Have to Love The Placebo Effect

BlueFox

I recently upgraded my two channel speakers, and used the two-channel speakers to upgrade my front HT/surround sound speakers. The front HT speakers were LSi15s, and the new front HT speakers are PSB Synchrony One towers. I have already upgraded the center to a PSB Synchrony One center a couple of years ago.

Anyway, the PSBs have really upped the sound quality for both HT and music. I have no problems at all with this system for either music or HT. However, I was not expecting this placebo effect. I am watching Avatar for the umpteenth time, and I noticed the picture is also better, along with the audio.

I know the only connection between the audio and video that occurs with different speakers is taking place in the brain. However, it still seems real, and I do like the better picture and audio that resulted from the speaker upgrade.

The problem for me is if making the audio better will also make the picture better, then I better get another job, since this is going to get expensive.

jbooker82

Maybe it is because the air between your eyes and the tv has changed.

thsmith

If the audio experience is improved to a point that you are excited or pulled more into the movie I can see where the Video may seemed to have improved as the overall expereince has improved.

It is a lot of sensations happening all at once.

BeefJerky

jbooker82 wrote: »

Maybe it is because the air between your eyes and the tv has changed.

Yeah, that has to be it! Any real audio/video person knows that people are fully in control of their brains at all times, and the placebo effect does not actually exist. :rolleyes:

BlueFox

thsmith wrote: »

If the audio experience is improved to a point that you are excited or pulled more into the movie I can see where the Video may seemed to have improved as the overall expereince has improved.

Sounds reasonable. I have to admit it did crack me up last night. I started watching the movie from where I left off the night before, and all of a sudden I realized that the picture seemed to be much better, and clearer with more detail. Avatar, being almost all CGI, is good for that. Granted, this is not a placebo effect, which I doubt exists in the audio world, but it did strike me as interesting. On the other hand, the TV and HT had been turned on for over 24 hours, so maybe it was really warmed up.

headrott

BeefJerky wrote: »

Yeah, that has to be it! Any real audio/video person knows that people are fully in control of their brains at all times, and the placebo effect does not actually exist. :rolleyes:

As has been said by myself and other audiophiles, any rational person would realise that one cannot be 100% aware of their thoughts/ideas/impressions at all times. However, any rational person would also realise that one can train themselves to be in 100% control and aware of their thoughts/ideas/impressions about things (in this case audio and visual signals) for a period of time in order to complete unbiased (free of the effects of bias), accurate and therefore free of "placebo effect" in their listening and visual comparisons.

Tankman

Here..Puff..cough...cough..hit this..some good sh$t man..way cool...lolo..

Erik Tracy

Wow...dude....that was some good ****....I feel like I'm in a Carlos Castaneda book.....woahh....the trails.....:cheesygrin:

bmbguy

Are you sure you didn't upgrade your optic nerve cables?

DarqueKnight

My car and truck ride smoother and quieter after they are washed. Even moreso after they are washed, waxed and detailed.

pearsall001

headrott wrote: »

As has been said by myself and other audiophiles, any rational person would realise that one cannot be 100% aware of their thoughts/ideas/impressions at all times. However, any rational person would also realise that one can train themselves to be in 100% control and aware of their thoughts/ideas/impressions about things (in this case audio and visual signals) for a period of time in order to complete unbiased (free of the effects of bias), accurate and therefore free of "placebo effect" in their listening and visual comparisons.

Never happen. Our brains are so complex we can't even begin to get a grasp. The moment you make a new purchase or even the mere thought of it has already started the bias wheels in motion. We might think we can control it but we're only fooling ourselves.

DarqueKnight

pearsall001 wrote: »

The moment you make a new purchase or even the mere thought of it has already started the bias wheels in motion. We might think we can control it but we're only fooling ourselves.

Now I'm wondering why I have returned or sold so many highly recommended, long-awaited, and pretty, audio toys,

and

Why did I purchase over $30 K worth of silver faced audio electronics that are so aesthetically unappealing?

---

You were probably just bored and didn't know WTF to do with your money.

Or...maybe my brain's placebo center was overruled by training, logic and reasoning.~DK

pearsall001

Color blind perhaps? Training, logic & reasoning...gotta love that one.

DarqueKnight

pearsall001 wrote: »

Color blind perhaps? Training, logic & reasoning...gotta love that one.

I do love it...a lot. I also love that there exists years of credible scientific research to back that up.

