Placebo effects in the extreme

[BlueFox]

Please point out where others were belittled in the original post.

Easy. The entire post consists solely of opinion that others are delusional and you know why. Purely a troll post designed to start an argument. Congratulations, you lost your argument.

Some points from the OP.

"So many wish to trust their ears and ignore how powerful such effects are that it has created a schism like having this one forum among dozens here in order to cut down on the deeply felt disagreements inherent in the high end of the hobby as it is."

"Commonly, those who don't see the need or benefit in scrupulously protecting yourself from fooling yourself or simply being fooled..."

"What I find is rather these are people who have had experience where clearly their golden ears betrayed them. They have personal experience of how wrong that can be due to expectation bias, and placebo."

"I have the experience more than once, of convincing people much of what they thought was different was only bias and placebo."

 

[opus112]

I already stated, and is commonly accepted your experience is real to you.

OK so your view does depart from that espoused by the OP.

Which is against your claim one problem is placebo isn't allowed to be real in audio. That is not the case.

But I did not claim what's in the above sentence. So looks like you're tilting at windmills. What I did say was that amongst objectivists there's a common view that's unique to audio ISTM - that placebo isn't considered (not 'not allowed') to be real.

 

[esldude]

OK so your view does depart from that espoused by the OP.



But I did not claim what's in the above sentence. So looks like you're tilting at windmills. What I did say was that amongst objectivists there's a common view that's unique to audio ISTM - that placebo isn't considered (not 'not allowed') to be real.

I just noticed opus112 has been an active account for like 2 days almost. With 30+ posts mostly in areas about forum moderation, and comments about a split, and obviously fomenting discontent here. So that is rather odd for a brand new member. I have the opinion you are not up to any good, and not posting in good faith. So I won't respond to you further.

 

[esldude]

Easy. The entire post consists solely of opinion that others are delusional and you know why. Purely a troll post designed to start an argument. Congratulations, you lost your argument.

Some points from the OP.

"So many wish to trust their ears and ignore how powerful such effects are that it has created a schism like having this one forum among dozens here in order to cut down on the deeply felt disagreements inherent in the high end of the hobby as it is."

"Commonly, those who don't see the need or benefit in scrupulously protecting yourself from fooling yourself or simply being fooled..."

"What I find is rather these are people who have had experience where clearly their golden ears betrayed them. They have personal experience of how wrong that can be due to expectation bias, and placebo."

"I have the experience more than once, of convincing people much of what they thought was different was only bias and placebo."

So now we are down to the placebo means people are delusional ploy. Surprised it took this long. Do you call people with medical placebo effects delusional? I wouldn't. Are they fooled yes. Being fooled is part of being human. Some seem to think they are immune to the human condition.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Here is a pic , the central bar is exactly the same shade of grey but it does not appear so.. it appears as graduated

The truth matters very little .. what is the reality for most? their reality is that it is NOT the same colour , it will never appear the same shade .. no matter how many times it is proven to be the same shade , folk will swear it isnt.

99.9% of folk will see the shade gradations in the central bar... thats their reality...you will never shake them of that no matter how you prove it.

 

[opus112]

I just noticed opus112 has been an active account for like 2 days almost.

Your observational skills must be either lacking, or the site's data is misleading. I opened this account about 5 hours ago.

With 30+ posts mostly in areas about forum moderation, and comments about a split, and obviously fomenting discontent here.

Evidence that led you to this 'obviously' claim was?

So that is rather odd for a brand new member. I have the opinion you are not up to any good, and not posting in good faith. So I won't respond to you further.

If you were to check into a little bit of the history of WBF you'd uncover more evidence which might lead to a different conclusion. But as you're probably posting not in good faith I shall leave it there, adios.

 

[BlueFox]

Depending on how I rotate the iPad, the color is lighter on the left and darker on the right. Or rotated it is the same color. Since sight is photons on the retina then how they strike affect the color. By extension, since sound is molecules striking the ear then how they strike can affect the sound. So while something might measure the same then if it affects the motion of the molecules it could improve or worsen the sound.

 

[Blizzard]

I find this banana peel is really helping with my soundstage depth tonight.

 

[BE718]

Depending on how I rotate the iPad, the color is lighter on the left and darker on the right. Or rotated it is the same color. Since sight is photons on the retina then how they strike affect the color. By extension, since sound is molecules striking the ear then how they strike can affect the sound. So while something might measure the same then if it affects the motion of the molecules it could improve or worsen the sound.

Any competent comparison (not speaker) would dictate that the conditions you refer to (ie speaker/listener/room) were identical.

