Proof of placebo effect ?

[DMK]

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.
.

In the scientific community, perhaps, but I don't agree that anyone making a claim of cable differences is thereby compelled to prove it to anyone. Why does anyone need to convince you? You're free to believe what you want. the fact that I personally do not believe these claims has no bearing on the claimant. Why should he care what I think?

OTOH, I would think that someone who makes such a claim in light of the evidence would want to at least prove it to themselves by way of some bias controlled testing. You know... prove to themselves that it isn't just their imagination at work. I can tell you this much: doing such a test would cut down on these claims by an awful lot!

[Pat D]

In the scientific community, perhaps, but I don't agree that anyone making a claim of cable differences is thereby compelled to prove it to anyone. Why does anyone need to convince you? You're free to believe what you want. the fact that I personally do not believe these claims has no bearing on the claimant. Why should he care what I think?

OTOH, I would think that someone who makes such a claim in light of the evidence would want to at least prove it to themselves by way of some bias controlled testing. You know... prove to themselves that it isn't just their imagination at work. I can tell you this much: doing such a test would cut down on these claims by an awful lot!

Making a claim goes beyond private belief. No one is compelled to prove much of anything, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We simply point out that such claims are doubtful. Now, if they do not care whether others are convinced or not, why do so many object? Clearly, some expect their claims to be accepted as a universal truth.

[DMK]

Making a claim goes beyond private belief. No one is compelled to prove much of anything, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We simply point out that such claims are doubtful. Now, if they do not care whether others are convinced or not, why do so many object? Clearly, some expect their claims to be accepted as a universal truth.

They object because you're in effect telling them that they didn't hear what they "know" they heard. Most of the objections made by naysayers that I read on this board have been accepted as a universal truth and it flies in the face of what cable believers "hear". Consequently, they challenge back and say "if you want proof, prove I didn't hear it. I have no need to prove it to anyone".

I find some validity in that, at least conceptually. I think the reason is that I don't view audio reproduction scientifically as those who are qualified to do so view it. I view it as a hobby, a subjective experience. But even so, if I've proven something to myself in a scientific manner, I do not feel the need to do it again in front of an audience but instead, I'm comfortable with my knowledge as well as the protocol, since the latter IS accepted by the scientific community.

Universal truth in cables? Man, if you read some of the reviews, no two people seem to hear the same things in these cables. The same dang one is bright, mellow, rolled off, extended, veiled, clear, etc, etc etc. So they use the term "system dependent" to explain those inconsistencies.

I wonder if many of these cables are simply engineered to sound different and the manufacturers don't worry so much about passing a pure signal. As a result, they WOULD be system dependent. But how do you add capacitance to a wire? Does it come in a little jar and you just spoon in two teaspoons instead of one?

I'd prefer to give a tone control a slight wrist flick - it'd be one hell of a lot more predictable!

[Woochifer]

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 typically don't chime in on these threads because they always revert back to the alien abduction and Loch Ness Monster analogies (been there, done that). But, this comment about John Dunlavy is so incredibly ignorant, I had to chime in. If you think Dunlavy wasn't a good engineer, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Dunlavy is a widely respected speaker designer (aside from the now defunct DAL, he also founded two other audio companies, one of which still operates as Duntech) whose speakers are still frequently used in professional settings and as reference systems, and holds several patents for time-aligned speaker baffles and various antenna designs.

Where he fell short was with his marketing chutzpah and ability to run a profitable business. Plenty of examples out there of competent engineers who were incompetent at marketing and running a business. And he's one of the few players in the audio business who had the guts to speak the truth about the cable industry, even if it meant alienating himself from everybody who practically printed money by peddling overpriced cables. You're welcome to disparage his business acumen all you want since DAL did go bust, but to attack his credentials as an engineer and speaker designer is pure ignorance since I can tell that you've never listened to one of his speakers.

Crappy speakers means that your business goes under and you suck as an engineer, and great speakers means that your business is profitable and you're an engineering deity, right? If you use business and marketing success as a gauge for whom you trust as an engineering expert, then I guess that Dr. Bose is the utmost authority on all audio topics, and I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that.

[mtrycraft]

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.

Tell you what you hear? Hardly. I question what you claim to hear. After all, humans are great at imagining things with their senses and at times conflicting.

[mtrycraft]

I typically don't chime in on these threads because they always revert back to the alien abduction and Loch Ness Monster analogies (been there, done that). But, this comment about John Dunlavy is so incredibly ignorant, I had to chime in. If you think Dunlavy wasn't a good engineer, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Dunlavy is a widely respected speaker designer (aside from the now defunct DAL, he also founded two other audio companies, one of which still operates as Duntech) whose speakers are still frequently used in professional settings and as reference systems, and holds several patents for time-aligned speaker baffles and various antenna designs.