I also love the fact that not of shread of scientific justification has been presented to substantiate that the following applies to everyone:

pearsall001 wrote: »

The moment you make a new purchase or even the mere thought of it has already started the bias wheels in motion. We might think we can control it but we're only fooling ourselves.

Religion posing as science...gotta love it.

tonyb

pearsall001 wrote: »

Never happen. Our brains are so complex we can't even begin to get a grasp. The moment you make a new purchase or even the mere thought of it has already started the bias wheels in motion. We might think we can control it but we're only fooling ourselves.

I dunno Phil, I may have to disagree on that one. I've made plenty of purchases that were boxed right back up after 1 hour of listening. If I was so taken by the newness factor, I would have given them a longer play time. But biases aside, I can quickly cut to the chase and tell if a product is for me or not. Granted, not everyone is like that and probably more so the way you describe, but that doesn't mean all are painted with the same broad brush.

BeefJerky

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I do love it...a lot. I also love that there exists years of credible scientific research to back that up.

I also love the fact that not of shread of scientific justification has been presented to substantiate that the following applies to everyone:

Well, since you bring this up again. You certainly posted a lot of articles written by credible people with some good scientific theories. However, I'm not aware of any tests that were actually done to confirm (or deny) whether one can be trained to not let their biases influence their judgement in terms of stereophonic audio. Until such tests are conducted, it is nothing more than theories. In fact, I brought this up in the other thread, and you never did reveal any studies of the sort. Without these studies, you really don't have any actual proof. So, until then, I remain skeptical.

Religion posing as science...gotta love it.

Kind of ironic considering your whole argument is based solely on theories.

headrott wrote: »

As has been said by myself and other audiophiles, any rational person would realise that one cannot be 100% aware of their thoughts/ideas/impressions at all times. However, any rational person would also realise that one can train themselves to be in 100% control and aware of their thoughts/ideas/impressions about things (in this case audio and visual signals) for a period of time in order to complete unbiased (free of the effects of bias), accurate and therefore free of "placebo effect" in their listening and visual comparisons.

See my response to DK above.

DarqueKnight

BeefJerky wrote: »

Well, since you bring this up again. You certainly posted a lot of articles written by credible people with some good scientific theories. However, I'm not aware of any tests that were actually done to confirm (or deny) whether one can be trained to not let their biases influence their judgement in terms of stereophonic audio.

You may want to actually read some of the references I cited. Then you would know that these "theories" are actually supported by real life experiments.

BeefJerky wrote: »

Until such tests are conducted, it is nothing more than theories. In fact, I brought this up in the other thread, and you never did reveal any studies of the sort.

LOL. Really? How many times did I refer to Bell Laboratories studies on proper test methods for stereo? I even linked to a thread where I discussed the subject at length.

BeefJerky wrote: »

So, until then, I remain skeptical.

Whatever works for you. Some people are still skeptical that the earth is spherical.

Good luck with your research and remember:

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein

gp4jesus

DK & BJ: PLEASE do not turn this thread into a mud flinging battle! Please PM each other.

cnh

This thread sure took some interesting twists and turns? From an "honest" expression of subjective "astonishment"! To Castaneda, who shook up the world of social science until a rather Stossel-like De Mille took him down (I lived through that history so I remember exactly how Mr. Carlos was received and why those crazy books captured the imagination of an entire generation--that little Trickster!) To doubts about the effects of self-monitoring and self-reflection and reporting (hmmmm..let's see: Biofeedback-check (that works), TM seems to lower some people's blood pressure, Acupuncture (is most often "effective"), Zen monks can control various bodily processes, meditation alters normal brainwave patterns, anything else?

But we don't even need any of this because WHAT after all is music and film if not something like "waking dreams" that expand our awareness, enjoyment and meaning? I guess we can just jettison the mind because:

"What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties; in form and moving, how express and admirable. In action how like an Angel! In apprehension how like a god, the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals." Shakespeare

And to all a good night! Live up to "your" potential, Man!

cnh

BeefJerky

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You may want to actually read some of the references I cited. Then you would know that these "theories" are actually supported by real life experiments.