 

[spazmatron]

I find this banana peel is really helping with my soundstage depth tonight.

View attachment 25918

thats because its taking the vibration area away from the cabinet, and changing the center of gravity of the speaker... not to mention helping with reflections.

been doing this for years! what took you so long mike?

 

[Blizzard]

thats because its taking the vibration area away from the cabinet, and changing the center of gravity of the speaker... not to mention helping with reflections.

been doing this for years! what took you so long mike?

No doubt. I think I need to eat more bananas!

 

[fas42]

How does it work?

Most likely in the same fashion as a ferrite core works - it attenuates and dissipates the very high frequency energy, partly noise from interference, that otherwise would be flowing in the circuits. Why not just use a ferrite? Because the latter may or may not work, depending upon precisely the characteristics of that particular instance of such a part, and the nature of the "noise" - this is a finger in the wind method of solving things.

From personal experience, this is a nightmare world to play in, there is no easy way of measuring what's going on - the best guide is one's ears telling one that the sound is better or not.

 

[BE718]

Most likely in the same fashion as a ferrite core works - it attenuates and dissipates the very high frequency energy, partly noise from interference, that otherwise would be flowing in the circuits. Why not just use a ferrite? Because the latter may or may not work, depending upon precisely the characteristics of that particular instance of such a part, and the nature of the "noise" - this is a finger in the wind method of solving things.

From personal experience, this is a nightmare world to play in, there is no easy way of measuring what's going on - the best guide is one's ears telling one that the sound is better or not.

With the greatest of respect (that is a sincere comment), and judging from your "most likely" you are not really sure - a bit of a guess? Dont worry you are not alone in not knowing what the entreq does. As far as information anyone has posted, it appears to connect the ground (signal) of each bit of kit to each other either directly or through some "crystals", mulch or kitty litter depending on your particular view point .

If its directly, and you feel the need to connect your grounds together, then if its a solution just use ordinary cable and a connector block.
if its not directly, just use ordinary cable and a connector block.

Personally I dont see either as a proper solution.

Questions:

Do you know that you actually have a noise problem in your system?
How do you know if adding the box has actually solved the problem or made it worse (as Fiddles initial data showed)
Dont you think it would be a better solution to find out and solve the fundamental problem rather than spending thousands on magic boxes?
How do you know if you just subjectively prefer the effect of additional noise (potentially added by the entreq) in your system?
How do you know if after spending a grand on the box that you arent just convincing yourself its helping?

Its just the wrong approach whatever way you look at it.

 

[fas42]

If its directly, and you feel the need to connect your grounds together, then if its a solution just use ordinary cable and a connector block.
if its not directly, just use ordinary cable and a connector block.

So, ordinary cable of an indeterminate length has zero impedance at any frequency, going well into the GHz range? Why do we need to worry about such high frequencies - well, wireless phones, etc, all operate at those frequencies, if there's any extraneous coupling going on then we want to try and make sure that our audio circuits never see that sort of noise fooling around with connections, etc.

Questions:

Do you know that you actually have a noise problem in your system?

The overall quality degrades, a flatness, deadness, lack of life afflicts the sound, typically.

How do you know if adding the box has actually solved the problem or made it worse

That degradation disappears - subjectively, the playback comes to life, one feels as if music is in the room, it no longer is just a sound reproduction mechanism.

Dont you think it would be a better solution to find out and solve the fundamental problem rather than spending thousands on magic boxes?

Very much so.

How do you know if you just subjectively prefer the effect of additional noise in your system?

From personal experience, noise never works - it always degrades. As an extreme example, listen to a normal PA system - if that type of quality turns you on you can't be helped ... but there are some who prefer no additives ...

How do you know if after spending a grand on the box that you arent just convincing yourself its helping?

Its just the wrong approach whatever way you look at it.

Personally, I use the $5 solution - I play with very ordinary materials, and parts, and try to determine what's going on, what works, as best I can.

 

[BE718]

So, ordinary cable of an indeterminate length has zero impedance at any frequency, going well into the GHz range? Why do we need to worry about such high frequencies - well, wireless phones, etc, all operate at those frequencies, if there's any extraneous coupling going on then we want to try and make sure that our audio circuits never see that sort of noise fooling around with connections, etc.


The overall quality degrades, a flatness, deadness, lack of life afflicts the sound, typically.


That degradation disappears - subjectively, the playback comes to life, one feels as if music is in the room, it no longer is just a sound reproduction mechanism.


Very much so.


