Human beliefs sure are weird. Why is it so difficult to get audiophiles to accept the existence of perceptual bias?

[Jimbob54]

If we agree "egocentrism" is an inability to see/perceive and value others point of view, it seems the way out of egocentrism is to recognize and truly, really value various perspectives and actually include them in our repertoire of perception.
In a real sense this actually allows for variety to be more real, for the individual to be even more valued for differences. This increase in ability to be appreciated as valuable by being unique, having a unique perspective may be the crux. In my experience I have noticed that for many folks, they anticipate that as we develop out of "egocentrism" we will be more common - more homogenized all experiencing the same thing. The unfortunate battle is here.
Is one heading toward/involved in experiencing life as a solid "7" out of ten?

With products, when creating a fixed product designed to appeal to a large group of people in order to be profitable, one inevitably is tempted to overestimate/over market/ sell "customers" on the idea of singlehandedly meeting their need to a "t". In other words some type of homogenization is involved here - "you get to pick you favorite color, and here are the 5 best colors that we picked for you to chose from."

Additionally in a similar light-
If you have 10 speakers tested blind by 10 listeners and speaker "A" is ranked 2nd by all of them you can easily recommend speaker "A". After all it was very highly ranked by everyone. However it must be noted as well that zero people liked it the most. If you gave that speaker to each listener to keep, probability is they will be very-very happy, however nobody actually gets their absolute favorite one.

Is this an extreme example, is this a common example? IDK Having tried and owned many products that rated well I did not care for and other products that rated in a mixed way that liked a lot, I have to say it happens.

If speaker "B" is ranked 1st by three people and near the middle or lower by 7 folks now what? If I gave that speaker to everyone to keep, 3 people got their absolute favorite and 7 people might not have even wanted the speaker at all (even for free depending on the situation.)
And speaking of that situation it gets even more complex if for example all the speakers tested were different yet all were actually good enough for everyone to be satisfied with the audio. Now you still have a ranking 1-10, yet every speaker is good enough for everyone. Conversely, there is a test where nobody really liked any of them much, yet there was still a #1 ranked speaker to bring to the market.

IDK if these are extreme examples. I often find buying a product to be a meaningful compromise between what I want and what is actually available. I also often find that any of the available products will be essentially perfect.


The reality behind the reality is getting harder to accept.
Atoms are not what they seemed to be, their nature is different from pure physicality. Can you accept a fuzzy cloud? A wave of energy.
That all is Energy? Waves? Frequencies?
Conversely can you accept a sound "particle"? That energy waves are also physical? Or at least have a physical aspect to their makeup.
Very difficult to agree around this for many, even (especially)many science oriented folks.

Think of water. Most folks are dealing with water where the boat hits the pond so to speak. Not in the atomic make-up.
Pure water (h2o) is hard to find in everyday life in any naturally occurring place. Water is very soluble and there is a lot of other stuff in water - even water we have cleaned up and pumped into our homes is a far more complex solution than some simple some h2o.
Humans everyday experiences with water are far more complex than thinking about or relating to h2o molecules.
Do I protect a marshland? Do I buy a RO tank for my home water supply? Does my lawn need some water today? Is it raining? Am I thirsty?
Is there some water on Mars? Do I feel like a quick dip or swim? How much water do we need to keep the reactor cool? Is my plastic bottle leaching, and if so, does it matter? I have to pee soon. I spilled some water and need a towel - hurry!

What I mean is, life is pretty complex. We could spend all day talking about water and water related issues/experiences. That is the reality regardless of what the chemical make-up of water is or even whether water is actually a particle and/or a wave.

Anyway, the bigger crux FMHPOV isn't the complexity I have suggested above or even ones personal agenda or ego which are often presented as first line defense blockades, it is - Trust.

If a hypothetical "I" buys some expensive speaker wires and then I hear an improvement, I will trust those wires. It is that simple. I have now built trust. Trust for many is very valuable, perhaps the most valuable feeling of all. Often trust is very closely associated with confidence. So now perhaps due this wire I have trust which feels valuable & good and some additional confidence which likely also feels great.
Now I find out that a "scientist" is telling me I heard no difference at all, that I am experiencing expectation biases, and that my sense of trust in the wire is a false premise. Also at stake is some of my sense of confidence.
Also the scientist tells me the good news is that I can save $500 bucks on wires now which sounds great to him/her. The scientist maybe thinks what a gift I am giving this listener, an education in the reality of perception & $500 off the cost of the same sound - what a deal.
I however am a bit shaken. My sense of trust gained from my cable purchase is faltering and the confidence I gained is diminishing. I don't feel so good thinking I am bad at hearing things and $500 was never really the issue for me as the hypothetical "I" can easily afford it. So my financial gain has little value in face of losing trust and confidence in myself and my experiences. I go on a couple forums, talk to a few folks who have pricey cables, experience some comradery - folks are saying "naw look at that beautiful cable it is amazing". I go to my system I switch cables around a bit try some experimentation, there it is again that sound, it is a bit better with the $$$$$cable. I am sure of it, in fact it is clear as day and to top it off, the scientist never came to my house for a listen which seems odd to me. I am all alone.
For a little while I don't know what to do. Despite hearing a change I am still haunted by the scientist and this idea I am hearing a false gain. I feel stressed trying to decide. In a moment of clarity what I realize is I will never know the answer and certainly all this indecision isn't worth $500 to me. I keep the cable and enjoy my system & when folks ask if it was worth $500 I say yes indeed it was - I have trust and confidence and a great set of wires.

