Nobody tune a piano with placebo effect....the tuning is a series of small incremental additive changes...Beautifully said. No need to discuss this any further.
All the best,
Nonoise
The Placebo Effect
One of the things that should be taken into account in the evaluation of audio equipment, tweaks, etc is the Placebo Effect.
In the medical world, Placebos (open label or concealed) appear to mostly work on subjective symptoms, such as pain. They don’t work on an objective symptom — something a doctor could see or diagnose, such as a fracture on a bone. Placebos don’t shrink tumors, they don’t change your diabetes, and they’re not going to actually lower your blood pressure for more than 15 minutes, Basically, placebos appear to work on things that pass through the brain’s perceptual systems — where they can prompt the release of opioids and other endorphins (chemicals that reduce pain) in the brain. Bottom line, placebos can result in perceived improvement even where no actual improvement exists.
The same applies to our hobby. Probably too often, we sense improvement in SQ because of the Placebo Effect. Our money spent, hardware bias's, effective marketing, or being influenced by the experience of others (regardless if true), often have us believe that we have obtained improvements that don't really exist. This is not necessarily a bad thing because a perceived improvement, whether real or imagined is still an improvement to the listener. This may explain part of why certain "improvements" can't be measured.
J.Chip
In the medical world, Placebos (open label or concealed) appear to mostly work on subjective symptoms, such as pain. They don’t work on an objective symptom — something a doctor could see or diagnose, such as a fracture on a bone. Placebos don’t shrink tumors, they don’t change your diabetes, and they’re not going to actually lower your blood pressure for more than 15 minutes, Basically, placebos appear to work on things that pass through the brain’s perceptual systems — where they can prompt the release of opioids and other endorphins (chemicals that reduce pain) in the brain. Bottom line, placebos can result in perceived improvement even where no actual improvement exists.
The same applies to our hobby. Probably too often, we sense improvement in SQ because of the Placebo Effect. Our money spent, hardware bias's, effective marketing, or being influenced by the experience of others (regardless if true), often have us believe that we have obtained improvements that don't really exist. This is not necessarily a bad thing because a perceived improvement, whether real or imagined is still an improvement to the listener. This may explain part of why certain "improvements" can't be measured.
J.Chip
78 responses Add your response
Ok, phew… One of the biggest challenges in all human thought is that we understand there is some kind of objective reality and that we can, in most cases, consistently measure it; and there’s also the subjective experience of that objective reality that our physical bodies construct, our consciousness experiences, and is very similar but not exactly the same from person to person. ah no. we can’t prove the existence of objective reality. there is no mechanism for that. the only thing that logic can prove or provide.. is that subjective reality is the core of all experience or observation by the observer. And it can go no further. thankfully, that’s a good thing. as we can’t advance if objectivity is in charge, due to the how the human mind works. It gets into negative proofing and similar mindsets and tries to make itself safe and in the know of things..and puts dogmatism in charge. it’s why religion worked so well as the standard-bearer for so many thousands of years. It’s the monkey origins of the underlying mechanism of self realization or self reflection. Religion loves dogmatism and objective reality, as it goes circular really really fast (due to expressive limits in the face of unknowns) and is useful for fencing people in. Stop human thought today! be wholly objective in all analysis! Meet your own ass today! Objectivity is an exercise in logic, nothing more. Properly handled it can be safe and very very useful in the progress of humanity. Improperly handled, it kills all around it. this fundamental point about the animal origins and coloration of all possible avenues of conscious thought, is what gave the renaissance men of the early 1700’s the great idea of creating the vocational slot of engineering. where rote training methods came into being along with formalized academia in all that... and poof!...engineering came into being (over some 20-40 years). This is the only way they found they could create an army of useful people out of the complexities that physics was unfolding to them. As the bulk of humanity wasn’t going to be getting into the weeds of the objectivity/subjectivity problem --any time soon. Literally not wired for it. Such folks invariably have no idea what the question of consciousness means, and generally have to look it up in a book ....and then make a mess out of the analysis anyway. So the renaissance folks of the time... understanding that there is no feasible group mind fix/change/repair (or an individual one outside of one-on-one Buddhism, etc), licked humanity’s mind and brain... and stuck it to the wholly illiterate television (passive unthinking observation and taking in of things) of objectivity - in a way that made these mindsets useful in building out the modern world. Seriously. That’s how engineering came to be. In Bavaria. by the mid-late 1700’s it was pretty well functional and formalized and worked so well that the rest of the western world adopted it. this is why Germany still has the best technical schools. They started the whole thing. It’s also why a negative proofing objective engineering mindset has no place whatsoever in any science discussion unless they take their mindset and invert it and mentally move to proper science, and stay away from dogmatic texts that try to dictate reality to the art of scientific exploration. As that act, that set of demands, that mindset norm of the vocation of engineering, is literally anti-science. All those scientific laws in engineering don’t exist in actual functional science. Science has only theories and relies on the observer as the fundamental, in order to take humanity forward. Where OF COURSE this is not the entire package. Dissing it and picking what I say apart to try and dwell on some small nit and trying to blow it up into something bigger.. as some sort of method of disarming the discourse...is merely an act of desperation. I await the retorts of objective desperation. For they will come, no doubt. |
