An argument that aural memory is enduring

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

One will notice, the most enduring aural memories, also are attached to the emotions at the time one heard sound. 

 

I just wanted to point that out and not implying anything else.

Absolutely. Similar to smells in a way. 

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Absolutely. Similar to smells in a way. 

 Not similar but the same, based on memory research.

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Totally! 

 

I love these discussions where a couple objective topics aren't necessarily at odds, but they are butting up against each other a bit. 

 

Can our very limited echoic memory, invalidate all but the most stringent listening tests? I have no idea, but it seems like there's more to the story than just sitting down and having some music played on system A/B/X. I kind of don't see how an A/B/X test could be valid if the audio wasn't switched between three components" all within say 5 seconds. but then, how can you listen to something extensively? I really don't know.

 

I like the science of both topics, but struggle to pur all the pieces together on this one. 

I will add this again to this discussion.

This was the paper from BAS and published in an audio magazine.

BAS Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article    old link but still works.

Do All amplifiers sound the same.pdf

14 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 Not similar but the same, based on memory research.

 

 

 

I will add this again to this discussion.

 

This was the paper from BAS and published in an audio magazine.

 

BAS Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article    old link but still works.

Do All amplifiers sound the same.pdf 3.76 MB · 1 download

Thanks for the PDF. I like the rigor of the testing, it's pretty neat. 

I'm still stuck on this short echoic memory issue though. If they are switching with the ABX remote, they aren't comparing the same musicial passages, but rather what was just heard with what's currently playing (a test tone would be identical though painful). 

I suppose one could queue up a crascendo of a full orchestral piece, and have it played back to back in some way, in order to compare an amp reproducing transients, etc...

I think this is tougher than just switching back and forth and back etc... But, what do I know, I just run a website. Really interesting topic though!

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

Turn in your audiophile card immediately! 😊

I never said I was an audiophile - and audiofool, yes 😇

Deleted - duplicate.

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If they are switching with the ABX remote, they aren't comparing the same musicial passages, but rather what was just heard with what's currently playing

Or let’s say they play back the same passage. Make it a short one, 10 seconds. What was the absolute worst situation for memory of tones in Deutsch’s experiment? When there is intervening music. So in our example, by the time you get to the identical part of the short passage for the second time, you’ve got 10 seconds of intervening music sitting in your echoic memory store, the very worst conditions to try to recall what it sounded like the first time.

1 minute ago, Jud said:

Or let’s say they play back the same passage. Make it a short one, 10 seconds. What was the absolute worst situation for memory of tones in Deutsch’s experiment? When there is intervening music. So in our example, by the time you get to the identical part of the short passage for the second time, you’ve got 10 seconds of intervening music sitting in your echoic memory store, the very worst conditions to try to recall what it sounded like the first time.

That's what makes sence to my brain, but I admit to being slow. 

I have zero confidence in any kind of quick switch testing. I need time to evaluate the full effect a component is having on the sound. The final conclusion is often in conflict with an A-B test. Some changes are immediately obvious. Some take extended listening time for days before I can judge. 

I listen for errors. Is the bass tight, are the highs strident, is the image deep and broad, good PRaT? Which would match with the "pattern" listening mode.

15 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I have zero confidence in any kind of quick switch testing. I need time to evaluate the full effect a component is having on the sound. The final conclusion is often in conflict with an A-B test. Some changes are immediately obvious. Some take extended listening time for days before I can judge. 

 

I listen for errors. Is the bass tight, are the highs strident, is the image deep and broad, good PRaT? Which would match with the "pattern" listening mode.

How do you suggest going about doing testing then?  If you read the BAS website - they really go into details and also have actual papers referenced, etc.

I am asking an honest question. Pointing out flaws is great - suggesting ways around it is important for a collegial discussion.

I believe PRaT is prone to errors and flaws and can be influenced by other senses. I will give an example, the old saying 'We eat with our eyes' is not far from the truth. Also smell in tasting food is important. It has been found that about 60-80% of food taste is actually from the sense of smell. I remember going to a restaurant where one was blindfolded, brought to the table and served. It was an interesting experience to say the least.

