Let's talk psychology for a minute...

[Monstrous Mike]

Does any of this ever happen in audio evaluation/purchase/decision-making? (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)


Belief Perseverance

Explanations we develop to explain our experiences become fixed beliefs, even when they are shown to be based on wrong evidence. Developed beliefs persist in the face of contradictory evidence.


Post-decisional Dissonance

People will subjectively reinforce decisions or commitments they have already made. According to the theory, the possibility of being wrong is dissonance-arousing, so people will change their perceptions to make their decisions seem better.


Cognitive Bias

Cognitive bias is any of a wide range of observer effects identified in cognitive science, including very basic statistical and memory errors that are common to all human beings and drastically skew the reliability of anecdotal and legal evidence. They also significantly affect the scientific method which is deliberately designed to minimize such bias from any one observer.


Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality.


The False Consensus Effect

This refers to the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them. People readily guess their own opinions, beliefs and predilections as being more prevalent in the general public than they really are. The bias is commonly present in a group setting where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.


Selection Effect

This is seen in experiments or observations where there is a bias in the underlying methodology that leads to results that preferentially include or exclude certain kinds of results. If the selection effect is not taken into account then any conclusions drawn may be invalid.


Bias Blind Spot

This is a cognitive bias about not compensating for one's own cognitive biases. When asked how biased they themselves were, subjects rated themselves as being much less subject to the biases described than the average person.


Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon whereby, in a variety of settings, decision makers have been shown to notice more, assign more weight to, and actively seek out evidence that confirms their claims, and tend to ignore and not seek out evidence which might discount their claims.


Disconfirmation Bias

This refers to the tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and accept uncritically information that is congruent with their prior beliefs.


Illusory Correlation

Illusory correlations are beliefs that inaccurately suppose a relationship between a certain type of action and an effect.


Wishful Thinking

This is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality.


Auditory Illusion

An auditory illusion is an illusion of hearing (sense), the sound equivalent of an optical illusion: the listener hears either sounds which are not present in the stimulus, or "impossible" sounds. In short, audio illusions highlight areas where the human ear and brain, as organic, makeshift tools, differ from perfect audio receptors (for better or for worse).

[musicoverall]

Does any of this ever happen in audio evaluation/purchase/decision-making?.

Nope, not a one of 'em! ;)

[mystic]

An amusing list. Some of these definitions seem elastic enough to fit around just about anyone, regardless of whether they claim to be subjective or objective about differences in audio gear. For the latter, however, I am suggesting an addition (in caps) to the definition of Auditory Illusion:

"An auditory illusion is an illusion of hearing (sense), the sound equivalent of an optical illusion: the listener hears either sounds which are not present in the stimulus, or "impossible" sounds, (OR HAS A BIAS THAT PREVENTS HEARING SOUNDS WHICH ARE PRESENT.) In short, audio illusions highlight areas where the human ear and brain, as organic, makeshift tools, differ from perfect audio receptors (for better or for worse)."

[musicoverall]

(OR HAS A BIAS THAT PREVENTS HEARING SOUNDS WHICH ARE PRESENT.)

That's a very good point, and one that I had considered when I posted the question to the "ex-cable believers" on this forum. A belief that there can be no sonic differences might impede those with such a belief from hearing what is present, even in a blind test. If "hearing is believing", perhaps "not believing is not hearing".

[kexodusc]

A definitive end, one way or another to the "great cable debate"...Wishful thinking???

[Toga]

A definitive end, one way or another to the "great cable debate"...Wishful thinking???

Good Morning!

I had just read this sobering discussion, and I had to point out that it is possible, once one is AWARE of their bias, that one can attempt to suspend the operation of it. This means that a "non-believer" may have nagging doubts about their agnostic stance, as might an enthusiastic dabbler in the ultra cable world have shaken confidence in their ability to "hear" a difference in cables once the blinders are put on. I'm not sure there is any hope for those making MONEY from high end cables. Imagine being asked by your conscience to close your company because you're selling a lie.

An unwillingness to test your own powers of observation using sensory/perceptual shifts would be like refusing to view an optical illusion that you KNOW may fool you by its design exploiting weaknesses in the human brain. If you don't look, it can't be "proven" to you that you have such a weakness.

In the same way, those of us who really are reticent to believe such drastic claims attributed to cable materials and construction alone should honestly LOOK for such differences in cable demonstrations that are done in the traditional manner of the subjectivists ("listen to how much BETTER this $1000 cable sounds"). THEN we take that same attitude into ABX / DB testing, and go hell-bent for leather trying to hear the same difference we might have thought we heard.

