@nonoise But when it comes to expectation bias, I don’t see how it applies here as I never know what to expect. I’m not looking for a big improvement. I wait, listen, evaluate, and proceed, keep it or return it.
Again...this way of thinking simply doesn’t take into account how bias actually works. Which I’d already explained.
Kind of sciencey, wouldn’t you say?
Not at all. You aren’t taking into the account important variables such as bias and the fallibility of your perception.
Perceptually, even if you don’t have any expectation either way, if you are even listening for differences, it can result in you perceiving "surprising" differences that don’t actually exist.
And you don’t even have to be necessarily looking for a difference. Our perception alters at different times for all sorts of different reasons, so we may suddenly "hear" a difference we didn’t expect, then wonder "what caused that difference?" and find something to attribute it to. "Hey, I replaced the caps in my amp a few days ago, I guess that’s the cause!"
It’s just how humans work - we look for cause and effect, but we are often wrong.
(I've mentioned before that I recently changed my music sever/streamer. I had no expectations at all for any sonic change but...out of "nowhere" when I was listening I perceived a change in my system, it sounded distinctly more pinched and brighter than I ever remembered. The only thing I'd changed recently was my server so, naturally, I wondered "could that be the cause of what I'm perceiving?"
So I had a friend help me do a blind shoot out between my old and new server. Results: I could not hear a bit of difference between them. So...my natural inclination to assign causation to the new server, as understandable as it may be, was wrong. And, funny thing, since doing that test I don't even perceive this difference any more. My system sounds like it always did.
But if I only had the mindset of the subjectivist I would no doubt have taken on the new belief that my new music server altered the sound. (And I may well have spent more money trying to "solve" a problem that wasn't there, adding more subjective-based tweaks or a new server).
I feel for your son and what you and your family went through but the medical analogy isn’t a good one. The times frames are so far off as to make them non comparative.
That doesn’t make sense. Human bias and errors of perception occur over any range of time you want to mention. And in the study, someone takes a pill and...usually...symptoms occur shortly after - placebo or otherwise. And they report this. How is that "time frame" off or not relevant? (Symptoms are also reported over longer periods of time - days, weeks, so the span between "immediate" and over time is covered in the type of placebo/bias effects I’ve referenced).
As for hearing above what my hearing test says is impossible, don’t forget harmonic overtones (ask any pipe organ fitter).
If you fail to detect a tone above 20Hz in a hearing test...you’ve failed to provide evidence you can hear above 20Hz.
If you want to say "but I can hear overtones above 20Hz when added to tones below that" then, again, that could be tested for. And if you fail to reliably detect these added above 20Hz overtornes, you’d have no basis for claiming you can hear them.
Add in a super tweeter and all those harmonics that can’t be heard suddenly change the event for the better.
How was this determined? The same way audiophile fuses and AC cables are evaluated, by sighted listening? If so, your claim begs the question. But if it is determined that you can hear overtones above 20K by careful evaluation of measurements and testing human perception, then that just makes my point about the relevance of controlled tests.
Add in a sub and suddenly you have presence that you can’t hear but feel and even sense, before you can feel.
Sure, but it’s well known and tested that human hearing extends to subwoofer territory. If you can, in fact, hear when a subwoofer is on or off...that would be easily testable in blind testing (and human low frequency perception has been tested this way).
So where are similarly controlled tests that would suggest the audibility of audiophile fuses, much less expensive power cables etc? (The link you mentioned earlier was an interesting start, but again, doesn’t seem to easily survive some of the scrutiny I’ve seen).
So, no, I don’t think science has it all wrong and I honestly don’t see how you could come to that conclusion simply because I can hear the difference a fuse makes,
My point isn’t really that you think science has it all wrong. As I said, people think science is great for other things...but just not for showing their own beloved perception to be in error.
You seem to be making this type of exception for your own senses, and the confidence you place in your own subjective assessment....when there is so much science showing why you should be more skeptical.
Thanks, and cheers!
