Well, that's nonsense for starters. The definition of a controlled double-blind test protocol is that it's blind, and its purpose is to discover if there is any difference or not, under the stated conditions. That's it. End of. Being controlled double blind, 'confirmation bias' doesn't (can't) exist in the participants, nor can any placebo effect since they do not know what, if anything, is being tested, changed or anything else. The entire point is that those potential biases and their effects (placebo or otherwise) are completely removed, so neither can be cited as reasons for results coming from one.
Last edited:
A freshly washed car also seems to drive better. 😉
Agreed so far. Edited to add - bias is removed from not only the participants, but the 'doctors' also, being "double" blind.
Agreed so far.
No, the placebo effect WAS DISCOVERED through (and continues to be seen in) double blind testing in medicine. That's how you know that there actually IS a placebo EFFECT.
The placebo effect IS NOT A BIAS. It is a very real, and very well documented effect. There are a number of medical journal articles, and the vast majority of internet searches provide an accurate summary.
This has been one of my points all along. It's fine with me if people use the phrase incorrectly... no big deal, but when you try to use it in a "sciency" sort of sentence, then it's best to get it correct.
Sorry for caps, I do not intend to "shout" or be rude. I could not think of a better way to add emphasis. Perhaps italics / bold?
Edited to add - I suppose I could stipulate that the placebo effect could actually be considered a bias since trial participants are told that they are receiving 'real medicine' instead of the placebo. Therefore their brain does all the healing (or other effects) due to a 'bias'.
Last edited:
Separately but related - For those that are actually interested, I can point people toward resources showing how to properly conduct a study for various reasons / outcomes / discoveries.
A few things.
One of the goals of a trial typically is and should be something akin to "Does our thing outperform the placebo". A proper trial acknowledges the placebo effect. You don't remove the placebo effect from a trial, you acknowledge that it exists, and ensure whatever you're doing actually has a placebo in the study to take it into account. THAT's WHY there are placebos in medical trials.
You may be shocked how low an efficacy something needs to have to be sold and marketed even under strict medical guidelines. If something has a high likelihood of helping a percentage (you'd be surprised how low that threshold can be) of people and side effects are known, and it's been "proven" to help some people, it can be used / marketed / sold. This is not a situation where something has to "work" 99.9999% of the time on 99.9999% of people.
As a thought exercise - instead of thinking that things have to pass muster using "engineering protocols" where we love that alpha error to be below 0.05, consider that audio could be evaluated more like medicine...
Again, that would be vastly more expensive. Would I do it, no. I still am a huge skeptic when it comes to most of the claims re: cables etc... but... hey... I'm a skeptic until PROVEN otherwise. I can still acknowledge that there could be very good, very scientific reasons that someone could perceive a very real (to them) difference in the sonics of cables; one of those IS the placebo effect. I don't think that's a terrible thing.
A few things.
One of the goals of a trial typically is and should be something akin to "Does our thing outperform the placebo". A proper trial acknowledges the placebo effect. You don't remove the placebo effect from a trial, you acknowledge that it exists, and ensure whatever you're doing actually has a placebo in the study to take it into account. THAT's WHY there are placebos in medical trials.
You may be shocked how low an efficacy something needs to have to be sold and marketed even under strict medical guidelines. If something has a high likelihood of helping a percentage (you'd be surprised how low that threshold can be) of people and side effects are known, and it's been "proven" to help some people, it can be used / marketed / sold. This is not a situation where something has to "work" 99.9999% of the time on 99.9999% of people.
As a thought exercise - instead of thinking that things have to pass muster using "engineering protocols" where we love that alpha error to be below 0.05, consider that audio could be evaluated more like medicine...
Again, that would be vastly more expensive. Would I do it, no. I still am a huge skeptic when it comes to most of the claims re: cables etc... but... hey... I'm a skeptic until PROVEN otherwise. I can still acknowledge that there could be very good, very scientific reasons that someone could perceive a very real (to them) difference in the sonics of cables; one of those IS the placebo effect. I don't think that's a terrible thing.
The placebo effect is often misunderstood as a flaw in human reasoning, but it actually highlights a fundamental aspect of rationality. Our beliefs, expectations, and perceptions shape countless choices—like the color of my car, the suit I wear to the office, the carpets I pick for my home, even my haircut. These choices aren’t arbitrary; they’re guided by associations and subtle cues that make us feel confident, comfortable, or pleased. So rather than seeing the placebo effect as an illusion or irrational quirk, we might recognize it as a testament to how deeply our mind shapes our reality.
This influence extends beyond personal choices. If someone you trust or someone in authority tells you that something makes a difference, you’re likely to believe it—and conversely, if they say it doesn’t matter, that belief also tends to stick.
In the physical world, a change in the relationship between two components, such as a cable connecting parts of a sound system, inevitably alters the electrical relationship. But whether that change is perceptible is another question. Using simple scientific measurements to judge whether the brain—the most complex system we know—can detect these differences is a bit like asking a two-dimensional being to measure a four-dimensional space. Our perception is nuanced, and sometimes, scientific tools may not capture the full scope of what we can sense."
