Brand, cost, and prior exposure bias subjective audio judgments

Evidence

Who among us has the self-control to ignore all of that and to form a new opinion solely based on the sound being heard at that moment? Our opinions are influenced by a lot of subconscious “baggage”. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1044

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• XREF: Parallels the placebo-effect literature in wine tasting and the ‘expectation effects’ studied in sensory science

Related

• Sighted loudspeaker evaluations are contaminated by non-auditory visual and social cues (similarity 0.89)
• Subjective experience dictates which measurements matter in audio research (similarity 0.87)
• Human sound-quality judgments are skewed by expectation biases, not just the sound itself. (similarity 0.86)
• Non-auditory factors strongly bias loudspeaker purchase preferences in sighted listening (similarity 0.85)
• Visual and contextual cues bias human judgments of sound quality (similarity 0.85)
• Visual appearance of loudspeakers shifts listener preference ratings (similarity 0.84)
• Seeing the loudspeakers during evaluation actively stresses trained listeners (similarity 0.84)
• Knowing product identity biases listening judgments through the placebo effect (similarity 0.84)
• Subjective tests have no right answers because each listener’s perception is unique (similarity 0.83)
• Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived loudspeaker sound quality depends only on amplitude responses (similarity 0.83)
• Highly trained listeners can repeat subjective judgments with remarkable consistency (similarity 0.83)
• Louder playback can bias listeners into rating a device better (similarity 0.83)
• Randomizing identifiers, positions, and music prevents experimenter bias in listening tests (similarity 0.82)
• Musicians who are not audio enthusiasts judge loudspeakers on different rationales (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Visual and contextual cues bias human judgments of sound quality #expands (0.95) — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 39
• Sighted listening evaluations are distorted by non-auditory cues like brand and price #corroborates (0.95) — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 50
• Non-auditory factors strongly bias loudspeaker purchase preferences in sighted listening #corroborates (0.90) — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 77
• Microphone choice in recordings biases subjective loudspeaker ratings #expands (0.80) — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 269
• Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable #contradicts (0.80) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 87
• Consumer Reports loudspeaker ratings inversely predicted perceived sound quality. #exemplifies (0.75) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 583