SR Tuning Discs, Psychoacoustic Bias and Listening Fatigue

This post gives me reading fatigue.

@wesheadley I can’t agree with your point. I belong to a large audiophile “club” including folks with vastly different preferences, tastes, expectations and biases. So, I’ve seen hugely different responses to new audio experiences, particularly in the tweaks and cables domains. In my experience auditioning tweaks and cables over the years, I have found the negative bias of those who believe only in measurement as a valid indicator of performance is far more intractable than the expectation bias the owner of a tweak or cable might have. Indeed, I rarely have encountered strong positive expectations where tweaks and cables are concerned. Most of my fellow listeners take a try it and see attitude. After all, if the experiment fails, the item can be returned. But, there is always someone in the group who strongly, and I mean strongly, denies the possibility that tweaks or cables make a difference, even when most in the room hear one.

The argument for positive expectation bias, that people hear what they want hear, is nonsensical to me. I don’t remember ever witnessing somebody insisting a new tweak in their system improves system performance when no one else hears it. After all, who can be fooled by expectation bias over the long haul, when their system continues to suffer from sonic imperfections the tweak they purchased was designed to correct. To my mind, the psychoacoustic argument hasn’t even face validity, let alone empirical reliability.
 

Of course, this is not to say that all tweaks work in all systems, or even that any given tweak works in any system at all. I’m only saying that outright dismissal of the possibility of an audible effect is far more immovable than the expectation that a tweak will, rather than might, work in a given system and room.

@hce1 -- There's all kinds of bias, including group bias. I'm just saying that without any empirical corroboration, many of these tweaks that rely upon untested pseudoscience are more likely confirmation bias and/or placebo effect than anything else. That is the simplest explanation. Take the bias that extremely expensive high-end cable sound better than well made cables of comparably materials, like OF copper, using quality connectors assembled properly that happen to cost vastly less. That a $5000 power cable is, for example, simply audibly superior to a $300 power cable. I do not believe there has ever been a blind test -- ever -- that has born this out -- that the differences are in fact improvements and therefore justify the stupid money pricing of many of them -- backed up by scientific sounding nonsense.  People want to believe in these things, that is clear, and I think many (not all) of these types of companies are gouging their customers with their bogus claims.

@wesheadley You seem to be conflating three distinct points. First, unconventional tweaks or other system components not grounded in scientific theory or results are likely bogus. I disagree on two counts. First, the world is a mysterious place and science understands very little of it. Second, much scientific theory is stimulated by anomalous empirical discoveries, and we may soon find scientific studies exploring and confirming some of the observations we make as devotees of our hobby.

Your second point is that my experiences with group listening sessions is contaminated by group bias or group think. I can’t deny that completely. Peer pressure is real and it is potent! What’s worse is it becomes more important as the conversation progresses. Inevitably, opinions tend to blend. But, we are not a mob; we are a group of informed and interested individuals with our own expectations and opinions. There always is a variety of observations and conclusions. The group bias is not nearly as powerful as you envision.

Your third point, that the costs of some improvements in product categories are overpriced by the companies that offer them in the market, is noncontroversial to me; though, i’m sympathetic and somewhat receptive to the argument that those costs often go into research and development that benefits the entire audiophile community in the long run. I’m making no accusations here, but I feel compelled to add that I don’t see the value in denigrating someone who chooses to spend their money for marginal improvements in their sound. I feel such criticism is both crass and disrespectful.

This thread is funny.