I did...again. To be specific, I re-read the following two extensive write-ups by you:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104701-A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation&p=1391205&highlight=bell#post1391205
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&p=1395520&highlight=bell#post1395520

However, neither of them address the issue at hand. First, let's state what I know that we agree on:
1) Poor testing methodologies will produce invalid results, whether blinded or unblinded.
2) When done properly, a blinded test will produce valid results. As a corollary, we both agree that many poorly done blinded tests were conducted over the years. That also means that the results of those blinded tests are completely meaningless.
3) One must use the proper descriptive terms when evaluating complex stimuli such as stereophonic audio. This includes details such as width, depth, placement, clarity, detail, dynamics, tactile impact, hearing acuity of the listeners, listener training and most importantly, realism.
4) One must also allow adequate time for the trained listeners to make and document their observations. This rules out the typical "short sample" tests that are all too common.

All that said, here's where we get to the crux of the matter. You have agreed that a properly done blind test should produce valid results. Therefore, based on the theories presented by Fletcher and others, the observational results should be the same for trained listeners in a properly conducted study both blinded and unblinded. And that is where I see the failure of proof. No such test has been conducted that I can find, nor do you seem to have posted any links or information regarding one. To be specific, here is the kind of test to which I am referring:
Take an adequately-sized group of trained listeners and let them listen to different audio components in a proper test setting. Once they have taken the necessary time to make and document their observations for that test, you will then subject them to the same test, but in a blind setting. They will once again take the proper time to note their observations. The real test comes when you compare the notes. If Fletcher's theory is correct, the two sets of observations should be strikingly similar if not the same. However, if they are not, the theory may not have been as accurate as was once thought.

LOL. Really? How many times did I refer to Bell Laboratories studies on proper test methods for stereo? I even linked to a thread where I discussed the subject at length.

As stated above I read (and re-read) this.

Whatever works for you. Some people are still skeptical that the earth is spherical.

Good luck with your research and remember:

The truth is that we are both basing our views on religion. Neither side has conducted the study necessary to confirm or deny Fletcher's theory; at least not from what I've seen. You believe Fletcher's theory based on his stature, while I doubt it due to lack of adequate scientific study. Maybe one day the necessary testing can be done to settle this once and for all; maybe not.

headrott

gp4jesus wrote: »

DK & BJ: PLEASE do not turn this thread into a mud flinging battle! Please PM each other.

I feel some of us are flinging scientific evidence as well as first hand experience. There is no mud I can see, except maybe some trying to muddy the water to make things unclear as to what is obvious. And, what is their motive? Please see below.

cnh wrote: »

This thread sure took some interesting twists and turns? From an "honest" expression of subjective "astonishment"! To Castaneda, who shook up the world of social science until a rather Stossel-like De Mille took him down (I lived through that history so I remember exactly how Mr. Carlos was received and why those crazy books captured the imagination of an entire generation--that little Trickster!) To doubts about the effects of self-monitoring and self-reflection and reporting (hmmmm..let's see: Biofeedback-check (that works), TM seems to lower some people's blood pressure, Acupuncture (is most often "effective"), Zen monks can control various bodily processes, meditation alters normal brainwave patterns, anything else?

Eh, it's just theories, right? The best ones you pointed out are the Zen monks controling bodily processes and meditation altering peoples' brainwave patterns. Unfortunately, it's just "fluff" to some despite credible evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, despite even when scientific proof is put in front of some (when the self-professed "need" for scientific proof to convince them is asked for), it's still not enough to convince them. In the end, it takes first hand experience to convince oneself of anything (including audible differences in equipment). Unfortunately, when a person convinces themselves that their brain is fooling themselves (and therefore they are not able to accurately interpret their personal experiences) it makes it difficult to convince yourself of what you are actually hearing and seeing. It gets worse however, because these people then attemp to spread their "disease" beyond themselves by claiming all people always subject to these biases without exception. What is the motivation behind convincing yourself you are not really experienceing what you are experienceing (you are delusional)? Responsibility. If you don't believe you are really experiencing what you are experienceing (to some degree) it allows you think you are less responsible (or not responsible at all) of your actions. That is the motivation for this thinking.

DarqueKnight

BeefJerky wrote: »

I did...again. To be specific, I re-read the following two extensive write-ups by you:

You read, but you did not understand. Otherwise, you would not have said this:

BeefJerky wrote: »

However, neither of them address the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that blind tests are not appropriate for every type of evaluative situation. Until you accept this fundamental truth, you will never be able to grasp any of the other concepts pertaining to this discussion.