In 1978-79 I worked at an audio dealer who had an "electronic" switching system, so one could A/B not only speakers, but amps, preamps, CD players, etc. One day I setup a customer to A/B a McIntosh MC2205 (solid state amp) and a Luxman LRS (tube amp) and he spent a LOT of time switching back and forth, seeing the lights on the display change from "A" to "B". After over an hour doing his comparisons, he told me at length how he perceived the differences between the amps and purchased the Luxman. A few weeks later our repair tech notified us that he was replacing the circuit board in the unit, as it switched between the "A" and "B" lamps, but was only playing the amp connected to the "A" input, and that this was the case from the time the unit was installed. |
this fundamental point about the animal origins and coloration of all possible avenues of conscious thought, is what gave the renaissance men of the early 1700’s the great idea of creating the vocational slot of engineering. The separation and after that the content assigned to be "objective" and the content assigned to be "subjective" is the result in the history of consciousness of a distantiation from the cosmos, a less inclusive animal participation to the cosmos... What human called objective reality is a designed and very PLASTIC successful construction.... Like the web designed by a spider...BUT the spider know that his web is ONLY a design to catch something ; human dont know like the spider, his design is so powerful compared to the spider one that it can erase its own participation in the cosmos and made it completely unconscious or forgotten.... What transhumanist cultist called A.I. and virtual reality would be the manifestation of a complete forgetfullness of human origin and destiny....Dont call me luddite , i am not against technology at all here... Men could become a spider enveloped by his web and unable to walk and even think.... This will ressemble to the cocoon caterpillar BUT with never any possible metamorphose nor actual transformation... Momification of human life and intelligence in a static artefact that some deluded men will call the greatest human achievement....Evolution replaced by death...Love replaced by the illusion of power.... The fear of death illusion by a greatest deception : an artificial immortality.... Nothing qualified to be objective/ subjective exist which does not come out first of consciousness...The distinction itself come to being from an evolution and emergence of the conscious thought process and the separation implicated by this distinction could erase the power of thought itself so powerful this creation and design is when let unsupervised and to itself....... Science is not technology....Religion is not magic.... Rationality could become irrational, and all that are not by themselves and separately conscious spirituality... We are at a fork-road of destiny.... I do not know who engender and beget humanity anyway, but i know that after these symbolic 9 months with are millions years, humanity gives birth to itself or not, NOW.... |
"...wholly illiterate television (passive unthinking observation and taking in of things) of objectivity..." What on Earth is illiterate television of objectivity? The only thing I could figure out is that such a television started engineering in 1700s and that is why Germany still has the best technical schools in the world. Or is it that Bavaria has the best technical schools in Germany because they started it? In any case, I desperately hope for an objective answer. |
A few weeks later our repair tech notified us that he was replacing the circuit board in the unit, as it switched between the "A" and "B" lamps, but was only playing the amp connected to the "A" input, and that this was the case from the time the unit was installed. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You could have IF no one ever turned up the volume.. The switch scenario doesn’t work, different remotes and different volume pots, EVEN if they didn’t have remotes... Sorry your wire swapper (wasn’t a tech) guy was blowing smoke.. Really.. Another hero at work.. seen a million of them... Let me guess he thought ALL cables sound the same.. Why not all amps do.. Funny guy.. Regards |
I remember when my subscription copy of Stereo Review, December 1987(?) came in the mail. It had an article called Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?*. So the argument has been going on at least that long. In other words, it's not going away any time soon. Firm convictions are impossible or hard to break, as shown by the creationism vs. evolution debate. * https://web.archive.org/web/20060313071857/http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf |
There is also what I call The Inurement Effect: WE get used to what sound the best about our system, learn to concentrate on that, and repress the bad parts I think that anyone who has more than one good system experiences this. Yes, parts burn in, but our Inurement is responsable for a lot of our getting used to the sound as it starts sounding better to us. Switching systems demonstrates this. For examle, for having a remote, I used a Rotel preamp/tuner for my TV system, along with some older B&W speakers and a Bryston amp. The preamp sounded so bad to me, I thought about returning it, but since I had paid $15 plus $15 shipping for a surprise bid win, I kept it. It sucks, but started to sound OK, so I replaced it with a spare Audire, without a remote, and I have learned to enjoy it. despite that fact that it is the entry level model. The Rotel now controls an old Adcom amp. that I did not like, but now enjoy my third system (Also TV with older B&W's), with very little time needed to adjust my ears and brain. |
