Expectation Bias

[Zed Zed]

19 hours ago, Noddy said:

But…..the other Friday as usual I had my 14yr old son around for the evening, as usual we span some vinyl.

we had an unusual problem, on some pristine vinyl we were hearing some kind of static noise, after eliminating the amp as a source I decided the swap the Ortofon bronze for a spare‘silver’? 
My son immediately noticed and let out a deflated ‘oh dear’ 

There was absolutely no comparison between the two needles, normally service was thankfully restored when I refitted the bronze and the mysterious noise disappeared.

 

That's not the same as the auditory memory thing we were discussing though. I can play Leonard Cohen on Monday and Diana Krall on the following Saturday and immediately recognise the difference between them! Auditoty memory comes into play when comparing the same thing against itself a while later, not two entirely different things. There's a ton of info on the net - just google 'auditory memory in humans' if you're interested.

[Zed Zed]

17 hours ago, SkunkieDesigns said:

It's possible. It's also possible a "noisy" or highly microphonic tube in that position would create a problem, that another tube wouldn't have. But I can say without any doubt, in a stock as wired amp, that tube can't shift the left/right balance like someone heard.

 

People hear what they expect to hear. Expectation bias/confirmation bias etc. That's the problem with all this subjective conclusion-forming. Your example of this alleged balance shift is a perfect example of it: someone hears something that is impossible, but swears by his 'results'. It happens all the time, and the big problem is that nobody can really know (absent actual science of the sort you provided) which is real and which is illusory. I guess it doesn't matter all that much so long as people are happy, but one major downside is when people spend/waste money on these illusory gains - money that could have been spent much better elsewhere, on things that actually make a difference. 'Magic' cables spring to mind.

[Zed Zed]

7 hours ago, NormB said:

that kind of talk on a place like audiogon will get you ratio’d down to nothing. Why, that’s heresy don’t you know. Your ears just aren’t good enough to hear.

 

 

I love it when that one comes back: "if you can't hear xxxx, it's because your ears aren't golden enough, not because I'm talking out of my fundamental orifice . . . ".

[andyr]

5 minutes ago, Zed Zed said:

That's not the same as the auditory memory thing we were discussing though. I can play Leonard Cohen on Monday and Diana Krall on the following Saturday and immediately recognise the difference between them! Auditoty memory comes into play when comparing the same thing against itself a while later, not two entirely different things. There's a ton of info on the net - just google 'auditory memory in humans' if you're interested.

 

Weeell, yes - but I suspect the measurement types won't agree with you.  

 

Several times, I have made a change and (thought I) noticed a beneficial improvement.  But it wasn't able to be a 'blind test' ... as it took some time to make the change.

 

With the latest one (replacing the springs on my Linn-look-alike with silicone 'mushrooms'), it seemed that music which I was intimately familiar with ... sounded a. more lively and b. showed better delivery of low-level information.  (I'm not sure what measurements would be able to show this!   )

 

Of course, one would expect this (given expectation bias) ... so I wrote to the guy who had urged me to try these silicone mushrooms, explaining what I had heard - and he said that was absolutely correct!

 

[Zed Zed]

6 hours ago, jon96789 said:

 

I am guilty as charged.  Thank you for correcting me... I guess I do have a lot to learn, sorry if i caused any confusion.  I do have a question then.  Why is there a channel imbalance when using certain tubes in the R8. I know that I have a image shift to one side on some tubes and not others.

 

That's because there is a valid electrical reason for a channel imbalance caused by different tubes. Just like you would hear a channel imbalance if you turned the balance control, or moved one speaker three feet to the left.

 

I wouldn't beat yourself up about the other thing - expectation bias (like all the other biases humans are subject to) is impossible to control and affects everyone. Stephe proved in this case that what you were hearing was illusory (brought about by your subconscious biases) - the real trick is recognising this and proceeding with great caution when others reveal their own expectation biases but present them as facts. Just think - now that this one thing you heard has been revealed as illusory, how many other things you hear fall into the same category? I might be interesting, now that you know a balance issue is impossible (for the reasons under discussion earlier), to listen again and see if the channels are now balanced after all!