BeefJerky wrote: »

First, let's state what I know that we agree on:
1) Poor testing methodologies will produce invalid results, whether blinded or unblinded.
2) When done properly, a blinded test will produce valid results. As a corollary, we both agree that many poorly done blinded tests were conducted over the years. That also means that the results of those blinded tests are completely meaningless.
3) One must use the proper descriptive terms when evaluating complex stimuli such as stereophonic audio. This includes details such as width, depth, placement, clarity, detail, dynamics, tactile impact, hearing acuity of the listeners, listener training and most importantly, realism.
4) One must also allow adequate time for the trained listeners to make and document their observations. This rules out the typical "short sample" tests that are all too common.

I do not agree with your comment #2. A blind test can be done properly, yet applied to a situation it is not designed for, and therefore yield invalid results.

Your comments 1-4 indicate that you do not understand the difference between forced-choice discrimination (blind) tests and descriptive tests. They are two entirely different classes of tests designed for entirely different evaluative situations. I understand that you, and others, are desperate to salvage the utility of blind testing in stereo by agreeing that descriptive methods are appropriate, but then you want to validate the descriptive results with blind testing. This does not make sense because you admit that training is required to properly evaluate stereo sound, yet you indicate that the evaluator's training is suspect because you require results to be "validated" with a blind test. You either have confidence in the evaluator's training and the test methodology or you do not. I will illustrate the fallacy of this line of thinking with an anecdote from personal experience and with information from the sensory science literature.

Anecdote

I spent several years as the lead component engineer at a telecommunications systems factory. My job was to evaluate integrated circuits and other electrical components used in the systems. I had a bias toward certain component manufacturers because they had a record of efficient and reliable delivery. I had another bias toward certain component manufacturers because they made quality parts at lower prices. I did my evaluations with full knowledge of brand, price and appearance of competing products. However, regardless of my biases, I had to evaluate components with regard to performance and reliability. In all my years in that job, neither my supervisor nor anyone else ever challenged my component recommendations. I was never asked to repeat my evaluations with the price, brand or appearance of competing components hidden. I had demonstrated during my training that I could evaluate components without being influenced by brand, price, appearance or other factors that had no bearing on performance and reliability. Why would the company spend time and money training me to evaluate components and then, after I had successfully completed the training, express doubt about my evaluative ability by asking me to repeat the tests in blind fashion?

Sensory Science Literature

The standard reference text in the field of sensory science is "Sensory Evaluation Techniques", 4th edition, by Morten Meilgaard, Gail Civille and B. Thomas Carr. The text devotes two chapters (10 and 11) to the discussion of descriptive analysis techniques.

From page 173:

"Panelists must be able to detect and describe the perceived sensory attributes of a sample. These qualitative aspects of a product combine to define the product and include all of the appearance, aroma, flavor, texture, or sound properties of a product that differentiate it from others. In addition, panelists must learn to differentiate and rate the quantitative or intensity aspects of a sample and to define to what degree each characteristic or qualitative note is present in that sample. Two products may contain the same qualitative descriptors, but they may markedly differ in the intensity of each, therefore, resulting in quite different and easily distinctive sensory profiles or pictures of each product.

Use descriptive tests to obtain detailed description of the aroma, flavor, and oral texture of foods and beverages, skinfeel of personal care products, handfeel of fabrics and paper products, and the appearance and sound of any product."

From page 191:

"A trained panelist does not need to use or like the product to be able to describe the product; liking does not equal knowing. The panelists' discrimination and description skills stem from their expertise (through training) and experience (through practice)."

None of the sensory science texts or journal literature I have read indicated that descriptive analysis should be or must be validated by blind testing. It would be ludicrous to state such. In other words, what sense does it make to train an evaluator in descriptive techniques, then express a lack of confidence in the evaluator's competence by demanding a blind test to "prove" descriptive expertise? Anyone familiar with the items under evaluation and the evaluation methodology should be able to read the evaluative report and determine whether proper procedures were followed.

BeefJerky wrote: »

All that said, here's where we get to the crux of the matter. You have agreed that a properly done blind test should produce valid results.

I agreed that a properly done blind test will produce valid results for the types of stimuli it is designed for. I also agree that you can eat tomato soup with a fork, a spoon, your bare hand, or simply pour it into your mouth from the bowl.

BeefJerky wrote: »

Therefore, based on the theories presented by Fletcher and others, the observational results should be the same for trained listeners in a properly conducted study both blinded and unblinded. And that is where I see the failure of proof. No such test has been conducted that I can find, nor do you seem to have posted any links or information regarding one.

