An argument that aural memory is enduring

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

I've spent a great deal of time with music professors and high level professional musicians. They aren't concerned about audio equipment so much

I'm sure some are and some aren't, but what I agree about is that when we try to compare the sounds of two items of audio equipment, we're doing something quite different from evaluating the beauty or technique involved in a musical performance. The first is essentially a feat of memory, and research has shown that beyond about 4 seconds or so, especially with intervening music, we simply don't hold the original in our echoic (auditory) memories long enough to compare with the new sample. We can certainly recall qualitatively how the original made us feel, just as you can recall how you felt at the Dead or Buddy Guy concert. But that's a memory *about* an event, rather than a retained literal memory of the event itself. It won't serve to allow us to pass an A/B test of audio equipment; otherwise, the results of such A/B tests would very often be far better than chance, and that's not what we observe.

What we are capable of doing, almost always through long practice, is to establish a pattern in our minds that allows us to recognize deviations from the long-practiced original (as noted above, the way long time Coke drinkers recognized that New Coke didn't "taste like a Coke").

Research has shown that our memories change each and every time we recall them. They are put back into memory through today's filter. It will not be the same as the original. Hence why eye witnesses are not that valuable.

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

when we try to compare the sounds of two items of audio equipment, we're doing something quite different from evaluating the beauty or technique involved in a musical performance.

That depends on how you listen to the gear. Some people listen to gear as something that produces varying types of music.. that its signature is not independent of the music that it produces. This is similar to the way some musicians will say that quality of timbre is integral to the musical message. A musician might vary their timbre at different points in the music to convey something about the music.

For example, when pianists play a scale run in a legato fashion, they overlap consecutive notes slightly. They can vary the amount of overlap to create musical expression. The transient response of the equipment can either clarify or obscure the amount of overlap, possibly changing the musical expression. 

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

I've spent a great deal of time with music professors and high level professional musicians. They aren't concerned about audio equipment so much and can glean the "sound" of a performance from what might be a simple recording played back on a laptop. This includes auditioning things like different bows.

That's true of some musicians and not true of others. I took lessons at one point from a composer who often sat on juries for composition competitions. He said that when applying to such competitions, your secret weapon is to supply a high-quality recording (in the technical sense as well as the performance), as opposed to a bad recording (in the technical sense). It will affect the jury's judgement positively.

Somebody who auditions bows on a *laptop* playback is an extreme case. That wouldn't be the case for someone who was about to spend $100,000 on a bow. The professional musicians I've interacted with know that some gear is better than others, and get excited about having good gear, but they focus more of their money and attention on live music. 

42 minutes ago, mike1127 said:

That depends on how you listen to the gear. Some people listen to gear as something that produces varying types of music.. that its signature is not independent of the music that it produces. This is similar to the way some musicians will say that quality of timbre is integral to the musical message. A musician might vary their timbre at different points in the music to convey something about the music.

 

For example, when pianists play a scale run in a legato fashion, they overlap consecutive notes slightly. They can vary the amount of overlap to create musical expression. The transient response of the equipment can either clarify or obscure the amount of overlap, possibly changing the musical expression. 

Oh absolutely. I was referring to the context of A/B testing. When I'm not participating in an A/B test (and I almost never bother, since the research says such memory tests are a waste of time), I'm listening to music, not gear.

20 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Oh absolutely. I was referring to the context of A/B testing. When I'm not participating in an A/B test (and I almost never bother, since the research says such memory tests are a waste of time), I'm listening to music, not gear.

I understand that most people are listening to music, but I did mean in the context of comparing equipment. When comparing two amps or DACs, I often sense the differences primarily in the musical message. There can be differences in tonal balance but those aren't as important as things like the balance of instruments in the context of what the musicians are trying to portray. For example, it's typical to play Chopin with an emphasized melody (right hand) because that really brings out the beauty of the melody. One DAC I'm listening to right now exaggerates that right hand to the point it's no longer balanced, while another DAC puts it into the background too much. (But I'm not doing quick switching or blind tests so I understand if your main response might be that these tests are biased. They are pretty dramatic differences, though.)

37 minutes ago, mike1127 said:

But I'm not doing quick switching or blind tests

Right, which is precisely when something becomes a memory test.

OTOH, it would be interesting to see whether anyone's done an experiment where audio components are *apparently* switched, but not really, and whether there are differences in what subjects report hearing.

I know of at least two instances, one on this forum, one on another, where listeners reported clearly audible differences in situations where they were fooled into thinking something had changed when in fact it had not. (In one, a listener thought he had changed the DAC driver, but the change only affected directly connected USB DACs and he was using UPnP; in the other, the listener read the resolution sent to the DAC by software incorrectly and thought he was increasing it, when in fact it remained the same, at the input resolution limit of the DAC.) These impressions of audible differences are so powerful that both listeners continued for some time to insist they heard them.

@Jud I understand that (and disagree with applicability of the research to audio memory [I read some of Deutch's book, by the way]) but that's not really my main point. If I were doing quick-switching ABX my point would be the same. Which is that I evaluate components by the musical qualities they produce. 

1 hour ago, mike1127 said:

@Jud I understand that (and disagree with applicability of the research to audio memory [I read some of Deutch's book, by the way]) but that's not really my main point. If I were doing quick-switching ABX my point would be the same. Which is that I evaluate components by the musical qualities they produce. 

 

That's great if you can evaluate musical qualities and differentiate between various items producting audio while doing quick switching ABX. Find a suitable blind test that we can administer and pass it and that statement will have some backup.