Only when everyone is willing to try to be honest with themselves, will the debate start to shift from taunts between two groups, into an understanding of who can hear what in which products under which conditions. The best of all things would be to discover a strong correlation between two different testing methodologies; You can hear it with your eyes open, and you can hear it blind.

Or not.

[RobotCzar]

That's a very good point, and one that I had considered when I posted the question to the "ex-cable believers" on this forum. A belief that there can be no sonic differences might impede those with such a belief from hearing what is present, even in a blind test. If "hearing is believing", perhaps "not believing is not hearing".

You are correct that a belief that differences cannot be hear might effect performance. This could be controlled by not telling the listener exactly what is being compared--then it might be something the subject does think has audible differences, he has no basis to make a negative assumption. Blinding is great, isn't it?

But the bigger issue is how one deals with evidence that one's belief is wrong. High end audio buffs are clearly simply rejecting clear evidence because they don't want to believe it. How you deal with evidence is what really distinguishes rational folks from the true believers. It has nothing to do the naysaying or spoiling fun or trying to make a point---it has everything to do with how well you can think critically and accept evidence, especially if that evidence goes against your beliefs.

Here are some quotes from an article I recently downloaded. The title is "Teaching Critical Thinking, Some Lessons from Cognitive Science" by Tim van Gelder, I don't have the URL, but if I recover it I will post it.

"At root, belief preservation is the tendency to make evidence subservient to belief, rather than the other way around. Put another way, it is the tendency to use evidence to preserve our opinions rather than guide them...."

"When we strongly believe something (or strongly desire it to be true), then we tend to do the following:

1. We seek evidence that supports what we believe and do not seek, avoid, or ignore evidence that goes against it.

2. We rate evidence as good or bad depending on whether it supports or conflicts with our belief.

3. We stick with our beliefs even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence as long as we can find at least some support, no matter how slender..."

These qualities seem to me to be ther real distinguishing traits of audiophiles who live in the irrational/subjective world and those who are prepared to say the the emperor is naked. Rationalists are able to adjust their beliefs based on evidence, they do not simply grow more firm in their beliefs. This is why the post concerning ex-believers is significant. Those people were able to critically deal with the evidence and change their belief--something that is very hard to do.

MoA is to be congradulated in that he seems to be wiliing to examine the evidence with an eye toward perhaps changing his mind. This already puts him in a different category than many high end believers who have never even given a thought that they might be fundamentally wrong. MoA rightfully is looking for answers in exactly the right place--the evidence of controlled experiment. While I still detect some flaws in his critical thinking, he is moving in the right direction. Critical thinking is a skill that seems to be beyond many people.

[mystic]

QUOTE=RobotCzar]You are correct that a belief that differences cannot be hear might effect performance. This could be controlled by not telling the listener exactly what is being compared--then it might be something the subject does think has audible differences, he has no basis to make a negative assumption. Blinding is great, isn't it?[QUOTE]

You are suggesting naysayers might cheat? Yea, I guess they could. While It wouldn't be possible for a person trying to score positive in a DBT to cheat, cheating would be easy for someone trying to score negative, and it could be subconscious rather than intentional. Even in the kind of controlled test you have suggested, a naysayer may not be able to help himself -- i.e., he has shut his mind to possibilities, and is incapable of overcoming the confines of his beliefs. Isn't this consistent with what Tim van Gelder is saying?

[Toga]

Hi Mystic!

I have to say contrariness is a sign of immaturity. In Utopia, Thomas Moore lambasted those who disagree for the sole purpose of calling attention to themselves. One of the most crass things ever done in the name of education is the debate class, where students are asked to defend ideas they are categorically opposed to. Many of us may have noticed, in a sort of out of body experience, defending thoughts that differ from our own. This sort of cognitive dissonance is akin to schizophrenia, where what comes out of our mouths is so very different from what lives inside. Political correctness is another example of this madness.

As a skeptic, I hold out that anything is possible, but must be verifiable. The more blinders we remove (it is odd that we call them blind tests, when in reality they are CLEAR of many veils to perception), the more confident our assumptions.

Two things I personally believe, is that waveform fidelity and accurate transfer functions are at the heart of high quality audio reproduction. Significant deviation from the original time and energy signature as picked up by artificial ears (microphones) should be audible, or at least have the potential to be. And yet many people accept severe aberrations to this standard, such as ported woofers, high mass drivers, long decay on waterfall plots, phase and group delay from high order filtering, and low resolution digital processing.