Where he fell short was with his marketing chutzpah and ability to run a profitable business. Plenty of examples out there of competent engineers who were incompetent at marketing and running a business. And he's one of the few players in the audio business who had the guts to speak the truth about the cable industry, even if it meant alienating himself from everybody who practically printed money by peddling overpriced cables. You're welcome to disparage his business acumen all you want since DAL did go bust, but to attack his credentials as an engineer and speaker designer is pure ignorance since I can tell that you've never listened to one of his speakers.

Crappy speakers means that your business goes under and you suck as an engineer, and great speakers means that your business is profitable and you're an engineering deity, right? If you use business and marketing success as a gauge for whom you trust as an engineering expert, then I guess that Dr. Bose is the utmost authority on all audio topics, and I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that.

Thanks, woochifer. Incredible how low some stoop to denigrade someone they have zero clue about.

[Chuck]

Crappy speakers means that your business goes under and you suck as an engineer, and great speakers means that your business is profitable and you're an engineering deity, right? If you use business and marketing success as a gauge for whom you trust as an engineering expert, then I guess that Dr. Bose is the utmost authority on all audio topics, and I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that.

Logic dictates that anyone who disagrees with a golden-ear is incompetent. Try disagreeing with one and you'll see for yourself. Obviously some of the really dumb ears put Bose and Dunlavy in the same class for this very reason. Ignorance knows no bounds.

[Chuck]

Thanks, woochifer. Incredible how low some stoop to denigrade someone they have zero clue about.

Odd that a thread discussing the truth about AA and JR gets shut down here, but one slamming a dedicated audio engineer like Dunlavy is perfectly acceptable. Our moderator is apparently also very biased against anyone who disagrees with the golden-ears. Ignorance knows no bounds.
(Mine included.)

[jneutron]

Odd that a thread discussing the truth about AA and JR gets shut down here, but one slamming a dedicated audio engineer like Dunlavy is perfectly acceptable. Our moderator is apparently also very biased against anyone who disagrees with the golden-ears. Ignorance knows no bounds.
(Mine included.)

Hi Chuck..
I also live in a no bounds world...

Your observation of the moderator's application of the rules is certainly consistent with mine. I hope the earlier shutdown of a thread was just a hiccup in a learning curve..but fear you are correct..

John

[markw]

while I see your point, I'd give it a little time to see how it shakes out. I don't really thinh Mr. Dunleavy really concerns himself with the workings of us paeons. He's on a different level and cares less if one or two people disagree with him. Also, he's got enough basis in sound, scientific facts that most arguments against him will probably collapse of their own (septic) waste.

To put it more simply, he's earned enough respect from his peers and those "in the know" that he doesn't need to stump the chat room circuit to drum up name recognition.

Now, that other guy...

[Chuck]

Hi Chuck..
I also live in a no bounds world...

Your observation of the moderator's application of the rules is certainly consistent with mine. I hope the earlier shutdown of a thread was just a hiccup in a learning curve..but fear you are correct..

John

Hi John,

I'm sure you noticed my use of the word "apparently." I intended for my comments to apply ONLY to the two threads I was discussing. Personally, I think the forum needs (or needed) a little more control, and saw the shut-down of the earlier thread as a plus. There is a fine line between what constitutes a personal attack, and simple criticism, but the only reason I registered here is because I though the new moderation rules might make this a decent place to post. I'm disappointed to see a post slamming Dr. Dunlavy remain unchallenged.

It is not enough to convince me that we have biased moderation, but I was hoping that Chris would comment.

[Bill L]

Ho hum. neener neener yourself.

[Chuck]

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.

It isn't unreasonable for a layperson to ask for "proof" of something like the placebo effect. It is in our nature to trust our perceptions. Since our perceptions are effective functionally, it flies in the face of experience to assert that they are actually disconnected from reality in any way. We're all prone to saying or thinking things like, "I saw it with my own eyes, so I know it's true." Anything that brings our perceptions into question tends to be rejected, so asking for "proof" is a natural response.

Think about it in a more general context. If we've had first-hand experience with something, repeatedly, over a period of years, and someone suggests that our experiences are totally disconnected from reality, how will we react? It is likely that we will first react badly, but if we're on our best behavior we'll be polite and simply ask them to prove their claim(s). Isn't that what you'd do?

