Hearing is Believing

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

 

Richard, watch the programme.

Chris

 

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

Joe

 

Speak for yourself, puny human!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Unlike you and me? ;-)

 

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



;-)

 

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

 

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

 

IT WAS A JOKE, YOU MORON!

;-)

 

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.

 

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


ps,

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


[joke];-)[/joke]*

 

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?

 

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