[Zed Zed]

1 minute ago, andyr said:

 

Weeell, yes - but I suspect the measurement types won't agree with you.  

 

Several times, I have made a change and (thought I) noticed a beneficial improvement.  But it wasn't able to be a 'blind test' ... as it took some time to make the change.

 

With the latest one (replacing the springs on my Linn-look-alike with silicone 'mushrooms'), it seemed that music which I was intimately familiar with ... sounded a. more lively and b. showed better delivery of low-level information.  (I'm not sure what measurements would be able to show this!   )

 

Of course, one would expect this (given expectation bias) ... so I wrote to the guy who had urged me to try these silicone mushrooms, explaining what I had heard - and he said that was absolutely correct!

 

 

One of the factors is that when we listen after making a change, we listen very intently. We're really, really trying hard to hear some sort of difference. And when we listen like this, guess what? We hear things we can swear we have never heard before! A bit more separation, a smoother high end, an extra shimmer to the cymbals, more articulation on that plucked bass string.... and then we attribute this not to pyschoacoustic factors but to an amazing difference brought about by whatever we changed.

 

There are some tracks I have listened to over and over for decades. For example, I must have heard every track on Coletrane's 'Ballads' album hundreds and hundreds of times. But if I sit down later and play, say, the opening track on side 1, and go into "incredibly attentive and analytic listening mode', I know for a fact that I will hear 'things I have never heard before'. That little rim shot - surely that wasn't there before . . . I can hear Coltrane lipping in a way I know I have never heard before . . . I was 100% sure I knew every nuance of his embouchure on that passage, but no - that is NEW.   Everyone can do this and will find the same.

 

None of it matters unless people waste their money on chasing illusions. Personally, I recommend doing what Mrs Zed does (she's a pianist): she enjoys the music. Doesn't matter which system it's played on - the cheap 'upstairs' system, the big 'downstairs' system, the little boombox in the kitchen, etc. She enjoys the music just as much on all of them. I guess she is listening to the music, and not to the system. That's something I have learned from her, and it might have even saved me some serious wedge over the years

[vivianbl]

13 hours ago, Zed Zed said:

 

One of the factors is that when we listen after making a change, we listen very intently. We're really, really trying hard to hear some sort of difference. And when we listen like this, guess what? We hear things we can swear we have never heard before! A bit more separation, a smoother high end, an extra shimmer to the cymbals, more articulation on that plucked bass string.... and then we attribute this not to pyschoacoustic factors but to an amazing difference brought about by whatever we changed.

 

There are some tracks I have listened to over and over for decades. For example, I must have heard every track on Coletrane's 'Ballads' album hundreds and hundreds of times. But if I sit down later and play, say, the opening track on side 1, and go into "incredibly attentive and analytic listening mode', I know for a fact that I will hear 'things I have never heard before'. That little rim shot - surely that wasn't there before . . . I can hear Coltrane lipping in a way I know I have never heard before . . . I was 100% sure I knew every nuance of his embouchure on that passage, but no - that is NEW.   Everyone can do this and will find the same.

 

None of it matters unless people waste their money on chasing illusions. Personally, I recommend doing what Mrs Zed does (she's a pianist): she enjoys the music. Doesn't matter which system it's played on - the cheap 'upstairs' system, the big 'downstairs' system, the little boombox in the kitchen, etc. She enjoys the music just as much on all of them. I guess she is listening to the music, and not to the system. That's something I have learned from her, and it might have even saved me some serious wedge over the years

Yeah, I should have stuck with that 3 in one system I purchased in the 70s. Wasted all that money on separates and cables to connect all the boxes.

If only I had known that my brain was playing tricks!

[vivianbl]

14 hours ago, andyr said:

With the latest one (replacing the springs on my Linn-look-alike with silicone 'mushrooms'), it seemed that music which I was intimately familiar with ... sounded a. more lively and b. showed better delivery of low-level information.  (I'm not sure what measurements would be able to show this!   )

 

Of course, one would expect this (given expectation bias) ... so I wrote to the guy who had urged me to try these silicone mushrooms, explaining what I had heard - and he said that was absolutely correct!

