Anyone try Synergistic Research PHT...

"11-18-14: Lewm
Zd542, The idea of observer (in this case "listener") bias is much older than this discussion. It has long been taken as a given in the design of any study that involves opinion or human judgement of any kind and that purports to be "scientific". When you then add the fact that one has paid for the device under scrutiny, the bias factor is only compounded. We are all guilty of it; one cannot divorce one's judgement from subconscious bias. Thus you could say I disagree with your premise that listener bias is not a big factor in the formulation of opinions put forth in this and many other forums. That said, please note that it was not I who claimed that my quote was the quote of the year. Quote of the year was not my goal, but thanks for that, Phil."

Reading my post again, I think I could have done a better job explaining my point. I'm not saying that listening bias doesn't happen, I just don't think it can be applied in the manner that you suggest. Look at this once more.

'Listener bias is huge, once one has paid good money for a tweak.'

What type of bias? Lets say 2 people that are financially equal (they make about the same money), buy the same expensive tweak. One person can have an attitude like "For $xxx amount of money, this new tweak should really make my system sound great", while the next person may say "$xxx is an awful lot of money, I hope this damn tweak works.". Both are legitimate examples of how listening bias may be a factor in ones judgement of a particular tweak, but they're practically opposite views. Since we don't have any idea of an individual's personality traits, I don't see how any accurate and responsible judgement/recommendation can be made. We don't have any where near enough info, and even if we did, are we qualified to make assessments of this nature? So, my position in all this is to just not go there. To me, it seems like you can do just as much harm, as good, by bringing psychology into all this.

"That said, please note that it was not I who claimed that my quote was the quote of the year. Quote of the year was not my goal, but thanks for that, Phil."

OK. I do note that you didn't ask for quote of the year. Fair enough. But I also note that you thank Phil for calling it quote of the year. This is interesting. Phil's comment may bias your future posts. The question I have, is will this positive reinforcement effect your accuracy? Maybe you'll just guess more often because you subconsciously judge yourself more knowledgeable, or maybe you'll do more research before answering posts due to the new burden placed on you in winning quote of the year. Phil, I'm hoping you keep track of his progress and give us some updates on which direction he's headed. Its all up to you now.

JWPstayman, Pardon me, if I was incorrect in my assumption that the PHT is itself a tiny magnet. However, I did not make that up; I read it somewhere during my effort to research this product. If I am wrong, a thousand pardons.

Now, as to your contention that it is a "transducer", please tell me how or in what way it can be a transducer. It is not even electrically connected in the audio pathway, so I must wonder about that.

Zd542, I assume your long post is tongue in cheek. Good one. But my next post will contain the Quote of the Century. Ad astra per aspera! (Or something like that.)

"Zd542, I assume your long post is tongue in cheek. Good one. But my next post will contain the Quote of the Century. Ad astra per aspera! (Or something like that.)"

Yes, I was definitely kidding. But only the last part of my post. I really don't see how you can use psychology, like listening bias, in any useful way, unless its under special circumstances. We just don't get enough info in these posts, or have the ability, to effectively use it.

All I say is that there IS observer bias, and it works in a major way to affect our sense of things. Where did I say that I can measure it or know for sure the degree to which it has affected a review? If you thought I meant to say that, or anything like that, you are mistaken. But just because we cannot fathom someone else's observer bias does not negate its effect on his or her review or opinion. Having said that, is it not logical that spending a substantial sum of money to purchase a device would tend to cause the buyer to be subconsciously biased in favor of the device? Thus I think cost has a predictable effect on subconscious bias. Likewise, the color and feel of an object will affect our perceptions of it. (For example, is the faceplate gold, silver, or black? Is it made of really thick heavy metal or flimsy looking? Are the knobs "really cool"? Any or all of such factors may affect one's opinion of the sonics, up or down.) So, here is how I use the notion of observer bias as regards audio: I take anyone else's opinion of an audio device with a large grain of salt. If ten out of ten knowledgeable listeners agree, then I might sit up and take notice of the device, or ignore it, depending upon the consensus of a quorum of persons I trust.

"Where did I say that I could measure it or know for sure the degree to which it has affected a review?"

In your first post. I never said you could measure it or know for sure, but you appear to be implying, in a strong manner, your prediction that there will be a positive bias.

"11-17-14: Lewm
I have read several glowing subjective "reviews" of this item, and I will predict that you will be swamped with similar."

Read down a bit further, and you get to your famous quote, that implies the positive reaction is due to listening bias. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that can't or doesn't happen, I'm saying that a positive reaction in the above example is not the only reaction. The reaction could just as easily be negative. We just don't know. Why get so worked up over the whole issue?