Anyone who has studied psychology has learned about placebo, experimenter bias, self-fulfilling prophesy, and so on. Anyone who has studied neuropsychology has learned of the disconnects between the senses and the sensing. Even so, it all tends to be seen as theory until one is bitten a few times. After a few decades in research environments I'm convinced that nobody every fully internalizes the full extent of the disconnects. If we did, I'm not sure we could function.

Pat, I've seen scattered comments involving "the burden of proof," and they leave me scratching my head. This thread started with a request for proof of the placebo effect. That certainly isn't an unreasonable question considering how few people are familiar with such things. There is no "burden" unless one decides to respond to a question that asks for proof. By responding to the post I took on the burden, of my own free will, and I believe that the links I posted were sufficient to fully answer the original question. Asking the question certainly didn't impose any burden on the person doing the asking.

The other context where some seem to want to assign a burden to others is that in which someone reports having heard differences when changing cables (or other components). Such claims are often greeted by demands for proof and assignment of burden. All such claims stand or fall entirely on the credibility of the claimant. Unless the claimant is lying then it is a given that they did indeed hear what they claim to have heard. If they are not lying then they are simply stating a fact. Certainly the act of recounting a personal experience does NOT incur any burden (yet that is the claim some seem to be making). The proper way to address such claims is to investigate the cause of the differences, but the person recounting a factual account of personal experience should not be expected to have an interest in such an investigation. He has real-world experience and feels no need for further investigation. Those who want to question his experience have many valid questions to raise, but by raising them they themselves open an investigation. In so doing, THEY assume a role that includes burdens and proofs. That some who do this will then turn around and try to dump the burden of proof of their claims onto someone who has only recounted an experience is, at the very least, non-productive. It also irritates those who have done nothing more than shared a very real personal experience.

There also seems to be a tendency (at least at the extremes) to jump to invalid conclusions based on little or no information. If anyone says that they've used a speaker wire that made an audible difference there are a few here who will insist that it is purely a function of their imagination. This assumption is made without bothering to find out any of the details needed to draw such a conclusion. Several years ago I played around with a loudspeaker wire construction that made obvious differences in the "sound quality." Subjectively, the sound was "less harsh" at all times, and one might say that at times "it lacked air" or "sparkle." Most consumer-audiophiles experiencing the same thing will think that the guys here who say that all wire sounds the same are dead wrong, and they would in fact be correct. At this point many of the regulars here are probably ready to tell me that what I heard was a the result of a "placebo effect." (However, Mtrycrafts and a few others know better, because they've heard this story before. )

What surprised me about the wire was that the difference was NOT subtle. It was slap-in-the-face obvious. How many times have you heard golden-ears make that same claim? How many times have you seen others tell them that they were imagining things? How many of the people reading this are certain that I too was imagining things? In point of fact, I haven't provided enough information for anyone to have a clue what might have been going on, and anyone who has already reached some conclusion, given only the information provided, is guilty of jumping to premature conclusions based on FAR too little information.

The difference the wire made was so obvious that it shocked me. I contacted the guy who designed my loudspeakers (and the wire formulation I was playing around with), to get his take on what I was hearing. If I'd done the same thing here there would have been demands for a DBT, and I'd have had to respond that if you could hear the magnitude of the difference you would realize that there is no need for a DBT. Fortunately, I wasn't dealing with an extremist, and I wasn't treated like a fool. Instead, I was asked if I'd measured the frequency response of the speakers using the wire. I actually responded that I hadn't bothered, because the high-frequency response was obviously rolled off, to the point that I didn't need measurements to confirm. When it was suggested that the loudspeaker output was probably down at least 3dB by 14kHz. with the wire configuration I was using, I was extremely skeptical, so ultimately I did measure the system response using the wire. Sure enough, the response was down almost exactly 3dB at 14k. That is enough for almost anyone to hea, and I don't think we need a DBT to prove it. Anyone who does think we need a DBT to prove that -3dB at 14k is audible can assume the burden of proof, if they are so inclined, but I am content to take it as a given.

For those who are (rightly) skeptical of any and all audio claims I'll provide a brief discussion of why the wire made such a huge difference in the loudspeakers response. This is typical of the kind of information that was missing earlier when some were ready to say this was another "placebo effect." The loudspeakers were electrostatic, driven directly by the amplifier (no passive crossover), and the wire had a resistance of 1/2 ohm. Since the guys who jump to conclusions so quickly seem to think they know it all I'll leave it to them to explore the mechanisms further. Just take a look at the way serial resistance affects the transformer/panel Q.

