Another playback software to argue over

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ah, so your admission of your own expectation bias somehow reinforces your argument??
You seem to be able to cite the bias on one side & it's effects but not for the other side - it's interesting.
As you say, "Noting has changed"

If my "argument" is that expectation bias is powerful, no one is immune, and that it is much more likely to be the cause of what you're hearing than changes in code, which still delivers a bit perfect stream to the DAC, changing what comes out of the analog end of that DAC, of course it supports my position. If I believed you were vulnerable to expectation bias but I was not, it wouldn't even be a position. It would just be an attack on your personal credibility.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

And what we have here is a similar theoretical impossibility, but no one has tracked the path of the ball, they've just insisted that it curves and dismissed anyone who questions that. If someone can track the ball, lots of others will rush in to figure out how they did that. It could be quite exciting.

Tim

You missed the point. Lack of scientific proof that the ball was curving. Observational proof from pitchers and hitters that it was. They did not ignore science. The technology for tracking the ball is relatively recent.

 

[Gregadd]

In the real world we learn from experience. All factors are in play So if we call a speaker the best because it is bigger we learn not to do that. We are not doomed to deem the red car best merely because it is red.
I'm not disputing the need for scientist to account for bias..

 

[mep]

I really don't get the "expectation bias" thing. Can you really delude yourself over the long term that something new is better than what it replaced if in fact it's not? I can see where expectation bias could cause a short-term positive effect on the purchaser and he would think that the new purchase sounded better. However, if the new purchase really doesn't sound better than what it replaced, don't you think people who aren't hearing impaired will figure it out eventually after the newness wears off? I think in the long term that expectation bias may just be another Wizard of Oz strawman argument and oh how I hate that term being thrown around. My expectation bias is that every time I see someone being accused of using a strawman argument, it really isn't. In this case, I'm not so sure.

 

[jkeny]

I really don't get the "expectation bias" thing. Can you really delude yourself over the long term that something new is better than what it replaced if in fact it's not? I can see where expectation bias could cause a short-term positive effect on the purchaser and he would think that the new purchase sounded better. However, if the new purchase really doesn't sound better than what it replaced, don't you think people who aren't hearing impaired will figure it out eventually after the newness wears off? I think in the long term that expectation bias may just be another Wizard of Oz strawman argument and oh how I hate that term being thrown around. My expectation bias is that every time I see someone being accused of using a strawman argument, it really isn't. In this case, I'm not so sure.

I believe that expectation bias that expects to hear no difference is a fairly permanent condition which I have never seen long-term listening to change - probably because long-term listening is not entered into - the bias is confirmed in a short listening (maybe DBT) so no need for any longer listening.

 

[mep]

I believe that expectation bias that expects to hear no difference is a fairly permanent condition which I have never seen long-term listening to change - probably because long-term listening is not entered into - the bias is confirmed in a short listening (maybe DBT) so no need for any longer listening.

I was referring to positive expectation bias because that is usually the horse that Tim rides when pointing his finger at others.

 

[jkeny]

I was referring to positive expectation bias because that is usually the horse that Tim rides when pointing his finger at others.

Yep, I know & was just giving you the reasons why Tim (& others) will never shake off their expectation bias (is it a nocebo?) - it's a self fulfilling, circular logic thought process that stops them listening long-term. One also finds that this thinking often leads them to low cost equipment (cost is often a factor in their arguments) & which allows the boast of "my system is giving me the same sound as the expensive stuff" (that the poor uninformed ones are duped into buying & which my role is to save them from their stupidity). Of course this choice in itself is often limiting any possible difference that they can/will hear.

It's the perfect circular logic that leads to the conclusion expected but is invisible to their self-analysis, if they engage in such a thing.

 

[mep]

Yep, I know & was just giving you the reasons why Tim (& others) will never shake off their expectation bias (it's a nocebo) - it's a self fulfilling, circular logic thought process that stops them listening long-term. One also finds that this thinking often leads them to low cost equipment (cost is often a factor in their arguments) & which allows the boast of "my system is giving me the same sound as the expensive stuff" (that the poor uninformed ones are duped into buying & which my role is to save them from their stupidity). Of course this choice in itself is often limiting any possible difference that they can/will hear.

It's the perfect circular logic that leads to the conclusion expected but is invisible to their self-analysis, if they engage in such a thing.

I would change the bolded part to say that cost is the factor in their arguments.

 

[jkeny]

If my "argument" is that expectation bias is powerful, no one is immune, and that it is much more likely to be the cause of what you're hearing than changes in code, which still delivers a bit perfect stream to the DAC, changing what comes out of the analog end of that DAC, of course it supports my position. If I believed you were vulnerable to expectation bias but I was not, it wouldn't even be a position. It would just be an attack on your personal credibility.

Tim

Tim, you ignore the blind tests both accidental & arranged that Clive conducted which he mentioned & I referred to before.

 

[jkeny]

I would change the bolded part to say that cost is the factor in their arguments.

Yes, but you have to be careful in how you frame these things as it is the debaters style to pick on a word & debate it to death thereby changing the point of the post. So leaving some wiggle room in a post (as debaters do all the time) is the debaters M. O.It is often witnessed on this forum. Wiggle room allows for plausible deniability of the post & also for accusations that the other party doesn't understand or is willfully mistating what was posted.

