Proof of placebo effect ?

[mtrycraft]

Being a yeasayer doesn't necessarily mean spending large sums of money on audiophile cables, nor does it mean believing inexpensive cables sound bad. And it doesn't mean believing performance is determined by price.

then what does it mean to you as it will be only your deffinition, not universal.

My Carol 12 awg silver-plated copper speaker cable, which I was lucky enough to buy on close-out at Home Depot for about .15/ft, sounds pretty good to me.

Good. You got a steal.

I prefer my Zu Julian cable (about $5.50/ft), but not by a wide margin.

And how can one argue agains a preference?




[bg]I tried a relatively expensive silver interconnect a few months ago, but I didn't like it as much as my $40 Signal and $25 Radio Shack models. I could give more examples of cables I have tried, but my point is I don't spend a lot on cables and I don't like or buy everything I try.[/b]


No you don't. But you keep trying cables. A waste of time.


Of course I don't speak for all the yeasayers who frequent this forum, but there may be others who don't spend large amounts on cables, or at least not as much as naysayers like to believe.

Nothing to believe. Belief is without evidence. One only has to read what people use and buy.


You may see more of the big spenders over at the AA cable forum, but even there you will find that many posts are about DIY cables, which usually are inexpensive.

Yep, they do spend. Why even waste the time on DIY? Only thing one could get out is that it was self made.

[b]So what is the cable argument here at the AR based on?[/]

You need to read the posts. Obviously you must not be reading the posts. When peopl make testable claims, the discussions begin, and an accounting of that claim is asked for. Simple.


Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, I would say it's based mostly on a liking for argument, and a particular liking for argument over an issue that most people would think unimportant if not downright silly. But what do most people know?


You need to read the posts and the claims made. Then, you may see it different, or not.

[Chuck]

So what is the cable argument here at the AR based on? Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, I would say it's based mostly on a liking for argument, and a particular liking for argument over an issue that most people would think unimportant if not downright silly. But what do most people know?

I had not considered it, but that is no doubt the case with at least a few people. I will change my thinking accordingly.

You also need to take a position, although a few members fence straddle, and some even jump back and forth. As a yeasayer, you would need to believe what you hear, and distrust measurements and other objective tests if they conflict with what you hear. As a naysayer, you would do just the opposite --- i.e., don't believe what you hear unless you have confirmed it objectively. These labels will not fit everyone, but give an idea of what the two sides are like.

It seems that you are using the terms "yeasayer" and "naysayer" to describe what I would call the "poles" of the polarization. In one case we have the rejection of "measurements and other objective tests," and in the other case we have those who reject any claims of audible differences. Hopefully the labels fit only a small minority or a few individuals. Those who adopt extreme positions are typically more outspoken, and this can give the appearance that they are in the majority, when in fact they are only a small and insignificant, but very vocal, minority.

There really is no "fence" to "straddle." The situation is not simply black-and-white. Those who reject information as out of hand simply because they don't like what it might indicate tend to see it that way; Either you are with them, or you are against them; If you're not polarized, then you are "jumping back and forth" or "straddling the fence." I think that is wrong; Those who reject information of any kind, to avoid having to change their positions, are the ones who end up adopting extreme positions that don't stand up well to close examination.

[Chuck]

[b]Nothing to believe. Belief is without evidence. One only has to read what people use and buy.

This thread has drifted way off topic, but in the context of the original discussion your statement here seems obtuse. A placebo is, in effect, a belief. A placebo effect is an effect that is the result of a belief. The original post asked for proof of a commonly stated belief. I don't see how reading "what people use and buy" can provide proof of the placebo effect (not in audio or any other area where it might be encountered).

So Mtrycrafts, more to the point of the topic at hand, can you post a link to the test where the panel was told that the wires were being swapped, and heard differences, even though the wires were not actually swapped? That's the placebo effect at work in audio, and proves that it does happen, at least on occasion. Do you have any links?
(And how the heck did this thread get so far off topic?)

[RGA]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases. It is very rare to here someone say that they have purchased expensive cabes and heard no difference. Proof of placebo effect? Proove there isn't a placebo effect?

It is not that I need proof that high end cables sound better, I need proof that .50/ft. cable sounds bad. I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on cables that at most will attenuate the signal, when I could do the same thing with some capacitors and inductors.

Well yes people will justify an expensive cable cd player amplifier or speaker for that matter. And while this does occur the reverse is also the case. People who are envious because they don't have the money for such things will argue that their cheap item is every bit as good or better. Occasionally the cheaper is equal or better.

I have seen $70.00 Toasters. People with money have to have something to spend their money on...otherwise why enter into high pressure souless careers? Surely they don't put themselves through hell just to own a B&W over a Honda Civic. Then again maybe they do.

I have highly rated Tara Labs Prizm 11 interconnect Cables(given to me for free). I have never really closely evaluated them against the ones that came in the box. But in passing...I have noticed no difference and this is sighted supposedly biased environment. I should be raving about how great the cable is because of the reviews, the looks, the price(which was close to $100.00)....all that bias didn't effect me...there is no major difference or even a small one that I can hear. Have had em for 4 years.

[RGA]

This thread has drifted way off topic, but in the context of the original discussion your statement here seems obtuse. A placebo is, in effect, a belief. A placebo effect is an effect that is the result of a belief. The original post asked for proof of a commonly stated belief. I don't see how reading "what people use and buy" can provide proof of the placebo effect (not in audio or any other area where it might be encountered).

So Mtrycrafts, more to the point of the topic at hand, can you post a link to the test where the panel was told that the wires were being swapped, and heard differences, even though the wires were not actually swapped? That's the placebo effect at work in audio, and proves that it does happen, at least on occasion. Do you have any links?
(And how the heck did this thread get so far off topic?)

The brain is a decision maker...if presented two identical sections of music in a Double blind test from the SAME player and the SAME part of the music our brain will try and PICK one. It has nothing to do with the auditory system. The brain is unreliable. You say "Make a selection" our brain assumes a selection needs to be made even if the two are the same. And this is the system we choose to differentiate difference. An unreliable test and unreliable brains. Of course normal listening does not ask you to choose between two as a test. But then one is a test environment the other is not.

[mtrycraft]

So Mtrycrafts, more to the point of the topic at hand, can you post a link to the test where the panel was told that the wires were being swapped, and heard differences, even though the wires were not actually swapped? That's the placebo effect at work in audio, and proves that it does happen, at least on occasion.

Nope, I don't think I have a link but one only needs to ask John Dunalvy or Tom Nousaine how many times they have fooled their subjects. If I find one, I will post it

I need to tell James Randi that next time they test a psychic, they need to do something similar, not change subjects and see if they get the same reading, or, not even have a subject behind the curtin and see if there is silence or a reading to an empty chair

Good to see good old chuck back

[Chuck]

Good to see good old chuck back

It's good to be back. Seems this place has changed quite a lot during my extended absence.

At one time I had a link to an article in which John D. described his "placebo: experiment, but either I've lost it or the article is no longer available.

Where's Eyespy?

[okiemax]

Well yes people will justify an expensive cable cd player amplifier or speaker for that matter. And while this does occur the reverse is also the case. People who are envious because they don't have the money for such things will argue that their cheap item is every bit as good or better. Occasionally the cheaper is equal or better.

I have seen $70.00 Toasters. People with money have to have something to spend their money on...otherwise why enter into high pressure souless careers? Surely they don't put themselves through hell just to own a B&W over a Honda Civic. Then again maybe they do.

I have highly rated Tara Labs Prizm 11 interconnect Cables(given to me for free). I have never really closely evaluated them against the ones that came in the box. But in passing...I have noticed no difference and this is sighted supposedly biased environment. I should be raving about how great the cable is because of the reviews, the looks, the price(which was close to $100.00)....all that bias didn't effect me...there is no major difference or even a small one that I can hear. Have had em for 4 years.

