Hearing is Believing

[Mescalito]

So do you always listen to your system blind to make sure your enjoyment is not an illusion

Richard, I try to listen to music, not the system. All I ever ask of a system is that it gets out of the way of the music as much as possible.

If I find myself admiring how the system handles the leading edge of a bass note or the whisper of a brushed cymbol, the system isn't doing it's job.

Andactually, I do often listen in the dark.

Chris

 

[Mescalito]

I do not deny psychological effects it is all part of the learning process, and one of the reasons we have opposing opinions and make different choices. Now the difference is you think that is bad and I think it is good. It happens in all emotive choice situations through all aspects of human behaviour - it is normal!!! it is part of why we are individuals, if we didn't have it we would just be computers.

It is only bad in extremis when people really are self deluded, and that is a very small number of nutters, interestingly about the same number of nutters who completely reject any form of subjective judgement.

If our senses always deluded us then natural selection would have cured it, it hasn't so I can only presume what we have is normal.

Richard, watch the programme.

Chris

 

[Joe Petrik]

You, me, everyone, no matter how experienced, will be fooled by our brains.

The brain doesn't even know when it's referring to itself, it's so easily fooled.

Joe

 

[Basil]

The brain doesn't even know when it's referring to itself, it's so easily fooled.

Joe

Speak for yourself, puny human!

 

[titian]

Don't take my word for it. Watch the program. Especially the section devoted to (I think) the McGurk phenomenon. Do some research.

Of course I take your words exactly as they are written.
Sorry no, I don't have BBC 2. I'm just referring what you write here.
YOU WROTE:

It can be summarised by paraphrasing a comment made by one of the psychologists appearing on the programme.

"Hearing is believing.....we hear what we believe".

AND:

Well, Titian, in this particular case, it really can. And you can substitute "see, smell, taste and feel" into the statement and it remains true.

This is an absolutistic statement from your side. Point.


---------------

Whether you agree with it or like it, you hear what you believe you will hear. Especially if you have just spent a large amount of money chasing an improvement.

My point has absolutetely nothing to do with what I believe. Actually I DO believe that our mind fools us often. I know this since over 30 years. Yes I do, but it doesn't have anything to with my point about your statements.
You also are often fooled by your mind and it wouldn't surprise me that you read only what you like to see ignoring purposely other parts just because you are believing in something and want other people to believe in that.

Your second example is invalid since knowledge of what Beethoven's 4th sounds like is not actually an auditory function. It is a cognitive function.

Sorry you wrote "we hear what we believe" and "We hear/see/smell/taste/feel what we expect to hear/see/smell/taste/feel". In these phrases there is no precisation when this happens under which circumstances.
I my example I believed (and I expected) they were going to play the 4th so according to your above statement I should have heard the 4th even if they played another one.

 

[RobHolt]

While trawling for some articles for other threads recently I came across details of a mega blind amplifier test. Equipment ranged from a £200 Pioneer receiver to some high-end ML at the other extreme. The listening consisted of various sessions, some using an ABX switchbox and others (where the listeners insisted) eliminating the box and swapping the cables.
It included single listener testing and larger groups, and both short and longer musical extracts.
Te result was interesting to say the least in that the results accorded almost perfectly with those of random responses. The conclusion was that most listeners could not reliably tell a £200 Pioneer Receiver from £20k of ML amplifier - and that driving large Magneplanar IIIs which aren't exactly an easy load.

I'll post the download link tonight and anyone interested can read for themselves.

One thing that does seem to emerge from such testing is that where people do reliably identify differences they are nothing like as large as desribed during sighted testing, and that confirms my view that audiophiles really do go OTT at times.

I keep saying it, but promoting blind testing for proving that differences exist is not the same as saying you should choose equipment by specification alone. People should buy what sounds best to them and that is always subjective - just be sure that what you are hearing is real and reliable.

 

[Dave Simpson]

Then why is it you never see any of these objectivists using £200 Pioneer receivers in their personal rigs? Surely that would be the logical choice with the difference being spent on better speakers or more software?

 

[Mescalito]

Of course I take your words exactly as they are written.
Sorry no, I don't have BBC 2. I'm just referring what you write here.
YOU WROTE:



AND:


This is an absolutistic statement from your side. Point.


---------------


My point has absolutetely nothing to do with what I believe. Actually I DO believe that our mind fools us often. I know this since over 30 years. Yes I do, but it doesn't have anything to with my point about your statements.
You also are often fooled by your mind and it wouldn't surprise me that you read only what you like to see ignoring purposely other parts just because you are believing in something and want other people to believe in that.