This influence extends beyond personal choices. If someone you trust or someone in authority tells you that something makes a difference, you’re likely to believe it—and conversely, if they say it doesn’t matter, that belief also tends to stick.
In the physical world, a change in the relationship between two components, such as a cable connecting parts of a sound system, inevitably alters the electrical relationship. But whether that change is perceptible is another question. Using simple scientific measurements to judge whether the brain—the most complex system we know—can detect these differences is a bit like asking a two-dimensional being to measure a four-dimensional space. Our perception is nuanced, and sometimes, scientific tools may not capture the full scope of what we can sense."
I was referring to audio engineering, not medical trials, which necessarily have rather different circumstances & conditions.
You seem to be rather fixated on a specific linguistic definition that you want to use rather than what was actually meant by an individual using it. There are forums dedicated to discussing points of grammar &c., but this is DIYaudio. We all know what Gene meant in that popular youtube video -it's a fairly common usage, like or or no, and that's all that matters for the purpose intended of it. If it were an academic research paper, then that may be a different set of circumstances (depending on the field in question), but it isn't.
No, it isn't, and I didn't say it was, if you read my post again. I said it's the result of a bias.
^ If you're going to try and use "science terms" try to use them correctly. Otherwise, it may be best to use other words to avoid confusion.
I thought that you actually understood what bias and placebo effect were and could use them properly. That's not a dig, it was just an incorrect assumption on my part.
It's the "mix" of using science-like things in a discussion that causes (IMO) some of the mis-conceptions on this forum (again, IMO).
I clearly had no idea what "you" meant when you used the words "placebo effect" in the post above. I assumed you understood what it was and applied it incorrectly. My fault. Either way, it's good for others that may read behind us to actually understand what it really is vs. continue to misuse the term based on tossing it about, wouldn't you agree?
If we're talking about perception of whether something sounds (to a human with a very complex brain) "different / better"... then?
Again...thought exercise. Would I personally spend the cash on a medical trial to try and test any of these hypotheses, no. Would I even advocate that someone else do it, no. Would I be fascinated with the outcome, YES!
Edited (again) to add - I still acknowledge from a previous post that there may be relevant studies (medical or otherwise) out there. I am simply unaware.
I thought that you actually understood what bias and placebo effect were and could use them properly. That's not a dig, it was just an incorrect assumption on my part.
It's the "mix" of using science-like things in a discussion that causes (IMO) some of the mis-conceptions on this forum (again, IMO).
I clearly had no idea what "you" meant when you used the words "placebo effect" in the post above. I assumed you understood what it was and applied it incorrectly. My fault. Either way, it's good for others that may read behind us to actually understand what it really is vs. continue to misuse the term based on tossing it about, wouldn't you agree?
Absolutely fair, and I acknowledged that in my edited post. You are correct.
But do they?
If we're talking about perception of whether something sounds (to a human with a very complex brain) "different / better"... then?
Again...thought exercise. Would I personally spend the cash on a medical trial to try and test any of these hypotheses, no. Would I even advocate that someone else do it, no. Would I be fascinated with the outcome, YES!
Edited (again) to add - I still acknowledge from a previous post that there may be relevant studies (medical or otherwise) out there. I am simply unaware.
Last edited:
@Scottmoose -
I'm truly enjoying the conversation, and I appreciate the discussion. My 'style' may seem argumentative (in a bad way), but I can assure you that's as far from the truth as possible. I just have a tough time not being direct.
To add some levity... I thought about tossing this in yesterday... b/c it's one of my favorite movies, and I think it works here...
Inconceivable!
I'm truly enjoying the conversation, and I appreciate the discussion. My 'style' may seem argumentative (in a bad way), but I can assure you that's as far from the truth as possible. I just have a tough time not being direct.
To add some levity... I thought about tossing this in yesterday... b/c it's one of my favorite movies, and I think it works here...
Inconceivable!
Oh yes, music is a medicine! Audio can be a pain! Not that the two are strictly related...when we talk about the sound and all the rapid correlation of various things(beat, genre, melody, or just a note with a certain timbre- a sound) that the brain does ..
So the Placebo Effect can happen whenever a replying system Is sub-optimal...
The guy in the video didn't seem to consider other possible effects of bi-wiring. What about "common impedance coupling/distortion" at frequencies where both drivers are drawing current at the same time, around crossover?
To think about is some more, here are some more or less bi-wired +/- rail power supplies:
Why not just connect the grounds together at the power supplies, then use a shared ground wire to the load with maybe half the resistance instead? No difference?
To think about is some more, here are some more or less bi-wired +/- rail power supplies:
Why not just connect the grounds together at the power supplies, then use a shared ground wire to the load with maybe half the resistance instead? No difference?
Last edited:
If the placebo effect is audible maybe some enterprising person should start selling placebos immediately. Saying something has been proven numerous times in tests is a logical fallacy. Unless you have proof of these “tests” handy. Even then, that would be evidence perhaps but not proof. This isn’t the Judge Judy Show.
