Placebo effects in the extreme

[esldude]

It is not fun for anyone to do rigorous tests. I am sure it is no fun in the medical industry either. But if we want data and not falsehoods, and proceed to convince others on forums, then it is required work. Fun or not.

The great way to avoid doing such tests by the way is to take the time to learn the technology and psychoacoustics, and make determinations based on that. I find that enriching to know more about the audio than the day before by reading someone's research or learning from their knowledge. It is for this reason that for every hour of testing I do, I listen and enjoy 1000 hours of music.

We all share the love of music and attempting to say that some of us don't and love to test is uncool. Really uncool.

Yes, this is a very good post about a key point. I too don't like doing rigorous testing. It is no fun. And I don't do elaborate ones for the most part. However, just recently someone did a big comparison of DACs. I asked about level matching. It was done by ear, I politely indicated the problems with it. The OP politely acknowledged that and said he wouldn't level match because it was no fun. Yet it throws the entire comparison in doubt (in my mind). The level matching required a mutlimeter and test tone. The time to do it would have been no more and perhaps less than matching by ear. Yet the results would have meant more. Why not do it? That one thing, level matching pays big dividends, but many seem philosophically opposed at doing any such thing.

How does simple steps to make comparisons valid make us non-music lovers? Yet you see that claim over and over. Heck if I didn't care I would willy nilly listen to anything anyway and make no effort to be more effective.

 

[esldude]

as this thread harbours no ambition to cite measurements or is being discussed by such means why is it here?

really its not up for discussion or debate the mind fools, simple. the more elaborate your conscious scheme for avoiding this the more likely you are to be deluding yourself. it really is that simple.

how that affects our choices when it comes to hifi is for the most part irrelevant, unless you're a manufacturer or a reviewer (or in the business). if you're just in it for fun then why worry? other than maybe trying to avoid some wrong turns and wasting money but as most here enjoy the process even that's rendered moot.

just be aware that you could be wrong at all times.. really this is a excellent philosophy for all walks of life.

i can see why this notion is upsetting for some but that's more a factor for self reflection rather than endless attempts at fortification via these exchanges.

some of these exchanges read more like a debate\dispute between religious extremists rather than a friendly meeting of minds...

The reason the topic fits here without having measurements:
A forum where objectivists can ask questions and exchange ideas regarding the science of audio as well as anything pertaining to audio that involves tests, measurements, ABX testing etc.

As discussing the prevalent effect bias and placebo-like effects have on audio perception, and the great difficulty in communicating that to people who don't think so, this topic clearly fits in this forum. When we have excellent measurements people often seem to get mad just for bringing it up. So yes even with no measurements this topic fits here or I would say it has no place to fit on WBF.

 

[spazmatron]

will this not create segregation between the two camps?

i think that's been tried and found wanting, surely in the interest of maintaining a data resource the measurements area should remain isolated...ish but we can converge in the many other areas of the forum?

i can't remember seeing measurements in other areas of the forum (other than the entreq measurement fiasco that should've been moved to the measurement area) , just guys with different points of view.

so any time a idea comes up to measure we can start a thread in this area and put a link to it if the original thread occurs outside of this measurement area.

i cant really see what the problem is. things just need to be put in the right place.

 

[esldude]

I created the forum so you're preaching to the choir.

I have no problem with it. I do take exception that there is a double standard

Double standard or different standards in different places?

A couple of people up thread suggested I should have put this in the general forum. It appears to me this thread is already on the verge of being a Gish Gallop. I am certain it would have been nothing else in the General Forum.

 

[spazmatron]

The reason the topic fits here without having measurements:
A forum where objectivists can ask questions and exchange ideas regarding the science of audio as well as anything pertaining to audio that involves tests, measurements, ABX testing etc.

As discussing the prevalent effect bias and placebo-like effects have on audio perception, and the great difficulty in communicating that to people who don't think so, this topic clearly fits in this forum. When we have excellent measurements people often seem to get mad just for bringing it up. So yes even with no measurements this topic fits here or I would say it has no place to fit on WBF.

i like the topic, i just think it folly to have it here. point being it invites subjective opinion... you can see what i mean by reading the fallout.

it then invites this dispute to spread all over the measurement area and call into question the whole premise of such a area.

a fault of the intro to the measurement area, not of yours.

do you see what i am driving at here?

measurement area should be for just that, subjective and idealised discussion should be conducted outside, then we would not be having this problem.

 

[Whatmore]

I know anecdotes do not evidence make, but I can confidently say that in at least 100% of threads of this type that I've measured, there are always people who proclaim that unlike the rest of humanity, they are immune to bias

 

[esldude]

will this not create segregation between the two camps?

i think that's been tried and found wanting, surely in the interest of maintaining a data resource the measurements area should remain isolated...ish but we can converge in the many other areas of the forum?

i can't remember seeing measurements in other areas of the forum (other than the entreq measurement fiasco that should've been moved to the measurement area) , just guys with different points of view.

so any time a idea comes up to measure we can start a thread in this area and put a link to it if the original thread occurs outside of this measurement area.

i cant really see what the problem is. things just need to be put in the right place.

