I’m intrigued by Canadian surrealist porn! Any Canadians here to explain.
I was too, but I did luckily stop myself from diving into this particular rabbit hole
I got it.
For instance, if someone likes red colour but hates green, the red speakers will sound better to him vs the green. It’s the organoleptic effect.
And there is the perceived expense effect. An engineer at Harmon Kardon (Floyd something or other) demonstrated that if people cannot see which speaker is being played, they will rank speakers differently from when they can see them, with the more-expensively finished ones beating less-nicely finished ones that they previously thought were better. Obviously, this is because the better finish took longer to burn in…
Err, no, that wouldn’t be a valid organoleptic assessment… unless there there is a consistent difference in the sound produced, and the person concerned had been trained in assessing that difference; then the colours were swapped and the same test person then identified the other coloured speaker as sounding better for the same reason.
I think both you and @frenchrooster are correct, he is referring to the organoleptic effect in general and you to the assessment of the effect in particular.
For the record, I just wanna say that I have no issue with people spending their money on things they like. I have Transparent Audio cables fyi. They look cool. What they do not do is somehow magically add anything to the sound. They simply cannot. They can take away, but they cannot add. And they are made of copper. They’re terminated nicely. They don’t feel like they’ll come apart any time soon. And that is enough.
Hmm, I think the colour effect because of colour preference is a purely psychological effect, as opposed to sensory, albeit that the colour is detected by the visual sense.
I guess there may be a physiological effect as well? Red feels warm and blue feels cold for instance? It’s somewhat of a grey area perhaps, which is neither warm or cold!
Or perhaps if someone tells you it’s sugar but it’s salt and you have the impression it’s sugar, it’s another organoleptic effect ? Not ?
I studied psychology but don’t remember the term organoleptic. My studies were 30 years ago…
That’s right, organoleptic assessment is not to do with psychology. Indeed, the experimental protocols are designed to remove as much of the psychological influence as it is possible to remove, to ensure a result that is (hopefully) dominated by sensory experience and unaffected (as far as possible) by psychological factors.
So, for instance If I were designing something to test for a teste property of tomato puree, I would ensure that all samples are presented in identical clear glass pots and that the area was illuminated by red light of narrow bandwidth to minimise the perception of colour differences.
Apologies where due, i do tend to scan things.
I am some what amazed after the deluge of input NO ONE has brought up the simple thing
that a signal needs to follow the path of least resistance.
Current does not flow evenly through a wire it is transported by the vibration of a molecule
passing that vibration to the next molecule and so on. This requires it to go through or around
Crystal boundaries. It is conceivable that at first switch on this has not yet been worked out.
Eventually the current works out its path of Molecules and Crystal boundaries to give it the least resistance.
If this takes time you now have Burn in!
A couple of years back i was growing tired of Technical people telling other people what they
could or could not hear, no it is your imagination etc. etc. and consequently being silenced.
They then go into a long scientific argument (which of course you dont understand) to explain
to you why you must be mistaken and then they demand a scientific argument from you!
to prove it all to them! This outlook on things simply shows a fixed ignorance, authorcratic
behaviour a resistance to change or thinking out side the box.
I assure you there are Technical people who dont think like that or Science would be going nowhere. Off the top of my head i composed the following without any form of construction. QUOTE
A Technical argument can be used to support a Subjective one because the Keys and Locks
of one fit the other ( think how viruses attach to cells here )
But a Technical argument can never over rule a Subjective one, this is because Subjectivness
is fluid like a ever changing virus and the fixed Keys and Locks of Technical now no longer fit
Like trying to use a spanner to turn water. This is because Subjectivness is not a formal branch of science so can not be governed by its Keys and Locks.
It is if anything a state of mental perception.
PS. Dont expect any body to reply to the quote, they can only cope with the Foreword.
The open-minded and scientific approach with any claimed observation is first to do is confirm and verify the observation. That means repeating and seeing if it happens again, and consistent with the original observation. Where other influences conceivably could influence observation, further repeats would be conducted under controlled conditions aimed at eliminating such influences. After that comes measurement (and hypothesis as to cause and testing of each hypothesis where there is desire to understand the cause).
Confirmation of observation eliminating possible or likely influences of observation appears to be lacking in relation to cable burn-in.
That’s a very polite way of putting it.
Fun fun fun…
The thread has entered a phase of meta-rationalisation! (…and meta-pseudorationalisation).
Soon, we will be, very justifiably in terms of epistemology, questioning the axioms upon which ‘knowledge’ (theory, in reality) is constructed!
Meanwhile…back to the music!