Audio Memory

[Mr Peabody]

I see people posted on forums that "audio memory" is short, only seconds and not reliable, etc. Most of this is from "all things sound the same" people or those selling DBT. But! let's not go there.

I would like to know what you think of your "audio memory". I have the impression mine is unusually good but I want more input from others into audio and used to comparing gear. To see how we might compare. Not as a contast, just to provide a base line if you will.. Some comments on another thread prompted me to ask.

I cannot remember every single audition at a show or even the gear I heard, however, I can remember what certain systems sounded like that left an impression on me for better or worse. I remember systems that impressed me as I started out in high end and what impressed me. I remember gear that I like and dislike and what about them gave me the impression.

I don't remember every concert I've been too but I do remember some and the sound. Back in the 90's I was at a Blues Fest, I remember Dr. John coming on and his sound being one of the best I've heard at a concert, the congos were clear, piano, vocals, everything was nicely balanced and unusually clear for live music. I remember Rush, the volume was loud but not so I needed ear plugs and the sound was good.

Not long ago I was at a friend's house listening to music, I noted his sound stage was more open than mine, he did have a larger room, however, I came home and played with my speaker placement to come closer to what I liked about his. My memory of the event was good enough I know what I was trying to achieve.

So the types of things I mentioned pretty much normal for you as well? I admit I haven't done research on audio memory or if any exists on the subject at all.

 

[Jim Smith]

My audio memory is focused on repeating or bettering what has been the best reproduction from my playlist as I visit clients for RoomPlay sessions, and/or set-up for RoomPlay Reference sessions.

My memory of concerts is on a different basis, and wouldn't meet my standards for memory with RP & RPR sessions, although memory of concerts is way more fun...

 

[Calvin]

Mr Peabody,

Thanks for expressing this in better terms than I’ve been able to on the other thread.

When you get the image ingrained a certain way, that’s what you want - at least I do. While our audio memory of a single event might fade fairly quickly, I don’t believe when you listen to the same record or CD multiple times it fades.

It’s like riding a bike. If you’ve heard the same song 1000 times on the same system, then you have heard it a particular way all those times. You’ll know when you hear it that way again - or if it has changed.

 

[TheOctopus]

Once one becomes aware that memory is nothing like a bit for bit perfect digital copy stored on a hard drive or a book in some library, one realizes that memories are a very abstract concept and are less than reliable.

There are tons of articles on the concept of "false memories". "In psychology, a false memory is a phenomenon where a person recalls something that did not happen or recalls it differently from the way it actually happened. Suggestibility, activation of associated information, the incorporation of misinformation and source misattribution have been suggested to be several mechanisms underlying a variety of types of false memory phenomena."

When it comes to sound, I believe the memories should have a stronger and more reliable neural network as an instinct of survival. One would not want to confuse the roar of a tiger from behind the brush with anything else that would suggest it is safe to be there... But I am not a scientist so my knowledge on the subject is very limited.

Here is a good video on the concept of memory. Robert Bilder - How Does Memory Work? - YouTube

 

[Mr Peabody]

I know what you mean. I remember when Ifirst heard one of the local radio stations who began playing mp3, the familiar songs just didn't sound right, almost like some type of remix. I remember a friend brought over a recorded CD of Pink Floyd DSOTM, I played it for him but had to mention something sounded off, or not the way I was used to hearing it, he admitted his friend who made the CD did some EQ'ing on it.

To be honest, when I listen to ripped or streaming Tidal the difference isn't that big for me. But my LP playing has gone way down, part to my vision and part not wanting to take the time to clean and such anymore. I think the difference would be more heard between digital and LP, no matter how good the digital is, it's just two different mediums and too many variables for there not to be a detectable difference.

Mr Peabody,

Thanks for expressing this in better terms than I’ve been able to on the other thread.

When you get the image ingrained a certain way, that’s what you want - at least I do. While our audio memory of a single event might fade fairly quickly, I don’t believe when you listen to the same record or CD multiple times it fades.

It’s like riding a bike. If you’ve heard the same song 1000 times on the same system, then you have heard it a particular way all those times. You’ll know when you hear it that way again - or if it has changed.

 

[Calvin]

That none of us remember a bit for bit “perfect” digital copy of anything is a given, but we do recall what a song meant to us at a certain moment, the details that made an impression upon us, the emotions it captured, and when it is reproduced today and it brings all this and much more back, that is part and parcel of our audio memory at work.