Don't know whether or not I've made the point I was trying to make here. To summarize, the burden of proof is something someone accepts, not something that is assigned or that one takes on by asking a question or citing some personal experience. I really don't understand the way some here try to assign this burden to others. There is a big difference between asking for confirmation and demanding proof, and some here don't seem to understand that difference.

"Placebo" is an unfortunate term, at least in this context. At this point it seems that a better term would be "bias." Someone reports a personal experience, that of hearing a difference after changing speaker wire. The difference WAS heard, and the only valid question involves the cause of the difference. It may have been the result of biased perception, but that is not a given. To assume so exposes an opposite (but equal) bias. We are all biased, this way and that, and it's not the kind of thing that is easy (or natural) to control.

Subjective reports aren't really any more suspect than the subjective analysis of objective measurements. "Proof," in the context of science, involves formalization, and verification of the formalization through experimentation. Before it can be taken seriously, such work requires independent validation and verification (IV&V). Our biases affect the way we read our instruments with our eyes just as surely as they affect everything else. Seems to me that this means that the burden of proof can NEVER reside with an individual. How would that work? Such demands seem senseless to me. More like a pissing-contest than a search for truth. The proper question seems to be "Where's the IV&V?"

Without IV&V we're talking cold fusion, but where is the logic in demanding "proof" from some audiophile-consumer who has no interest in proving anything, other than his honesty (and the truth of his claims, which are in fact true). Here people seem to prefer to argue, but results can only come from cooperation.

[DMK]

Excellent post, Chuck! I'm in complete agreement, at least as it pertains to audio since I'm not holding any secrets that might save the world! Yours is a refreshing POV on this board. Well done!

On the other hand, if I were to make a statement that cable A sounded different than cable B and all measurable properties were the same, I might feel compelled to put myself under close scrutiny. I cannot detect even the mildest and most subtle difference in any cables I've tried. But the audio components that I can and do hear differences between, even those with like measurements, are diffs that I believe could be heard by most anyone with decent hearing, good listening skills and a good attention span. As a result, when I am challenged to prove I hear these diffs, I only ask that the challenger try the test for themselves first as I believe they could also hear the diffs. If they refuse, they are not seeking the truth, IMHO - they are merely challenging a perceived violation to their belief system. If I'm willing to prove something to myself and in fact DO prove it to myself, I do not feel compelled to prove it to someone who won't do so for themselves.

[mtrycraft]

Excellent post, Chuck! I'm in complete agreement, at least as it pertains to audio since I'm not holding any secrets that might save the world! Yours is a refreshing POV on this board. Well done!

He has that effct on people

But the audio components that I can and do hear differences between, even those with like measurements, are diffs that I believe could be heard by most anyone with decent hearing, good listening skills and a good attention span. As a result, when I am challenged to prove I hear these diffs, I only ask that the challenger try the test for themselves first as I believe they could also hear the diffs. If they refuse, they are not seeking the truth, IMHO - they are merely challenging a perceived violation to their belief system. If I'm willing to prove something to myself and in fact DO prove it to myself, I do not feel compelled to prove it to someone who won't do so for themselves.[/QUOTE]

I wonder what you would say about the late Steve Zipser +2 amp challenge, an old $300 Yam integrated and a $12K Pass Aphen.
They are probably not even close but I have not measured eithe rone
This happened a few years ago in Miami Beach. Steve was an audio dealer for many years. 3 people, 3 null outcome.

[Pat D]

It isn't unreasonable for a layperson to ask for "proof" of something like the placebo effect. It is in our nature to trust our perceptions. Since our perceptions are effective functionally, it flies in the face of experience to assert that they are actually disconnected from reality in any way. We're all prone to saying or thinking things like, "I saw it with my own eyes, so I know it's true." Anything that brings our perceptions into question tends to be rejected, so asking for "proof" is a natural response.

That's a lot of verbiage to miss a very simple point. One of my points in this thread is that I don't much talk about placebo effect in audio because it itends to be misleading. It tends to be thought of as some sort of obstacle, whereas it is simply a result of the variability of perception.

Now, if the measured results of two pieces of equipment are greater than the Just Noticeable Differences, then we may reasonably suppose that the diffrences will be audible, at least under some circumstances. If they are below them, the JNDs, then a request for proof is reasonable. Here is a level matching table from the old ABX site:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_crit.htm

Anyway, if a person makes a claim, then if there is any proof to be done, the burden of proof is on that person. No one says they have to prove something if they do not wish to, but it is reasonable to point it out where their claim is doubtful. It is too bad that many people regard this as calling their integrity into question. But in fact, we are subject to the same sorts of biases as anyone else, and our own perception is unreliable for small differences.

