Meditations on the Limitations of Hearing and Listening

Thanks for linking to this thread. I had missed it the first time around .

It was certainly a good read and nice way to tell the whole story. I especially liked this insight:

"As per the title of the video, this is an example of selective attention. Of course this is in the visual domain but you can imagine a similar phenomenon when we evaluate audio for subtle changes. So often, we hear people commenting about how they "didn't notice" the presence of an instrument until some SUPER-USB-CLEANER tweak was inserted, or how ULTRA-SPECIAL-CABLES "made" the percussion seem like it was "30 feet behind the wall" or had "deeper bass". Realize that every time we listen analytically, we shift our attention (scan) to listen for changes and because there is no way to exactly recall the complexity of music (unless we're seriously doing a controlled test adhering to the limits of echoic memory to maximize detection of subtle sounds), it's no surprise that we report "noticeable" differences. Indeed it could be "true" that the person heard what they claimed... But the likelihood is that those sounds were always part of the playback; the only difference being whether the listener actually paid attention to them or not."

Fascinating hypothesis on why we may be hearing improvements when we make changes that may have always been there.

amirm said:

Thanks for linking to this thread. I had missed it the first time around .

It was certainly a good read and nice way to tell the whole story. I especially liked this insight:

"As per the title of the video, this is an example of selective attention. Of course this is in the visual domain but you can imagine a similar phenomenon when we evaluate audio for subtle changes. So often, we hear people commenting about how they "didn't notice" the presence of an instrument until some SUPER-USB-CLEANER tweak was inserted, or how ULTRA-SPECIAL-CABLES "made" the percussion seem like it was "30 feet behind the wall" or had "deeper bass". Realize that every time we listen analytically, we shift our attention (scan) to listen for changes and because there is no way to exactly recall the complexity of music (unless we're seriously doing a controlled test adhering to the limits of echoic memory to maximize detection of subtle sounds), it's no surprise that we report "noticeable" differences. Indeed it could be "true" that the person heard what they claimed... But the likelihood is that those sounds were always part of the playback; the only difference being whether the listener actually paid attention to them or not."

Fascinating hypothesis on why we may be hearing improvements when we make changes that may have always been there.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of my recent session with the Linn event at Goodwin's High End. First the Linn people wanted to demonstrate the difference between their network players ('streamers'). I thought that the basic sound that evening was not very good to begin with, so subtle differences between electronic components should have been difficult to hear. Yet some audiophiles enthusiastically reported this or that drastic improvement with the more expensive components. I honestly didn't hear any appreciable difference. Perhaps I didn't sit in the right spot, or perhaps I simply wasn't infected with the virus of audiophile insanity. I suspect it was the latter, but I could be wrong. In any case, I couldn't help but smile about my fellow audiophiles who, I thought, had gone off to crazyland.

On the other hand, once speaker positions were changed and digital room correction was demonstrated, these differences were loud and clear. So I hadn't been quite deaf after all.

amirm said:

Thanks for linking to this thread. I had missed it the first time around .

It was certainly a good read and nice way to tell the whole story. I especially liked this insight:

"As per the title of the video, this is an example of selective attention. Of course this is in the visual domain but you can imagine a similar phenomenon when we evaluate audio for subtle changes. So often, we hear people commenting about how they "didn't notice" the presence of an instrument until some SUPER-USB-CLEANER tweak was inserted, or how ULTRA-SPECIAL-CABLES "made" the percussion seem like it was "30 feet behind the wall" or had "deeper bass". Realize that every time we listen analytically, we shift our attention (scan) to listen for changes and because there is no way to exactly recall the complexity of music (unless we're seriously doing a controlled test adhering to the limits of echoic memory to maximize detection of subtle sounds), it's no surprise that we report "noticeable" differences. Indeed it could be "true" that the person heard what they claimed... But the likelihood is that those sounds were always part of the playback; the only difference being whether the listener actually paid attention to them or not."

