Audio Memory

[Mechnutt]

Clearly there is expectation bias when you ask people what changed when you fake changing gear.

I am not a big believer that you need to do a double blind test to discern changes when comparing gear. I review gear for Frank Van Alstine on the AC forum. I take his amps, preamps and DAC's and compare them to 2 systems in my house and invite friends over and occasionally bring the gear to a friends and can easily pick out changes and describe the differences. Friends also bring their gear to my house and we compare and can all hear the same differences. USB cables were an eye opener and all 4 of us heard the same differences between 4 cables. We even compared the same recordings in FLAC and WAV. The differences were subtle but we all preferred WAV. This was done as a blind test. Now my friends are seasoned audio people who know how to listen and what to listen for.

Back to the original post. I do think that there is audio memory but it does not fade as quickly as some people say or at least it does not for me. I do believe that if the differences are subtle that it fades more quickly.

 

[nicoff]

I see folks here complaining about their poor vision as a result of aging. Yet nobody mentions their hearing as if that has not changed in the 40 years since they first heard that sound that became engrained in their memory.
So if today that person were able to find a system that reminds him of what he heard 40 years ago, obviously the actual sound of todays system cannot be the same of that of yesteryear simply because the person's hearing has changed (even if their memory has not)! That is a major problem of subjective listening: everybody hears whatever they think they are hearing regardless of the actual sound.

 

[TheOctopus]

I see folks here complaining about their poor vision as a result of aging. Yet nobody mentions their hearing as if that has not changed in the 40 years since they first heard that sound that became engrained in their memory.
So if today that person were able to find a system that reminds him of what he heard 40 years ago, obviously the actual sound of todays system cannot be the same of that of yesteryear simply because the person's hearing has changed (even if their memory has not)! That is a major problem of subjective listening: everybody hears whatever they think they are hearing regardless of the actual sound.

The hearing fluctuates even during the day, not to mention the steep notch filter hearing loss as well as the upper spectrum loss as one gets older. The 10-12KHz cutoff is quite the norm after 50 yrs of age or even younger for some. That's the fun part of this hobby, no need to engage in blind listening tests, those just destroy the illusions we as audiophiles create and that's no fun at all. Bias is very much what determines what we hear and confirmation bias is very strong indeed. That cable sounds bright, that amp sounds warm, that preamp has tons of resolution...
That is exactly what we try to listen for and that will be exactly what one hears first.

No bias? Uneventful listening and I have proved this many times to my friends. Not sure if proving that point is the main objective though. It is a hobby and if one "hears" what they want to hear, even if is just an "illusion", once heard, it can not be unheard, for better or for worse.

The mood is also a big determining factor. Sit down to listen with passion and in a good mood, everything sounds great, bad mood, cranky, distracted, the system sounds like crap today... Need to upgrade a few cables here and there and that $8,000 power conditioner is exactly what will fix this crappy sound...

 

[nicoff]

The hearing fluctuates even during the day, not to mention the steep notch filter hearing loss as well as the upper spectrum loss as one gets older. The 10-12KHz cutoff is quite the norm after 50 yrs of age or even younger for some. That's the fun part of this hobby, no need to engage in blind listening tests, those just destroy the illusions we as audiophiles create and that's no fun at all. Bias is very much what determines what we hear and confirmation bias is very strong indeed. That cable sounds bright, that amp sounds warm, that preamp has tons of resolution...
That is exactly what we try to listen for and that will be exactly what one hears first.

No bias? Uneventful listening and I have proved this many times to my friends. Not sure if proving that point is the main objective though. It is a hobby and if one "hears" what they want to hear, even if is just an "illusion", once heard, it can not be unheard, for better or for worse.

The mood is also a big determining factor. Sit down to listen with passion and in a good mood, everything sounds great, bad mood, cranky, distracted, the system sounds like crap today... Need to upgrade a few cables here and there and that $8,000 power conditioner is exactly what will fix this crappy sound...

Of course! And don’t forget the green marker and the rock! [emoji16]

 

[TheOctopus]

Of course! And don’t forget the green marker and the rock! [emoji16]

Oh boy, I've painted my fair share of CDs and charged those green glow in the dark CD mats with black light... Of course we always heard the difference with my friends! Those things rocked..... until a few blind tests proved us wrong but it is difficult to give up on the idea once it is implanted in the head

 

[Calvin]

I see folks here complaining about their poor vision as a result of aging. Yet nobody mentions their hearing as if that has not changed in the 40 years since they first heard that sound that became engrained in their memory.
So if today that person were able to find a system that reminds him of what he heard 40 years ago, obviously the actual sound of todays system cannot be the same of that of yesteryear simply because the person's hearing has changed (even if their memory has not)! That is a major problem of subjective listening: everybody hears whatever they think they are hearing regardless of the actual sound.