1 hour ago, mike1127 said:

@Jud I understand that (and disagree with applicability of the research to audio memory [I read some of Deutch's book, by the way]) but that's not really my main point. If I were doing quick-switching ABX my point would be the same. Which is that I evaluate components by the musical qualities they produce. 

 

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

That's great if you can evaluate musical qualities and differentiate between various items producting audio while doing quick switching ABX. Find a suitable blind test that we can administer and pass it and that statement will have some backup.

OK, here's your chance, if you can manage it before the big reveal tomorrow. Take this blind test and have Archimago confirm you passed it before he gave the answers:

1 hour ago, Jud said:

OK, here's your chance, if you can manage it before the big reveal tomorrow. Take this blind test and have Archimago confirm you passed it before he gave the answers:

What are you talking about? This is not a test you "pass" .. it's a preference test. Given that everyone who takes it will not have the same preference, it seems statistically meaningless to me. In any case I downloaded the files and when I get my good DAC put back into my system I'll listen. 

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

…..

 

OTOH, it would be interesting to see whether anyone's done an experiment where audio components are *apparently* switched, but not really, and whether there are differences in what subjects report hearing.

 

I know of at least two instances, one on this forum, one on another, where listeners reported clearly audible differences in situations where they were fooled into thinking something had changed when in fact it had not……

this happened exactly to me. I was at a “power cord/ conditioning demo” using the same front end equipment, and switching cables etc. It was in Dutch and I misunderstood the introduction.

I thought they were going to do ABACA but they actually did ABCA and then stopped (to my surprise).

I perceived differences, but they weren’t “logical” as in the one I thought was most expensive didn’t sound that much better, and the one that was actually most expensive didn’t actually sound much different. I thought I’d heard a very slight difference between A and A (thinking it was C) which is the point you make.

It was my snake oil discovery moment so was the best possible demo ever !!

5 hours ago, mike1127 said:

What are you talking about? This is not a test you "pass" .. it's a preference test. Given that everyone who takes it will not have the same preference, it seems statistically meaningless to me. In any case I downloaded the files and when I get my good DAC put back into my system I'll listen. 

Actually I have an even better discernment trial if you would like and your DAC handles DSD input. Install the free trial of Audirvana software, unless you're already running it (Studio if you want to play Qobuz or Tidal files, Origin if you only want to play local), and simply describe for me the musical differences you hear among the B7, B8, and C modulators.

@Jud I should clarify that when I refer to hearing differences between components as in the realm of musical expression, I'm talking about components, not cables or filter settings. The latter are much smaller and I describe them more as changes in extension, beauty, depth of blacks, resolution, dynamics, and that kind of thing. My experience is generally that cables and especially power conditioning can bring out the best in a component, but don't change the basic character of the component. And  a change in an ultrasonic DSD filter would probably be inaudible to me. 

I do have a MacBook but I think I already installed the Audirvana trial, which expired some time ago. Also, my MacBook doesn't have a good, low-noise connection to the DAC like my Aurender server has. 

I haven't gotten to listen to the DAC recordings yet. Maybe I'll do that now.

3 hours ago, mike1127 said:

@Jud I should clarify that when I refer to hearing differences between components as in the realm of musical expression, I'm talking about components, not cables or filter settings. The latter are much smaller.... And  a change in an ultrasonic DSD filter would probably be inaudible to me. 

A significant portion of the price and quality difference between DACs is in the filtering and modulators they use, so in reality there is no principle that should create a substantial divide between the audible effects of "hardware" versus "software." To say it another way, no such divide actually exists.

But seeing a visible change in boxes versus something intangible like an algorithm could certainly account for a mental impression of greater differences.

I think the DACs may already have been revealed and in any case as you say the conclusions there are a matter of preference. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for some sort of blinded test somewhere down the line.

On 5/17/2024 at 5:33 AM, Jud said:

 

A significant portion of the price and quality difference between DACs is in the filtering and modulators they use, so in reality there is no principle that should create a substantial divide between the audible effects of "hardware" versus "software." To say it another way, no such divide actually exists.

 

But seeing a visible change in boxes versus something intangible like an algorithm could certainly account for a mental impression of greater differences.

 

I think the DACs may already have been revealed and in any case as you say the conclusions there are a matter of preference. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for some sort of blinded test somewhere down the line.

When I say "component" I'm not just talking about DACs. I would include all kinds of components including speakers and headphones. Regarding that there's no principle dividing hardware and software, I didn't claim there was one. I'm speaking in general terms. The power supplies are often different in different components, and those have a large effect on sound quality. I've heard differences in filters, too, such as between NOS and OS modes in the same DAC.

As far as you comment that "see a visible change in boxes" would account for a greater mental impression, that's speculation on your part. One thing about my impressions of components/speakers/headphones is that they never seem to match what you'd think. I recently purchased second hand a 45 pound DAC, giant size, gleaming silver metal, fancy controls, multiple $1000's cost second-hand, etc. You'd think I would like it on that basis, if the fanciness or price of the component equals impression. Turns out I didn't like it after a few hours of listening. The sound had problems. There are many inexpensive components (say DACs or amps) that may not have the highest of resolution, but are very musical and balanced, a rare quality. 

I don't offer that as proof of anything, by the way. Don't take it that way. I'm not trying to prove any theories.

On 5/15/2024 at 7:01 AM, botrytis said:

Research has shown that our memories change each and every time we recall them. They are put back into memory through today's filter. It will not be the same as the original. Hence why eye witnesses are not that valuable.

I read somewhere, on air crash investigation, kids eye witnesses give reliable testimony but adult people's memory is contaminated, full of wrong time sequence, they surely saw the events that was never happened