Why do *I* need to constantly spoon feed you information? Can't you do a stereo evaluation trial in your own home and repeat it in blind fashion? Oh...I forgot...you can't trust your ears. Therefore, since you can't trust your ears, you can't trust anyone else's.

Actually, I did include a blind test case study of my proposed descriptive stereo evaluation methodology in the paper that was published in a sensory science journal in 2010.

BeefJerky wrote: »

To be specific, here is the kind of test to which I am referring:
Take an adequately-sized group of trained listeners and let them listen to different audio components in a proper test setting. Once they have taken the necessary time to make and document their observations for that test, you will then subject them to the same test, but in a blind setting. They will once again take the proper time to note their observations. The real test comes when you compare the notes. If Fletcher's theory is correct, the two sets of observations should be strikingly similar if not the same. However, if they are not, the theory may not have been as accurate as was once thought.

Again, I understand your desperation to salvage the use of blind testing in stereo, but there is no rational or scientific basis for this. Again, I submit that it does not make sense to train evaluators in descriptive analysis, then express doubt in their training by asking them to "validate" their results with blind testing. Any doubts in an evaluator's ability should be addressed during the training process.

BeefJerky wrote: »

The truth is that we are both basing our views on religion. Neither side has conducted the study necessary to confirm or deny Fletcher's theory; at least not from what I've seen. You believe Fletcher's theory based on his stature, while I doubt it due to lack of adequate scientific study. Maybe one day the necessary testing can be done to settle this once and for all; maybe not.

No, I am basing my views on decades of valid sensory science literature and Bell Laboratories stereophonic evaluation literature. Maybe one day you will be able to actually comprehend what you read, maybe not.

I provided a good summary in the Stupid-things-you-hear-from-the-DBT-Null-test-crowd thread (page 12, post #356).

In Conclusion

Blind tests are used to "test the tester" rather than to evaluate performance of items. Stereo equipment evaluators must come to an evaluation exercise already trained and tested. Therefore, it does not make sense to train a stereo evaluator in descriptive techniques, then ask them to submit to further testing of their evaluative ability after an evaluative exercise. Any doubts in evaluator ability must be addressed during the training process.

heiney9

pearsall001 wrote: »

Never happen. Our brains are so complex we can't even begin to get a grasp. The moment you make a new purchase or even the mere thought of it has already started the bias wheels in motion. We might think we can control it but we're only fooling ourselves.

Come on Phil, are you that superficial in this hobby that you have no control over what you hear and see?

I either like the sound or I don't. It takes some serious evaluation and time for me to decide usually, but when my decison is based on logic, listening preferences, detailed notes and solid methodology to keep many aspects as consistent as possible, in the end it's how it sounds that matters. Not what it costs, not what brand cache or physical attributes, etc. ANd I find if I revist the same piece, my impressions vary very little. I have had speakers that I keep trying to like or a particular tube that is rare and spendy and even though everyone raves about this tube and it;s a collectors piece; I can't get into it and I've had these tubes for almost 3 years and I keep rolling it in thinking the outcome will be different, but it's not.

I'm ready to put them in the FM simply because while they aren't my cup of tea, someone should enjoy them.

H9

BeefJerky

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You read, but you did not understand. Otherwise, you would not have said this:

I fully understood what I read.

The issue at hand is that blind tests are not appropriate for every type of evaluative situation. Until you accept this fundamental truth, you will never be able to grasp any of the other concepts pertaining to this discussion.

Except that your claim here is only based on theories. There is no scientific testing that I am aware of that actually confirms this claim.

I do not agree with your comment #2. A blind test can be done properly, yet applied to a situation it is not designed for, and therefore yield invalid results.

I was referring to this post here:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?131666-Dumb-things-you-ve-heard-from-quot-audiophiles-quot-...&p=1757395&highlight=blind#post1757395

Either you are backtracking or you failed to state under what conditions you would find them to be invalid. You simply agree in that statement that proper blind testing is okay.

Your comments 1-4 indicate that you do not understand the difference between forced-choice discrimination (blind) tests and descriptive tests. They are two entirely different classes of tests designed for entirely different evaluative situations. I understand that you, and others, are desperate to salvage the utility of blind testing in stereo by agreeing that descriptive methods are appropriate, but then you want to validate the descriptive results with blind testing. This does not make sense because you admit that training is required to properly evaluate stereo sound, yet you indicate that the evaluator's training is suspect because you require results to be "validated" with a blind test. You either have confidence in the evaluator's training and the test methodology or you do not. I will illustrate the fallacy of this line of thinking with an anecdote from personal experience and with information from the sensory science literature.