Our senses are so intertwined, it is hard to separate them.

6 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I have zero confidence in any kind of quick switch testing. I need time to evaluate the full effect a component is having on the sound. The final conclusion is often in conflict with an A-B test. Some changes are immediately obvious. Some take extended listening time for days before I can judge. 

 

I listen for errors. Is the bass tight, are the highs strident, is the image deep and broad, good PRaT? Which would match with the "pattern" listening mode.

So here’s another twist:

I’ve had the same brand of speakers since 1988 or thereabouts. These speakers have linear phase crossovers. That helps to keep phase/timing linear across the frequency spectrum, which helps with imaging/soundstage.

The problem with this is that with such crossovers there’s a small but unavoidable bump in response where the drivers overlap.

Over thousands upon thousands of hours of listening through 3 1/2 decades, I’ve had a pattern imprinted on me where strictly flat frequency response is not as important as imaging and soundstage. So now that’s what sounds correct to me, even though strictly speaking it isn’t.

And of course there’s the flip side, where the reaction to something that sounds new and different is that it’s better, though that isn’t necessarily so.

The summary I guess is there’s enough uncertainty that we should probably just leave it at what sounds good to us is fine, and what sounds good to others is fine for them.

17 minutes ago, botrytis said:

How do you suggest going about doing testing then?  If you read the BAS website - they really go into details and also have actual papers referenced, etc.

 

I am asking an honest question. Pointing out flaws is great - suggesting ways around it is important for a collegial discussion.

I'll speak for myself, I'm not sure how to test this in the real world. Listening to a test tone is about the only static thing that would enable switching of anything from A to B to X, and keep the same material, without messing with echoic memory. 

13 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

How do you suggest going about doing testing then?  If you read the BAS website - they really go into details and also have actual papers referenced, etc.

I suggest to do what I do. A-B testing is artificial, it is not real life. Real life is me, listening to my music, in my room, with my system, for an extended period. My method works, for me. I don't doubt that a blind listening test could work, but the mechanics of it are beyond what any of us can do at home.  

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf

13 minutes ago, botrytis said:

I believe PRaT is prone to errors and flaws and can be influenced by other senses.

Sure, that's why it's important to listen for days, to lessen the impact of mood. It's also important to listen to a variety of music, known and unknown. A system can sound good with something, not good with something else. I need my system to sound good with everything. 

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

The summary I guess is there’s enough uncertainty that we should probably just leave it at what sounds good to us is fine, and what sounds good to others is fine for them.

Yes, I love it! Horns, open baffle, sealed, ported, active, passive, transistors vs. tubes, digital vs. analog, whatever floats your boat. And I love hearing what others have done to make their system optimal for them. 

1 minute ago, audiobomber said:

I suggest to do what I do. A-B testing is artificial, it is not real life. Real life is me, listening to my music, in my room, with my system, for an extended period. My method works, for me. I don't doubt that a blind listening test could work, but the mechanics of it are beyond what any of us can do at home.  

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf

Sure, that's why it's important to listen for days, to lessen the impact of mood. It's also important to listen to a variety of music, known and unknown. A system can sound good with something, not good with something else. I need my system to sound good with everything. 

The point is measurements of equipment is not real life either. Does that mean it is flawed? It does not.

I think you are arbitrarily throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

4 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I suggest to do what I do. A-B testing is artificial, it is not real life. Real life is me, listening to my music, in my room, with my system, for an extended period. My method works, for me. I don't doubt that a blind listening test could work, but the mechanics of it are beyond what any of us can do at home.  

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf

Sure, that's why it's important to listen for days, to lessen the impact of mood. It's also important to listen to a variety of music, known and unknown. A system can sound good with something, not good with something else. I need my system to sound good with everything. 

Listening for days - means your ears are getting 'used to' the sound. It is like getting a new pillow, which I have done in the recent past. The first days were miserable, not sleeping well, etc. then as time went on, I got acclimated to it.

Ears are no different and that is where your idea has issues. 