 

Well….Andy, you just fell for the oldest trick of all …… confirmation bias!! ….

[Zed Zed]

7 hours ago, vivianbl said:

Yeah, I should have stuck with that 3 in one system I purchased in the 70s. Wasted all that money on separates and cables to connect all the boxes.

If only I had known that my brain was playing tricks!

 

Google McGurk Effect.  Unfortunately, your brain 'plays tricks' on you all day long.

[bob_m_54]

13 minutes ago, Zed Zed said:

 

Google McGurk Effect.  Unfortunately, your brain 'plays tricks' on you all day long.

and sometimes well into the night... LOL

[vivianbl]

20 minutes ago, Zed Zed said:

 

Google McGurk Effect.  Unfortunately, your brain 'plays tricks' on you all day long.

Oh yes, Stereo sound stage is an illusion. The brain plays these tricks all the time….:. And …. I love it!!

[rocky500]

3 minutes ago, vivianbl said:

Oh yes, Stereo sound stage is an illusion. The brain plays these tricks all the time….:. And …. I love it!!

That seems about right. Hifi systems are all about illusion.

So the bigger the illusion, the better I say too.

[bob_m_54]

33 minutes ago, vivianbl said:

Oh yes, Stereo sound stage is an illusion. The brain plays these tricks all the time….:. And …. I love it!!

It is real, in the horizontal and depth planes, but some people seem to think it happens in the vertical plane too... Physics would suggest otherwise.

Edited March 2, 2023 by bob_m_54
spelling

[vivianbl]

16 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

It is real, in the horizontal and depth planes, but some people seem to think it happens in the vertical plane too... Physics would suggest otherwise.

But that’s the beauty of illusion. Don’t need to have physics to prove anything! Really pleased about that because I’m hearing and seeing more of the vertical stuff with my last couple of hallucinogens …oops tweaks!

[Keith_W]

Don't forget that confirmation bias works both ways. If you have already convinced yourself that there can be no possible difference between (say) DAC's, then you won't hear any. Or another example over on another forum, they know that the Truthear x Crinacle Zero IEM conforms very well to the Harman curve, so presto ... they are all singing its praises. Nothing influences your hearing impression more than knowing the frequency response curve beforehand. And yes, the McGurk effect works there too. I find those Zeros to be unforgivably bright such that it makes me wonder if there was an error in the measurements. In any case I have long since disposed of them. 

[andyr]

32 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

It is real, in the horizontal and depth planes, but some people seem to think it happens in the vertical plane too... Physics would suggest otherwise.

 

It does happen in the vertical plane too, Bob.    (Don't know what level of physics you reached, at school.)

 

Port Stephens is somewhere near Gosford right?  If so - take a visit to Bill McLean in Gosford (the Maggie distributor) and experience for yourself how 5' high tweeters deliver a lot of vertical plane!  

 

[rand129678]

4 minutes ago, Keith_W said:

I find those Zeros to be unforgivably bright such that it makes me wonder if there was an error in the measurements.

It is well known that GRAS 43/45 measurement rigs (IEC 711 couplers) are not reliable above 10kHz.

 

Some say even above ~ 8 kHz.

 

So there is error in the measurements, in the region you found problematic.

 

We need to see the measurement on the new hi-res BK 5128 rig, more accurate above 10kHz - this may (or not) show what you heard.

Edited March 2, 2023 by rand129678

[Keith_W]

3 minutes ago, rand129678 said:

It is well known that GRAS 43/45 measurement rigs (IEC 711 couplers) are not reliable above 10kHz.

 

Some say even above ~ 8 kHz.

 

So there is error in the measurements, in the region you found problematic.

 

We need to see the measurement on the new hi-res BK 5128 rig, more accurate above 10kHz - this may (or not) show what you heard.

 

Which illustrates my point. Countless people on that other forum think it is the perfect IEM. Once again, McGurk effect and confirmation bias. 

[MLXXX]

3 hours ago, Keith_W said:

Don't forget that confirmation bias works both ways. If you have already convinced yourself that there can be no possible difference between (say) DAC's, then you won't hear any.