I pointed out in another post, that once a person eschews "tone controls" from "high end" equipment, what do they have left to play with if they don't engineer and build their own gear?

Cables, cables, cables. As if they should not be FREAKING OUT that NO TWO CABLES SOUND THE SAME. It means, in a nutshell, that there aren't any good cables. And before someone draws parallels to speakers or amplifiers, both of which have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of components, the variables in cable design are quite abbreviated in comparison; conductors, insulators, and physical geometry. Its like insisting an amplifier sounds a certain way specifically because of one capacitor, while ignoring the contribution of 150 other parts. The only way that would be true, is if the capacitor was really BAD.

Because the realm of the superior when it comes to a component, and not a system, is similarity at the top end.

[Monstrous Mike]

Even in the kind of controlled test you have suggested, a naysayer may not be able to help himself -- i.e., he has shut his mind to possibilities, and is incapable of overcoming the confines of his beliefs.
Yes, you are correct. I would suggest that any valid DBT be done using audiophiles who claim to have heard differences in cables. I believe they would be more likely to discern audible differences, if present.



Isn't this consistent with what Tim van Gelder is saying?
Yes, correct again. And that is exactly why any test to detect cable differences must have all biases strictly under control. Otherwise, any reports of positive or negative results are essentially useless to anyone other than the reporting person.

[RobotCzar]

You are suggesting naysayers might cheat? Yea, I guess they could. While It wouldn't be possible for a person trying to score positive in a DBT to cheat, cheating would be easy for someone trying to score negative, and it could be subconscious rather than intentional. Even in the kind of controlled test you have suggested, a naysayer may not be able to help himself -- i.e., he has shut his mind to possibilities, and is incapable of overcoming the confines of his beliefs. Isn't this consistent with what Tim van Gelder is saying?

Biases and placebo effect are not conscious actions. Nobody claims that those who claim to hear differences in cables and amps are intentionally lying (though they easily could) so why are you suddenly concerned with intentional deception of the part of "naysayers"? Ideally, an experiment could guard against intentional deception by, for example, including some items are known to be distinguishable in the test and checking performance of the subjects. This is usually not done as it is assumed subjects in listening tests have no reason to lie. I have never met any "naysayer" who I felt wanted to discorver that we can't hear differences among any particular components, they merely want evidence, not claims, they we can. The orginal point to which you refer suggests that if you really believe that you can not tell a difference in components, this could (and often would) tend to alter your percpetions so that you could not. This point has been made repeatedly in regard to sighted comparisons, why haven't you been getting it?

(I feel I must point out that whether a subject is a naysayer or yeasayer is somewhat unimportant as both have failed to distinguish things like cables. The example I give in another post involves only people who felt they could hear differences in power cables, but none demonstrated they could.)

I have tried to restructure the issue from "naysayer" and "yeasayer" into one that serves us better. I have suggested that what we really want is a category that groups us based on our attitudes towards testing and evidence. Some people are willing to alter their belief (intentionally) based on evidence, some clearly are not willing to do so. In my experience, naysayers are generally more willing to do so AND have more critical thinking experience and skill (which is not surprising as identifying and accepting evidence is a trait of critical thinking).

[mystic]

Hi Mystic!

I have to say contrariness is a sign of immaturity. In Utopia, Thomas Moore lambasted those who disagree for the sole purpose of calling attention to themselves. One of the most crass things ever done in the name of education is the debate class, where students are asked to defend ideas they are categorically opposed to. Many of us may have noticed, in a sort of out of body experience, defending thoughts that differ from our own. This sort of cognitive dissonance is akin to schizophrenia, where what comes out of our mouths is so very different from what lives inside. Political correctness is another example of this madness.

As a skeptic, I hold out that anything is possible, but must be verifiable. The more blinders we remove (it is odd that we call them blind tests, when in reality they are CLEAR of many veils to perception), the more confident our assumptions.

Two things I personally believe, is that waveform fidelity and accurate transfer functions are at the heart of high quality audio reproduction. Significant deviation from the original time and energy signature as picked up by artificial ears (microphones) should be audible, or at least have the potential to be. And yet many people accept severe aberrations to this standard, such as ported woofers, high mass drivers, long decay on waterfall plots, phase and group delay from high order filtering, and low resolution digital processing.

