The Half Life of Expectation Bias

[microstrip]

FWIW, John, I not only completely understand your viewpoint, I also completely agree with it. I've had discussions with Steve concerning how disheartening it is that in this forum there is IMO nowhere near enough discussion about music but an overabundance of discussion about the format of the music or the gear. IIRC, I think you even started a thread about that very topic. There is and ought to be room for both but for a variety of reasons it does not happen. Sad.


There is a risk here, one that has been raised and commented upon by many others more brilliant that me, of elitism.

Perhaps because people read about music in other forums or sources and we come to WBF mainly for debates about audio gear. I subscribe and regularly buy several paper magazines about music, but do not feel competent enough to debate music - my writings would not interest anyone. Although I have located a few fans of Jordi Savall in WBF and we exchanged a few kind posts about his music, or even about Shostakovitch, music has such a diversity and specialization that IMHO does not propitiate deep debates in audio forums - just the very welcome occasional suggestion in music threads.

And yes, the risk of elitism exists. But once someone names a forum What is the Best we must assume it.

 

[dallasjustice]

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_LN7qUiTpo

Expectation lasts until you shift what details you listen for. Whenever that is.

Thanks JJ! That's some good stuff. I like the story about the tube/ transistor switch experiment. I know you don't put any stock into THD and signal to noise ratio. I also understand your point about arguing preferences is a waste of time. However, there must be some specs that are statistically significant in ABX testing. Right?

Michael.

 

[Ron Party]

Perhaps because people read about music in other forums or sources and we come to WBF mainly for debates about audio gear. I subscribe and regularly buy several paper magazines about music, but do not feel competent enough to debate music - my writings would not interest anyone. Although I have located a few fans of Jordi Savall in WBF and we exchanged a few kind posts about his music, or even about Shostakovitch, music has such a diversity and specialization that IMHO does not propitiate deep debates in audio forums - just the very welcome occasional suggestion in music threads.

And yes, the risk of elitism exists. But once someone names a forum What is the Best we must assume it.

Like I posted, for a variety of reasons there is little discussion about music. You've raise one possible reason. There are others. Nevertheless, it speaks volumes that people here rarely engage in these discussions.

And, *debate* music? I suppose we could. And it might even be fun, e.g., who is the best blues guitarist and why? But how about just discussions about appreciation of music, not just the sound of music? How about appreciation of individual artists, bands and group ensembles, including orchestras? As you wrote, it is a "very welcome occasional suggestion in music threads". I find it regrettable that it is at best occasional. Other than John, Andre (who abandoned this forum for some IMO very compelling reasons), jazdoc and me, and with apologies to one or two others whose names escape me at the moment, virtually no one posts new threads about music or contributes to such threads.

The absence of these discussions, combined with sentiments that the more one spends on gear the more one is able to enjoy or appreciate music, easily lends itself to a perception of elitism. I suppose if a person is one of the elite, that person might see it differently, but when one wear's rose colored glasses, the whole world is red.

 

[Ron Party]

And yes, the risk of elitism exists. But once someone names a forum What is the Best we must assume it.

I forgot to address these two sentences. We must never, ever, assume elitism when it comes to the appreciation or enjoyment of music. That thought just makes me shiver.

 

[edorr]

I forgot to address these two sentences. We must never, ever, assume elitism when it comes to the appreciation or enjoyment of music. That thought just makes me shiver.

This forum is predominantly concerned with deployment of (financial and time) resources to achieve the "best" sound quality. This is a distinctly elitist pursuit (at the levels of spend in the sweetspot of the forum). Appreciation or enjoyment of music of course is not, because no financial resources are required.

 

[microstrip]

I forgot to address these two sentences. We must never, ever, assume elitism when it comes to the appreciation or enjoyment of music. That thought just makes me shiver.

Curiously one the best articles I read about elitism and music was about John Cage 4?33?. Unfortunately I do not have the magazine anymore - and it was in French.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No Tim, you are just playing with words and as usual changing other people words and mine and then answering to the manipulated and distorted ideas.

No, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, micro. Maybve I just don't have a clue what you're talking about when you say your system "communicates" the art. Of course sound reproduction makes the musical communication possible in the home, by making the recording loud enough to hear, but it does that on a pretty basic level. The lyrics, the melody, the rhythm, the arrangement, the performance, the passion, the symbolism -- pretty much everything necessary to communicate the art comes through just fine on a decent tabletop radio. What is missing in the lack of resolution is some realism of the reproduction, but honestly, even that doesn't amount to much in terms of communication. Even from a 128kbps MP3 through earbuds, a violin still sounds like a violin, Bruce Springsteen sounds like Bruce Springsteen, not John Mellencamp. Born to Run will not be mistaken for Jack and Diane. The art is communicated.

