I’ve a rare bit of free time and felt this deserved a proper response.
For the sake of our discussion, I'm willing to say your definition of "expectation bias" is 100% correct. That being said, I'm very curious as to why when a Subjectivist hears differences in wires, amps, preamps, or whatever it is the Subjectivist is comparing, almost immediately the Objectivist will claim it's a result of the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" contaminating the results of their tests. After all, the Objectivist wasn't present during the testing so how could they possibly know if the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" contaminated the results of their tests? But again, let's give you and your fellow Objectivists the benefit of the doubt and say the Subjectivist's "expectation bias" did play some part in the results of their tests. So I question why don't Objectivists then admit that their "expectation bias" also is playing an equal part and also admit it's equally possible when comparing wires, amps, preamps, or whatever it is the Objectivist is comparing it's the great majority of their combined unconscious "expectation bias" and other biases and perceptual filters that are preventing them from hearing the differences Subjectivists hear? Or do you really believe Objectivists are immune to this terrible "expectation bias" disease Objectivists are always accusing Subjectivists of having?
“For the sake of our discussion, I'm willing to say your definition of "
expectation bias" is 100% correct.” This usually means one doesn’t agree with a definition, though will accept it to move a discussion along. Do you feel the definition is incorrect?
If you’re human, you have biases, and you can’t control them. I’ve never seen any ears-only people argue otherwise.
Generally speaking a negative claim cannot be directly proven, so proof of impossibility or evidence of absence are typical to fulfil the burden of proof. In this context proof of impossibility would be applying physics and known thresholds of audibility to the equation. Evidence of absence cannot be used in the case you cited above, however there are other test formats where it can, such as a test where the participants have no prior knowledge of what’s being tested. We also have absence of evidence, but that is insufficient as proof of a negative claim.
This all boils down to the simple fact that the vast majority of the time it’s the affirmative claimant that has to provide the evidence, as the person who cannot hear the difference will not be able to design and execute an appropriate test that fulfills the burden of proof.
(PART II) My friend this is where you couldn't be more incorrect! Since an Objectivist is a person who believes in and follows the principles of Objectivism we need to go to Merriam-Webster and see how they define "Objectivism" and according to Merriam-Webster: any of various theories asserting the validity of "objective phenomena" over "subjective experience!" There doesn't seem like there's a lot of room for Subjectivists in the Objectivists group at all! Now if we return to Merriam-Webster we'll see how they define "Subjectivism" and we find that Merriam-Webster states: a: a theory that limits knowledge to "subjective experience"
b: a theory that stresses the "subjective elements" in an experience. Thus no matter how you feel or believe a "True Subjectivist" is one who limits their knowledge to a "subjective experience!" That area of Subjectivism is a bit too strict for me. I don't and I won't limit my knowledge to a "subjective experience!" However, as a "Subjectivists with Standards", which is where I place myself, while I do stress the "subjective elements" in an experience as having the primary importance, I won't limit myself as I'm always open to hearing the Objectivist, or anyone else's different POV! Why you might ask? Well, I learned a long time ago that every subject we look at is like looking at it through a diamond's many facets.
Both
@TN Args and myself have explained that objectivist vs. subjectivist is a false dichotomy, and that the labels don’t fit. Then going to dictionary definitions of terms that were already said to not fit seems argumentative for argument’s sake.
In an attempt to clarify in a concise manner, any listening test, regardless of controls, is subjective. We do listen.
For example: I believe wires from my power cords to my ICs, my digital wire, and speaker wires all make a difference sonically. Yet I didn't always believe it and was at one time in steadfast opposition to that belief. But I only knew what I knew about wires from the two or three facets of wire diamond I looked through. As I spoke with others I was exposed to ideas they developed from looking through facets of wire diamond I had not yet examined. Until one day I finally acquiesced and allowed another audiophile/music lover to bring Audioquest wires over my home! This was back around 1985 when I lived in Connecticut and I was finally going to "look" through the listening facet of the wire diamond. I have no idea what part my "expectation bias" and other biases played, but one a time starting first with my ICs, we replaced my ICs with the Audioquest ICs and I listened to see if I heard a difference (I played the same song at the same volume --measured with a Radio Shack SPL Meter-- every time) then we put my ICs back in and we replaced my speaker wires with Audioquest speaker wires and finally we put my speaker wires back in and replaced the power cords. I don't remember exactly but IIRC yes the Audioquest ICs sounded a bit better than my Kimber PBJ ICs did. The Audioquest speaker wires blew away my multiple strands of lamp cord that were braided together and then wrapped in a left-twist spiral. Finally, I don't believe the power cord was Audioquest, but I did hear an improvement over the stock computer-type power cord I was using. Back then my system was a David Belles OCM 88 preamp, OCM 200 power amp, Nakamichi CD player (I forget the model #), and a pair of Carver Amazing (Platinum Edition) speakers!