 

[microstrip]

Although these debates are always obfuscated by the "bit perfect" and DBT fights, perhaps some members would want to stay away of these endless fights, and debate whether the differences associated with different players are systematic and can be correlated with perceived sound quality, or they depend strongly on the hardware (computer and DAC).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Expectation bias is not a strawman or a myth. Google it. I honestly don't know if long term listening changes it or not. Probably. And it probably works both ways, or at least thats what I'd guess. I imagine you can talk yourself out if bias over time. I'm almost certain you can talk yourself into it. And I'm trying to be nice, not personal, guys. It would be great if you could do the same

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Although these debates are always obfuscated by the "bit perfect" and DBT fights, perhaps some members would want to stay away of these endless fights, and debate whether the differences associated with different players are systematic and can be correlated with perceived sound quality, or they depend strongly on the hardware (computer and DAC).

That's what attracted me to MQN as the author is quite willing to state what change he has made between versions, some of which result in audible benefits, some of which result in a step back in the sound. At the moment there is only very rough correlation between the code changes that bring audible benefit. And, I agree, it is an interesting area for discussion but this discussion is already taking place on the main forum discussing MQN.

The audible benefits of MQN show no correlation to any particular DAC mode of operation or internal structure, afaik.

 

[mep]

Expectation bias is not a strawman or a myth. Google it. I honestly don't know if long term listening changes it or not. Probably. And it probably works both ways, or at least thats what I'd guess. I imagine you can talk yourself out if bias over time. I'm almost certain you can talk yourself into it. And I'm trying to be nice, not personal, guys. It would be great if you could do the same

Tim

Tim-All I'm saying is that I think unless you are deaf or delusional that expectation bias will have a short-term effect and the truth will prevail.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-All I'm saying is that I think unless you are deaf or delusional that expectation bias will have a short-term effect and the truth will prevail.

Yeah, I got that. And it could be possible, I've never seen anything about long-term listening and bias. I've certainly seen people start off very enthusiastic over something new, then grow dissatisfied over time. But I've seen the opposite, as well - people "growing into" their new purchases with listening time. I don't have any trouble imagining bias playing a role in both of those things, but I don't know. Do I think that we always get over bias with time? Nah. I think there are probably biases we hold onto for life.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) Excellent - I wish more people would be willing to go through the (not inconsiderable) effort of arranging proper, controlled and verifiable double blind tests. The best way to deal with critics is to make sure the tests are well controlled and documented, and publishing as much detail as possible.

We could never get any one to even suggest a detailed guide for carrying a proper, controlled and verifiable double blind test to be used in high-end conditions, including positive and negative controls. I asked for it several times, and the best I got was something like "we are not here to do your homework, do it your self" from the DBT supporters. And you wish they carry proper, controlled and verifiable double blind test and publish as much detail as possible?

Perhaps someday you will find the Aladdin lamp and then your desire will be accomplished...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We could never get any one to even suggest a detailed guide for carrying a proper, controlled and verifiable double blind test to be used in high-end conditions, including positive and negative controls. I asked for it several times, and the best I got was something like "we are not here to do your homework, do it your self" from the DBT supporters. And you wish they carry proper, controlled and verifiable double blind test and publish as much detail as possible?

Perhaps someday you will find the Aladdin lamp and then your desire will be accomplished...

I don't think you'll ever get agreement over equipment, media, subjects and conditions in the audiophile world, micro, but add an audibility control to Meyer and Moran and you'll be about as close as it will get. From everything I've read, they were very thorough. And frankly, I think they left out the audibility control because they expected the difference to be clearly audible.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I know it's semantics Tim but "Expectation Bias" isn't always the right term to use. There are other biases that fit the varying situations. Google 'em. I'm trying to be nice too.

In the strictest sense, Mark is right here. I'm no stranger to new gear crush. Definitely not immune to it. In my experience, given time, any crush will fade and you're left with what you've got. I dare say that growing into nasty stuff is extremely rare. Not that that means one will swap that piece of gear out but rather steps are usually taken to mitigate the negative aspects of that piece. It could be as simple as speaker repositioning or as drastic as DSP. If something doesn't sound right no justification or rationalization will ever make it sound right. You have a choice of buyer remorse or taking it on the chin and set about finding proactive solutions.

 

[microstrip]

I don't think you'll ever get agreement over equipment, media, subjects and conditions in the audiophile world, micro, but add an audibility control to Meyer and Moran and you'll be about as close as it will get.

Tim

Tim,

What is the "audibility control" you want to add to Meyer and Moran? As far as I remember they already had one and were happy with it!

 

[jkeny]

I don't think you'll ever get agreement over equipment, media, subjects and conditions in the audiophile world, micro, but add an audibility control to Meyer and Moran and you'll be about as close as it will get. From everything I've read, they were very thorough. And frankly, I think they left out the audibility control because they expected the difference to be clearly audible.

Tim

Tim, positive & negative controls ALWAYS need to be part of a DBT - it's a doozie otherwise. Surprising that M&M nullified their results by leaving out such controls (if they did) based on their expectation bias.

Micro, was document BS1116 not prescribed as the procedure for such blind tests? But in general I agree with you, those who constantly cry DBT really don't want it, they just want an argument.