Music isn’t just about an audio signal, it affects the entire individual, our entire being.

As far as psycho measurements - “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." – William Bruce Cameron.

Once one becomes aware that memory is nothing like a bit for bit perfect digital copy stored on a hard drive or a book in some library, one realizes that memories are a very abstract concept and are less than reliable.

There are tons of articles on the concept of "false memories". "In psychology, a false memory is a phenomenon where a person recalls something that did not happen or recalls it differently from the way it actually happened. Suggestibility, activation of associated information, the incorporation of misinformation and source misattribution have been suggested to be several mechanisms underlying a variety of types of false memory phenomena."

When it comes to sound, I believe the memories should have a stronger and more reliable neural network as an instinct of survival. One would not want to confuse the roar of a tiger from behind the brush with anything else that would suggest it is safe to be there... But I am not a scientist so my knowledge on the subject is very limited.

Here is a good video on the concept of memory. Robert Bilder - How Does Memory Work? - YouTube

 

[Mr Peabody]

I have to agree with you for the most part, just as multiple eye witnesses stories will vary when telling what they saw.

I have forgotten some details of memories over years but to my knowledge have never had a false memory. I have had family members retell an event I was at as well and say things that didn't happen, whether they forgot and attempted to fill in or they actually remember it that way I don't know.

I believe if possible I could put a system together of exact components I have heard together in the past, let someone listen for a while without me there and I could tell them accurately the character of that system they just heard without me having to hear it again.

Once one becomes aware that memory is nothing like a bit for bit perfect digital copy stored on a hard drive or a book in some library, one realizes that memories are a very abstract concept and are less than reliable.

There are tons of articles on the concept of "false memories". "In psychology, a false memory is a phenomenon where a person recalls something that did not happen or recalls it differently from the way it actually happened. Suggestibility, activation of associated information, the incorporation of misinformation and source misattribution have been suggested to be several mechanisms underlying a variety of types of false memory phenomena."

When it comes to sound, I believe the memories should have a stronger and more reliable neural network as an instinct of survival. One would not want to confuse the roar of a tiger from behind the brush with anything else that would suggest it is safe to be there... But I am not a scientist so my knowledge on the subject is very limited.

Here is a good video on the concept of memory. Robert Bilder - How Does Memory Work? - YouTube

 

[Calvin]

I agree for the most part, but I still hear a difference in my CDs and streaming. It may be my DAC / SACD on the Luxman. It is good IMO.

I’m still considering a turntable. My eyes are getting bad though (numerous surgeries), so I’m afraid that I’ll scratch the records and just end up using them as frisbees. But I still remember that sound. I still want it back. I’m considering MSB. It should get me close to a turntable - from what I understand as close as one can get to a high end table without purchasing one. I probably am going too far with that statement, but it gets the point across.

I know what you mean. I remember when Ifirst heard one of the local radio stations who began playing mp3, the familiar songs just didn't sound right, almost like some type of remix. I remember a friend brought over a recorded CD of Pink Floyd DSOTM, I played it for him but had to mention something sounded off, or not the way I was used to hearing it, he admitted his friend who made the CD did some EQ'ing on it.

To be honest, when I listen to ripped or streaming Tidal the difference isn't that big for me. But my LP playing has gone way down, part to my vision and part not wanting to take the time to clean and such anymore. I think the difference would be more heard between digital and LP, no matter how good the digital is, it's just two different mediums and too many variables for there not to be a detectable difference.

 

[Mr Peabody]

You have the same ACS10 so your streaming should be pretty good. Are you using the Luxman as the DAC for the ACS10?

You will be surprised at how easy it is playing LP's with low vision. My issue is seeing the jacket to pick out what to play. I use my left hand to find the edge of the spinning LP and bring the arm over with my right. You can tell where to sit the needle, most LP's have some type of elevated part around the outer edge. I've had years of developing my technic though, LOL I suspect people hold their breath as I lower the arm since not using the lift but it's more accurate by touch than estimated where to drop the lift.

I agree for the most part, but I still hear a difference in my CDs and streaming. It may be my DAC / SACD on the Luxman. It is good IMO.

