I thought that I know the meaning of it but I'm not quite sure now..

When talking about audio, I always thought that it's mean..

"Something you believe / think you heard or perceived but you actually don't, the brain doesn't actually show you this information since there's no such thing, you just made it up."

But instead, it might be this?

"Something the listener actually perceived but not actually there, the listener's belief made the brain to "make up" something (which the brain is good at doing it) and so the listener did indeed perceived it"

So, what is the correct answer?

Thanks

I wouldn't put it that way, and I wouldn't say the first quote was wrong.

I'd go with the second take (though in many ways they are equivalent).

People use "placebo" as if it was a fault of the listener, or a sign of low intelligence. Instead it's part of being human.

Doesn't mean you should promote expensive cables anymore than expensive sugar pills, particularly without first assessing them for potential negative impacts.

I don’t have the reference but I read about some research within the last two years using technology that allowed measurement to the individual neurons in the brain’s hearing center. Using (presumedly) similar but distinguishable sounds, researchers found that each different sound produced unique and consistent neuron firings.

Then, when test subjects were led to believe they were hearing one sound, but were actually fed a different one, the neuron firings matched what they expected to hear. They also reported hearing what they expected to hear. Furthermore, when they were led to expect some particular sound, but were actually fed nothing, both their brain activity and their subjective experience matched what they had been led to expect.

If you think you perceived something, you perceived something. That's what perception is. Whether that perception has a direct basis in reality is another question, and that's where the whole placebo effect thing lies.

I would probably define it as a perception (or even a physiological response, in the case of the more common medical use of the term 'placebo') that has been influenced by a pre-existing belief we hold about something.

I don't see much difference between the two... Maybe the difference between a hallucination and an illusion?

The important thing for us to know (in the audio field) is that we can be fooled, and to know that we can remove this error/bias with proper blind testing.

Check Wikipedia:


When new drugs are tested, the FDA requires that the drug be compared to a placebo (in blind tests).

This is because the placebo will be truly effective in some patients, and the real drug has to be more effective than the placebo. In some cases, such as pain relief, it might just be perception and "the power of suggestion". In other cases, such as shrinking of a tumor, the result might be real (and more effective than doing nothing), and in this case it might be "mind over matter" or "the power of positive thinking".

As I understand it, in medicine the placebo effect is considered "real", even though the placebo itself is "fake".

Positive thinking may help to physically heal your body, but I don't believe it has any effect on audio signals!

Not sure what you're getting at. I don't think there is much practical difference between an actual improvement in sound and an imagined improvement in sound. As others are commenting - the important point here is to actually acknowledge and accept that your brain can (AND WILL) be fooled. Accepting this fact and taking it into consideration when evaluating your (potential) investments will save you a lot of money.

You're defining Placebo Effect as
:"Something the listener actually perceived but not actually there, the listener's belief made the brain to "make up" something (which the brain is good at doing it) and so the listener did indeed perceived it"

My almost two cents in reply: I believe it's best not to use the term "placebo effect" with audio since it insults some people. Also, there are so many possible explanations of why two components sound different that it's usually impossible to be sure only the placebo effect is the cause.

Here are many explanations of why so many components (other than speakers) "sound different", based on how I have observed audiophiles comparing components since the mid-1960's:
(1) Components were auditioned in different rooms at different times (different room acoustics)
(2) Auditioned in the same room, but both components are playing music at different volumes
(3) One component has intermittent clipping, but the other does not
(4) One component or wire has an audible "hum" or "hiss", but the other does not
(5) The listener prefers certain (visible) brand names, especially brands he already owns
(6) The listener favors the component with a "cooler" and/or more expensive appearance
(7) The listener believes that "real audiophiles" always hear A-B differences, so he "fits in" by reporting audible A-B differences when he was really not sure, or didn't hear any difference
(8) The listener doesn't listen to the same song exactly the same way every time he hears it ***
(9) The listener hears A-B sound quality (not just SPL) differences between two components that really exist

*** Let me explain (8): The first time I listen to a song, I might focus on the vocals because the human voice is my favorite instrument. If I listen to the same song again, I might focus on the bass guitar. Maybe I'd focus on the saxophone the third time I listened. The song sounds different each time because my listening focus changes. And I have to guard against doing this when comparing two components. ... In addition, it's possible my hearing ability would have changed over time: In the first ten minutes of listening ("fresh ears"?), I might hear differences between two components that would not be audible after comparing the two components for an hour ("tired ears"?). ... I base this speculation on reading about how exposing one's ears to various noises all day (electric razor in morning, traffic noise, listening to CD in the car, boss hollering at work, wife and kids hollering after you come home, drinking two beers or martinis after work, etc.) does reduce one's hearing ability by dinnertime, versus the same ears in the morning, before breakfast, and after eight hours of quiet sleep.

A lot of this 'placebo effect' in the audiophool, er... audiophile arena, can be measured to see if it is real or fake.

However, the most vocal proponents of things like burn-in, $250+ headphone recables, $200 replacement AC power cords (and AC outlet receptacles), and $300 'audiophile grade' speaker wire, seem to be the most against measurement of their claims.

