it back, I was not being precise.
To paraphrase the great Arthur C Clarke.......
"The brain is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think".
We do so many shows in a row,
And these towns all look the same,
We just pass the time in our hotel room
And wander 'round backstage,
Till the lights come up, and we hear that crowd,
And we remember why we came.
Ah, I see. But davedotco was just putting up a smokescreen. There was no actual substance in that statement.
In any given field of science scientists agree with one another 99% of the time. The 1% where they disagree is at the cutting edge of science, where new knowledge is being produced and new and controversial theories have to be thought up to explain it. Scientists disagree, then they resolve their disagreements and move on. That's how science works. What would be the point in endlessly repeating Faraday's Law once it's known to work? We pay these people to disagree for a very good reason.
Well, you sort of did say that people can't learn to overcome expectation bias, and that's what I was getting at. The scientific evidence is very clear: people can learn to overcome cognitive biases, including expectation bias. And learning to overcome expectation bias must begin with awareness that it happens. Of course, whether people can be bothered to learn to overcome expectation bias is a different matter. And there your comments about the failure of hi-fi 'experts' in blind tests are all too true.
I've said before on this forum that there ought to be much more blind testing of hifi. Even if it proved nothing, it'd be great fun. It'd be an education. But it ain't gonna happen. Too much resistance, too much inertia.
I think it would be naive to assume that the lack of blind testing wasn't driven primarily by commercial considerations.
Honestly, utter piffle.....
What does playing various tones at varing phase shifts really have to do with listening to music on a domestic set in your home?
I mean c'mon...this is why I throw down the 'come lets have a listen' challenge to you guys, its nonesense and in real world terms is about as useful has...er...something thats totally useless ... I mean really really useless.
music is recorded - sources, amps and speakers play it back - on a given amp it will play back said track exactly the same if nothing is changed, my argument to you is if one part of said system is changed lets say the interconnect between source and amp, audible differences can be heard by the human ear, variations on certain aspects of said track can be picked up.
you don't need to do a 3year study on the subject just set your own kit up and try it for youself.....and believe your ears.
did you try the tests I linked to? Were your ears fooled? Simple yes or no.....
Here's a video from the AES conference on audio myths. Interesting stuff, particularly the Poppy Crum segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Well im more confused now than ever(waves white flag).i thought coming to a hifi forum would help me in my choices for equipment speakers.amps,ect.now all this has confused me so much that im keeping what i got and spending my money on a holiday
So, you see it was worth it!
I'm sure your OH will go along with your decision! Have fun!
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing