Proof of placebo effect ?

[okiemax]

I see similarities in placebo theory whether we are discussing it in audio or in medicine, but agree there are differences. But the term is convenient to use and there seems to be general agreement on what it means, so we probably are stuck with it.

I guess I'm just tired of hearing "placebo effect" every time I claim to hear a difference in two cables, two amps, or two of anything else. If I question this knee-jerk explanation, naysayers counter with the medical science card. So it was refreshing for me to see that some researchers have found the placebo effect may have no scientific basis (see "Is the Placebo Powerless? -- An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo With No Treatment," New England Journal of Medicine, May 24, 2001). The study found that subjects receiving placebo treatment fared about the same as subjects receiving no treatment. Apparently, a proportion of ill people will just get better on their own, sugar pill or not.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/344/21/1594

I agree you can question any claim I make about hearing differences in cables without mentioning even the possibility of the placebo effect. But naysayers on this forum frequently do talk about as if it were fact. When I have asked for details on the placebo effect, I have been told it can be short-term or long-term, and maybe intermittent. But the effect can't be cummulative(additional pleasure with each new cable). Why? Because this would make the whole idea seem absurd.

In your comments on burden of proof, you seem to be implying that a claim of detecting a difference with the senses incurrs an obligation to prove the difference. If you prefer Coke to Pepsi, should I ask you to prove you can tell the drinks apart in a blinded test? Well, regardless of your answer, I can claim to hear differences in cables without feeling obligated to offer proof with blinded testing. You can believe the differences are real or imaginary. If you tell another person that what I claim is imaginary, however, you are going beyond what you know. And that frequently is what I witness naysayers doing in this forum.

[DrJeff]

....If you prefer Coke to Pepsi, should I ask you to prove you can tell the drinks apart in a blinded test? Well, regardless of your answer, I can claim to hear differences in cables without feeling obligated to offer proof with blinded testing. You can believe the differences are real or imaginary. If you tell another person that what I claim is imaginary, however, you are going beyond what you know. And that frequently is what I witness naysayers doing in this forum.

If you say you prefer Coke to Pepsi, then absolutely you should be able to identify them in a DBT, IF you prefer it because of the taste. Since Coke is one of my clients, I ALWAYS prefer Coke, even if it's because they pay part of my salary. In that case, it may not be the taste of the product, but a larger issue that steers me toward Coke (loyalty to my client).

The Coke analogy is actually very applicable to the cable issue. If you claim to be able to taste a difference in Coke vs. Pepsi, but cannot identify a difference in a DBT (i.e. you don't have to say "this is Coke" or "this is Pepsi" but you do have to say if both cups contain Coke, or if they are different) then I say you can not taste a difference, and your percieved ability to tell a difference is based on more than just taste.

So if you say you can hear a difference in cables, but cannot prove by listening alone in a DBT that you hear a difference, then your claim is based on things other than the audio signal, just as in the Coke analogy.

[skeptic]

The Coke analogy is actually very applicable to the cable issue.

I can't agree.

The purpose of Coke and Pepsi is almost purely for sensory stimulation in preference to far more effective thirst quenchers such as water.

Cables perform a physical function which is entirely objective and can be precisely measured if anyone cared to. That is the transmission of an electrical signal from one point to another in an electrical system or network with the least distortion. Whether the results of one individual's ability to distinguish the effectiveness of one cable versus another in performing this function unless he can identify which is the less distorted and if he prefers one over another because of subjective reaction is not relevant. Unless you can argue that the shortcomings of one element in the network will predictably offset or negate the shortcomings of another such as frequency response distortion where a cable of high shunt capacitance for example would offset the high frequency peak of an overly bright loudspeaker or a phonograph cartridge with a resonant peak. But how could this be predicted by anyone but the most extraordinarily trained and informed user and what other remedies are there that would be far more effective, predictable in their actions and cost effective? Reducing the arguement over cables to a matter of personal preference disregarding all measurements and objective tests is to turn your back on all of the science that has been used to advance audio technology in the first place.

[DrJeff]

I can't agree.

The purpose of Coke and Pepsi is almost purely for sensory stimulation in preference to far more effective thirst quenchers such as water.

Cables perform a physical function which is entirely objective and can be precisely measured if anyone cared to. That is the transmission of an electrical signal from one point to another in an electrical system or network with the least distortion. Whether the results of one individual's ability to distinguish the effectiveness of one cable versus another in performing this function unless he can identify which is the less distorted and if he prefers one over another because of subjective reaction is not relevant. Unless you can argue that the shortcomings of one element in the network will predictably offset or negate the shortcomings of another such as frequency response distortion where a cable of high shunt capacitance for example would offset the high frequency peak of an overly bright loudspeaker or a phonograph cartridge with a resonant peak. But how could this be predicted by anyone but the most extraordinarily trained and informed user and what other remedies are there that would be far more effective, predictable in their actions and cost effective? Reducing the arguement over cables to a matter of personal preference disregarding all measurements and objective tests is to turn your back on all of the science that has been used to advance audio technology in the first place.

See, now you're opening a can of worms, I had purposely avoided discussing the physical and electrical properties of the cables as they relate to the sound quality.

