Me and my perception

[opus111]

Self-development in my case. I wouldn't call it a technique, more of a path towards increased self-awareness - some might call it a 'spiritual journey'. To diminish expectation bias its necessary to reduce one's expectation - not want a particular result in anything. Its possible to learn to love whatever shows up.

Beyond that I cross corroborate listening with others to see if they describe similar effects.

 

[amirm]

Self-development in my case. I wouldn't call it a technique, more of a path towards increased self-awareness - some might call it a 'spiritual journey'. To diminish expectation bias its necessary to reduce one's expectation - not want a particular result in anything. Its possible to learn to love whatever shows up.

Removal of expectation bias does not solve the problem though. Take one system that is 2 db louder than other. You walk in with no expectation of that system being better yet you pick it because it was louder. Incorrect results is therefore generated. I proud myself in being exceptionally good at what you say yet, just like Vincent, I have had catastrophic failures. The only way to know that is to have a way to verify that you have done so. Most times we have no way of determining the correct answer so we walk around thinking we are better than we are .

Beyond that I cross corroborate listening with others to see if they describe similar effects.

I think it is useful to gather all the data one can. But ultimately one can be wrong and hugely so. That realization needs to be set in in my opinion to know the reliability of our perception using sufficient number of objective tests. Without it I am afraid we can be wrong and not know it .

 

[Bill Hart]

There is no doubt about it. The crucial part of a long "break-in" period is our hearing becoming accustomed to the way it sounds and what happens in our minds.

Mechanical components like woofers may take several hours (I mean less than 10) at moderately high volume to have the surrounds get used to flexing. Even at only 20 Hz, run for ONE hour, the woofer is going to flex 72,000 times in and out. How many cycles is required? Even if you say a MILLION cycles, that is still only 14 HOURS--no days, weeks, months for break-in.

Once a piece of electronic equipment is warmed up and the power supply is fully charged, say 15 minutes (or less) for solid state and 30-60 minutes (or less) for tubes, what you hear is what you've got. It isn't going to change.

For any valid comparison of speakers or electronics, you must be in the same room with identical set-ups, changing only the parts you are comparing. Everything else must remain constant. What you hear in one show vs another show is no means for comparison because everything is different. The emotional memory of ecstasy or disappointment while listening to a system often remains intact, but the audio memory is very flawed.

Gary: I think you are right about becoming 'conditioned' to the sound of equipment, but I do think there are things that change after prolonged burn-in. For example, the phono stage I am now using which has step up transformers did change sonically over the course of about 100 plus hours of playing. I don't think it was my ears getting conditioned to it. Perhaps one of the engineering types here can explain burn-in as it relates to transformers. I also think that a phono cartridge needs to be run-in a bit before it sounds best.
With respect to keeping everything else the same when making 'tests,' that's sound scientific method, in eliminating other variables. But, in the course of a discussion I was having with someone else regarding this topic (in other words, I can't take credit for this observation), what if, as a result of a change in a component, some other adjustment in the system needs to be made for that change, overall, to sound at its best? (Almost, in a crude way, like a change in volume as a result of introducing a different component- you have to make another change for there to be a constant).
While i think I have 'quick ears' in the sense of detecting differences, I can only evaluate something in my system with all the other variables known- which is your point- but I also seem to require longer listening to make meaningful sense of it. In other words, I can hear a change from A/B but am often not sure what is really better until I have listened longer term to both options.
I'm not sure how I'd fare on double blind testing. But, I don't listen that way, and admit I am striving for tonality and some aspect of 'thereness' that sounds right to my ears, which is largely subjective and very dependent on the strengths and weaknesses of my set-up as well as my personal biases.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What you call "tilting at windmills" I call observing human behavior. YMMV. I'd like to think my bias is manageable as well. And it is, to a point. Beyond that point? I've done a few rounds of casual blind listening here at home to see what I can really hear. Nothing statistically valid. Nothing even approaching onerous, IMO. Nothing that proves anything. But if they haven't proven anything is inaudible they have served as a very strong indicator of what is insignificant. YMMV on that one as well.

Tim

 

[opus111]

Removal of expectation bias does not solve the problem though. Take one system that is 2 db louder than other. You walk in with no expectation of that system being better yet you pick it because it was louder.