No where in my post did I mention doing forced-choice discrimination tests. You'll notice that I did not use the terms ABX, AB, forced choice or anything of that nature. So, to make it as unambiguous as possible, I'm referring to tests using descriptive analysis in both the unblinded and blinded scenarios, one would simply note what they hear using the descriptive terms previously mentioned for stereophonic audio. There's nothing to choose, as they would simply be describing what they hear.

The training that I am referring to is to learn how to properly listen for and describe what they are hearing in stereophonic audio. The point of contention is whether this allows the trained subjects to control the effects of biases. I'm not questioning the training itself, I'm questioning whether bias can be controlled.

Anecdote

I spent several years as the lead component engineer at a telecommunications systems factory...You are the first to point out that testing methods used for one thing are not necessarily applicable to the other.
(Sorry, but I had to trim here because the post exceeded the limit of 10k characters)

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are the first to point out that testing procedures for one thing are not relevant to another.

Sensory Science Literature

The standard reference text in the field of sensory science is "Sensory Evaluation Techniques", 4th edition, by Morten Meilgaard, Gail Civille and B. Thomas Carr. The text devotes two chapters (10 and 11) to the discussion of descriptive analysis techniques.

From page 173:

"Panelists must be able to detect and describe the perceived sensory attributes of a sample. These qualitative aspects of a product combine to define the product and include all of the appearance, aroma, flavor, texture, or sound properties of a product that differentiate it from others. In addition, panelists must learn to differentiate and rate the quantitative or intensity aspects of a sample and to define to what degree each characteristic or qualitative note is present in that sample. Two products may contain the same qualitative descriptors, but they may markedly differ in the intensity of each, therefore, resulting in quite different and easily distinctive sensory profiles or pictures of each product.

Use descriptive tests to obtain detailed description of the aroma, flavor, and oral texture of foods and beverages, skinfeel of personal care products, handfeel of fabrics and paper products, and the appearance and sound of any product."

No arguments there.

From page 191:

"A trained panelist does not need to use or like the product to be able to describe the product; liking does not equal knowing. The panelists' discrimination and description skills stem from their expertise (through training) and experience (through practice)."

None of the sensory science texts or journal literature I have read indicated that descriptive analysis should be or must be validated by blind testing. It would be ludicrous to state such. In other words, what sense does it make to train an evaluator in descriptive techniques, then express a lack of confidence in the evaluator's competence by demanding a blind test to "prove" descriptive expertise? Anyone familiar with the items under evaluation and the evaluation methodology should be able to read the evaluative report and determine whether proper procedures were followed.

However, this is the point of contention. There are many repeated claims that the training will make a person able to control the effects of their biases, yet I still do not see anywhere that this has been tested! Ever hear of the scientific method? This requires testing to confirm or deny a hypotheses. Right now, you are simply reiterating theories; theories do not equal proof.

I agreed that a properly done blind test will produce valid results for the types of stimuli it is designed for. I also agree that you can eat tomato soup with a fork, a spoon, your bare hand, or simply pour it into your mouth from the bowl.

Sorry, but you actually did not make these stipulations in the prior post to which I refer.

Why do *I* need to constantly spoon feed you information? Can't you do a stereo evaluation trial in your own home and repeat it in blind fashion? Oh...I forgot...you can't trust your ears. Therefore, since you can't trust your ears, you can't trust anyone else's.

First, a single person does not make for a proper scientific study. To do so, you need an adequate number of participants. Second, I am not trained in the art of descriptive analysis for stereophonic audio. Finally, I do not have the resources to gather enough trained participants or train a number of untrained ones.

Actually, I did include a blind test case study of my proposed descriptive stereo evaluation methodology in the paper that was published in a sensory science journal in 2010.

If you can point me to where I can read this (for a reasonable cost), or simply post a synopsis of the important aspects of it, I will be happy to read it.

Again, I understand your desperation to salvage the use of blind testing in stereo, but there is no rational or scientific basis for this. Again, I submit that it does not make sense to train evaluators in descriptive analysis, then express doubt in their training by asking them to "validate" their results with blind testing. Any doubts in an evaluator's ability should be addressed during the training process.

I've already stated that I'm not questioning the training itself, I'm questioning whether or not the effect of bias can be controlled via said training. The many theories you've posted say it can, but again, no testing seems to have been done to confirm these theories.