Let's start moving up through the years from 1985 to 1999 when I moved to Florida. Because I hurt my back at UPS in 1985 on the job and finally was labeled "permanently disabled" in the year 1995. The injury to my spine was so traumatic that I developed degenerative disc disease (amongst others) and a couple of others such as spinal stenosis and spinal spondylosis! But I digress, so I've moved to Florida to get away from the Connecticut winters in 1999. Then after living here in Florida for a while I heard there would be a Central Florida Audio Society get-together at our local public tv station in the year 2000. That's where I heard my first SET amp ever. It was a nice-looking 2A3-based SET amp developed by a CFAS member, who was a professor at the University of Central Florida. When it was his turn to play his amp what I heard was literally mind-blowing for me! I just couldn't believe how realistic that little amp sounded. Based on what I heard at that public CFAS meeting I was very impressed, with SET amps. Still, as great as that little 3-watt SET amp sounded I couldn't and wouldn't base my opinion on what one SET amp sounded like. Later when I received a phone call I was invited to go over and hear Mike R.'s 2A3 SET amp! Heck yeah, I said, now I'm invited to go hear a different SET amp in a CFAS member's home, and once again I was gobsmacked at how realistic saxophones, guitars, pianos and singers, etc. sounded. This is what I've been searching for in my system's audio reproduction!!! But I just couldn't live with a 3 watt 2A3 or 5-8 watt 300B SET amp. So a few months later I purchased a $14.5K, 135 lbs, Italian, Mastersound Reference 845, SET, 40W/ch, amp/integrated amp (depending on a flick of a switch). I've had this piece for 21 years now and I've yet to find an amp I'd replace it with. Granted it doesn't measure as well as a solid-state amp does, but except for the bass (which is a place I've yet to hear a tube amp keep up with a solid-state amp) my SET amp as well as almost all SET amps I've heard blows away or beats, solid-state amps in the areas of timbre, tone, harmonics, and the ability to convey the emotional content of the music, sound staging, inner detail, note decay, etc. Basically, it just sounds more like the real thing!
This doesn’t appear to be at all unusual. You did a listening test without any* controls and walked away with preferences. We all do.
*As mentioned in a previous post, level matching has to be 0.1dB or better and that level of accuracy is not possible by measuring sound waves in a room.
As I said up above I cannot be a "True Subjectivist" who limits their knowledge to a "subjective experience!" That area of Subjectivism is a bit too strict for me. I don't and I won't limit my knowledge to a "subjective experience" because I believe measurements do matter, but just as Albert Einstein the ultimate Objectivist once said, i.e. “Not everything we count (or measure) counts (or matters). Not everything that counts (matters) can be counted, (measured)” This is why I believe although my Mastersound SET amp doesn't measure as well as most solid-state amps do, it sounds much more realistic when compared to something like a live, unamplified, acoustic instrument --(amplified instruments as well but acoustic instruments are a better standard to test against)-- and/or singer does! You see what I believe we need to learn is what and how to measure --(see TN Args I'm a Subjectivist with Standards)-- the interaction of sound and how our ears, inner ears, and brains interpret and react to the sound they hear. For example: Why would a solid-state amp measure better and yet the SET amp produces a more realistic, reproduction of instruments and singers? It would seem Albert Einstein is 100% correct and there's something we are not measuring, --(either because we don't yet know what to measure or we don't know how to measure it)-- that once discovered will reveal why an SET can measure worse and yet sound better! I believe in time these things will be discovered and we will learn how to measure them. Who knows maybe once we realize why SET amps don't measure as well as solid-state amps and yet sound better, they will be able to voice their solid-state amps to sound like an SET amp with real bass. That actually kind of excites me.
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts”.
That quote probably comes from a paper published in 1963 by William Bruce Cameron, a sociologist:
“It would be nice if all of the data which sociologists require could be enumerated because then we could run them through IBM machines and draw charts as the economists do. However, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”
The linkage to Einstein is tenuous at best, but a lot sexier, especially for how it’s typically misused. The aphorism simply means that not everything you can measure has value, and not everything valuable can be measured.
Still apropos as you’re suggesting that because a worse measuring component better aligns with your preferences that we don’t have the technology to accurately measure the component. This ‘missing measurement’ is you.
Your having a preference does not mean that preference equates to anything other than what it is – a personal preference. There’s no accounting for taste.