I don't do my listening in such contrived situations as that though so yeah, I can see that's a problem. I have no need for level matching as I won't form a view over such a short space of time. I'll listen at higher and lower volume levels, with all different kinds of music. But sometimes when I make a change its just an uneasiness which I feel about the result. Recently I changed to a different PSU on my DAC and I lost the relaxed feeling although I couldn't point out what was different in descriptive terms of the sound. Seems you're still thinking in terms of what I call the 'comparison paradigm'. I no longer go there because I've also had catastrophic failures in such. Thinking 'correct answers' engages the wrong part of my brain, so I don't bother. I've also given up forming opinions of 'whether I'm any good' or not.

I think it is useful to gather all the data one can. But ultimately one can be wrong and hugely so. That realization needs to be set in in my opinion to know the reliability of our perception using sufficient number of objective tests. Without it I am afraid we can be wrong and not know it .

I can't get what 'objective tests' might mean, I'm a subjectivist. So is everyone else, they just don't realize it yet I have no fear of being wrong and not knowing it myself.

 

[opus111]

What you call "tilting at windmills" I call observing human behavior. YMMV.

MMDV.

Beyond that point? I've done a few rounds of casual blind listening here at home to see what I can really hear.

Placebo effect is really hearing.

 

[amirm]

I don't do my listening in such contrived situations as that though so yeah, I can see that's a problem. I have no need for level matching as I won't form a view over such a short space of time. I'll listen at higher and lower volume levels, with all different kinds of music. But sometimes when I make a change its just an uneasiness which I feel about the result. Recently I changed to a different PSU on my DAC and I lost the relaxed feeling although I couldn't point out what was different in descriptive terms of the sound. Seems you're still thinking in terms of what I call the 'comparison paradigm'. I no longer go there because I've also had catastrophic failures in such. Thinking 'correct answers' engages the wrong part of my brain, so I don't bother. I've also given up forming opinions of 'whether I'm any good' or not.

What is your reference for whether you are guessing wrong in such situations? How do you know the PSU made no difference at all for the sake of discussion and you thought it did? Negative outcome (i.e. the sound getting worse) does not fix that problem.

I can't get what 'objective tests' might mean, I'm a subjectivist. So is everyone else, they just don't realize it yet I have no fear of being wrong and not knowing it myself.

If your observation is wrong then you can't say that you are immune to factors that make it so . That's what I thought we were discussing. If you say that it matters not that the above power supply actually did nothing, then that's OK . It is a choice to live in that domain as you say.

 

[microstrip]

What are those techniques to manage one's bias?

Listen regularly to life performances. Then in your system listen with time to recordings of types of music you have direct experience. Focus on aspects you consider that approach you of the real performance and make you feel less it is a recording. Apply statistics to your findings - never rely on a single even impression. As a final aspect remember Nelson Pass words "We want you to enjoy the experience so much that you go through your entire record collection - again and again. This, by the way, is a very strong indicator.". If we stop enjoying and feeling the same next week something is wrong, either with the system or us.

 

[amirm]

Listen regularly to life performances. Then in your system listen with time to recordings of types of music you have direct experience. Focus on aspects you consider that approach you of the real performance and make you feel less it is a recording. Apply statistics to your findings - never rely on a single even impression. As a final aspect remember Nelson Pass words "We want you to enjoy the experience so much that you go through your entire record collection - again and again. This, by the way, is a very strong indicator.". If we stop enjoying and feeling the same next week something is wrong, either with the system or us.

That's a philosophy but not an answer to the original question . In the olden days, I was a trained expert listener for compressed music. I could detect problems almost no one could. I had my list of killer tracks that were revealing and my ability to hear problems in them was incredibly good. Yet, just like Vincent, I thought there were differences in clips that were identical to each other on occasion! I had a nice test for that. I could compare the files and see that they were bit for bit the same. Yet I heard more "air" and life in one vs the other. I could on demand manufacture that difference and have it go away just as well.

Were my odds of being wrong less than average Joe in that regard? Sure. Was I immune to it? Nope.

In the domain we are talking about, the differences are much smaller than what I was testing. As such, I think what we hear is completely within the range of placebo. As I noted, unless you have a way of verifying how often you have been wrong, you really can't assign statistics to how good you are.

As for enjoying the music, sure, we are back to making a choice. It is not an answer to the debate .

 

[opus111]

What is your reference for whether you are guessing wrong in such situations?

I can't follow you here - I was not 'guessing' I was responding to my feeling. I can't see how 'guessing wrong' applies in the circumstance I described with the PSU swap.

To give an analogy - when i feel thirsty, I respond to that feeling of thirst by going to make a cup of tea. I don't need to say or think to myself 'oh, I guess that I must be feeling thirsty - but what if I'm wrong and I don't actually feel thirsty now?'

 

[amirm]

I can't follow you here - I was not 'guessing' I was responding to my feeling. I can't see how 'guessing wrong' applies in the circumstance I described with the PSU swap.