Perhaps you didn't experience the placebo effect with the Prizm 11 because this interconnect didn't cost you anything. This brings to mind the 1979 movie "Love at First Bite," a spoof on Dracula starring George Hamilton, Richard Benjamin, and Susan St. James. Susan is a patient of psychiatrist Richard, and she is behind on her bill, so he tells her the therapy only works if you pay your bill.

If you ever do pay $100 dollars for cables and don't experience the placebo effect, hurry up and return them before the money-back guarantee expires. The problem could be you didn't pay enough, so your expectations were too low for any audible improvement that you would really notice( you might need $500 cables), or the power of suggestion just doesn't like you.

But If you do believe the new cable is audibly better than the old one, you could be experiencing the placebo effect! Or, the difference you are hearing may be (gasp) real. Or, if you are really lucky, you may be getting the benefit of both, which is called "PLACEBO PLUS." Sure, there will be doubters who will demand that you blind yourself twice, hang upside down while handcuffed, and subject yourself to other discomforts while listening with your new cables, insisting that you have an obligation to prove to the World that you are not making all this up. Pay them no mind. These people envy your pleasure.

[okiemax]

It's good to be back. Seems this place has changed quite a lot during my extended absence.

At one time I had a link to an article in which John D. described his "placebo: experiment, but either I've lost it or the article is no longer available.

Where's Eyespy?

Regarding John Dunlavy, I don't know if it's what you are seeking, but you can find his "Wire:Facts and Fraud," at the Audio Society of Minnesota web site. Just do a Google search with the following: Minnesota Dunlavy wire.

In your other post you referred to the Dulavy's wire experiments demonstrating the power of suggestion on the participants. It may be more a demonstration of participants trying to please or gain acceptance, with peer pressure also a possible factor, but I'm not sure as I don't know exactly what was done in the experiments.

[okiemax]

Geez, mtrycraft ! Isn't it enough for you to tell me what I can and can't hear? Now, you also want to tell me how to spend my time.

I like playing around with cables and other audio stuff. Hobbies are supposed to be a way to pass time or, if you prefer, waste time.

[RGA]

Geez, mtrycraft ! Isn't it enough for you to tell me what I can and can't hear? Now, you also want to tell me how to spend my time.

I like playing around with cables and other audio stuff. Hobbies are supposed to be a way to pass time or, if you prefer, waste time.

Course Dunlavy's speakers were crap and they went under so I would not trust him as a source. Was he a psychologist? he wasn't a good engineer - he might have built some good speakers if he was.

I have heard a difference in cables all of one time. $100.00 set of Mit's with a box attached to them...what's in the box? A resistor perhaps. Yes they sounded different - they sounded worse. Whatever it did made the sound quiter and rolled off. I can only presume it was trying to immitate the MYTH of what they THINK tubes sound like.

I have done single blind tests of cd players through line level heaphone amps. Youcan connect up to 8 cd players each with a volume control connected to one set of headphones and switch the cd players while you listen. You can adjust each volume control for level matching if you wish of course and make 8 copies of your cd and place a copy in each player. You also get no room acoustics problems with headphones and generally makes it far more detailed and easy to pick things out. You'd be surprised at how many actually sound so very close if not identical to each other...not all of them though. Some will undoubtedly complain about the quality of the line level amp...but nothing is perfect.

It is not hard to deliberately make something sound different. If these tests were truly valid Pioneer could advertise the following:

"Here at pioneer Electronic we have created a great new receiver that, through controllled testing and with the support of the scientific community, established that people cannot tell our Pioneer AVR XXX receiver at $199.00 apart from the Krell YYY at $70k" [at 90db with any speaker rated at 8ohms 87db(1w/m) or better] - this bit in brackets could be the ultra small print at the bottom of the page. "Yes Pioneer engineers have found that we can create the reference level of amplification far cheaper than any other manufacturer equalling the Rolls Royce of Solid stage equipment in Krell...etc ad nauseum".

And why is it not advertised...because they'd be 1) sued because 2)it's not supported and 3) it's BS myth and pseudo sicence as a conclusion to real world applications. Pioneer may be a bad example because then it would discredit their own high end units after all all receivers are indistinguishable as well so why buy the 3k receiver over the $199.00. All they would have is features to sell. But then again they make no claim that their expensive models sound better..just more watts and features. No they could advertise that...it would be a good new shrewd campaign...afraid they'll get sued. Pioneer has deeper pockets for lawyers than Krell. C'Mon let me see the adverts and the irrifutable proof that Pionner is indistinguishable from Krell. After surely the sample sizes done so far are accepted as 100% correlational to discredit the claims and support the null right?

They deliberately make it sound different - it's safer to do that just in case. If they don't turn up in the test the test is crap.

[Beckman]

Geez, mtrycraft ! Isn't it enough for you to tell me what I can and can't hear? Now, you also want to tell me how to spend my time.

I like playing around with cables and other audio stuff. Hobbies are supposed to be a way to pass time or, if you prefer, waste time.

Mtry was simply stating his opinion.

And now I will state mine, again. The great cable debate comes down to one thing. Do cables IMPROVE sound. I KNOW they can CHANGE the sound the same way a filter can.

I also KNOW 50cent or less per foot 14 gauge zip cord neither adds or takes anything away from the audio signal as it leaves the amplifier and enters the speakers for runs of less than 20 ft.

At one time I stated that I though after maket cables improved sound quality, but after extensive research I found that any cable "effects" can be achieved with resistors capacitos and inductors. That is the sound produced by any cable on the market can be duplicated with $15 or $20 worth of parts.

[Pat D]

Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?

You have simply misconceived the whole matter. Some, notably Dr. Jeff, have tried to explain this to you but you are not biting.

The point is that it is up to those who claim audible differences between proper cables to prove they exist. In other words, can they establish that anyone can hear the claimed differences under controlled blind conditions? People often report differences between products under sighted conditions, but it often turns out they are not able to establish statistically that they hear such differences under blind conditions.

There, I stated the problem without using the term "placebo effect," or for that matter, "experience." If you don't like the term, don't use it. I seldom do in audio matters because it just tends to confuse matters.

So, in fact, we do not claim people are experiencing a placebo effect, though just what they experience and the processes involved may well be interesting topics. However, they are not part of a DBT.

[mtrycraft]

Regarding John Dunlavy, I don't know if it's what you are seeking, but you can find his "Wire:Facts and Fraud," at the Audio Society of Minnesota web site. Just do a Google search with the following: Minnesota Dunlavy wire.

In your other post you referred to the Dulavy's wire experiments demonstrating the power of suggestion on the participants. It may be more a demonstration of participants trying to please or gain acceptance, with peer pressure also a possible factor, but I'm not sure as I don't know exactly what was done in the experiments.

Any such experiment is easy to conduct. One just switches the same component for the listener to listen for differences, Only A is listened to in all the trials without telling the listener, of course. 75% of participants will hear differences from the same component presented.
The link doesn't seem to work; it takes you to an ad?

[okiemax]

Any such experiment is easy to conduct. One just switches the same component for the listener to listen for differences, Only A is listened to in all the trials without telling the listener, of course. 75% of participants will hear differences from the same component presented.
The link doesn't seem to work; it takes you to an ad?

Try a Google search using the following term: minnesota dunlavy wire. Go to the first item found by the search. What you will see is the Feb. 1997 ASM Bulletin with the Dunlavy article. I just tried it again, and it worked. I didn't get an ad.

Yes, I think you are right about how such tests are conducted, but what I am curious about is what were the participants told going into the test.