The placebo effect is known in medicine. But audio systems are complex and many things can and do go wrong with audio tests. As I oft comment, all the super skeptics complain and rant about double blind tests, saying it’s the audio gold standard, it’s proven and it’s scientific and other such hand-waving. But do they actually ever do any DBTs? If anyone wants to know what I mean by things can and do go wrong just ask. There is also the issue of the evaluator’s hearing skill and physical ability. Even sometimes the motivation of the tester might be called into question.
Improper grounding leads to non-zero impedances and non-zero voltage drops. Which effects can not be neglected if said voltage drops are amplified say 60 dB.
After the output of an amplifier no amplification of any voltage drops occur anymore. Voltage drops caused by current through one driver are totally masked by the sound produced by that driver. So you would not hear it in the sound produced by the other driver. If there were any audible effect anyway. And if there was, you would be able to measure it. It is simply Ohm's law.
Strangely enough the effects of non-zero output impedance of the cabling are considered important. While the non-zero output impedance of the amplifier is neglected. Especially for exotic amplifiers like class-A triode tube output stages covering the complete audio spectrum.
If you seriously care about distortion caused by currents through one driver then you should consider multi-amping and active filtering. And use proper grounding scheme's in the amplifier chassis of course.
I have Benchmark AHB2. Is that good enough? Also have Sound Lab large panel electrostatic speakers. No distortion compared to box speakers.
Other than that, I would need to you provide proof of your claims about 60dB, total masking, etc. Please provide links to peer-reviewed published research from a reputable scientific journal in support your claims.
Other than that, I would need to you provide proof of your claims about 60dB, total masking, etc. Please provide links to peer-reviewed published research from a reputable scientific journal in support your claims.
Last edited:
I have always been convinced that the eye also listens...
😵
Just like with food, the eye eats too!
🤓
Joking aside - there are numerous tests on this topic with test subjects in blind tests and openly with supposedly different cables on speakers, cheap and very expensive, but which were actually identical in construction. The expensive cables consistently performed better...
It's probably exactly the same with bi-wiring. As long as the cables are thick enough, bi-wiring will not bring any advantages.
Did you check to see if it changed the room acoustics at all? Shelves filled with objects of different sizes can act as pretty good diffusers. Also, did you use different cables or anything else electrically different from what you had before? Just wondering if you were fooling yourself then or not, and or maybe fooling yourself now or not in retrospect?
Yes, that's what I'd said:
In the case of doubling cables using the standard bi-wiring arrangement which increases damping factor in the crossover region, or doubling cables, or using thicker gauge wire to increase damping factor full range, the effect is measurable, not a placebo effect.
I have conducted and been part of double blind listening tests where an increase in damping factor (shorter vs longer speaker cable of the same gauge) was recognized by all the professional sound engineers involved as producing a "sound that is better".
Yes, if the cables are thick enough, and all connections result in a damping factor of 50 or more, little advantage would be heard by most.
That said, there are plenty of people using thin wire, low impedance speakers and long speaker runs resulting in DF under 10, doubling wire would approximately double the damping factor, an advantage that could be heard by many.
Art
Directional in an AC system?
I remember a salesman telling me all about how sound goes through the Gee Wizz Wonder Cable at different speeds, the high frequencies traveled along the outer strands faster and the bass traveled along the center strands slower and the design compensated for the different speeds of the different types of wires used in the layers of cable so that it would all come out of the end coherent. All in a 3' RCA cable! I asked him if Maxwell knew about this scientific breakthrough. He asked who was Maxwell?
I found your post should enlighten a lot of members on a lot more than just a discussion on bi-wiring. It expands hugely on posts by IAIMH. A UKer by birth, I've lived in the Netherlands, Spain and now France. In both Spain and France, people will with pride show you a large drawer loaded up with prescription meds. If people from these countries leave a doctor's surgery without a prescription they feel 'cheated' especially in France where nearly everyone pays for 'top-up insurance'. The fact that 35% of all premature deaths are the result of prescribed meds is not well known. Very few people evaluate and question a doctor's advice and prescription - doctor must know best.
Your first paragraph is spot on. I know that politics is a no-no on this site and that is a good thing but your next single sentence paragraph graphically illustrates the 'Trump effect' superbly. From the time of our living in the trees in the Rif valley 'group thinking' exerted a powerful effect on the majority of the apes, any single ape that exhibited a 'difference' was attacked and most often killed.
At the end of the 80s' and into the 90s' I went to a few audio shows and so often attending a particular show room it was palpable the 'influence of the group on individuals'. The presenters/salesmen (it was virtually always men) would steer the 'thinking' in the direction they wanted.
As a side issue but very important, virtually all homes are built using - in audio terms, crap materials. Indeed commercial presentations are often held in really crappy hotel rooms I think that all DBT tests should be conducted using known neutral h/phones and eye blindfolds, this will truly isolate each person and stop all kinds of inter- reaction. It would be very easy to build multiple h/phone outlet boards to enable this. Any DBT test not taking account of group inter-reaction, not isolating each person taking part cannot be said to be a real DBT test.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.