Perhaps this is just a semantic argument, but I don't think so. I think from this post and many others, that you may have the quality of audio reproduction all caught up with the quality of artistic expression. They are two very different and separate things, and if you require the first to appreciate the latter, I've not misunderstood you and this is not a semantic argument.

Tim

 

[mep]

Here is what I don't understand-how did a thread I started about the half-life of expectation bias devolve into a "I love music more than you do" thread? Some of you guys who started this should start another thread or two. One can be called "I love music more than you." Another could be "My cell phone keeps better time than your Patek Philippe watch." And we could go on and on. The purpose of this thread was never to discuss or bemoan how much some people do or don't love music and who can enjoy music the most from the worst possible gear.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Here is what I don't understand-how did a thread I started about the half-life of expectation bias devolve into a "I love music more than you do" thread? Some of you guys who started this should start another thread or two. One can be called "I love music more than you." Another could be "My cell phone keeps better time than your Patek Philippe watch." And we could go on and on. The purpose of this thread was never to discuss or bemoan how much some people do or don't love music and who can enjoy music the most from the worst possible gear.

Name me a thread here that hasn't devolved into other areas not related to the thread start. Just sayin'.

I've said all I'm gonna say on the matter......carry on!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Here is what I don't understand-how did a thread I started about the half-life of expectation bias devolve into a "I love music more than you do" thread? Some of you guys who started this should start another thread or two. One can be called "I love music more than you." Another could be "My cell phone keeps better time than your Patek Philippe watch." And we could go on and on. The purpose of this thread was never to discuss or bemoan how much some people do or don't love music and who can enjoy music the most from the worst possible gear.

Is someone having that conversation? I'm currently trying to understand what Micro is talking about when he says that hardware communicates art. I don't think he actually means what that says, to be honest. It's too absurd. hardware reproduces recordings. Artist communicate art. My objecting to that notion, FYI, has nothing to do with how much I love music vs. how much you, or anyone else, does. I think you can love listening to the nuances of systems and love music. I just wonder, based on some of the whacky things you boys say, if you've lost touch with the difference between the two.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Is someone having that conversation? I'm currently trying to understand what Micro is talking about when he says that hardware communicates art. I don't think he actually means what that says, to be honest. It's too absurd. hardware reproduces recordings. Artist communicate art. My objecting to that notion, FYI, has nothing to do with how much I love music vs. how much you, or anyone else, does. I think you can love listening to the nuances of systems and love music. I just wonder, based on some of the whacky things you boys say, if you've lost touch with the difference between the two.

Tim

Why so few understand this is beyond me.

 

[mep]

Why so few understand this is beyond me.

And why so few don't understand that the better your system, the better the art is communicated with all of the nuances and low-level detail that is obscured or obliterated in low-fi systems is beyond me. Because you can enjoy the hell out of the music played back over any audio device known to man doesn't mean you are hearing all that is there to be heard in any way, shape, or form. And I think that is the point rather than how much you can enjoy the part of the music that comes through your computer speakers, table radio, or 1960s transistor radio.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

And why so few don't understand that the better your system, the better the art is communicated with all of the nuances and low-level detail that is obscured or obliterated in low-fi systems is beyond me. Because you can enjoy the hell out of the music played back over any audio device known to man doesn't mean you are hearing all that is there to be heard in any way, shape, or form. And I think that is the point rather than how much you can enjoy the part of the music that comes through your computer speakers, table radio, or 1960s transistor radio.

That's not the discussion. The discussion is about being able to enjoy the art with an alternative when a better system isn't present or at one's disposal. The enjoyment and the pleasure one derives from music is not the exclusive domain of good recordings and systems.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

And why so few don't understand that the better your system, the better the art is communicated with all of the nuances and low-level detail that is obscured or obliterated in low-fi systems is beyond me. Because you can enjoy the hell out of the music played back over any audio device known to man doesn't mean you are hearing all that is there to be heard in any way, shape, or form. And I think that is the point rather than how much you can enjoy the part of the music that comes through your computer speakers, table radio, or 1960s transistor radio.