A coat hanger might sound as good as $1k wires in a blind test. I use neither in my system. I do believe that speaker wires make only a miniscule difference in sound quality and the gauge vs distance of the wire is the most essential spec. I buy coils of budget wires off Amazon and Partsexpress.
Yet this is all based in my belief, it is in fact a faith. I have never scientifically tested this, nor have I ever been involved in any sort of blind test - or even tested this in any way at home. Published official testing of wires is often flawed and sparse. Yet I have this bias against expensive speaker wires = snake oil.
When I was younger I owned some expensive (for the time) wires, back then I did think they improved the audio. They were very robust and thick and definitely looked awesome snaking along the floor and all sorts of people made cool comments about them. Friends and I would listen music and watch movies at high volumes and have a blast.
If I had those wires now would I find they improve the sound? Probably not though I don't have them here to test. Would they still look awesome snaking along the floor - yup.

Can I enjoy music on a set of Klipsch or Zu Audio speakers and at the same time also be the same person who enjoys music on a set of Revel or Genelec speakers? What about Cerwin Vega - had some of my fondest audio memories rocking out late nights with my buddies hand me down Cerwin Vegas as teenagers and they sounded good to us.

Fond memories are not "now".
Certainly now in order to enjoy music I need a much "fancier/more accurate" audio system - no old skool Cerwin Vegas will do - and I mean that. I really appreciate something else now and I have just as much fun in a different way.

The Speaker blind test example is why we should use measurements as well as reviews etc as a tool for auditioning/ buying. Find out what parts of the measurements of B made 3 like/ 7 not, compare to what you think you like . If B hits your target, buy it. If you dont know what you like, you buy A, surely? Or something else that has similar measurements to A.

 

[ROOSKIE]

The Speaker blind test example is why we should use measurements as well as reviews etc as a tool for auditioning/ buying. Find out what parts of the measurements of B made 3 like/ 7 not, compare to what you think you like . If B hits your target, buy it. If you dont know what you like, you buy A, surely? Or something else that has similar measurements to A.

Yes.
Especially in a case with a distribution like like speaker "A" & "B" had, I would bet that various measurements would parse out the key differences. Additionally I would anticipate a real difference in the way they sound, something particular that really appeals to the 3 who ranked "B" 1, but doesn't appeal to those who ranked it lower. A smoking gun, obvious difference. Maybe they basically sound similar except maybe "B" has a lot more bass. Or maybe "B" has an edge to the treble that sounded really vibrant and live to some and others was edgy.

Interesting it is likely that 3 out of 10 people will not care which of those two speakers you give them to keep - both are top choices. & 7 out of 10 will really care whether you give them A or B.

I don't know if there are any real tests where this sort of distribution happened. As a simple though exercise it is a way to involve some complexity and difficulty in interpreting results - and show you have to be very intelligent about what you gather from you data.

 

[Head_Unit]

I don't think you'd find a "measurements guy" who would be prepared to listen first, write their subjective report, actually publish it, and then measure second and publish the objective report. There is way too much opportunity for looking silly.

When I was measuring stuff, I frankly never trusted what I was "hearing" too much. Still don't. For instance, I have a definite opinion about the sound character of the old Denon stereo receiver at my mom's house outside Chicago-however it is highly likely that "sound" has a lot more to do with the speakers and the room. Yet I still think of the "sound" of that Denon...which damned if I could describe it or even how it looks/feels in my brain.

Later on when I was measuring amps for a magazine I never listened at all. Mostly I was fixated on trying to represent how much the power drooped into lower impedances, and wanting to test into inductive and capacitive loads (too hard/expensive).

Back to the thread I am also amazed how vituperatively resistant many folks get against even admitting the possibility that bias could be influencing what they "hear." Maybe the idea that they could be wrong is just really really repugnant.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I don't think you'd find a "measurements guy" who would be prepared to listen first, write their subjective report, actually publish it, and then measure second and publish the objective report. There is way too much opportunity for looking silly.

In Amir's case, the "impressions" or subjective reviewing can't help but align with the prior testing performed as he performs both functions.

