Justdafactsmaam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2023
- Messages
- 1,282
- Likes
- 998
I wasn’t trying to dodge anything here. I thought it was self evident. Absolutely biases, not just sighted biases affect our preferences.And we kind of got there with your, "look, we all know that sighted bias affects our perceptions", although you pointedly stopped short of adding the word 'preferences'.
I thought by stating perceptions were influenced by all stimuli and state of mind that this was covered. Or to put it more succinctly “I like the sound of it” is inarguable. “I like the sound of it because _______ (fill in the blank) may or may not be arguable depending on the assertions.So, here is how I would lay it out:-
"Preferences change and are inarguable" contains an assumption, and it’s true only when the assumption is true. But the assumption isn’t always true. So it ‘looks clever’, indeed it looks, ahem, inarguable, but doesn’t represent reality. Because the assumption isn’t true in reality.
The assumption I refer to, is that when we think we are preferring the sound of something, we actually are responding to the sound of that thing. As long as that is assumed true, then the stated preference is inarguable. But in real life, that assumption is simply not true. More wishful than real.
This stuff is so hard-wired into human perception, that there is automatic resistance to the notion that it could be flat-out wrong. The brain is hard-wired to tell us that perceptions are always describing objective real external phenomena. The more we learn about perception, we more we realise that context re-writes raw data, but our hard-wiring says it’s still raw data. It’s a natural-selection survival mechanism: believe what our senses are telling us, or die.
For sure. Something I am guilty of assuming was understood here.
If we let it slide sure. On other forums I’m the asshole telling people that I’m not going to argue with what you like but your assertions of cause and effect are objective and testable and have already in effect been tested and falsified. Which of course leads to the ego driven pissing contests we typically see in response. “You are calling me delusional” “I’m an experienced listener” etc etc.Anyway, I am preaching to the converted, since you already acknowledged the role of sighted bias. (One can discuss the question of extent/strength/dominance separately.)
In my last scenario, he picked speaker A without actually hearing it. That's remarkably like what actually happens in sighted listening tests. Your note that "there was an error in the test" is apposite. He doesn't actually know which speaker he prefers the sound of. But he thinks he does! The question of which speaker he prefers the sound of, is anything but inarguable. He hasn't done the right test! Same goes for sighted listening 'preferences', if the goal is to know which sound is preferred.
I'm plodding through all this because IMHO it's actually counterproductive to introduce the 'inarguability of preferences' argument in the manner you did, not because you might misuse it, but because a lot of others might!
If we let it slide that can happen.
Don’t let it slide
No. And I promise you my conversations don’t go down that path.You want to know how hard it is to get "I heard it with my own ears, so it must be in the sound waves" moved from the status of 'inarguable end of discussion' to 'actually a myth' status? Do you want to feed the same group with another slogan that they will misuse forever?
And some folks on other forums have raised a fair question. If they are having fun and enjoy their hobby what’s the harm?
And I think I have a pretty good answer for this.
If it doesn’t matter why then what’s the harm in letting audiophiles know why they like their cables and power cords? It matters. Audiophiles mostly buy these things not just because they like the sound of their system better but because they believe there is a real difference and they are skilled listeners who appreciate these real differences. Ego. I think it matters because I think consumers deserve to be able to make their objectively well informed choices.
I get it but at the same time it goes both ways. And data gets misused to challenge preferences. And I guess I am a little bit more concerned about that.ARE WE UNIQUE OR ROBOTS. An exaggerated title to be sure, but some of the statements posted by audiophiles about the variability of personal preferences give the impression that it's one or the other. "Everyone's listening preferences are uniquely individual (oh, and did I mention they vary from moment to moment, too). Nobody can tell me what I do and don't prefer; even I don't know what I will prefer in five minutes. Don't you dare suggest it. Any data to the contrary has to be wrong: we are not robots, you know." - random audiophile generalisation. Your broad brush-stoke of 'preferences change' feeds into this sort of thinking. Again, that concerned me because it is easy to misuse.
Let’s not overlook the fact that his career was largely research used to develop commercial products. And there are commercial interests involved.If our sonic preferences were as unique and equivocal as some people claim, then Toole could have wrapped up his career one year out of school and advised industry as follows: "Just make up any old product and sell it with marketing." (Yes, I know, I know, haha.) But instead, we get statements like this:-
Yeah, I have read the book cover to cover and more than twice sections at a time. But I see a lot of folks who seem to think they are being scientific treat his book like a bible. And I take issue with that
- "Descriptors like pleasantness and preference must therefore be considered as ranking in importance with accuracy and fidelity. This may seem like a dangerous path to take, risking the corruption of all that is revered in the purity of an original live performance. Fortunately, it turns out that when given the opportunity to judge without bias, human listeners are excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong. An absence of problems becomes a measure of excellence. By the end of this book, we will see that technical excellence turns out to be a high correlate of both perceived accuracy and emotional gratification, and most of us can recognize it when we hear it." - Sound Reproduction
The research was for commercial purposes. And I am of the opinion that the reach of these claims were over simplified and over stated.
Yes, the research showed a majority (not universal) preference for flat frequency response on axis and smooth frequency response off axis and low distortion in a range of environments that were likely representative of common places of use for speakers.
Where the reach of the research was IMO overstated was in the assertion that the preference rating’s derived from the testing of speakers in mono with specific designated source material in their one space where they had the speaker shuffler was universally indicative of preferences in stereo in any listening room.
That was not well supported by their research and frankly unnecessary. The commercial interests were common use in common domestic spaces.
But even worse was asserting this research extended to anything audio including tube gear and vinyl. They did not test those things.
IMO this lead to the near religious misuse of some data to reject and denigrate other peoples’ preferences. And I think I see a lot more of that on this forum than what you worry about
And by the way, when I pointed out the sparse support for this universal assertion that more accurate universally equals subjectively better in ALL things audio I got viciously attacked by disciples of Toole and Olive.
I’m thinking I have to run for cover after I hit “post reply” on this one
Emphasis in bold. I don't think that can happen in a world where preference is both unique and capricious: the experiments just wouldn't have come to any conclusions except randomness.
I think reality lies uncomfortably in between the two extremes. For instance when I challenged the idea that preference testing in mono universally applied to preferences in stereo it got ugly
I know the retort. Test results in mono gave better results because the results were more clear
That’s plainly wrong. The quality of data hinges on its accuracy not on its clarity.
for commercial purposes clarity of results and ease of testing are valuable. I see that. But that doesn’t make the data more accurate
Testing in mono if the use is going to be in stereo can not give you more accurate data than testing in stereo. The signal to noise ratio may be more clear but the noisier results in stereo are more true. The noise is part of the data.
And did I ever get attacked for pointing that out.
And by the way this is not me saying there is no value in testing speakers in mono. Not at all. Just that you can’t assume it’s going to give you the whole story.
Or maybe you should consider the implications of that delight. We all have to be careful not to believe something because we like the idea and it fits our preconceptions.Maybe I shouldn't be delighted and excited by that. But I am!
One thing I ask folks on other forums, the folks who believe in the effectiveness of $30K power cords. 1. If you were wrong would you want to know it? 2. What would convince you that you were wrong?
I think the question is just as applicable on ASR. If Toole’s research was wrong about some aspects of audio would ASR members want to know and what would it take to convince them?
I have a great deal of respect for Toole. He did more to show a large audience how far reaching the effects of sighted biases are on sound preferences even on things like speakers than anyone else in audio. But neither the research nor his book are scripture.
This post was waaay too long. And now I need to go into an audiophile witness protection program