I’m still considering a turntable. My eyes are getting bad though (numerous surgeries), so I’m afraid that I’ll scratch the records and just end up using them as frisbees. But I still remember that sound. I still want it back. I’m considering MSB. It should get me close to a turntable - from what I understand as close as one can get to a high end table without purchasing one. I probably am going to far with a that statement, but it gets the point across.

 

[Calvin]

Well that is cool to know. Maybe all is not lost for a turntable. I didn’t think of using that methodology. Thanks.

I have the ACS10 connected to the N100H and stream thru the N100H. I was streaming thru the ACS10 for a while. But found the quality go up slightly - very slightly - by doing the chain I now have, which was suggested by Mike. I have plans to upgrade to a N30 when it comes out, but will still have it hooked thru the ACS10. Well I should say that is my intention. I may change my mind after I hear it.

You have the same ACS10 so your streaming should be pretty good. Are you using the Luxman as the DAC for the ACS10?

You will be surprised at how easy it is playing LP's with low vision. My issue is seeing the jacket to pick out what to play. I use my left hand to find the edge of the spinning LP and bring the arm over with my right. You can tell where to sit the needle, most LP's have some type of elevated part around the outer edge. I've had years of developing my technic though, LOL I suspect people hold their breath as I lower the arm since not using the lift but it's more accurate by touch than estimated where to drop the lift.

 

[TheOctopus]

Besides the blind test in which a listener is supposed to be able to tell a difference between components/cables being switched, what is even more interesting is that very often when NOTHING is changed, the listener claims to have heard a difference. I have ran this experiment many times with friends often asking them to describe what changed and they will in detail... Except NOTHING was changed. What does that tell us about a memory?

 

[TheOctopus]

That none of us remember a bit for bit “perfect” digital copy of anything is a given, but we do recall what a song meant to us at a certain moment, the details that made an impression upon us, the emotions it captured, and when it is reproduced today and it brings all this and much more back, that is part and parcel of our audio memory at work.

Music isn’t just about an audio signal, it affects the entire individual, our entire being.

As far as psycho measurements - “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." – William Bruce Cameron.

I would agree and even go as far as saying that the emotional response is what makes the memory stronger and long term. We seldom forget an emotionally significant moment and can describe it in great detail but try describing a non eventful day from last week or a month or your 6th grade history teacher... Unless there was a strong emotion attached, chances are, it is gone forever.

The human brain is very impressive with the amount of connections or switches that form memories, we have more of them in our brain than all the computers on this planet. But remembering what one had for breakfast exactly 21 days ago is not something many would be capable of. In fact even our processing power and cognitive function when it comes to recollection is so much slower than our predecessors. Check this out! Chimpanzees destroy humans in memory test... Chimp vs Human! | Memory Test | BBC Earth - YouTube

 

[Spock]

I remember when I was a kid and I had a Waltham like this

Music Centre - Stereo Cassette AM/FM Radio Waltham Electroni

and I frequently visited home appliance stores in my town, which was where we found those vintage complete systems from Pioneer, Sony, Marantz, Akay, Schneider etc. There was even a store that always had a loudspeaker at the entrance door, facing the street. And that made a 13 or 14 years old kid stop to listen and dream.
And one day my father, so generous attending the difficulties, decided to spend almost 3 salaries to buy me a complete system from Pioneer (yes, he likes me! ). And I happily lived for several years with that system.
But the same way we grow and lose innocence and the knowledge makes us anguished about our own existence (happy are the poor in spirit because the kingdom of heaven is theirs), I also tasted the poison of the permanent search for something better, for a more complete sound. And it still lasts today.
But interestingly, the audio memory tells me that I was happier at the time with my Pioneer that played from fado to heavy metal, and this without ever complaining about the recordings. :snicker:


A few days ago a friend who hadn't seen in 15 years called me. His first words were: do you know who's talking? And I answered the name right away and he smiled...

 

[Kuoppis]

I think what people refer to as aural memory, is the level of accuracy over time.

The questions is, how well and how accurately can you differentiate between small details. E.g. when switching a cable or adding a tweak, when comparing it to another similar thing in let’s say two weeks, a month, a year. Would you be able to pick out that minor detail, if you heard it in another context?