What the demand for proof of a placebo effect amounts to here is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In other words, it is a demand that someone else prove the claimant wrong, whereas the burden of proof is on the person claiming a difference. It is as simple as that.

[okiemax]

If cable forum members are ever asked to vote for "best post of 2004," yours will get my consideration. Thank you for the contribution.

[okiemax]

As Lewis Carrol's Tweedledum might say, I know what you think I'm thinking, but it isn't so, nohow. My asking for proof of the placebo effect was not, as you claim, an attempt to shift the burden of proof from listeners who report hearing differences in cables to those who question these claims. Nor was my request meant to be an indirect attack on that sacred cow called "double-blind testing," although it seemed to be interpreted that way by some Forum members. I never claimed that the validity of controlled experiments depends on proof of the placebo effect. Blinded-testing of cables, as it has been practiced, can be questioned, but that is another subject.

[rb122]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft
I wonder what you would say about the late Steve Zipser +2 amp challenge, an old $300 Yam integrated and a $12K Pass Aphen.
They are probably not even close but I have not measured eithe rone
This happened a few years ago in Miami Beach. Steve was an audio dealer for many years. 3 people, 3 null outcome.[/QUOTE]

I know what I'd say. Buy the $300 and save $11,700!

Did Steve cease to be an audio dealer after this?

[Swerd]

Great post Chuck. You said what I had been thinking (and wished I had said) before I lost patience with this lengthy thread. Your patience, clearheaded point of view, and skill with writing are admirable.

I sometimes give up trying to make a point because it seems that too large a gap exists in the education or background among posters. Some here have been educated or exposed to the formal thinking on what constitutes good scientific evidence and what conclusions can be fairly made from that evidence. Most people who work in scientific or engineering fields have had their knuckles rapped at some point in their career for violating those rules. Others clearly have never wrestled with that. And then there are the lawyers, who have a completely different set of rules about what kind of evidence is valid for the court room!

[E-Stat]

The loudspeakers were electrostatic, driven directly by the amplifier (no passive crossover), and the wire had a resistance of 1/2 ohm... Just take a look at the way serial resistance affects the transformer/panel Q.

Great post Chuck. I also believe that providing such level of detail as to componentry used, along with program material is essential to providing any kind of useful information. There is a dearth of such information provided with almost every DBT test that has been touted here (I know of ONE exception). As you might guess from my moniker, I use ES speakers and have also found improved sound quality with cables other than generic zip.

rw

[DMK]

[
I wonder what you would say about the late Steve Zipser +2 amp challenge, an old $300 Yam integrated and a $12K Pass Aphen.
They are probably not even close but I have not measured eithe rone
This happened a few years ago in Miami Beach. Steve was an audio dealer for many years. 3 people, 3 null outcome.

Wonder no more! I'd say ol' Steve and his two cohorts are happy campers! Sell that Pass amp and buy some new music (along with an old Yamaha integrated!).

I'm not familiar with the test and really all I can say is that the three of them heard no differences during those trials. Not much else can be inferred from one set of tests, at least by me. OTOH, Steve should probably reconsider his allegiance to his amp! He can always use it as a space heater!

[DMK]

Where you been hiding? I thought you gave all this gloriousness up or something!

Good to see you back!

[Pat D]

As Lewis Carrol's Tweedledum might say, I know what you think I'm thinking, but it isn't so, nohow. My asking for proof of the placebo effect was not, as you claim, an attempt to shift the burden of proof from listeners who report hearing differences in cables to those who question these claims. Nor was my request meant to be an indirect attack on that sacred cow called "double-blind testing," although it seemed to be interpreted that way by some Forum members. I never claimed that the validity of controlled experiments depends on proof of the placebo effect. Blinded-testing of cables, as it has been practiced, can be questioned, but that is another subject.

Well, here's you're original post. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it but I still don't see how I did so. Nor, in light of the quote above, do I understand the point of your post.

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?

[okiemax]

Well, here's you're original post. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it but I still don't see how I did so. Nor, in light of the quote above, do I understand the point of your post.

I read my base post again, and I still think you have tried to read between the lines, and speculate on my motives rather than just going by the content of the post. I will try to clarify my position.

Suppose the difference in two cables heard by a listener can't be verified objectively through measurements or blinded testing. The placebo effect may or may not play a part in this discrepancy. Accepting the discrepancy does not necessarily mean accepting the placebo effect as an explanation.

What I have just tried to explain has been my position all along. You may have overlooked my 12-17-03 reply to Dr. Jeff's 12-16-03 post. Here is what I said: "I agree you can question any claim I make about hearing differences in cables without mentioning even the possibility of the placebo effect."