Not a bad idea. I do think trying to follow two threads that likely diverge pretty quickly might mitigate the usefulness of that approach. On the other hand, I did have a similar thought during the recent Entreq thread.

 

[Steve williams]

Not a bad idea. I do think trying to follow two threads that likely diverge pretty quickly might mitigate the usefulness of that approach. On the other hand, I did have a similar thought during the recent Entreq thread.

So I trust you would be just as amenable for me to create subjectivist fora here in order to keep out you and others who enter such threads and derail them? Or is there a double standard. I created the measurements forum for the exact reasons you stated and have no problems. I am here to say that I will not allow anyone from the objectivists camp to have it both ways unless you can give me a reason why I am wrong

 

[Whatmore]

With respect Steve, the measurement forum seems to hold a terrible fascination for the subjectivists who seem to flock here and complain about the fact that they aren't meant to be subjective. They are tolerated in that forum far more than they should be.

If you create a subjectivists forum (which I reckon is the rest of WBF anyway), will the objectivists be allowed to play in the same way?

 

[esldude]

So I trust you would be just as amenable for me to create subjectivist fora here in order to keep out you and others who enter such threads and derail them? Or is there a double standard. I created the measurements forum for the exact reasons you stated and have no problems. I am here to say that I will not allow anyone from the objectivists camp to have it both ways unless you can give me a reason why I am wrong

So answer my question. Would you prefer that I stay out of subjectivist oriented threads (which includes of course like 99.9% plus of all threads on WBF)?

So far subjectivists aren't being kept out of this forum, they are sometimes reminded what the forum is about and why it differs. So is the General forum General or is it General Subjectivist? And I agree you haven't kept out people like myself from the other forums. But would that be your preference?

I am still trying to figure out how derailing a thread is possible to avoid if I state a contrary opinion and the vocal majority don't like it? Do I post with sarcastic tone or a bit of an attitude sometimes? I sure do, but both sides do that regularly. I skip probably 9 of 10 threads I read because I feel my contribution would not be welcome. So not like I have some agenda to throw a monkey wrench in the workings of the forum.

 

[Steve williams]

With respect Steve, the measurement forum seems to hold a terrible fascination for the subjectivists who seem to flock here and complain about the fact that they aren't meant to be subjective. They are tolerated in that forum far more than they should be.

If you create a subjectivists forum (which I reckon is the rest of WBF anyway), will the objectivists be allowed to play in the same way?

Good question. The answer should be no however there will be some changes where forum permissions will be amended to adequately represent both camps. I just feel that the time has come that if members don't feel comfortable to post in either place admin needs to take recourse and that is what I am going to do. This forum was established for everyone to have fair voice and fair exchange of thoughts without fear of someone torching their thoughts. Surely you agree that premise was well founded

 

[Whatmore]

Good question. The answer should be no however there will be some changes where forum permissions will be amended to adequately represent both camps. I just feel that the time has come that if members don't feel comfortable to post in either place admin needs to take recourse and that is what I am going to do. This forum was established for everyone to have fair voice and fair exchange of thoughts without fear of someone torching their thoughts. Surely you agree that premise was well founded

The premise was well founded, yes.
It hasn't been adequately policed though. I would suggest trying that first before restricting member access to particular forums.

Also, the vast majority of WBF members are probably not in any camp, so how would you decide which forum they get to participate in?

 

[GaryProtein]

I have "fooled" myself many times , but I still trust my ears/brain interface...after all its what you perceive is really your reality

What you perceive is really your PERCEPTION.

Reality is reality and perception is often WRONG.

View attachment 25878

Mark Twain was right.

 

[jkeny]

I was told this recently & it makes ultimate sense:
This whole issue boils down to what level of error is acceptable for the specific target audience: the editor of a peer-reviewed journal; oneself; oneself with a group of friends; the writers on forums; the readers on forums. So different levels of listening rigour are required to convince different target audiences.

For oneself, many of us are quite happy to listen normally & not worry too much about the possibility of fooling ourselves. If making purchasing decision we usually listen over a week or longer & involve friends & others in this listening.

For peer-reviewed journal a rigour is required which is demanded by whatever their criteria is for article acceptance.

There's really no problem with understanding the requirements of these two widely different target audiences - it's the forum groups where the difficulty arises. Most people on forums are happy to relate their personal experiences of their listening impressions. We all know that these impressions are as liable to error as our own impressions & we judge them accordingly. Paying attention to the consensus & also using our common sense to determine if this consensus is from a group of biased fanboys or from a wider audience who whose expectation bias is not as strong. To me, all this talk about being biased in our listening is about psychological expectation. We recognise those more likely to have heightened expectations' like Amir's example of the MS codec, like fanboys, like those who have a psychological stake in the game.