I am still trying to understand your original position that you are more immune to mistakes here. To know one's higher than average ability there needs to be way to check that.

Let's say I tell you that my knowledge of math is perfect. And for proof, I say that every exam I ever take, I know all the answers. That statement has little value unless someone scores said exam and shows how I got all the answers right.

In the case of your PSU, you don't know if you scored the PSU right. There could have been no difference, or maybe the PSU was actually better for sound and you thought it was worse. In this regard, we are no closer to accepting that your abilities are better than average.

To give an analogy - when i feel thirsty, I respond to that feeling of thirst by going to make a cup of tea. I don't need to say or think to myself 'oh, I guess that I must be feeling thirsty - but what if I'm wrong and I don't actually feel thirsty now?'

First, let me say that anyone who drinks tea can't be all that wrong. That aside, it is really not the right analogy. We don't have data that says we routinely drink water when we are not thirsty at all. And further, the cost of being wrong there is next to zero. Nor does it influence anyone else. In the case of your PSU change, it took money and effort to perform that upgrade. All else being equal, one would want to know if that endeavor produces correct outcomes. I might be interested in doing the same upgrade for example.

I think where we need to land is that mistakes can happen here and unfortunately the smaller the difference, the more likely that can happen.

We are in a difficult place because performing proper objective analysis is very hard and beyond the means of many. So you may want to do what pros do. Which is to perform subjective analysis most of the time but at least occasionally do an objective test. Try to find the limits of your hearing perception. If you always ace it, then you don't need to do it as often.

 

[microstrip]

That's a philosophy but not an answer to the original question . In the olden days, I was a trained expert listener for compressed music. I could detect problems almost no one could. I had my list of killer tracks that were revealing and my ability to hear problems in them was incredibly good. Yet, just like Vincent, I thought there were differences in clips that were identical to each other on occasion! I had a nice test for that. I could compare the files and see that they were bit for bit the same. Yet I heard more "air" and life in one vs the other. I could on demand manufacture that difference and have it go away just as well.

Were my odds of being wrong less than average Joe in that regard? Sure. Was I immune to it? Nope.

In the domain we are talking about, the differences are much smaller than what I was testing. As such, I think what we hear is completely within the range of placebo. As I noted, unless you have a way of verifying how often you have been wrong, you really can't assign statistics to how good you are.

As for enjoying the music, sure, we are back to making a choice. It is not an answer to the debate .

Sorry, I did not realize that the debate was mainly centered on evaluating differences between digital files using headphones or similar situations. Considering the OP I should have guessed. It is not really my current interest.

 

[opus111]

I am still trying to understand your original position that you are more immune to mistakes here.

Yes, I can see you're trying here But so far you're not making a very good job of it. But let's keep at it.

To know one's higher than average ability there needs to be way to check that.

Well I'm content with my higher than average immunity to bias not being checked, equally well I'm open to being cross examined on it. I'm taking it you mean the need is yours to understand, rather than the need being mine to justify it?

Let's say I tell you that my knowledge of math is perfect. And for proof, I say that every exam I ever take, I know all the answers. That statement has little value unless someone scores said exam and shows how I got all the answers right.

Its a poor analogy - exams are quite different from the real world of evaluating audio quality. Evaluating audio quality is more akin to, say chick sexing than passing maths exams.

In the case of your PSU, you don't know if you scored the PSU right.

There was no scoring, just following my feeling. Feelings can't be right or wrong - that's for propositions.

There could have been no difference, or maybe the PSU was actually better for sound and you thought it was worse. In this regard, we are no closer to accepting that your abilities are better than average.

Again misunderstanding. I did not do any thinking - so 'thought it was worse' misrepresents what's going on. 'Thought it was worse' would mean I formed an opinion of the sound, and I did not do so.

First, let me say that anyone who drinks tea can't be all that wrong. That aside, it is really not the right analogy. We don't have data that says we routinely drink water when we are not thirsty at all. And further, the cost of being wrong there is next to zero. Nor does it influence anyone else.

Its the same with my audio decision - it does not influence anyone else. I just do audio design for my own satisfaction.

In the case of your PSU change, it took money and effort to perform that upgrade. All else being equal, one would want to know if that endeavor produces correct outcomes. I might be interested in doing the same upgrade for example.

I doubt your setup is quite as primitive as mine - the upgrade was from a USB (switching) wallwart to a linear wallwart for the front end receiver of my DAC.

I think where we need to land is that mistakes can happen here and unfortunately the smaller the difference, the more likely that can happen.