I pointed out in another post, that once a person eschews "tone controls" from "high end" equipment, what do they have left to play with if they don't engineer and build their own gear?

Cables, cables, cables. As if they should not be FREAKING OUT that NO TWO CABLES SOUND THE SAME. It means, in a nutshell, that there aren't any good cables. And before someone draws parallels to speakers or amplifiers, both of which have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of components, the variables in cable design are quite abbreviated in comparison; conductors, insulators, and physical geometry. Its like insisting an amplifier sounds a certain way specifically because of one capacitor, while ignoring the contribution of 150 other parts. The only way that would be true, is if the capacitor was really BAD.

Because the realm of the superior when it comes to a component, and not a system, is similarity at the top end.

You say "As a skeptic, I hold out that anything is possible, but must be verifiable." I take that to mean you are prepared to believe only what is verifiable, which precludes a belief in the existence of god, the hereafter, or anything else that can't be veified. But I may be misinterpreting your statement. It could be you neither believe or disbelieve what is not verifiable. I get the impression some Forum members believe all cables of comparable gauge and length will sound alike to any listener in any system, and it will be that way from now on. I don't see as a practical matter how that is verifiable.

I never thought about contrariness being a sign of immaturity. It may be. The "terrible two's" come to mind. You comment makes me wonder about my motivation for posting here.

[mystic]

Yes, you are correct. I would suggest that any valid DBT be done using audiophiles who claim to have heard differences in cables. I believe they would be more likely to discern audible differences, if present.



Yes, correct again. And that is exactly why any test to detect cable differences must have all biases strictly under control. Otherwise, any reports of positive or negative results are essentially useless to anyone other than the reporting person.

I agree. If it's the claim that is being tested, only those making the claim should be tested. There are situations, however, where claims aren't being tested, the objective being to determine whether a general group of listeners hear a difference in two things identified only as A and B, without being told what the test is about. In this case, could a listener's belief that most types of audio components sound the same hurt his performance if he started wondering about what was being tested?

Yes, bias must be controlled or the test is not objective. Unfortunately, bias is not convenient to control in home listening tests. Even single-blind testing can be a pain to do, especially if you need the cooperation of a less-than-enthusiastic partner.

[mystic]

Biases and placebo effect are not conscious actions. Nobody claims that those who claim to hear differences in cables and amps are intentionally lying (though they easily could) so why are you suddenly concerned with intentional deception of the part of "naysayers"? Ideally, an experiment could guard against intentional deception by, for example, including some items are known to be distinguishable in the test and checking performance of the subjects. This is usually not done as it is assumed subjects in listening tests have no reason to lie. I have never met any "naysayer" who I felt wanted to discorver that we can't hear differences among any particular components, they merely want evidence, not claims, they we can. The orginal point to which you refer suggests that if you really believe that you can not tell a difference in components, this could (and often would) tend to alter your percpetions so that you could not. This point has been made repeatedly in regard to sighted comparisons, why haven't you been getting it?

(I feel I must point out that whether a subject is a naysayer or yeasayer is somewhat unimportant as both have failed to distinguish things like cables. The example I give in another post involves only people who felt they could hear differences in power cables, but none demonstrated they could.)

I have tried to restructure the issue from "naysayer" and "yeasayer" into one that serves us better. I have suggested that what we really want is a category that groups us based on our attitudes towards testing and evidence. Some people are willing to alter their belief (intentionally) based on evidence, some clearly are not willing to do so. In my experience, naysayers are generally more willing to do so AND have more critical thinking experience and skill (which is not surprising as identifying and accepting evidence is a trait of critical thinking).

I'm not sure what you mean by asking "why haven't you been getting it?" My initial thought was that's a much too personal question to be asking on this Forum, and I don't really feel like telling you the reasons.

On second thought, your question probably stems from a misunderstanding. You seem to think I believe attitudes, beliefs, and expectations (ABE's) can't possibly be an explanation for a listener failing to verify a sighted claim in a blinded test. I want to make it clear that I think and have always thought the ABE theory (or theories) offers a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy. My failure to demonstrate the enthusiasm others here have shown for ABE's may result from my not knowing the research(most direct evidence I have seen is anecdotal) and the possibility of competing explanations. I'm also put off by the notion people can't go by their perceptions. People have to rely on what they see, hear, taste, and feel to get buy in life, and most do it very well.

