Originally Posted by terry j
I am super curious about this whole area. He hears these differences and they are so 'real' to him that he can go to great lengths with flowery descriptors. You then show him incontrovertible proof that nothing had changed, the 'new' sound is exactly the same as the 'old' sound. Which path do the individuals take in dealing with this set of factors?
The majority of people (depending on the crowd you are dealing with but IME even when the crowd is audiophiles) adapt rationally. A small minority stay in denial.
'You tricked me' might be one response...possibly that might be so. Or was it his own brain? Could he acknowledge that?
I would say that one response we have seen is that people say: 'There is a trick" which is really something different. We then let them lift all the covers and look for hidden wizards. We operate the test while they are investigating, not listening. They see others obtaining the same results. Most people end up taking the evidence at face value.
Much of this now readily-available evidence about things like McGurk effect did not exist in 1977 when we started, so it was harder to make the case in those days.
Or would it be such an eye opener that he could change his mind and now see the need for controlling this aspect of audition by means such as blind testing?
That has always been the most common outcome.
Because the one thing a procedure like this has NOT proven is that there are no differences between dacs (say). It is a prior step to that, demonstrating the need to control these mental gymnastics.
I don't know what you mean by that. When very many people have applied level-matched, time-synched, DBT listening to DACs, the results are even stronger than they are for power amplifiers. DACs are generally more perfected than power amps and really good DACs are far less expensive than power amps with comparable performance.
The thing is, we are ALL subject to this phenomenon, it is not just the realm of the subjectivists.
The first big Audiophile myth is that there are objectivists and subjectivists and that they are very different from each other. In reality the audiophile magazine definition of objectivist and subjectivist are themselves vastly different from the common meanings of those words. This is a myth that appears to have been created to serve a commercial purpose-sell more overpriced gear.
it is a human trait. Which is what prompted me to wonder how the objectivist might exhibit the trait, with the example of 'not hearing an obvious difference'. Does it work that way?
What I've seen is people who think it is all too silly or unimportant to waste the time and won't even take the time to sit through a test, or will sit through a test but not really participate. JJ has encountered the same thing. One solution is just let these people be. Another is to put them through some listener training, and if they can't hear manufactured differences which any resonable listener would find easy to ace, then you just drop them out of the test. They are generally happy to be released.
BTW I did order one of the 8 channel USB relay boxes and I hope to interface it with an existing software ABX program, either the one I wrote in VB in Y2K or one that I can get source code for that is written in Java. I'm also going to test the relay box to see it the relays are audio grade.