I agree that you should be able to look at inductance, capacitance, run square and sine waves through the cable and look at them when they come out the other side, and evaluate cables on the basis of their ability to transfer a signal without changing its nature.

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, and that scopes and multimeters won't see the whole picture. For example, I have ohms, ACV, DCV, current, etc. settings on my scope, but there's no "open soundstage" scale, so I can't measure that.

So if I avoid the technical side, and just ask someone to prove (using their ears) in a DBT that they can distinguish between cables, components, etc., there's no need to have the argument of science vs. humanity in the cable debate. Had I talked about that side, someone would have said, "But your scope doesn't feel the music" or something like that.

Personally, I look for an IC with a nice big plug that will stay put, good insulation, and a jacket that will resist chafing. I think I spent about $15 a pair at most on my IC's, and they've worked for years with no complaints.

[skeptic]

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, and that scopes and multimeters won't see the whole picture.

there's no need to have the argument of science vs. humanity in the cable debate.

Not measurable? They are wrong. Of all electrical components in a sound system, cables are the one element most easily, precisely, and thoroughly measurable and describable. Only people with something to hide will tell you there is magical mystery to it. What you call imaging or spaciousness is a consequence of the electrical properties of the wire, the recording, and the rest of the equipment.

If someone were to evaluate which photographic film rendered the color red most accurately, the fact that you liked the photos one film took as opposed to another would not be relevant if the purpose of your photography was the most accurate rendering of what you saw. There would be no doubt after testing which one is most accurate in those respects for which they are tested. Cables are no different.

On the other hand, if you liked the distortion one film created because it shifted colors, changed contrast, added graininess, there there is no objective way to say anything because my preferences might be different.

[Monstrous Mike]

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, .....

Science gets in the way of marketing and profits just like any other snake oil product. I think there are plenty of examples of products that sell big but have no merit or value whatsoever.

[Monstrous Mike]

I am trying to remember a famous experiment involving an art cynic (notice I didn't say critic). If anybody can find this I would be most apprecative.

Anyways, this guy got hold of some art by school kids or housewives or otherwise fairly amateur artists and gathered them in a gallery. He then attibuted several of them to well known artists and others to anonymous or unknown names. He asked people to rate some of the works and the results turned out that the "art" supposed done by well known artists was rated higher than the other pieces. He even switched the names around when using different testers and results invariably came back that if you slap a well known name on a peice of art, it has a higher chance of being well received and therefore higher priced.

If this has anything to do with this thread, please let me know.

[mtrycraft]

Why would there be differences between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place? a placebo pill has nothing in it to start with. In essence it is also a no treatment pill?

I am not sure what you are asserting here?

Perhaps you didn't read the research right or misunderstanding it and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

A placebo has no real value other than a control in a DBT.
After all, these protocols are only valid for DBt protocol to account for bias, a placebo in effect.
That is what is the case in audio, the need for DBT to account for bias.

Perhaps you need to read some of these:

"Listening Tests, Turning Opinions Into Facts", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.

"Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences", Toole, F. E., Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.

"Listening Tests-Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Toole, F. E., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, AES, May 1990.

"Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.

[okiemax]

Why would there be differences between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place? a placebo pill has nothing in it to start with. In essence it is also a no treatment pill?

I am not sure what you are asserting here?

Perhaps you didn't read the research right or misunderstanding it and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

A placebo has no real value other than a control in a DBT.
After all, these protocols are only valid for DBt protocol to account for bias, a placebo in effect.
That is what is the case in audio, the need for DBT to account for bias.

Perhaps you need to read some of these:

"Listening Tests, Turning Opinions Into Facts", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.

"Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences", Toole, F. E., Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.

"Listening Tests-Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Toole, F. E., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, AES, May 1990.

"Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.

Mtycraft, you seem to be arguing against the placebo theory instead of for it. Referring to the NEJM study, you said," Why would there be a difference between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place?" I thought you believed a placebo could be a powerful influence on the mind, so powerful as to make an ill person feel healed or a listener hear things that aren't real.

In the study, if the placebo had power, improvement would have been greater in subjects who received the placebo than in those who recieved no treatment. But the study showed improvement was about the same for the two groups. So if the placebo (or power of suggestion) in a medical setting really isn't so powerful, why not question theories about it in other settings?

I don't have any of the referenced papers by Dr. Floyd Toole so I can't comment on them. My guess is they say something to support your believe that audiophile cables are no better than lamp cord and that people can't trust their ears. If that is the case, I wonder why Dr. Toole's employer (assuming he is still with Harman International) has this to say in the owner's manual for their JBL Tik Series speakers:

"Careful selection of of cables and interconnects can have quite a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."

If you are interested in the manual, do a Google search on the following term: jbl home support. Then choose the Ti10K from the product list -- it's almost at the bottom.

There also is an interesting interview of Dr. Floyd Toole by Melanie Garrett of of HOME CINEMA online. The following quote is from it: "Floyd is of the opinion that technical measurements are not much use unless they can reliably predict what we as listeners will subjectively experience as good or bad sound quality. In a nutshell, he not only has faith in his own ears, but he is also interested in yours and mine as well ..."

You can get to the interview through Google by entering the following term: home cinema online garrett toole.