Auditory short-term memory and vowel perception - PMC (nih.gov)

Standardizing Auditory Tests | The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America | AIP Publishing

Most auditory ABX is dealing with hearing loss, which as we age happens.

12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

The point is measurements of equipment is not real life either. Does that mean it is flawed? It does not.

I agree. Measurements are useful but they do not adequately describe sound quality. 

I messed up the formatting, but this is my response to your post below: 

All I can say is that it works for me. My most recent experience: I have a Network Audio Muon ethernet filter on loan from a friend for a month. I inserted it between my EtherRegen and exaSound PlayPoint renderer, playing files from my NAS. The difference was so subtle that it took me several days to figure out what it was doing to the sound. In the end I determined it was slightly veiled and rounded the transients, smoothing the sound. I repeated the test again later, always a good idea. Same result, I did not like it. Did I not get used to the sound?

9 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Listening for days - means your ears are getting 'used to' the sound. It is like getting a new pillow, which I have done in the recent past. The first days were miserable, not sleeping well, etc. then as time went on, I got acclimated to it.

 

Ears are no different and that is where your idea has issues. 

8 hours ago, Jud said:

So here’s another twist:

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of "twist" here, but to me it's more like a separate (though dependent) issue. One thing is: "can you detect a difference" and another: "if you can, which one do you prefer".

Of course one can drop the "if you can" part, nothing wrong with that. Although insisting that in such case the preference is still based on sound won't sound (😏) convincing to me. But it may to others. It probably will.

8 hours ago, Jud said:

Over thousands upon thousands of hours of listening through 3 1/2 decades, I’ve had a pattern imprinted on me where strictly flat frequency response is not as important as imaging and soundstage. So now that’s what sounds correct to me, even though strictly speaking it isn’t.

Seems like a rare quality, being able to admit that what one prefers is not a correct or the best thing based on some other criteria 👏🙂

39 minutes ago, danadam said:

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of "twist" here, but to me it's more like a separate (though dependent) issue. One thing is: "can you detect a difference" and another: "if you can, which one do you prefer"

Both depend on pattern matching. In this case, listening to the same characteristic sound from my speakers for over 3 decades has given me both the ability to recognize when that characteristic sound is present or absent, as well as a preference for a sound that in one respect is not technically correct. (Note the reverse is also true: Speakers with crossovers that produce a flatter frequency response cannot properly reproduce the phase/timing across frequencies that is in the recording.)

Musicians play different pieces every day, experiment with different ways of playing every day, listen to their students play, and compare all of this to memories of prior sounds. What would pattern recognition look like under this scenario? How long do you need to listen to something exactly the same way before you've formed a pattern? 

42 minutes ago, mike1127 said:

Musicians play different pieces every day, experiment with different ways of playing every day, listen to their students play, and compare all of this to memories of prior sounds. What would pattern recognition look like under this scenario? How long do you need to listen to something exactly the same way before you've formed a pattern? 

I’ve sat 15 feet from two Van Cliburn Gold Medal winners and another pianist with an international reputation as they played concerts consisting of about 5 pieces each, with each concert lasting at least a couple of hours. None of the three had music in front of them. They played all the pieces from memory.

So how much practice does it take to commit that many pieces of that length and complexity to memory?

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

I’ve sat 15 feet from two Van Cliburn Gold Medal winners and another pianist with an international reputation as they played concerts consisting of about 5 pieces each, with each concert lasting at least a couple of hours. None of the three had music in front of them. They played all the pieces from memory.

 

So how much practice does it take to commit that many pieces of that length and complexity to memory?

You're the one who brought up the concept of a "pattern," and I'm trying to get you to elaborate on what you mean by that. It's not clear. For instance, you've said that you could recognize your mother's voice even if distorted because of the pattern you've trained on. That sounds like a pattern is some kind of abstraction, independent of specific realizations. On the other hand, you've said Yo-yo Ma could recognize a change in his sound because it's different than what he's used to, and what he's used to is a "pattern." That sounds like a pattern is something concrete and exact.