Sorry you wrote "we hear what we believe" and "We hear/see/smell/taste/feel what we expect to hear/see/smell/taste/feel". In these phrases there is no precisation when this happens under which circumstances.
I my example I believed (and I expected) they were going to play the 4th so according to your above statement I should have heard the 4th even if they played another one.

Titian,

For God's sake, I posted because I found the programme interesting, and yes, my own confirmation bias comes into play when assessing something like that.

However, it is unfortunate that you are not able to view the programme. Were you able so to do, you would see that nothing I have written in my posts on the subject is in the least bit scientifically controversial.

My summary may have been imprecise, but nevertheless captured the gist of the programmes assertions.

And I repeat what I stated in my earlier post. Your Beethoven's 4th example is invalid because the recognition of a particular piece of music at that level is a cognitive process, not merely an auditory one.

Chris

Chris

 

[titian]

However, it is unfortunate that you are not able to view the programme. Were you able so to do, you would see that nothing I have written in my posts on the subject is in the least bit scientifically controversial.

Yes it is unfortunate that I'm not able to capture BBC because there are very interesting programmes like the one you are referring to and not because of verifying what you said is right or not.
There are also a lot of books around about Psychoacoustics.

 

[Mescalito]

Then why is it you never see any of these objectivists using £200 Pioneer receivers in their personal rigs? Surely that would be the logical choice with the difference being spent on better speakers or more software?

Objectivists like to willy-wave as much as the next man.

Seriously, though, why do people drive BMW 3 series when a ford mondeo is just as good?

Bling is a powerful motivator.

Chris

 

[Basil]

Then why is it you never see any of these objectivists using £200 Pioneer receivers in their personal rigs? Surely that would be the logical choice with the difference being spent on better speakers or more software?

Because they're too busy enjoying music and therefore have no need to post on hi-fi forums?

 

[Dave Simpson]

Because they're too busy enjoying music and therefore have no need to post on hi-fi forums?

Unlike you and me? ;-)

 

[Basil]

I'm more than happy with the kit I have, I just enjoy baiting the fruit-loop fairy-dusters!



;-)

 

[Mescalito]

Seriously, though, were I to be given the choice of losing 90% of my music collection or downgrading to a typical 80's budget set up , I would choose the cheapo hi-fi in a heartbeat.

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

I'm more than happy with the kit I have, I just enjoy baiting the fruit-loop fairy-dusters!
;-)

All you do is bait yourself, and with your level of arrogance that must be painful.

 

[Basil]

All you do is bait yourself, and with your level of arrogance that must be painful.

IT WAS A JOKE, YOU MORON!

;-)

 

[TonyL]

Did anyone else watch "Horizon" on BBC2 last night? Fascinating stuff.

I watched it this afternoon on iPlayer. The 'bar / far' spoken thing was real food for thought, everyone interested in expectation bias etc should watch that bit at the least. For those that missed it this was the word 'bar', very clearly enunciated and sampled, then precisely synced with the speaker alternately mouthing the word 'bar' or 'far' - despite the sound recording being 100% identical in both cases ('bar') the watcher / listener is utterly convinced the word being spoken is 'far' when the visual stimulus implies that is what is happening. The scary thing is that even though you know it's an illusion you remain convinced you are hearing the word being mouthed. Close your eyes and the truth is swiftly revealed.

Tony.

 

[Basil]

A very convincing demonstration of how our senses can be manipulated.


ps,

Shouldn't you be elsewhere, sorting out the jackal?*


[joke];-)[/joke]*

 

[Alan Brown]

I watched it this afternoon on iPlayer. The 'bar / far' spoken thing was real food for thought, everyone interested in expectation bias etc should watch that bit at the least. For those that missed it this was the word 'bar', very clearly enunciated and sampled, then precisely synced with the speaker alternately mouthing the word 'bar' or 'far' - despite the sound recording being 100% identical in both cases ('bar') the watcher / listener is utterly convinced the word being spoken is 'far' when the visual stimulus implies that is what is happening. The scary thing is that even though you know it's an illusion you remain convinced you are hearing the word being mouthed. Close your eyes and the truth is swiftly revealed.

Tony.

So if you are part of a blind test, where all the external stimuli are designed to tell you there is no difference between items of kit, when you know the expectation of forum posters is that blind testing reveals there are no differences anyhow.....

Isn't that expectation bias also?

 

[Basil]

No, the aim is to remove external stimuli, not replace it. Any test where the results are presumed beforehand are flawed.