Yep mistakes can happen - I intend to learn from making them by improving my sensitivity to audio quality.

We are in a difficult place because performing proper objective analysis is very hard and beyond the means of many. So you may want to do what pros do. Which is to perform subjective analysis most of the time but at least occasionally do an objective test. Try to find the limits of your hearing perception. If you always ace it, then you don't need to do it as often.

I'm unclear what 'finding the limits of my hearing perception' means here. Presumably it means performing some blind testing on contrived tests? In which case, no thanks, too boring.

 

[amirm]

Sorry, I did not realize that the debate was mainly centered on evaluating differences between digital files using headphones or similar situations.

It was not at all centered over one type of evaluation. I shared similar situation I have been in which despite extreme familiarity with the content as you suggested, and combined with knowledge of technology and its artifacts, I was still fooled. So the notion that one knows live music as you suggested, and hence is less liable to fall victim here does not follow.

Considering the OP I should have guessed. It is not really my current interest.

Well, you guessed wrong . We are having a general conversation and are sharing insight based on what each one of us knows.

 

[mep]

Here is what I know: Expectation bias is real and I understand that. I also understand that I have been involved in this hobby long enough to realize that buying something new and shiny doesn’t guarantee you that you will have better sound. I start off every listening evaluation with the thought that whatever the new ‘thing’ is that I just inserted in my system isn’t going to be better than what I took out to allow it in. Everything has to earn its keep. You have to expect you will make some mistakes and not necessarily hit a home run with every new product that you buy.

And having said that, if you don’t already own an edge of the art mega expensive D/A converter, run don’t walk to find yourself a Mytek Stereo DSD 192 DAC. This thing is incredible sounding and you don’t have to think hard, concentrate, close your eyes, and wonder if maybe you hear a little difference in sound quality. If you have a full range system, you will be blown away. With the right source material, every bone in your body will start vibrating. You can’t get that from headphones no matter what your grandma told you. The Mytek will pressurize your room and your bones and bring you one step closer to reality. And for digital, I just can’t believe the differences in what I am hearing.

With so many DACs on the market that still can’t pass a 24/192 signal over a USB connection from your computer, now you can play 64 and 128 DSD files.

 

[amirm]

Its a poor analogy - exams are quite different from the real world of evaluating audio quality. Evaluating audio quality is more akin to, say chick sexing than passing maths exams.

Not in book. If I am designing equipment, I have to be as right as I would be when I add 1+1 and get 2. The notion that it is some nebulous thing means that designers are throwing a dice hoping it is right. One way or the other, all of us are searching for audio truth. That truth has to be predictive, and causal. It is is not, then something is wrong or we are not following science.

I'm unclear what 'finding the limits of my hearing perception' means here. Presumably it means performing some blind testing on contrived tests? In which case, no thanks, too boring.

It is like this. If 9 out of 10 times you are wrong about what sounds better/different, then you don't want to keep trusting your instincts. If you are right much better than that, then you should. I have tested people who were in the former camp yet thought they were in the latter. We once did a large scale test at Microsoft of compressed audio artifacts and used the "audiophile" alias to find candidates. Vast majority of them failed to detect even high levels of compressed audio distortion. I know it is hard truth to swallow . But we are far worse at hearing non-linear distortions than we think we are. I am always excited to find the 1 out of 10 people who does hear such artifacts. Those people exist. So when you said you had high chances of being right, I took notice. But I hearing that is an opinion and not based on data. Having seen the two not agree, I can't accept it as being the case by default. If you said what you said without needing us to accept, then that's cool. If you did want to convince us, then some data is necessary however you want to gather and defend it. If the work is too boring, then you don't have to do it. Nor do we then have to accept the conclusion lacking the data .

 

[terryj]

There was no scoring, just following my feeling. Feelings can't be right or wrong - that's for propositions.

But you take those feelings and turn them into proof of your ability to be immune from bias.

In effect, you have made your feelings 'right'.

 

[opus111]

Not in book.

Did you mean 'not in my book' ? If so sure, we operate from different 'books'. Mine isn't a book at all, I'm just feeling my way along.

If I am designing equipment, I have to be as right as I would be when I add 1+1 and get 2.

Having designed a few pieces of kit I'm unclear what 'being right' would mean here. My aim was (I'm not doing this commercially right now) to get something that worked reliably, with an appropriate BOM cost, that was manufacturable and testable. And of course which sold - meaning it had to please the customer. All of which are matters of degree not '1+1=2'.

The notion that it is some nebulous thing means that designers are throwing a dice hoping it is right.