[okiemax]

You have simply misconceived the whole matter. Some, notably Dr. Jeff, have tried to explain this to you but you are not biting.

The point is that it is up to those who claim audible differences between proper cables to prove they exist. In other words, can they establish that anyone can hear the claimed differences under controlled blind conditions? People often report differences between products under sighted conditions, but it often turns out they are not able to establish statistically that they hear such differences under blind conditions.

There, I stated the problem without using the term "placebo effect," or for that matter, "experience." If you don't like the term, don't use it. I seldom do in audio matters because it just tends to confuse matters.

So, in fact, we do not claim people are experiencing a placebo effect, though just what they experience and the processes involved may well be interesting topics. However, they are not part of a DBT.

If I believe I hear a difference in two cables, why is it up to me to prove it to you under a controlled test? Unless I say you are deaf or crazy if you can't hear the difference, why do I owe you a test? You are free to try these cables on your own ( sighted, blinded or however you like), and reach your own conclusions. Whatever you thought would be OK with me. However, if you nulled in a blinded test, I might be tempted to raise the possibility of negative expectations biasing the results.

[Chuck]

The brain is a decision maker...if presented two identical sections of music in a Double blind test from the SAME player and the SAME part of the music our brain will try and PICK one. It has nothing to do with the auditory system. The brain is unreliable. You say "Make a selection" our brain assumes a selection needs to be made even if the two are the same. And this is the system we choose to differentiate difference. An unreliable test and unreliable brains. Of course normal listening does not ask you to choose between two as a test. But then one is a test environment the other is not.

Certainly we do use our brains when we make decisions (in theory at least). It can certainly be seen as one of the primary function of all brains. Our brains also tend to find patterns, even when there is no real pattern. There are major disconnects between the way our brains and sensory systems work, and the way we experience reality. As a result (and for other reasons) every test is potentially "an unreliable test" due to the involvement of "unreliable brains." When tests produce conflicting results there are at least three possibilities. Either one of the tests is invalid, both tests are invalid, or neither test is invalid. There is ONLY one *rational* way to resolve test discrepancies, and the key to successful resolution is cooperation and further investigation. However, we often see people who would prefer to accept one set of test results over another without any rational justification. The tattle-tale sign of this is that those who do it will totally reject any suggestion that the conflicting data has any meaning at all. If we look at the transcripts and letters that were circulated when cold fusion was a hot topic this kind of thinking is all too obvious.

When two or more people get together to do listening tests (blind or otherwise) it is always a bit of a competitive event. Avoiding bias in the results is extremely difficult. A while back I was involved in some listening test run by Roger Sanders (http://hitechnetworks.net/bwaldron/rogersandersbio.htm). The products being evaluated included a Raven R-2 pure-ribbon driver, which of course uses a very thin aluminum ribbon to produce sound. It only took a few moments for me to detect a coloration in the R-2. There was a very subtle, almost metallic sound, as if the tweeter were ringing slightly. Before it even occurred ot me that the fact that I knew that the moving element was metal might be affecting my perceptions, I asked if I was the only one on the panel who was hearing the ringing. One of the other panelists also heard it, another was unsure but thought that they probably heard it, but Sanders was skeptical. The ringing was so obvious to me that when he didn't immediately hear it I had to consider other possibilities, and it was only then that I realized that it might be a subconscious effect of my knowing that the moving element was metal. Of course by saying something about it to the listening panel I'd biased the others to hear the same thing. Having seen this same thing so many times when working as an audio salesman I knew full well that the fact that others had agreed that they heard what I'd heard meant absolutely nothing. Interestingly, when we ran some measurements on the R-2 there was a very obvious problem due to a cavity resonance. The amplitude, center-frequency, and bandwidth, of the "problem" was not enough to think it might be "obvious" but it *might* be audible, so we all left the first test session scratching our heads. Within a day or two, Sanders was also reporting that he'd now also heard the ringing, and that it was indeed a very real problem. It took nearly a year to develop a pure-ribbon driver with easily adjustable cavity damping, and in the end all that we learned was that the cavity resonance we could measure wasn't actually audible at all. I'd been stupid, and biased the listening test. Then the measurements biased Sanders. Once we had the ability to build ribbons with varying degrees of cavity damping, we were able to test to determine the level the ringing had to reach to be audible, and it was WAY above the level of ringing found in the R-2. It still amazes me that I heard an "obvious metallic" coloration because I was not consciously aware of even considering the ribbon material. Aluminum isn't horribly resonant, and the mass of the ribbon is minimal and well damped by the air-load. I was totally unaware that I actually expected (at some level) to hear a coloration, but that is the only explanation that makes any sense. Everyone else also heard it, but only after they had some reason to expect to hear it.