No, I am basing my views on decades of valid sensory science literature and Bell Laboratories stereophonic evaluation literature. Maybe one day you will be able to actually comprehend what you read, maybe not.

Yet, that literature only assumes, but doesn't test. I again mention the scientific method.

I provided a good summary in the Stupid-things-you-hear-from-the-DBT-Null-test-crowd thread (page 12, post #356).

This adds nothing new to the discussion at hand.

In Conclusion

Blind tests are used to "test the tester" rather than to evaluate performance of items. Stereo equipment evaluators must come to an evaluation exercise already trained and tested. Therefore, it does not make sense to train a stereo evaluator in descriptive techniques, then ask them to submit to further testing of their evaluative ability after an evaluative exercise. Any doubts in evaluator ability must be addressed during the training process.

Well, we need to test the tester in this case. Right now we are only [/b]assuming[/b] that the effects of bias can be controlled via said training. Until this is tested, it is nothing more than theories!

madmax

BlueFox wrote: »

Anyway, the PSBs have really upped the sound quality for both HT and music. I have no problems at all with this system for either music or HT. However, I was not expecting this placebo effect. I am watching Avatar for the umpteenth time, and I noticed the picture is also better, along with the audio.

If I noticed this I would be compelled to set up the old speakers and see if it goes away, could be interesting.

BlueFox

Guys, you do realize this thread was in jest due to my seeing an improved picture when all I had done was upgrade the front speakers? With the placebo effect (which appears to not exist for audio) I should have imagined an improved audio experience, not better video. As I mentioned later, I suspect the improved video was due to the TV and Bluray player being turned on for over 24 hours when I resumed watching. Now I am going to do at least a 5 hour warm-up before watching a 'good' movie.

BeefJerky

BlueFox wrote: »

Guys, you do realize this thread was in jest due to my seeing an improved picture when all I had done was upgrade the front speakers? With the placebo effect (which appears to not exist for audio) I should have imagined an improved audio experience, not better video. As I mentioned later, I suspect the improved video was due to the TV and Bluray player being turned on for over 24 hours when I resumed watching. Now I am going to do at least a 5 hour warm-up before watching a 'good' movie.

Oh, come on now, where's the fun in that? Live life on the edge and only watch your TV when it is freshly turned on! No more than two hours at a time, and after that, you have to turn it off and let it cool down again.

Besides, ya'll should know that I am a stubborn bastage who likes a good debate. I can't let things go that easily! :cheesygrin:

DarqueKnight

BeefJerky wrote: »

Besides, ya'll should know that I am a stubborn bastage who likes a good debate. I can't let things go that easily! :cheesygrin:

You are not debating, you are comically demonstrating ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. You are just constantly asking the other party to substantiate their view, without offering any substantiation of your own. You probably think this makes you look clever, but, in class clown fashion, it does not.

BeefJerky wrote: »

I was referring to this post here:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?131666-Dumb-things-you-ve-heard-from-quot-audiophiles-quot-...&p=1757395&highlight=blind#post1757395

Either you are backtracking or you failed to state under what conditions you would find them to be invalid. You simply agree in that statement that proper blind testing is okay.

Backtracking? No way! I have stated such conditions many times. I even stated it in my historical overview of blind testing thread, which you claim to have read. This is from the introductory paragraph of that thread. Here as you read it for the first time, I have underlined the part you need to focus on:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Introduction

The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems. It is true that some types of audio systems are well suited for blind and double-blind A/B or A/B/X type tests. A/B and A/B/X tests are useful in scenarios when the two audio signals being compared are simple in nature. For example, telephone company engineers have routinely used, and continue to use, A/B and A/B/X tests to evaluate improvements in voice circuit quality. [1] [2] [3] [4] However, we must realize and understand that a test that is suitable for one type of audio system might not be suitable for another. It is worth noting that the same company (the Bell Telephone System) that was responsible for the invention and implementation of telephone service was the same company that was responsible for the invention and implementation of home stereophonic audio systems. [5] [6] [7] It is even more interesting to note that while A/B and A/B/X tests were found to be appropriate for evaluating voice quality improvements on bandwidth-limited telephone circuits, subjective, non-blind listening tests based on careful listening, evaluator training and realistic home listening conditions were the scientific standards for the evaluation of stereophonic audio systems. [5] [6] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

I have given other examples of proper blind tests which only evaluate an overall difference in two stereophonic samples. One such example is the Petri-Larmi study which noted an overall difference in tonal balance. Another would be noting which sample is louder or clearer. This is from page 8, post 222 of the Dumb-things-you-ve-heard-from-audiophiles thread:

DaqueKnight wrote:

One thing to consider is that the Petri-Larmi study was a study in simple SIGNAL DISCRIMINATION. They were comparing signals corrupted with various levels of noise. They were not evaluating audible differences in similar types of AUDIO EQUIPMENT. Therefore, since Petri-Larmi was testing the discrimination ability of subjects, a discrimination test like A/B was appropriate.