The "placebo effect" is simply put as an affect from deception turned into a form of how you perceive it.
One could deceive another into thinking somethings better than another, until they truly believe they perceive it that way. So in essence you can trick your self into thinking of things that aren't even there in the first place. This only relates to things that have some form of a basis to start from. If an instrument sounds weird to you because you can't describe the sound as everyone else... is it you who are hearing it wrong or is it others who hear it inaccurately.
That is why i believe it is a personal matter... which shouldn't really be a problem all that much, unless testing for an encoder or finalizing a product. This would require a mass group of people (@ least trust worthy few) to conduct and to remove these splitting hairs, that come from this "placebo effect."

If you ask for a problem, you get every one problem you could ask for...
If you go about your business, only the obvious ones stick out...

It would be awesome if, during some audiophile test, they masqueraded an average audio equipment for some really expensive one and the other way around, then let the listeners pick the better.
I would bet that the average equipment masqueraded as a super expensive one would be perceived as way (perhaps even day-and-night) better than the super-expensive one "dressed up in beggar's rags".

So perhaps just the knowledge alone, that they spent a lot of money on the equipment, is enough to enrich their listening experience. I guess it's pretty similar to church believers (who have been around for centuries as opposed to audiophiles).

To me the "placebo effect" relates to a situation where the brain is given two sources of information: direct information (what I hear, how I feel, etc.); and indirect information (what hardware I am listening to, what drug I am taking, etc.) The indirect information is related but not necessarily relevent or accurate (we don't know if the drug works or if painting the edges of the CD affects the sound).

The "placebo" part is the removal of the indirect information, by double-blind testing, so that there is no indirect information to alter our perception of the direct information.

Neither.

A placebo is actually there (e.g. a sugar pill), and has some perceived effect (reduces pain), but that effect is irrelevant to its actual range of possible effects (all a sugar pill can do is temporarily and minutely raise your blood sugar).

An audio placebo is actually there (e.g. a new speaker cable), and has some perceived effect (pehaps strengthens the bass) but that effect is irrelevant to its actual range of possible effects (the cable is stout and short and has no audible effects).

If someone gets offended cause someone else suggests he might be under placebo effect, they just don't understand placebo. It's their own fault. Placebo is more powerful and subtle than what most people think, it's not just some dumb deception. For instance, the color of the pills matters. A colored placebo is found to be more effective than a white one. A capsule more than a pill, an injection more than a capsule. And it's not the object alone, the whole ritual also matters a lot. Acupuncturists benefit greatly from all this, for example.

I don't think any scientist familiar with clinical trials would say that they're immune to it. In fact, the more a person knows about placebo, the less likely he/she is to get offended, and the more likely they are to reconsider their position if pointed out that it might be placebo. If someone gets offended it's a good indication that they're acting solely on emotion and not on any knowledge of what's happening.

@ AndyH-ha

Interesting, I wish you could provide the source.

@ Richard Greene

I know there are many reasons why the listener heard the way they claimed. I just want to know the definition of Placebo Effect when talking about audio, that's all.

@ Arnold B. Krueger

The "Something" I said was meant to be the "Effect" of Placebo, not the Placebo itself.

@ DVDdoug



The first one basically means a fault on the listener...

Let's say you make 2 equaled piles of gold coin and have 2 guys pick one pile for himself. If for some reasons the first guy believed both piles are not equaled, he may think that he see one pile bigger than another, while the second guy who have neutral mindset may think he see both of them as it is (both pile are equaled).

What both guys "saw" are the same. The brain still show the same information, same picture, to both guys regardless of what they believed. Even though the first guy believed both are not equaled, his brain didn't "added" more coins in one pile to make it appear bigger for the first guy to see. In fact, he never saw the difference at all but for him, he "think/believe" he saw it.

He is lying. (but never know that he does)

The second one would be like... "Self-induced hallucination" , perhaps...

Take an above example... Although unlikely unless he's on drugs or something, but if the beliefs the first guy have actually make the brain to "added" more coin to the pile he think it's bigger (which is a "hallucination" at this point) and made it appeared bigger to him, then he did indeed "see" one of it to be bigger, even though in reality it's not like that and the second guy doesn't see it.

He is not lying. (but he's wrong)

My definition of a placebo effect in audio, probably not a standard definition, is a situation when an audiophile compares a component with itself (falsely believing he was compairing two different components) and claims he prefers one component more then "the other".

This would be the result of an 'audiophile psychology test' where "hearing differences" when none are possible will typically happen to 50% to 75% of audiophiles who participate. I've read a 1990's-era? Tom Nousaine AES paper on the subject, have been a "victim", and led a few "tests" myself. It's quite easy to get most audiophiles to "hear differences" when a component is compared with itself -- I call that an "audio placebo effect".

It's always possible an audiophile will lie and say he hears a difference, even though he doesn't hear any difference, or is not sure, just to "prove" his high level of listening skills to friends, salesmen, etc. Among audiophiles, saying "I can't hear a difference" is like telling the boss at work "I don't know" when he asks you a question. There is peer pressure to always 'hear differences' ... and have answers to question from Mr. Bossman.

I believe aural memory is so brief that by the time you switch from one component to another component, reset the volume control if necessary, and start the song again -- the memory of the sound quality from the first component has faded a lot ... and then it's easy to imagine the second component sounds different. That's why good listening tests allow fast switching from A to B, so just seconds after listening to a song with component A, you could start listening to the same song again from the beginning using component B, before your memory fades.

One of my favorite placebo-challenging articles, in case you haven't already read this a long time ago:

http://www.carveraudio.com/CarverChallenge.pdf