From personal experience, noise never works - it always degrades. As an extreme example, listen to a normal PA system - if that type of quality turns you on you can't be helped ... but there are some who prefer no additives ...


Personally, I use the $5 solution - I play with very ordinary materials, and parts, and try to determine what's going on, what works, as best I can.

No of course it doesnt, but neither does a remotely connected box full of magic crystals. In Fiddles example we could see quite clearly that initially the entrew introduced further HF noise into the system. Yes a ferrite core may reduce the ingress or egress of RF noise via cabling.

How do you know that your circuitry is or isnt seeing this noise?

So you say you ascertain that the noise has gone by making a subjective judgement. Sorry this is going to upset you, but that is pure guesswork and prone to expectation bias.

From personal experience I have see a number of people prefer the sound of a DAC that had a lot of intermodulation distortion. they seemed to think it had more "texture and detail". PA systems have a very different set of requirements to home hifi, not sure I see that as any relevance.

So how do you determine "as best you can"?

BTW my experience is about 30 years dealing with sensitive instrumentation systems recording signals that are no different (in any relevant way) to audio. I have never needed to use anything like the entreq to obtain low noise levels.

 

[fas42]

So you say you ascertain that the noise has gone by making a subjective judgement. Sorry this is going to upset you, but that is pure guesswork and prone to expectation bias.

I'm afraid at some point one has to make a subjective decision - otherwise what's the point of trying to have "better" sound. If the only reason that one should listen to one system rather than another is because the first has some set of numbers which are better than those from the other then we are at a pretty low point.

Actually, there is a way of "objectifying" the subjective evaluation method - the same technique that those who have evaluated the various mp3, etc, compression encoders while in development use: you choose a particular clip of sound, music that catches the software - hardware in our case - out, perhaps increasing the volume, until the A vs. B is screaming at you. This is how I started, using the sound of cymbals in rock music - made it trivially easy to pick the good from the bad ... nowadays I'm so sensitive to the characteristics of noise flaws it makes it impossible for me to listen to most systems without wanting to dive in and sort them out ...

PA systems have a very different set of requirements to home hifi, not sure I see that as any relevance.

So how do you determine "as best you can"?

I differ about PA systems. Over the years I have heard a couple of sound reinforcement systems which were superb, I couldn't imagine at the time them being able to achieve better quality sound - nearly all the rest were shockers, a nightmare to listen to for more than a minimum of time. So, at least one or two people know what to do - PA should be the same as home sound, only able to go louder over extended periods without reliability issues.

"As best I can" is doing what it takes to lift the standard of playback to that of convincing sound - that which would fool a blindfolded person, say ...

 

[Jinjuku]

and post 177 was beautiful, I loved it. "The objectivist is nothing more than a subjectivist not afraid to explore what they heard, show why they heard it, and in the face of not being able to either show empirically or by bias controlled evaluation re-evaluate." that's what we are trying to do in the measurements forum and we have done it here a few times and that was sweet.

Wow. Thanks. Also everyone that has sent me really positive PM's: Thank you very much.

 

[Jinjuku]

correct. With the emphasis on WHAT THEY HEARD.

I'll just say that again.

What they heard.

yes...

What they heard.

An just in case you missed it...

What they heard.

And one more time for the slower people.

What they heard.

And when objectivists actually do that consistently then I think you would find a lot of animosity might dissipate.

For those living under a rock this last fortnight, I am of course referring to the massive Entreq war in the general forum where not one single detractor of the product had actually heard it.

So practice what you preach please and you guys might actually garner some respect.

Since I'm the one that authored that 'thread of conscious thought' you missed the forest for the trees. Remember that the entire premise is that the 'Honest Subjectivist' in my quote is one that is also capable of entertaining that what they thought they heard is possibly a figment of their imagination.

If you have questions about what I post don't assume. Ask me. I'm right here.

 

[opus112]

Remember that the entire premise is that the 'Honest Subjectivist' in my quote is one that is also capable of entertaining that what they thought they heard is possibly a figment of their imagination.

So 'figment of their imagination' then, not placebo ? (You invited questions)

 

[spazmatron]

Since I'm the one that authored that 'thread of conscious thought' you missed the forest for the trees. Remember that the entire premise is that the 'Honest Subjectivist' in my quote is one that is also capable of entertaining that what they thought they heard is possibly a figment of their imagination.

If you have questions about what I post don't assume. Ask me. I'm right here.

perfectly reasonable! in fact its the only way to be, unless you're somehow super human.

there are totalitarians on both sides and its those limited few that cause upset.