On forums that haven't banned mention of DBTs, we often find a group who seemingly aren't happy to allow these "error prone" listening impressions & often interject with an insistence for more rigour. This usually takes the form of ABX blind listening tests & measurements. So, I guess the question is why is there an insistence on this "to convince others on forums, then it is required work. Fun or not." as Amir says?

BTW, you never eliminate expectations - it's accepted that auditory perception (as indeed other perceptions too) operate two modes of processing - top-down & bottom-up processing. Top-down processing is where the brain is constantly interpreting the incoming signals & doing a best-fit to a model that it has already stored - anticipating (expecting) the next aspect of the sound that will appear in the auditory stream. This expectation can make us hear what isn't there, yes even when we are blind listening- for instance we can often fill in gaps in speech, we can fill in elements of soundscapes which aren't actually there.

Blind listening is only a way of removing knowledge which may skew our expectations, at a global level but we are continually making guesses (have expectations) at the detail level about what's coming next in what we are hearing & comparing the bottom-up signals to a stored model & often replacing the model with a new one, etc. - it's the nature of how perception works!

 

[Steve williams]

The premise was well founded, yes.
It hasn't been adequately policed though. I would suggest trying that first before restricting member access to particular forums.

Also, the vast majority of WBF members are probably not in any camp, so how would you decide which forum they get to participate in?

You're absolutely correct and members should be allowed to participate anywhere as long as politeness prevails. Bottom line is most hemvers are both BUT when politeness goes out the window and people who start a subjective thread aren't allowed to talk because people are mean and ill spirited then there will be intervention. Surely the objectivists have a safe haven. I created it and have no problem. I agree that subjectivists enter at their own risk. Having said that I do agree that there has been laxity in the policing of such subjective threads because the mods have had problems deciding on enforcement of TOS because of mixed messages they have been receiving. I'm here to say that those days are over and that there will be unanimity on the site. This is a hobby guys. Nothing more. There is equal room on both sides. What I will not tolerate is one person or persons dictating how things are going to go at the expense of our TOS. It was stated that 90% of our visitors are guests and not members. I would suggest that most of the reason is due to people having trepidation about posting and sit on the sidelines as lurkers. This forum was once a very friendly place for everyone to come and have a safe haven to express there POV. Such is not the case now.

 

[amirm]

Having said that I do agree that there has been laxity in the policing of such subjective threads because the mods have had problems deciding on enforcement of TOS because of mixed messages they have been receiving. I'm here to say that those days are over and that there will be unanimity on the site.

Unanimity on what?

This is a hobby guys. Nothing more. There is equal room on both side.

The person who has forgetting this by far is you Steve. How many times have you blown an artery of what is said in the forum about audio? I have senior members sending me the most disrespecting PMs saying this forum needs to be shut or they will quit. And have you saying you agree with them. I have you and our other admins going after nothing but objectivists. I don't recall the last time you or them filed any complaints about subjectivists. Clearly then these discussions are taken way way past the point of reasonableness. I have lost you as a friend and partner because you could not separate your emotions about this hobby from your actions regarding the governance of the forum. Against the very thing you declare here.

What we need to do is be respectful. Be funny. Be into music. Be into learning. Be into fairness. Be into inclusion. Be into listening to wisdom. And be transparent as we can as I have done above. Don't tell stuff that does not remotely reflect reality. And certainly let's not throw our power around as moderators and start handing out sanctions to only one group of people pretending we are about what is good for the forum....

 

[Steve williams]

Sorry Amir. I have a photographic memory so I'm forgetting nothing. I say perhaps you are the pot calling the kettle black. I have great respect for both sides Amir. Perhaps you might ask yourself the same

I am not going after anyone Amir but I can promise you that going forward we will have a level playing field and that TOS will be followed by all rather than being interpreted by one to suit himself.

 

[Whatmore]

It's not a pretty sight when mods argue in public.

 

[amirm]

Sorry Amir. I have a photographic memory so I'm forgetting nothing. I say perhaps you are the pot calling the kettle black. I have great respect for both sides Amir. Perhaps you might ask yourself the same

I am not going after anyone Amir but I can promise you that going forward we will have a level playing field and that TOS will be followed by all rather than being interpreted by one to suit himself.

If you have photographic memory, then you should remember this reported post four days ago:

As I said, Silly Little Man! With some sort of ancient petty grudge It would seem, I take it you are referring in your little rant to the following thread where your 'dealer buddy' supplied you with the GS amp to rave about.

I recommended a warning for that poster. You said nothing. Nor took action. So that I and membership are clear on what you mean by fair enforcement of TOS, please walk us through your thought process in taking no action.

 

[Steve williams]

I was cruising the Mexican Riviera last week and was completely off the grid. If you recommended something why didn't you impose the sanction especially when you saw it and I was out of the country.
Nice try Amir
Obfuscate and deflect

If you saw a violation then it is up to you and no one else to impose the sanction so quit trying to shift blame as you always do