Yes our hearing does change and that’s why I believe our systems often change as well. For me, I’ll never get back my (or my father’s) old systems. I’ll never hear that Wilson WAMM system in my living room. And I’m now in a different home then what I heard all those systems in, etc. (and the Wilson system was at a dealer).

But today I do have numerous other options to help get me back to the audio memories that I still desire. With the proper modifications it doesn’t have to be the same equipment, as matter a fact it probably shouldn’t be after 40 years and a different listening room. Another system may still give me the audio memories I remember.

 

[ADCO]

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?

It probably suggests the game is rigged against them. There is already a preset expectation that something will be different . So , and I’m guessing here, the bias is to actually hear or perhaps listen differently.

Maybe off topic maybe not.... but

I was fortunate a couple of weeks ago to to receive a completely unprompted phone call from what what phone described as an “unknown number”. Within 3 words I knew exactly who it was and I had not spoke to him for approx 15 years since he moved to Australia .

So 15 years removed with the challenged sonics of a phone call from Melbourne to Canada...

I’d say by that the auditory memory is pretty dam good.

More on topic.

I find differences in my system rather easy to distinguish, to determine if they are to my preference is another matter all together. I let my emotional involvement (and whatever causes that within us) determine if a change is preferable and that typically takes some time.

 

[TheOctopus]

It probably suggests the game is rigged against them. There is already a preset expectation that something will be different . So , and I’m guessing here, the bias is to actually hear or perhaps listen differently.

Maybe off topic maybe not.... but

I was fortunate a couple of weeks ago to to receive a completely unprompted phone call from what what phone described as an “unknown number”. Within 3 words I knew exactly who it was and I had not spoke to him for approx 15 years since he moved to Australia .

So 15 years removed with the challenged sonics of a phone call from Melbourne to Canada...

I’d say by that the auditory memory is pretty dam good.

More on topic.

I find differences in my system rather easy to distinguish, to determine if they are to my preference is another matter all together. I let my emotional involvement (and whatever causes that within us) determine if a change is preferable and that typically takes some time.

From an article: Makes sense as it is part of the survival mechanism.

Interestingly, the human ear is more sensitive to certain octaves in the musical spectrum than to others. The ear is tuned more toward the midrange frequencies, where speech and voice communication occur (I guess we’re still cave people), than to the outer octaves of low bass and high-frequency musical harmonics. As a result, very small energy changes in the midrange frequencies cause much more noticeable effects than do larger changes in the very low and/or very high frequency ranges. So what is bass? What is treble? Oh, and what about midrange? Let’s break them down right here.

 

[Spock]

Audio memory is fixed by the emotional impression that a given moment left in us. I have much better sound today than I did with my Pioneer. And yet, the memories of Pioneer are happier. Maybe that's why some audiophiles goes after vintage products. Maybe because they remember being happy with them before.

It is curious that over time we will lose hearing qualities and we will hear less but at the same time we are increasing our level of demand, so we want to hear more!

 

[Mechnutt]

Audio memory is fixed by the emotional impression that a given moment left in us. I have much better sound today than I did with my Pioneer. And yet, the memories of Pioneer are happier. Maybe that's why some audiophiles goes after vintage products. Maybe because they remember being happy with them before.

It is curious that over time we will lose hearing qualities and we will hear less but at the same time we are increasing our level of demand, so we want to hear more!

I liked my 15wpc 1970's Pioneer receiver, JVC TT with my Altec Lansing Model 3 speakers better because it was all I could afford and it sounded great to me at the time. I never was critical of the sound or searching for the holy grail of audio gear. Things were simpler.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Whether vision, hearing or other sense, if one gets weak it has no baring on the health of the others. Hence, if my vision is bad doesn't mean my hearing will necessarily get weaker, in fact, since one may rely on that sense more due to one becoming worse an argument could be made if vision gets weak the hearing becomes more acute. Maybe not by measurement but by reliance and necessity.

I've had something for music from a young child, beginning with a mere record player. I was not happier with any of those entry systems. If I didn't think I was improving I passed. Some of the higher end gear I owned in the past I could easily live with but choices had to be made. I still like and respect many of the brands I owned in the past. Point is I wasn't changing to be changing, I changed because the improvement was large enough to me to spend the money necessary to keep what I was evaluating.

I think the phone call example was very relevant.

