Phil, you're exactly supporting my point. > ..and ones where people "heard" changes when nothing was changed. That's precisely what the psychological evidence shows - a lot of the time (how often depends entirely on the context) people perceive differences when none are there. In the context of audio I recently saw a study where 37% heard differences in the same amplifier, but there are cases where it's higher and lower (I can give an example where it was 100%). Would you trust a result with a 37% chance of being incorrect? Especially when positive results are much more likely to be reported? About your wife, again, we don't know the cause of these things. Maybe she cleaned her ears that morning, or ate something good for breakfast. Furthermore there's confirmation bias - you remember the times when that happened and not all the times it didn't.
As for vibration etc., I'd rather not get into the specifics of this one. Let me just say I'm rather knowledgeable on the subject and I don't find that at all likely. PFloding, I think we disagree on what's plausible. And I disagree with your criticism of my analogy - there *is* an effect here: he heard a differnece. That's the only piece of evidence and the only thing that requires an explanation. But the point here is that the psychological explanation must be eliminated first, as it is by far the simplest and most plausible explanation. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32301 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
