The Placebo Effect


One of the things that should be taken into account in the evaluation of audio equipment, tweaks, etc is the Placebo Effect.

In the medical world, Placebos (open label or concealed) appear to mostly work on subjective symptoms, such as pain. They don’t work on an objective symptom — something a doctor could see or diagnose, such as a fracture on a bone. Placebos don’t shrink tumors, they don’t change your diabetes, and they’re not going to actually lower your blood pressure for more than 15 minutes, Basically, placebos appear to work on things that pass through the brain’s perceptual systems — where they can prompt the release of opioids and other endorphins (chemicals that reduce pain) in the brain. Bottom line, placebos can result in perceived improvement even where no actual improvement exists.

The same applies to our hobby. Probably too often, we sense improvement in SQ because of the Placebo Effect. Our money spent, hardware bias's, effective marketing, or being influenced by the experience of others (regardless if true), often have us believe that we have obtained improvements that don't really exist. This is not necessarily a bad thing because a perceived improvement, whether real or imagined is still an improvement to the listener. This may explain part of why certain "improvements" can't be measured. 

J.Chip
128x128jchiappinelli
and some wander into hot retorts of projected fantasy about other people's thoughts on the nature of reality and testing it.
We all know audio reproduction is outside known physics and human audibility limits. To think silly things like placebo effect or confirmation bias could remotely apply to humans in their den of audio tweaks is outlandish not to mention those crazy ABX or DB tests being relevant for anything other than testing mayonnaise.
You always miss the point and then sarcastingly accuse all set of audiophiles to refuse to play the game of blindtest and refuse placebo effect...easy strawman argument....

Do you think that i think that placebo dont play for me in all my listening experiments? They do, saying otherwise and putting your words in my mouth is the perpetual strawman argument where you confine yourself in a false STATIC dichotomy between what is subjective and what is not....

But placebo live at the borderline frontier between audible and inaudible.... Only fool can explain with placebo, most effects "sustained", very audible change, in time tough.... Are you one?

And are you like those wo dont trust their own ears to the point refusing ANY listening experiments of their own in case they could be deluded by placebo ? Are you afraid of your own mother? Because placebo is the MOTHER of all perception by the way....


Science is not something from a comic book resembling a war between subjectivist and objectivist, it is a bit more complex and less stupid than these "cultist" distinction like in scientology between those who are "clear" and those who are not....With a "blindtest" two separate the to in an "audit"....

Dont need blindtest for my culinary experiment either , and for my contemplation of the "illusive" rainbow.....

Some here seem to forget how on another recent thread, there was an actual explanation and account of how real testing is done by someone who does it for a living.

The testing that is always harked on these threads is not considered a test methodology.

Maybe Gore Vidal was right when he called this country the United States of Amnesia.

Or maybe Goebbels was right when he proffered that the Big Lie, said often enough, can become conventional wisdom.

Or maybe, if we all clap long and loud enough, Tinker Bell can come back to life.

All the best,
Nonoise
Maybe Gore Vidal was right when he called this country the United States of Amnesia.
i dont think he was wrong often....

😊