Even if our hearing isn't exactly the same today as 15 years ago, the sound of a 15 year old amp shouldn't change that much. I think what I heard 15 or 20 years ago would still be close to what I would hear today. One example, Maybe more than 20 years ago I heard an Audio Research system driving some Martin Logan ReQuests, I believe I'd hear the same life like presence today as I did then. It was like the artist was there in the flesh. Krell of that day would still have the same iron grip control and bass power. Things like that.

 

[nicoff]

There is a big difference between recognizing someone’s voice over the telephone after many years. It happens to me quite frequently.

That’s because it is not only the timbre that one remembers but the cadence, the accent, even the idiosyncratic way a person talks. Every person has a “signature” sound. Using that as proof that one’s 70 year old hearing is the same as that of a 30 year old makes no sense to me.

In jazz, for example sax players also have a signature. John Coltrane sounds very different than any other player. Same applies to Eric Dolphy, Archie Shepp, Ben Webster, etc. Even with my old hearing, I can tell each of those players apart with no problem. But I will never claim to have the same hearing ability of my 30 year old self.

 

[Mr Peabody]

There is a big difference between recognizing someone’s voice overIt happens to me quite frequently.
> Is it? I don't see how.

That’s because it is not only the timbre that one remembers but the cadence, the accent, even the idiosyncratic way a person talks. Every person has a “signature” sound. Using that as proof that one’s 70 year old hearing is the same as that of a 30 year old makes no sense to me.

And, why can't someone remember the timbre and other characters of a sound system? You either misunderstood or reaching, no one said recognizing a friend is related to hearing stability over years. Nobody's hearing ages the same either.

In jazz, for example sax players also have a signature. John Coltrane sounds very different than any other player. Same applies to Eric Dolphy, Archie Shepp, Ben Webster, etc. Even with my old hearing, I can tell each of those players apart with no problem. But I will never claim to have the same hearing ability of my 30 year old self.

Interesting how you claim to recognize the characteristics of a musician however want to deny a sound system would have nothing to recognize aurally about it.

 

[nicoff]

Interesting how you claim to recognize the characteristics of a musician however want to deny a sound system would have nothing to recognize aurally about it.

I can recognize any of those jazz players even when being played on a cheap car radio. And I can also recognize the voices of old friends via a regular telephone (which I m sure everyone agrees does not qualify as a decent sound system).

 

[Steve Hart]

Audio memory is very short. In the old days when I was younger I needed a series of codes to help me diagnose broadcasting equipment. It is not something I rely on heavily to analyze sounds.

 

[nicoff]

Audio memory is very short. In the old days when I was younger I needed a series of codes to help me diagnose broadcasting equipment. It is not something I rely on heavily to analyze sounds.

Sounds to me that you rely on some kind of scientific (I.e., repeatable) measurements.

 

[W9TR]

I was at an Audio Engineering Society convention in Chicago and participated in a demonstration where we were asked to express a preference for one of two guitars that were played by the same musician behind an acoustically transparent screen. No amplification.

One of the guitars was a department store Yamaha, the other a custom guitar built for Andres Segovia.

There were several trials where a short composition was played on each guitar. The audience applauded after each piece was played.

In every case the audience preferred the guitar that was played second. Why? The moderator noted two things; order bias, where people tend to prefer the most recent stimulus, and the effect of white noise of clapping ‘resetting’ your hearing between songs.

Fascinating.

So while I do believe there is Audio memory, many outside factors and biases cloud the picture.

 

[TheOctopus]

How about professional musicians, read... "violin" players not being able to recognize and preferring the sound of the modern violin to the coveted, multimillion dollar Stradivarius? It's not like they have never heard a Stradivarius before, some have even played them. Yet when blind as to which is playing, game over.... Same with wine experts, blinded, even confusing white to red wine and these are top rated critics/experts. That's a different sense though. Keeping in mind that human senses are nothing more than electrical impulses, based on which the brain creates an illusion of sight, taste, smell, hearing, touch, etc... No one sees, tastes or hears things exactly the same as the person next to him.

 

[Steve Hart]

Sounds to me that you rely on some kind of scientific (I.e., repeatable) measurements.

Here's an example. Does a piece of equipment have pace and momentum? I play JJ Cale's debut album Naturally. Is a primitive drum machine reproduced properly? I've been testing in a similar way since the seventies.

 

[TheOctopus]

"The process of how physically hearing sounds translates to experiencing sounds has been a mystery for a long time, but Harvard Medical School has begun breaking it down into its components. When the inner ear receives sounds, it triggers a reaction from the different brain cells that are responsible for transmitting the information to your brain. That triggering forms different types of patterns that, in turn, touch different parts of the brain, explaining why we associate certain sounds with certain memories and feelings."