 

I often see that sort of claim on this forum.  It could indeed hold true for subtle differences.   However if a difference is considerable, a point would be reached where that difference became impossible to ignore, even for a "non-believer".

 

With DAC comparisons, differences would tend to be subtle so if a person did not believe there should be a difference, and listened in only a cursory manner, they could indeed easily miss a subtle difference that they would have heard had they listened more attentively and with an open attitude. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by MLXXX

[March Audio]

8 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

I often see that sort of claim on this forum.  It could indeed hold true for subtle differences.   However if a difference is considerable, a point would be reached where that difference became impossible to ignore, even for a "non-believer".

 

With DAC comparisons, differences would tend to be subtle so if a person did not believe there should be a difference, and listened in only a cursory manner, they could indeed easily miss a subtle difference that they would have heard had they listened more attentively and with an open attitude. 

It's a very simply solved problem.  Blind the comparison and have a control.  You introduce a known and audible difference in one of the tracks that's played.

[rocky500]

I see that a lot of people believe heavily doing a Blind test is the only way to really find out.

 

I have come to think that is one of the biggest confirmation bias's in audio. Thrown in with biggest Expectation bias.

They see it in other industries and mention gold standards etc but in reality they seem to ignore the science that is already been done out there.

 

In my years of trying them, I seem to come to realization that they tend to mask the differences (smaller ones) when ever I have tried them myself. It seems the smaller ones are the contentious ones online or why you might want to do these tests in the first place.

So did a lot of reading and can see so many problems with trying them out yourself. There was a thread on here that list some of the pitfalls.

But you find many who will just ignore the science and think they can be used so easily everywhere. As I said, I think this falls under expectation/confirmation bias.

 

One I was just reading recently is in the ability of the brain to fill in gaps in audio tests. This is just one part that could effect the tests and there seems to be lots.

 

Some links here as I just googled. There seems to be quite a bit out there already. Some examples I just googled below. There are many out there.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/550337/why-your-brain-sometimes-hears-sounds-dont-exist

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125134655.htm

https://theproaudiofiles.com/music-and-the-brain/

 

I remember reading someone in the "know" mentioning that you should play unknown music when ever you try to do blind tests.

Looking at some info on the net, I can see this might be an advantage as it might help mitigate in the brain remembering past experiences/listening and filling in, so unfamiliar music could help here.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by rocky500

[davewantsmoore]

On 01/03/2023 at 10:19 PM, Zed Zed said:

 

People hear what they expect to hear. Expectation bias/confirmation bias etc. That's the problem with all this subjective conclusion-forming. Your example of this alleged balance shift is a perfect example of it: someone hears something that is impossible, but swears by his 'results'. It happens all the time, and the big problem is that nobody can really know (absent actual science of the sort you provided) which is real and which is illusory. I guess it doesn't matter all that much so long as people are happy, but one major downside is when people spend/waste money on these illusory gains - money that could have been spent much better elsewhere, on things that actually make a difference. 'Magic' cables spring to mind.

 

 

"If you listen for something, you will hear something".

[davewantsmoore]

12 hours ago, Keith_W said:

Don't forget that confirmation bias works both ways. If you have already convinced yourself that there can be no possible difference between (say) DAC's, then you won't hear any. 

Yes, this is very true.... ABX method can adderss this (with the caveat that person actually wants to try, and doesn't just random their response)

[davewantsmoore]

20 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

I see that a lot of people....

Thing with tests (that might help what you're talking about) and how people do them wrong, or misrepresent them ..... is they misrepresent the null result.   ie. when the test doesn't show an audible difference.   It just means that the test could show the difference, nothing more nothing less.  A different test, or test subjects, might reliably show the difference.

 

So if "your brain fills in the blanks" .... to cause the result to be "you can't tell them apart" ...... then that is a "non" result.    The test didn't show anything.

And if "your brain fills in the blanks" ... and the result is that you CAN relaibly tell them apart .... then as long as the test was properly blinded, etc. then your "filling in the gaps" can't be considered a "problem".

 

Hope that makes sense.

[muon*]

Lot of bias in this thread