I think the point is, for e.g. our visual sense it’s easier to memorize accurately, to remember, and apply it. You would recognize the Mona Lisa anywhere, or pick up the setup of the Last Supper in a different context. With aural memories perhaps less accurately so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Calvin]

Decades ago: I'll never forget the sound of some huge Wilson speakers (WAMMs I believe) playing Hotel California in Atlanta, Ga. The dealer was great. We listened to the song over and over. A simple CD - my CD. The detail was absolutely amazing.

I've never heard that song reproduced the same way since. Even other Wilson speakers haven't lived up to the task - yet. Of course, it's the whole chain that produced the sound, not just the speakers.

I don't wake up every morning having to rediscover the same detail I heard on a song 10 years ago. I don't have to rediscover it, as I never forgot it - the memory is still there.

Perhaps it is the way that we listen that makes the difference. Everyone listens, but there are different degrees of listening. Some make mental notes of what they should hear on track XYZ at a certain time. They listen for certain details - here comes that piano note, the sax, etc.... Others simply don't. Nothing wrong either way, they are just different ways of listening.

But the one that does make these mental notes (and we all do to some extent, but some more so than others) burns in a certain image of a song. And once that image is burned in you (at least I) don't want to settle for anything less. And please don't add to it. I don't like many remasters.

 

[steve59]

listening for specific details between speakers is easy, components are different as I can listen to multiple amps that all sound the same to me before finding one I can hear differences in. As to taking those listening memories on the road? specific details seem to travel, subtle changes not so much.

 

[CPP]

Decades ago: I'll never forget the sound of some huge Wilson speakers (WAMMs I believe) playing Hotel California in Atlanta, Ga. The dealer was great. We listened to the song over and over. A simple CD - my CD. The detail was absolutely amazing.

I've never heard that song reproduced the same way since. Even other Wilson speakers haven't lived up to the task - yet. Of course, it's the whole chain that produced the sound, not just the speakers.

I don't wake up every morning having to rediscover the same detail I heard on a song 10 years ago. I don't have to rediscover it, as I never forgot it - the memory is still there.

Perhaps it is the way that we listen that makes the difference. Everyone listens, but there are different degrees of listening. Some make mental notes of what they should hear on track XYZ at a certain time. They listen for certain details - here comes that piano note, the sax, etc.... Others simply don't. Nothing wrong either way, they are just different ways of listening.

But the one that does make these mental notes (and we all do to some extent, but some more so than others) burns in a certain image of a song. And once that image is burned in you (at least I) don't want to settle for anything less. And please don't add to it. I don't like many remasters.

I don't wake up every morning having to rediscover the same detail I heard on a song 10 years ago. I don't have to rediscover it, as I never forgot it - the memory is still there.

Same here. Some days I can sing word for word old CCR songs, or old Zombie's and/or Vanilla Fudge songs. My wife knows all the Elvis songs word for word. So her memory is spot on at 62.

 

[UltraFast69]

IMO repetition of playback burns in the mind.

Growing up, it was the same rotation on all types of playback.

You’ll know when a voice is more prominent, a guitar more alive, the attack or decay of drums, percussion.

When it’s better, it’s better!

Moving forward to critical listening, I break down tracks and listen to specifics for absolute certainty that a tweak, cable or whatever performs or does not.

I’m confident in what I hear, or don’t.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Mr Peabody]

That is a very good point about different degrees of listening. I also think this is why DBT is useless unless it's done with those used to listening and able to detect changes. No offense to anyone but I can't understand how someone cannot hear differences in amps. Some brands are some similar and may make it difficult but, for instance, a person should be able to hear the difference between two very different sounds like Pass vs Hegel, or Bryston vs Mac etc.

A small group of us got together at a friends house to listen to his system, on the first song it sounded like mono but I wasn't familiar with the song, the second song sounded mono but no one said anything, finally I spoke up and asked about it. Sure enough, the system had somehow been mono and he fixed the issue. It made for a laugh but why was I the only one to notice.

 

[Mr Peabody]

I think it says nothing about memory and more to human nature. Just like when Jay Lenno used to take the camera to the street and ask about a news story or event that never happened but people acted like they knew what he was asking about and even commenting on it.

Besides the blind test in which a listener is supposed to be able to tell a difference between components/cables being switched, what is even more interesting is that very often when NOTHING is changed, the listener claims to have heard a difference. I have ran this experiment many times with friends often asking them to describe what changed and they will in detail... Except NOTHING was changed. What does that tell us about a memory?