Counter-Placebo Effect?

[Gorgonzola]

Hahaha. Yes, once or twice I've asked sound difference deniers whether, when they listen to equipment that is know to them, (not blind), do they ever hear differences.

• If the do, to which of their own biases do they ascribe the difference?
• If they do not, have they considered that their bias against hearing difference is the reason they do not?

 

[Propheticus]

Love how meta this forum gets sometimes...
The second option above sounds like a "nocebo" effect. Negative expectations causing an actual negative effect.

Edit: of course let's first establish there is a significant enough / audible differences before you start looking for other reasons why none are observed. Maybe there simply are none.

 

[SIY]

Hahaha. Yes, once of twice I've asked sound difference deniers whether, when they listen to equipment that is know to them, (not blind), do they ever hear differences.

• If the do, to which of their own biases do they ascribe the difference?
• If they do not, have they considered that their bias against hearing difference is the reason they do not?

Sound difference denier? That seems like an incredibly dishonest characterization, but hey, you do you.

 

[raistlin65]

In the "audiophile' context, not generally, only here this forum maybe. Not generally because the general "audiophile"/whatever context is basically same as general population.

Biases [and prejudices] are not the same things as placebo effect.

But isn't the placebo effect a result of expectation bias? So yes. Not the same, but the cause.

Maybe it's better to talk in terms of expectation bias, rather than placebo effects, as it's the causes that we are generally interested in. Not describing the character of the result.

That being said, how do we know when the effect is placebo vs. nocebo? In other words, I think the assumption is that the difference between two things where A sounds better than B implies A involves a placebo effect. But could it not be the opposite? The perception of B is a nocebo effect.

Or heck, couldn't it be some of both?

 

[Newman]

I don’t think it changes the thread’s main topic, which is not causes, but effects.

Specifically, do we still suffer the effect, even when we know it’s impossible for it to be in the sound waves?

And if so, what are the ramifications of this, assuming we individually want the best listening experiences we can get?

 

[SIY]

I don’t think it changes the thread’s main topic, which is not causes, but effects.

Specifically, do we still suffer the effect, even when we know it’s impossible for it to be in the sound waves?

And if so, what are the ramifications of this, assuming we individually want the best listening experiences we can get?

Yes. It means that any claim by any human needs to be evaluated by objective evidence, whether measurement or controlled listening. No one is immune.

 

[dasdoing]

the underlying effect is suggestion and/or autosuggestion. it will work in both directions

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

The objectionable part is when one does find 'improvements' and writes 'serious' articles about it that will fool readers (or YT watchers) into thinking the effect is real and they are missing out and invest money they can put to better use.
So spreading factual misinformation is a no-no to me even when you feel it helps for you.
.

I think you put it nicely. The musical reproduction experience is more than a pure auditory sensation and there is no point in denying it. What you will experience will depend from a lot of factors and the equipment actual sound performance is just one of them.
The problem are the false or enormously inflated claims that generate scams (despite they may not be punished by the law).
The day a cable manufacturer will say on marketing material "our $3000/metre cable won't affect, of just very marginally affect, the sonic performance of your systems but it will look great and it will never burn/pop/rust/break/unplug" it will be a great day.

 

[Foulchet]

What is sure is that when the brain is in an analytical mode, pleasure declines, there is no room for it. That is why when you hear radio, even if the sound is crappy, you just hear the music because your expect nothing from it.

 

[Newman]

@Pennyless Audiophile : “The musical reproduction experience is more than a pure auditory sensation and there is no point in denying it. What you will experience will depend from a lot of factors and the equipment actual sound performance is just one of them.”

Could you mention a few of the others that you have in mind, please?

 

[Newman]

@Foulchet : “What is sure is that when the brain is in an analytical mode, pleasure declines, there is no room for it. That is why when you hear radio, even if the sound is crappy, you just hear the music because your expect nothing from it.”

Can you expand on how your comment fits with the topic of the thread, please?

 

[Pennyless Audiophile]

@Pennyless Audiophile : “The musical reproduction experience is more than a pure auditory sensation and there is no point in denying it. What you will experience will depend from a lot of factors and the equipment actual sound performance is just one of them.”

Could you mention a few of the others that you have in mind, please?

Type of listening (exclusive, background, distracted, focused...)
The Recording (is it a live recording in a real room, an artificially assembled performance of artists, electronic music, how much detail is present )
Mixing and Mastering (are instruments well separated or amalgamated, how is the stereo separation?, is it loud at 0dB or is rich of dynamics)
The room in terms of acoustic (self explanatory)
The room in terms of comfort ( are you sitting comfortably, is it a place where it is nice to stay, does it look good - including the equipment)
Mental state (relaxed, tense, concerned, distracted, interested...)
Physical state (tired, alert, aching ... or great)
General attitude (Do you tend to chase things or run away, do you see glasses half full or half empty, are you visual, auditory, Kinestesic)
Cultural level (Do you understand: why and how there is music of that kind, coming from that country, from that time, how does it fit with the rest of the cultural environment)
Musical knowledge, in general (can you tell the key? The chords? Can you tell the notes from one another?)
Musical knowledge of the specific music being listened (Do you know the story of the author and the interpreters? The story of a specific song?)