No doubt that our senses and our brains are unreliable sources if we want objective data. This is true no matter how objective we try to be or think we are. In the final analysis it's clear that any search for truth has to assimilate, rather than reject or ignore, conflicting information and data.

[Beckman]

If I believe I hear a difference in two cables, why is it up to me to prove it to you under a controlled test? Unless I say you are deaf or crazy if you can't hear the difference, why do I owe you a test? You are free to try these cables on your own ( sighted, blinded or however you like), and reach your own conclusions. Whatever you thought would be OK with me. However, if you nulled in a blinded test, I might be tempted to raise the possibility of negative expectations biasing the results.

I believe you can here a difference. I just think there are a lot better ways of changing the sound quality. $10 - $15 worth of parts to produce cables with the exact same transfer function(charecteristics).

[Pat D]

If I believe I hear a difference in two cables, why is it up to me to prove it to you under a controlled test? Unless I say you are deaf or crazy if you can't hear the difference, why do I owe you a test? You are free to try these cables on your own ( sighted, blinded or however you like), and reach your own conclusions. Whatever you thought would be OK with me. However, if you nulled in a blinded test, I might be tempted to raise the possibility of negative expectations biasing the results.

I say one thing, you make it say something else. You can believe what you want. However, when you make a claim, it is not up to anyone else to disprove it, it is up to you to prove your claim.

You can raise all sorts of abstract difficulties. However, it still remains that you would not have established your claim to be able to hear the presumably tiny differences between proper cables. Whether I can hear them or not, or what biases I might have are irrelevant to your claim.

You certainly are trying to avoid the problem. I notice that you have managed to get along without talking about experiencing placebo effects, so I take it I have established my point there.

[Chuck]

In your other post you referred to the Dulavy's wire experiments demonstrating the power of suggestion on the participants. It may be more a demonstration of participants trying to please or gain acceptance, with peer pressure also a possible factor, but I'm not sure as I don't know exactly what was done in the experiments.

Agreed. Also true of drug testing, where the patient may worry about disappointing the enthusiastic health care professional that has devoted so much time. Might be a placebo effect, or just might be the patient trying to please the doctor.

Further, listening tests do tend to be competitive events. Likely this also applies on the sales-floor. Saying something like "notice how much tighter the bass in on this system" or "listen to how gritty those cymbals sound" gives the customer a problem. He wouldn't be in the high-end salon if he didn't have aspirations of being a golden-ear. I have NEVER seen anyone (in a high-end audio salon) tell the salesman, "Nope, I don't hear what you're claiming to hear." When unsure, the customer tends to listen "harder," actually putting effort into hearing what he now thinks he is supposed to hear. In every case I've ever seen this has but one effect. The customer hears what he wants to hear, and that is whatever the salesman is telling him to hear. In spite of these contributing factors, it is still true that the customer, or people on a listening panel, do hear what they hear. It is very real to them, even if it is only real because the salesman heard it and they force themselves to hear it too. It's still very real, once it is heard. That's the part of the situation that seems to be a type of placebo effect.