Hell I can explain that to you -- artistry and audio fidelity are utterly separate things. If they were not, to return the favor of exaggerating things to the point of the absurd, Kenny G would be a greater artist than Charlie Parker and Diana Krall would communicate much more than Billie Holliday. Because no system, except perhaps our old friend Frank's, can coax enough resolution of detail from these pre-high fidelity recordings to make them competitive.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(after quoting mep ) Is someone having that conversation? I'm currently trying to understand what Micro is talking about when he says that hardware communicates art. I don't think he actually means what that says, to be honest. It's too absurd. hardware reproduces recordings. Artist communicate art. My objecting to that notion, FYI, has nothing to do with how much I love music vs. how much you, or anyone else, does. I think you can love listening to the nuances of systems and love music. I just wonder, based on some of the whacky things you boys say, if you've lost touch with the difference between the two.

Tim

Since long, when you have nothing to say and the cavalry does not come in your rescue, you have used the condescending style - I do not think XXX actually means what he says, XXX being your current opponent in WBF. In preference mixed in an answer to other members, not in an answer to the original message. Very poor style IMHO.

Fortunately for me other WBF audiophile members seem to see my point - perhaps disagreeing, as it is normal in a forum debate. I just read John comment on your statement as "so few understand" is beyond me. IMHO when we find we are the only one singing in tune and the whole chorus in unison is out of tune we should think twice ...

 

[microstrip]

I can get equal satisfaction from the music whether played on my rig or listening to a tabletop radio. So the higher sound quality on my rig doesn't mean it's more enjoyable. It's different, but I tap my toes with the same vigor.

That's not the discussion. The discussion is about being able to enjoy the art with an alternative when a better system isn't present or at one's disposal. The enjoyment and the pleasure one derives from music is not the exclusive domain of good recordings and systems.

No John. Our (me and you) debate was centered on the equality statement. I supported that a better system is more enjoyable.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Since long, when you have nothing to say and the cavalry does not come in your rescue, you have used the condescending style - I do not think XXX actually means what he says, XXX being your current opponent in WBF. In preference mixed in an answer to other members, not in an answer to the original message. Very poor style IMHO.

Fortunately for me other WBF audiophile members seem to see my point - perhaps disagreeing, as it is normal in a forum debate. I just read John comment on your statement as "so few understand" is beyond me. IMHO when we find we are the only one singing in tune and the whole chorus in unison is out of tune we should think twice ...

?

 

[Robh3606]

I supported that a better system is more enjoyable.

Hello Micro

This is not such a simple topic. That's not always true IMHO. I think it's more a time, a place and a mood that defines those golden moments we all try to have listening to music. I have had some really great experience's walking on the beach at night listening to my decidedly low-fi I-pod, compared to my main systems. A good part of the experience was hearing the music for the first time in such a beautiful natural setting. Can't do that with the living room system.

Rob

 

[microstrip]

Hello Micro

This is not such a simple topic. That's not always true IMHO. I think it's more a time, a place and a mood that defines those golden moments we all try to have listening to music. I have had some really great experience's walking on the beach at night listening to my decidedly low-fi I-pod, compared to my main systems. A good part of the experience was hearing the music for the first time in such a beautiful natural setting. Can't do that with the living room system.

Rob

Rob,

The very relevant points you refer were taken in consideration - even the first kiss . Please read previous posts.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hell I can explain that to you -- artistry and audio fidelity are utterly separate things. If they were not, to return the favor of exaggerating things to the point of the absurd, Kenny G would be a greater artist than Charlie Parker and Diana Krall would communicate much more than Billie Holliday. Because no system, except perhaps our old friend Frank's, can coax enough resolution of detail from these pre-high fidelity recordings to make them competitive.

Tim

last night my speaker designer, Kevin Malmgren, and his partner with Evolution Acoustics, Jonathan Tinn, arrived to to do the final set-up on my Evolution Acoustics MM7's. we eventually sat down to listen to music about 10pm to prepare for today's technical set-up work. we listened to vinyl until 2am. did our collective musical enjoyment benefit from the degree of audio fidelity we heard? absolutely.

it was a rock'n session.

did we care how much the sound influenced our degree of satisfaction? or maybe it was how real the music sounded relating the sound to our memory of live instruments? or maybe it was just the actual recordings from our memory that triggered those positive thoughts and feelings? or maybe it was the phyiscality of the music from the big boy rig?

could equal level of enjoyment be percieved by other groups from the same music from a clock radio? who can say?....it's purely a subjective question. would common sense lead one to expect that a fully mature no-holds-bared big rig audio system can touch musical satisfaction buttons that a clock radio cannot? sure.

but common sense is not so common after all. and this is a web debate about subjective questions that have no completely black and white answers.

chasing absolute fidelity in the name of closer expereince with music we love is how i view the hobby.

but music is valid on any level.