All of this conjure to produce the listening experience. Honestly, I would say that the equipment is a rather small part.
I would also add that the factors are not additive, they are multiplicative. A crap mastering cannot be compensated by a great musical knowledge, everything must be balanced to have a satisfactory experience.

 

[egellings]

Placebo effect is belief driven. Double blind testing shows that. However, because the effect is belief driven, exposure to objective measurement results won't change the believer's mind, because, well, it's a belief, and beliefs, like religions, tend to be cast in stone.

 

[Sharur]

Placebo effect is belief driven. Double blind testing shows that. However, because the effect is belief driven, exposure to objective measurement results won't change the believer's mind, because, well, it's a belief, and beliefs, like religions, tend to be cast in stone.

If I think two components sound different sighted, but can't tell the difference blind, I stop thinking they sound different.

 

[Mart68]

I compared some DACs a few weeks back, sighted. I heard small differences.

Since the DACs (all tested here) measure perfect within the audible limits I assume that the differences were not real. Even if they were real they were not significant enough to worry about.

As long as nothing about the sound is bugging me I prefer to forget about the equipment and enjoy the music. Which is supposed to be the whole point of the exercise. Although I do admit to being slightly curious as to whether I could tell them apart blind I don't consider that it's worth the bother of arranging the test. If the differences had been significant then I probably would.

 

[GGroch]

....
Has anyone seen studies into whether there exists a counter-placebo effect? (my term)

That is, when we are told that what we have been perceiving as different or better is only a placebo, do we lose the perception of the placebo effect?

Or do our biases continue to influence our perceptions?

Bumping this old thread because a newer thread references an excellent study that answers this question (to at least my satisfaction). Our expectations do impact placebo effectiveness, and our expectations change over time with new knowledge.

The MIT Paper: How Expectations and Conditioning Shape our Response to Placebos

 

[Curvature]

The placebo effect is well understood and, I hope, widely accepted.

And so is how it applies to the audio hobby, e.g. price placebo, brand placebo, mods-placebo, highres-placebo, etc

BUT

Has anyone seen studies into whether there exists a counter-placebo effect? (my term)

That is, when we are told that what we have been perceiving as different or better is only a placebo, do we lose the perception of the placebo effect?

Or do our biases continue to influence our perceptions?

Anecdotes are welcome, but please preface them with *Anecdote.

I am really interested in any studies, or well-formed demonstrations.

Cheers

Wrong way of looking at the placebo effect.

You have a control group that receives a known useless intervention (placebo) and a second group that receives whatever's being tested for efficency.

Any recorded change in the control group away from baseline is the effect of the placebo, i.e., the placebo effect. It can be positive, negative, whatever. It represents all of the sort of factors that cannot be controlled once you arbitrate experimental circumstances.

 

[Newman]

@Curvature, yes I know that, maybe you didn't pick that up as implied in my post. I'm talking about something related but not the same.

@GGroch now *that's* interesting, I shall take a look.

 

[Newman]

Bumping this old thread because a newer thread references an excellent study that answers this question (to at least my satisfaction). Our expectations do impact placebo effectiveness, and our expectations change over time with new knowledge.

The MIT Paper: How Expectations and Conditioning Shape our Response to Placebos

OK I have had a look, and I suppose the answer it gives to my question is that we don't lose the perception of the placebo effect after being informed that we were in the placebo group and reporting an effect. It may well be modified, but can't be relied upon to disappear.

 

[Oddball]

Interesting topic and not surprised with the findings that people can believe in anything even when pointed out the truth. Unfortunately happens more broadly than audio and in more fundamental areas of our life. It also gets worse, when something objectively worse can be perceived as better.

Another take on counter-placebo, with a small twist, would be "value" driven. This scenario is IMO also very relevant and really common, if not more common than full placebo. It excludes complete placebo (i.e. no audible or measurable effect), but rather implies "some" differences that are both audible and measurable, but just perceived and valued differently. Let's assume that "some" differences are really marginal for simplicity. Different people will perceive these differences in variety of manners based on variety of factors. Be it a number of subs (or large vs more smaller ones), towers vs. monitors, choice of room EQ system, SINAD stats, dynamic range, etc. For some, differences will be so marginal that they will be thrown in the placebo category, even though it will be theoretically on overall value perception (i.e. not just $ driven). For others, differences will be meaningful and might or might not be worth the price, depending on the $ perception/budget.

While this scenario is not pure placebo, it does have some of its outcomes thrown in the placebo area, so potentially worth addressing?