Such a notion would be yours rather than mine. I use heuristics just like everyone else I know of, not random mutation.

One way or the other, all of us are searching for audio truth.

Count me out of that 'all' - I'm seeking audio satisfaction, delight, ecstasy but not 'truth'. I have no idea what 'truth' might mean here. To my understanding our senses have not evolved to deliver us truth (which would be in the parlance veridical perception), rather they evolve so that we are effective survivors.

That truth has to be predictive, can causal. It is is not, then something is wrong or we are not following science.

I'll grant that I'm not following science - which restricts itself to 'objective' phenomena in my understanding ever since the chasm with the 'Church'. So much the poorer for science.

It is like this. If 9 out of 10 times you are wrong about what sounds better/different, then you don't want to keep trusting your instincts. If you are right much better than that, then you should.

I don't test myself with such scoring schemes, so I guess I'll never know. Scoring schemes seem irrelevant to me, just as exams are irrelevant to me.

I have tested people who were in the former camp yet thought they were in the latter. We once did a large scale test at Microsoft of compressed audio artifacts and used the "audiophile" alias to find candidates. Vast majority of them failed to detect even high levels of compressed audio distortion. I know it is hard truth to swallow .

Sounds entirely reasonable to me. I'm not one who thinks I'm in a particular camp, nor am I a traditional audiophile as far as I'm aware. I'm uninterested in whether or not I can hear particular distortions - I agree that's interesting to designers who want to correlate distortion with perception. I'm not one of them.

But we are far worse at hearing non-linear distortions than we think we are.

Not relevant to me because I don't hold an opinion of how good or bad I am at hearing non-linear distortions.

I am always excited to find the 1 out of 10 people who does hear such artifacts. Those people exist. So when you said you had high chances of being right, I took notice.

Where did I say that? I just said I'm above average in immunity to bias in evaluating audio quality. I was not referring to DBT tests or trying to spot particular artifacts of perceptual coders or even of audio components.

But I hearing that is an opinion and not based on data.

Its not an opinion, call it a hypothesis based on my relative immunity to expectation bias. It is based on data which satisfies me - my hearing observations. I don't expect it to satisfy you.

Having seen the two not agree, I can't accept it as being the case by default. If you said what you said without needing us to accept, then that's cool.

If I needed you to accept, wouldn't that mean I had an expectation that you would? And I've already said I have no expectation.

If you did want to convince us, then some data is necessary however you want to gather and defend it.

Sure I wasn't aiming to convince - rather gently influence. To open up the discussion, to prompt further questioning. Which so far, it has.

If the work is too boring, then you don't have to do it. Nor do we then have to accept the conclusion lacking the data .

Indeed, you're a free agent just as I am. Most humans don't accept evidence anyway which conflicts with what they already think they know - paradigm shifts are necessary to even notice evidence which conflicts with their current paradigm. The notion that people are persuaded by data is rather amusing, given the research that's been done in behavioural economics.

 

[opus111]

But you take those feelings and turn them into proof of your ability to be immune from bias.

Tilting at windmills. Where have I mentioned 'proof'? - that's for mathematics, not engineering.

In effect, you have made your feelings 'right'.

False premise.

 

[terryj]

Tilting at windmills. Where have I mentioned 'proof'? - that's for mathematics, not engineering.

Ahh, ok. Just got the game we are playing, sorry for being so slow.

If there is no proof, or at least none you have mentioned to date, why is it exactly that you are so confident you can set aside your biases better than the majority of humanity?

That slippery enough for you?

You use a circular argument..."I am able to set aside my biases sufficiently well that the normal problems beset by mere mortals do not apply to me. I can hear the difference "X", and as I can set aside my biases I know that is correct' (or not, no right or wrong, gotta keep it fluffy)

to wit, the circular argument

Its not an opinion, call it a hypothesis based on my relative immunity to expectation bias. It is based on data which satisfies me - my hearing observations. I don't expect it to satisfy you.

Go back to the beginning and start again.



Speak for yourself, I do OK in avoiding bias personally without resorting to the onerous precautions

Just that my bias is manageable without the 'onerous precautions'.

I wouldn't call it a technique, more of a path towards increased self-awareness - some might call it a 'spiritual journey'.

Well I'm content with my higher than average immunity to bias not being checked

Look, I too am completely sure I can run the 100 m in under ten seconds, so sure in fact that I have no need to go on to the track, lay down my ciggies and beer, take off me thongs and time my run. I am sure 99.99% of the population can't do what I do, but I base my ability to do so on my spiritual journey.

Self awareness. Ironic.