I agree that "yeasayer" and "neysayer" leave a lot to be desired as labels. Some who come here may not consider themselfs either. But I don't know the purpose of having the categories you suggest, and many might think them offensive -- the scientific vs the unscientific, the rational vs the irrational, the critical thinkers vs those who can't think. Perhaps I'm being too harsh, and don't appreciate what you are trying to do.

[RobotCzar]

I'm not sure what you mean by asking "why haven't you been getting it?" My initial thought was that's a much too personal question to be asking on this Forum, and I don't really feel like telling you the reasons.
I was a bit grumpy yesterday, sorry if I was too direct for this forum (is that possible?) I asked the question because the claim that blinding is requred is based on a specific findings of psychology that ABEs, as you called them, affect our perception. So, of course, an attitude or expectation of not hearing a difference could affect a test of perception. This principle is not realted to intentional actions, like lying.


... My failure to demonstrate the enthusiasm others here have shown for ABE's may result from my not knowing the research(most direct evidence I have seen is anecdotal) and the possibility of competing explanations. I'm also put off by the notion people can't go by their perceptions. People have to rely on what they see, hear, taste, and feel to get buy in life, and most do it very well.
The research about how ABEs affect perceptions is extensive, has been around for a long time, and is based on much more than anecdotes. There are no competing explanations to this principle, so I am not sure what you mean. If what people see, hear, taste, and feel (and smell) are affected by what they think (ABEs) then an experiment hoping to determine what can actually be percieved instead of what seems to be would have to control for ABEs. Isn't that true if the ABE principle is true? You are right that we "get by" with our sensory system quite wel--in fact altering our perceptions based on ABE is advantageous as it saves a lot of time. Our perceptions are simply not always accurate, so if you want to know what people are really sensing, as opposed to what they are percieving, you must control for variables that affect perception (such as ABEs). This is accomplished with blinding, there is no real alternative.


I don't know the purpose of having the categories you suggest, and many might think them offensive -- the scientific vs the unscientific, the rational vs the irrational, the critical thinkers vs those who can't think. Perhaps I'm being too harsh, and don't appreciate what you are trying to do.

While I don't want to offend, it is not my highest priority in this case. I'd like to counter the tons of misinformation present in the home audio hobby. To do so, especially given the vehemence of the defenders of the misinformation, probably requires giving some offense. The purpose of categories is to clearly delineate the approaches to valid information (of if you prefer, "truth"). Creating categories is generally thought to help analysis and understanding if the categories are valid.

[mystic]

I was a bit grumpy yesterday, sorry if I was too direct for this forum (is that possible?) I asked the question because the claim that blinding is requred is based on a specific findings of psychology that ABEs, as you called them, affect our perception. So, of course, an attitude or expectation of not hearing a difference could affect a test of perception. This principle is not realted to intentional actions, like lying.


The research about how ABEs affect perceptions is extensive, has been around for a long time, and is based on much more than anecdotes. There are no competing explanations to this principle, so I am not sure what you mean. If what people see, hear, taste, and feel (and smell) are affected by what they think (ABEs) then an experiment hoping to determine what can actually be percieved instead of what seems to be would have to control for ABEs. Isn't that true if the ABE principle is true? You are right that we "get by" with our sensory system quite wel--in fact altering our perceptions based on ABE is advantageous as it saves a lot of time. Our perceptions are simply not always accurate, so if you want to know what people are really sensing, as opposed to what they are percieving, you must control for variables that affect perception (such as ABEs). This is accomplished with blinding, there is no real alternative.



While I don't want to offend, it is not my highest priority in this case. I'd like to counter the tons of misinformation present in the home audio hobby. To do so, especially given the vehemence of the defenders of the misinformation, probably requires giving some offense. The purpose of categories is to clearly delineate the approaches to valid information (of if you prefer, "truth"). Creating categories is generally thought to help analysis and understanding if the categories are valid.

My comment on your "why aren't you getting it?" question was meant to be humorous, so no apology is necessary.

I'm sure research on how attitudes, beliefs, and expectations(ABE's) affect our perceptions is extensive, but how about scientific studies specifically on ABE's as the reason for discrepancies between sighted and blinded listening in tests of audio components? The only study I remember is one by Dr. Floyd Toole where subjects compared an attractive set of speakers with a set that was less attractive.The subjects preferred the sound of the better looking speakers in sighted listening, but switched their preference to the other speakers in blinded listening. I don't think the study attempted to find out whether the subjects would have reverted to a preference for the sound of the better looking speakers in a subsequent sighted listening, which would have suggested that seeing audio equipment might enhance the sound for a listener.