Is any person on this thread a scientist/clinician who has actually conducted clinical trials in which the placebo arm impacted participants? Placebo effects:
-Prof. Higgins, Ph.D., M.D. |
Mahgister, the first thing a piano tuner pulls out is a tuning fork. The tuning fork is his reference and yes, from there the rest is by ear. Perhaps the problem we have is that we have no reference to compare our systems to and never will. What does a band sound like in your living room? Are you even interested in that? I would think most of us would be more interested in "hearing" the venue the band was at. There are obviously systems that seem to sound more realistic and if we were listening as a group to such a system I would bet we would all agree that it was a fine sounding rig. Based of what? It seems what we usually want to "hear" coming out of a system is quite surrealistic and based on what we expect in our imaginations to "hear." Imagination. An image in our brains, a quasi electrical event which varies from one of us to the next and changes based on the emotional state of that individual. I have noticed in myself that the same system can sound different based on god knows what, my emotional state maybe? I certainly do not seem to have expectation bias. I just hooked up a brand new set of speakers and was very disappointed. After working for hours everything just sounded worse. I had to put it away, give myself a break. After three weeks and another $500 I think I can get back to enjoying music again. But, true audiophiles are never happy with their systems because in their imagination they can always sound better. |
The placebo effect is definitely a thing and it most definitely applies to a lot of the decision making applied to high end audio. If you think it sounds better, then it simply must be better. Since so much audio is about subjective perception, I don’t know that the placebo effect is a negative when brought to bear here. |
Don’t believe a word of it, mahgister. I had a piano one time and when the tuner came the first thing he pulled out was a sandwich. His little tool box opened up to reveal a tray, with fresh lettuce, tomato, sliced dill pickles, salt and pepper. As he carefully added each ingredient and neatly sliced the sandwich into perfect little wedges he told me you know, you can never really tune a piano, but you can tuna sandwich. |
Mahgister, the first thing a piano tuner pulls out is a tuning fork. The tuning fork is his reference and yes, from there the rest is by ear. The room is tuned unlike the piano with the feedback of a large bandwith MARKED OUT by asymmetrical Helmholtz resonators near the tweeter and bass driver and coming from tweeters of one speaker and bass driver of the other speaker to marked out each wavefront for each ear respectively.... This relatively large bandwith is not a frequency tone like with a fork but a PITCH PLAYING TIMBRE when music play for my ears..... Perhaps the problem we have is that we have no reference to compare our systems to and never will. What does a band sound like in your living room?I do know how a guitar a piano or a voice must sound like.... If you get this right the rest comes like beads on a string....Aynway we cannot have perfection but an optimal reasult is very possible... I did it... An image in our brains, a quasi electrical event which varies from one of us to the next and changes based on the emotional state of that individual. I have noticed in myself that the same system can sound different based on god knows what, my emotional state maybe?I lived through the same experience than you but in the period of time BEFORE my system was optimally set.... I go from a mood swing where things were upgraded and i was pleased, but nothing being optimal, i depressed again, and the cycles goes on... TILL an optimal S.Q. was reached with the audio system limitations i own.... Now i am not depressed at all dor many months because i have reach the optimal limit of my system using acoustic.... i had controlled for the better ALL acoustic features till they are in place like a puzzles pieces fitting together... It is fun and ask only for listening experiments.... After working for hours everything just sounded worse. I had to put it away, give myself a break. After three weeks and another $500 I think I can get back to enjoying music again. But, true audiophiles are never happy with their systems because in their imagination they can always sound better.It is not imagination that play games on you, it is acoustic problem: How to create a natural timbre experience, a very precise imaging, a large soundstage, a listener envelopment experience coupled with good sound width ? I will never try that playing with a set of frequencies on a computer to adjust all these factors one frequency at a times and in a linear way... It is impossible task for most ears if not all... Like i said electronic equalization is useful to fine tune the speakers in relation to the room, but i will try it now AFTER my room is already optimally passively treated and activelly controlled.... Now if i use the electronic equalizer i dont doubt that my relation speakers/room will be upgraded a bit...And i will only have to correct my resonators after that to adjust to the new situation.... But the huge improvement cannot come from an electronic equalizer it is only the cherry on the cake, it is not and could not be the acoustical cake.... Simple: two ears feedback dont work like a SINGLE microphone feedback.... I apologize for my rude answers sometimes... No personal grunt against you.... My best to you.... |