I also test first, listen later, with most gear. Consider most people don't test at all.

Stereophile guys fall into this situation often.
Also I beleive @hardisj listens first and so does @napilopez. They don't publish 1st though.
Who knows.

 

[JSmith]

the sphere of audiophilia

JSmith

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I don't think you'd find a "measurements guy" who would be prepared to listen first, write their subjective report, actually publish it, and then measure second and publish the objective report. There is way too much opportunity for looking silly.

Edit: Just noticed that my response to an old post and is somewhat redundant. Nonetheless....................

Hmm. That's sort of what Stereophile does. Speaking for myself as a "measurements guy," every review I write is completed and submitted before sending the product to John Atkinson for measurements. Sure, it is an opportunity for looking silly and I do anticipate the results with great concern.
Does it make any difference to you that the two tasks are done by two different people? I would think not.

 

[hardisj]

Also I beleive @hardisj listens first

Always. If I saw the measurements before I listened I would absolutely be biased by them. I know I would.

I always listen first and take notes. And I try to make my notes as precise as I can (i.e., using frequencies instead of just saying "midrange"). Then I measure. Then I compare notes. Then I listen again to see if the notes and measurements make sense together. It is part of the learning process for everyone and I am completely transparent about those notes. Sometimes I was off by an octave. Sometimes I was dead on. For example, my recent Kef R3 review, I made some notes about the 2.5kHz to 3kHz region sounding a bit "harsh" in my listening tests. When I pulled up the data, I couldn't tell for sure what was causing it but thought it might have been the directivity change. Others commented they had heard the same issues in that region which seemed to "validate" what I heard from the speakers.

This is the same reason why I try to avoid reading/watching anyone else's review of a product I have gotten in for review. I hardly remember anything so if I saw it before, that's fine... I probably forgot by the time I review it. But I won't search it out until I am done with my review. Too much opportunity to be biased by others' measurements/review.

As an aside, I have been a "sound quality" car audio judge and competitor for over a decade in different organizations. In those organizations you listen and judge based on a set of criteria (tonality, imaging, etc). Measurements are not part of the process for sound quality judging in car audio. Over the years it has caused me to be good at telling people particular frequency regions that I think needed work or didn't. For example, "120-160Hz sounds resonant" or "2kHz is about 1dB too hot". My notes aren't always spot on but they are usually quite close and changes made based on those notes are helpful. You can also verify with an RTA after the fact. Additionally, because I have also learned to tune car audio systems (the worst audio environment) manually with DSP, I have had to learn what EQ bands do, the importance of phase rotation and time alignment, what causes various issues, etc. It's made me a better listener and better at determining where issues are. So, thanks Car Audio.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think listening first is the better way. I think Amir should listen first. I'm sure he likes it the other way around to be able to try eq based on measuring. A better way there would be for him to measure and eq with someone else listening.

 

[ahofer]

I think listening first is the better way. I think Amir should listen first. I'm sure he likes it the other way around to be able to try eq based on measuring. A better way there would be for him to measure and eq with someone else listening.

I believe this was March Audio's point [ducks and runs for cover].

 

[Blumlein 88]

I believe this was March Audio's point [ducks and runs for cover].

One of his main ones yes.

 

[richard12511]

Listening first is definitely better imo, though listening after does allow you to see if you can fix with EQ. Best would be to listen first and record thoughts, then measure, then eq and listen again.

 

[MOCKBA]

I feel like the biggest obstacle with regards to rational discourse in the sphere of audiophilia is that many people just flat refuse to accept the existence of perceptual bias. It's been demonstrated to exist in lots of places and many different fields over and over again. Yet, people refuse to believe it is a thing.

It's strange though, it is not like people reject all scientific concepts—even if it does contract their "gut" feeling or impression. For instance, I don't think too many people would reject the notion that stuff is made up of tiny bits of stuff called "atoms" that are too small to see. No one will attack you for claiming that water isn't actually a basic substance on its own, but rather it composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Nobody gets death threats for saying that sunlight, heat, radio waves are actually all the same thing (even though intuitively they seem pretty different).

I'm not a scientist or anything so maybe my examples totally suck. Feel free to add in your own. The point is people don't seem to form their beliefs in a consistent and rational pattern (quelle surprise!). For some reason people get really cranky when you try to tell them that what they are hearing may just be the result of some kind bias. Yet, for some reason they have no problem accepting other facts which cannot be readily verified by simple observation.

Things would be easier if people would just accept that human perception isn't infallible. It's not that big a deal. It doesn't mean we can't have any subjective impressions (people post subjective impressions of stuff here all the time—including myself), nor does it mean that all subjective observations are automatically worthless (which seems to be what some people claim anyone who takes some measurements is advocating for).

Do not get bothered too much, just enjoy music.