I think ABE's are seen by some as a very powerful influence always affecting our perceptions when we make sighted listening comparisons of different components. My personal experience has been otherwise. When I try new equipment I usully do so with the expectation or hope that it will be better sounding than the item it will replace. Far more often than not, I am dissapointed. I hear no difference or the difference I hear is not an improvment. Why aren't my ABE's working?

[Monstrous Mike]

The only study I remember is one by Dr. Floyd Toole where subjects compared an attractive set of speakers with a set that was less attractive.The subjects preferred the sound of the better looking speakers in sighted listening, but switched their preference to the other speakers in blinded listening. I don't think the study attempted to find out whether the subjects would have reverted to a preference for the sound of the better looking speakers in a subsequent sighted listening, which would have suggested that seeing audio equipment might enhance the sound for a listener.
I've looked into Dr. Toole's work and I even know a person from the Communications Research Centre in Ottawa that was friends with an assistant to Dr. Toole. To give you some background, Dr. Toole was trying to design better sounding speakers. He came to the conclusion that simply designing something and listening to it was not a very accurate way of assessing his new designs. So he set off with one major goal and one minor goal. The major goal was to devise a test where he compared a new design to either an old one or some reference speakers. His research showed that it was necessary to eliminate sighted biases thus he used a very controlled DBT to assess his speaker designs. His minor goal was to determine if audio cables could have an impact in his speaker testing so he did the same DBT method but switched speaker cables. He determined that the 12 gauge speaker wire he was using was sufficient. The paper he wrote did not concern speaker or cable performance rather he submitted that sighted biases could be controlled by performing a proper DBT to assess sonic performance of audio equipment. This is the paper: ".E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things", 97th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint No. 3894 (1994 Nov.)". He also did other papers related to listener preferences.




I hear no difference or the difference I hear is not an improvment. Why aren't my ABE's working?
I don't think any of us has the capability to know how our ABEs affect our perception only that we need to control them for an accurate assessment of anything where we use our senses and our brain to come to a conclusion. Perhaps you are a closed skeptic?

[mystic]

I've looked into Dr. Toole's work and I even know a person from the Communications Research Centre in Ottawa that was friends with an assistant to Dr. Toole. To give you some background, Dr. Toole was trying to design better sounding speakers. He came to the conclusion that simply designing something and listening to it was not a very accurate way of assessing his new designs. So he set off with one major goal and one minor goal. The major goal was to devise a test where he compared a new design to either an old one or some reference speakers. His research showed that it was necessary to eliminate sighted biases thus he used a very controlled DBT to assess his speaker designs. His minor goal was to determine if audio cables could have an impact in his speaker testing so he did the same DBT method but switched speaker cables. He determined that the 12 gauge speaker wire he was using was sufficient. The paper he wrote did not concern speaker or cable performance rather he submitted that sighted biases could be controlled by performing a proper DBT to assess sonic performance of audio equipment. This is the paper: ".E. Toole and S.E. Olive, "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests and Other Interesting Things", 97th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint No. 3894 (1994 Nov.)". He also did other papers related to listener preferences.




I don't think any of us has the capability to know how our ABEs affect our perception only that we need to control them for an accurate assessment of anything where we use our senses and our brain to come to a conclusion. Perhaps you are a closed skeptic?


I hope you meant to say I might be a "closet skeptic." The "closed skeptics" are some of those other guys who post here.

Thanks for the information on Dr.Toole. I have only read what is available online about his work. I hope he helps Harmon International develop even better speakers. I think significant improvements in the state of the art can come from advances in speaker technology, and look foreward to enjoying the fruits of research in this area.

My experiences lead me to believe ABE's don't have much affect on my perceptions when it comes to comparing the sounds of different audio components. My sighted listening seems reliable enough to be a basis for making decisions. I am confident it will rarely mislead me.

I would not, however, expect anyone to accept anything based on my sighted listening. If I claimed A sounded better than B, it would be reasonable for you to withhold accepting my claim untill I verified I could identify which was which in a blinded test. If I failed such a test, you might conclude that since I didn't verify the claim in that test, I probably never would be able to do it.

My conclusion from that test might be the same as yours. On the otherhand, I could be curious about reverting to sighted listening to find out whether A still sounded better than B. If I found that to be the case, it would seem foolish not to continue enjoying A. This could be seen as (1) a triumph of ABE's over science, or (2) an indication something might be wrong with the test. I don't know if anyone has ever reverted after a blinded test, but perhaps we will hear from someone.