The placebo effect is definitely a thing and it most definitely applies to a lot of the decision making applied to high end audio.Every perception is constituted by the brain with habit and bias, with an history, with fear and hope, then placebo is creative part of any perception... But those who oppose placebo effect to explain any audible experience in audio remind me of those who explain walking by the different types of shoes, sandals,boots..... Hearing is not placebo mainly, and walking is not shoes mainly ... But nobody walk the same in big boot and loose sandal.... Nobody hear the same looking at a 100000 bucks system and before a 1000 bucks one... Same Ears not the same hearing.... Same feet but not the same walking... placebo and look and style count for much in the 2 cases.... 😊😁 Then opposing placebo against any audible experience is not even wrong.... Most of the times it is simply beside the point... It is only a weapon for the children in the "skeptic scientism boy club" to use against audiophiles....it explain nothing most of the times save very small borderline audible difference.... You cannot create a top audio experience or experiment with placebo effect ONLY.....Save if you use market hypnosis method for sure but it is another story.... I never bought upgrade anyway.... I prefer homemade embeddings controls.... My best to you.... |
Mahgister, I am a realist, you are a mysticist and that is why Howard Johnson’s made 28 flavors.I cannot contradict you here.... But even if you are right and you are about our 2 characters, acoustic is acoustic and all my points made sense.... By the way a good mystic MUST also be a realist but the inverse is less frequent... My deepest regards.... |
It is 2021 Gentlemen, When the piano tuner shows up, especially if they are near the top of their game and called on to tune concert pianos, then the first thing they will pull out is a modern electronic tuning device. Humans are too inconsistent, and too slow to be trusted to tune the most critical instruments. |
It is 2021 Gentlemen,The main point in the debate is not what A.I. could do for you..... But what can you do without it.... A piano tuner can discuss with the demand of the pianist in a way a computer specialized tuner cannot.... Save if the electronically tuning piano computer is coupled to an ACOUSTICAL A.I. analyser able to analyse the sound of this specific piano for this specific hall or room.... No great pianist will use a mechanical tuning.... But perhaps they will use the A. I. i just described.... But ask yourself a question : what will become of humans if they BELIEVE that A. I. are more intelligent than them ? By the way i dont believe that a.I. are more "intelligent" than us in a general way of speaking one second... Giulio Tononi one of the great neuroscentist point out that the scale of "intelligence" intersect the scale of consciouness but they do not confuse in one another... Then it is easy to predict the future like did Ray Kurzweil with is "singularity" myth... This myth is very potent and A.I will be very "intelligent".... Then the question is : what are we? By the way i dont live in this 2021 year you speak about....Time is very overvalued... 😊 |
"No great pianist will use a mechanical tuning...." Perhaps I was not clear with my post. Almost all piano tuners who tune concert pianos, pianos used by the best pianists in the world, use electronic tuners to assist in their work. Almost no great pianist today will accept the variability of tuning based on human error. |
“Assist” is the operative word. The electronic tuner is used primarily as a reference; usually in order tune middle C and then the middle octave. This becomes your reference. After that the technician’s ears come into play. If one relies entirely on what the electronic tuner tells you, the result will be a piano that sounds out of tune. Octaves in particular are impossible to make sound right with an electronic tuner and adjustments must be made by ear. Humans tend to hear low pitches higher than they actually are and high pitches lower than they actually are in reflexive attempt by the brain and to try and bring what we hear within the range of the human voice; so, fine adjustments must be made by ear. No electronic device can do what the trained human ear can do. |
Frogman, modern tuners are much more sophisticated than what you describe. They have been for 10 or more years. They are not perfect, but they are very good. Like any tool they are more effective in the hands of a skilled used. I would provide a more detailed response, but I need to work on accounting. Given I have to use pen and paper, it will take me a long time. I would use a calculator or spreadsheet but that would be a tell. A tell of what I have no idea. I wonder what psychologists would say about that. |
@sugabooger....*L* They'd say you need an Rx for whatever 'it' may be....at least ITho, and book you for a week later for the hour.... It's not that you're 'interesting', mind you....gotta pay for the Benz... ;) There are tuners: Great ones, and the not so. The latter are not bad, mind one, but....not prone to subtle. Much like the mech that can hear an F1 slot car or GP bike a half mile away... ...and Know what's Wrong. I don't doubt that among us and elsewhere, there are those that have that in their ears and mind. The rest of us fill in the spectrum...pick your place. *s* ;) @twoleftears ....*S* Thanks for the Voltaire....and what's old is still considered 'new', and hard to find in the original printing. *L* But the suggestion lead me to: https://www.brainpickings.org/ ...which is a better waste of network time....than even here. *G* |
sugarbooger (and I thought MY moniker was odd 😊), if you were read my post carefully you’d note that I wrote nothing about the quality of tuners, or the improvements that have been made in recent years; I assure you that I know all about it. While my instrument is not piano, I have been in the presence of professional piano tuners while they do their thing literally hundreds of times over the years and I have spoken to a several. Not one relies entirely on the tuner without making final adjustments by ear in order for the instrument to sound correct. That was my point and only point. Again, as I wrote previously and as always, when it comes to musical matters the trained human ear is more sensitive than any electronic device. |