The more I read here on the topic the less I like the term "placebo" as it is being used here. It isn't an incorrect term, but since it generates so much resistance and confusion it's probably either too broad or too remote. In the context of cables (for example) if we test with a control group that doesn't get their cables swapped (as our control) then the claim of a swap is a placebo. Restricting the use of term to that particular type of (conventional) usage is probably advisable. When we bring home a new component and have our evaluations biased by expectations there really is no placebo involved. This is like the situation in the lab where we're looking for some expected results, and we see patterns in the measurements that make us think we've found the results we expected to find. Different labs and different fields tend to use different terms to describe this, but terms like "experimenter bias" or "expectation bias" seem far more appropriate than "placebo effect" (since there is no placebo involved, only the expectations of the experimenter).

[Pat D]

Perhaps you didn't experience the placebo effect with the Prizm 11 because this interconnect didn't cost you anything. This brings to mind the 1979 movie "Love at First Bite," a spoof on Dracula starring George Hamilton, Richard Benjamin, and Susan St. James. Susan is a patient of psychiatrist Richard, and she is behind on her bill, so he tells her the therapy only works if you pay your bill. .

My aren't you inventive. But, alas, while you may have eliminated one specific source of bias, you haven't eliminated all bias. All you need to introduce bias is to know which component is being auditioned. Nothing more.

Again, none of these explanations is needed to show two things are audibly different. We don't need to know the mechanisms to establish that, only that things reported under sighted auditioning often don't show up statistically during blind auditions.

What Dunlavy and others have noted is that people often report perceiving differences when there is no change. And, there is no need to suppose they do not. For example, the second time you hear some music you may notice something you did not notice before. You have given no reason to suppose this is not so during sighted auditioning. Your arguments from social pressure or the desire to please are all part of the mix, just another source of bias. As has been pointed out, we are built to perceive differences.

Since you like recommending searches, why don't you look up the story of Jean Buridan's donkey?

[Pat D]

Any such experiment is easy to conduct. One just switches the same component for the listener to listen for differences, Only A is listened to in all the trials without telling the listener, of course. 75% of participants will hear differences from the same component presented.
The link doesn't seem to work; it takes you to an ad?

Maybe this will work.

http://www.visi.com/~asm/Newsletters/asm_feb_97.PDF

[mtrycraft]

Maybe this will work.

http://www.visi.com/~asm/Newsletters/asm_feb_97.PDF

Great, thanks. It works

Here is an older one that still works too

http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html

[mtrycraft]

Yes, I think you are right about how such tests are conducted, but what I am curious about is what were the participants told going into the test.

They were certainly not told to not listen for differences

Of course they are told as in any such DBT, which one is different? Except the presentration in reality is the same. So, if th elistener doesn't hear differences, that is the answer to put. Why would anyone hear differences between the same component presented twice? Human nature looks for differences, even if there is none, many will still claim one. Human psychology.

[Pat D]

The more I read here on the topic the less I like the term "placebo" as it is being used here. It isn't an incorrect term, but since it generates so much resistance and confusion it's probably either too broad or too remote. In the context of cables (for example) if we test with a control group that doesn't get their cables swapped (as our control) then the claim of a swap is a placebo. Restricting the use of term to that particular type of (conventional) usage is probably advisable. When we bring home a new component and have our evaluations biased by expectations there really is no placebo involved. This is like the situation in the lab where we're looking for some expected results, and we see patterns in the measurements that make us think we've found the results we expected to find. Different labs and different fields tend to use different terms to describe this, but terms like "experimenter bias" or "expectation bias" seem far more appropriate than "placebo effect" (since there is no placebo involved, only the expectations of the experimenter).

Yes,I agree it tends to cause confusion. Some people get the idea that somehow we must prove there is a placebo effect in a given situation! In other words, they try to shift the burden of proof rather than getting the point that person making the claim is the one with the burden of proof.