BeefJerky wrote: »

I fully understood what I read.

Uhhhh no, you don't. The examples above prove that.

BeefJerky wrote: »

Except that your claim here is only based on theories. There is no scientific testing that I am aware of that actually confirms this claim.

I fully understand the desperate need to dismiss the scientific literature I have presented on "debiased consumers" as "only theories". I realize there is comfort in ducking your head in the sand. Be mindful of what is exposed and vulnerable while your head is firmly planted underground.

BeefJerky wrote: »

I'm questioning whether bias can be controlled.

Of course you are. If bias can be controlled, the primary argument for blind testing for stereo goes away doesn't it? We wouldn't want that now would we?

My initial amusement has reached its limit. Until you have demonstrated that you have actually read and understand the literature, I will not discuss this with you further as you are not bringing anything of value to the discussion.

BlueFox wrote: »

Guys, you do realize this thread was in jest due to my seeing an improved picture when all I had done was upgrade the front speakers?

I do. Hence my comment that my car and truck drive better when they are clean.

transmaster

The prefect name for a line of high end speaker cables, and inter-connects has been coined here.

PLACEBO CABLES, Designed to improve the sonic properties of that space between your ears. :cheesygrin:

BeefJerky

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You are not debating, you are comically demonstrating ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. You are just constantly asking the other party to substantiate their view, without offering any substantiation of your own. You probably think this makes you look clever, but, in class clown fashion, it does not.

I'm asking the "other party" to substantiate their view since they actually have the resources to conduct the tests necessary to do so. I do not have those resources.

Backtracking? No way! I have stated such conditions many times. I even stated it in my historical overview of blind testing thread, which you claim to have read. This is from the introductory paragraph of that thread. Here as you read it for the first time, I have underlined the part you need to focus on:

I'm sorry, I guess that post I linked to only exists in my mind.

I have given other examples of proper blind tests which only evaluate an overall difference in two stereophonic samples. One such example is the Petri-Larmi study which noted an overall difference in tonal balance. Another would be noting which sample is louder or clearer. This is from page 8, post 222 of the Dumb-things-you-ve-heard-from-audiophiles thread:

These are still irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Uhhhh no, you don't. The examples above prove that.

I love how you still believe your untested theories are scientific fact.

I fully understand the desperate need to dismiss the scientific literature I have presented on "debiased consumers" as "only theories". I realize there is comfort in ducking your head in the sand. Be mindful of what is exposed and vulnerable while your head is firmly planted underground.

Except that it is true. You still have presented no solid proof that the effects of bias can be controlled via training. You can keep posting the same theories over and over again, but that doesn't make it fact.

Of course you are. If bias can be controlled, the primary argument for blind testing for stereo goes away doesn't it? We wouldn't want that now would we?

I'm more than happy to admit that I am wrong if I am proven wrong. However, seeing as you have have been unable to present a test proving that the effects of bias can be controlled by training, you have still not managed to prove anything.

My initial amusement has reached its limit. Until you have demonstrated that you have actually read and understand the literature, I will not discuss this with you further as you are not bringing anything of value to the discussion.

I question your reading comprehension skills when you present theories as scientific evidence. As far as you stance, I will take the same. When you can actually present proper testing proving bias control one way or the other, I will be happy to further discuss this with you. Until then, we are going in circles.

audiocr381ve

The most bizarre placebo effect that I've personally experienced was messing with an equalizer in my system. I had bought one for the first time and connected it to me system. With music playing, I started making adjustments to different frequencies until I found what I thought to be a good balance. I stepped back from the system and noticed that the power on light on the equalizer wasn't on. You guessed it, I was making adjustments to the equalizer and literally hearing differences as I made adjustments with the unit NOT EVEN POWERED ON. They were small adjustments that I made and I probably would have noticed if I moved the faders far enough but it was still bizarre.