Fascinating hypothesis on why we may be hearing improvements when we make changes that may have always been there.

Click to expand...

I hold this hypothesis to be absolutely valid. Case in point: If I listen to my rig in say music lover mode, I take in the whole of the presentation and am enotionally involved.

If again, I listen critically to the same piece of music, I call audiophile mode, I will hear details in the presentation, which seemed not to be there before.

But more importantly: If I try a new tweak, or a new component within my system I am sceptical about, in listening critically I am rarely convinced. What I usually do is to let things be and try again a day or so later. Mostly with the same result.
Contrary to that, if I approach some new addition with less beforehand scepticism, I will like the percieved change more often than not. But again, I will repeat the experiment at the later date and again more often than not, I am less convinced if at all. Of course there are exceptions.
Mostly however, new additons to the rig will have to pass the test of 2 or more other pairs of ears and at the end they absolutely must not interfere with my listening in music lover mode, once the testing period is over. This approach has often enough saved me from doing something foolish. Wishful thinking clouds the ears.

Since writing that post, I am even more convinced it is true. It is a power explanation for a lot of what we experience.

And yes, repeated listening is a good idea. As is asking if your system was always that deficient before the tweak yet you thought it was so good .

And yes, repeated listening is a good idea. As is asking if your system was always that deficient before the tweak yet you thought it was so good .[/QUOTE]

Exactly!:b ( and seriously in fact, when I added the AFO! )

What I miss in this approach is a deeper analysis of the relations between haering and "understanding" of sonic waves.
Why older conductors manage to perform better whilst their hearing capacities decrease with age?
Idem for older musicians, do their performances are worse than when they were young?
Without taking that into consideration the audiophile approach is just not complex enough for me.
I agree that we should more concentrate on psychoacoustics than on electronics though , what we usually do.
I believe a long time audiophile experience with age the hearing limitations which are compensated by brain capabilities to understand better what we hear.

Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Like many audiophiles, you are, I think, mixing music and sound. Yes, sound is necessary for the perception of music, so the two are interrelated. But, sound quality and musical quality are not one for one. The musical qualities of Enrico Caruso from a scratchy, acoustically recorded 78, horn resonances and all, have thrilled people for about a century and they still do. It might be fatiguing to listen to a lot of that, and there is much distortion, including the tonality, loss of detail, of frequency extremes and any sense of recorded space. Yet, the essence of music still comes through.

Sound is something perceived more or less automatically and subconsciously at a low level of our nervous system, starting at our ears. Music is something carried by the sound but perceived only in our brains at a much higher cognitive level based on learning and prior associations. It is not just about the sound. No matter how excellent the qualities of the sound are, we may not like the music. We might deem it as boring or something we cannot enjoyably relate to and so on. I love Wagner's Ring of the Niebelungen operas, for example, but I expect many listeners cannot stand much of that great cycle.

True, I enjoy music best live in the concert hall, where the sound is best by far. But, visual cues are also a part of that, too, though audiophiles generally do not acknowledge the visual aspect. Our brain puts the audio and the visual together naturally in perceiving and enjoying the complex art of the music. And, it does so even where there might be compromises in the quality of the sound or where the visual aspect of music performance is not provided.

My point is the study of sonic perception and of musical perception are largely two different things. Understanding one of those perceptions does not necessarily illuminate our understanding of the other. It is true enough, though, that I, like most audiophiles, most enjoy hearing the music I like with the very highest sound quality. But, I am listening to Johnny Hartmann singing Lush Life with John Coltrane right now through a little, plastic, tabletop FM radio, and I am enjoying it very much musically.

Click to expand...

+1. I couldn't agree with you more!

Well, you are absolutely right. As an audiophile I do not care about the sonic waves if they not lead to music.
One cannot separate them because they are perceived , manipulated, stored and eventually understood by the same and homogenous human body.
Trying do deal with one or another separately wont improve our knowledge, of course imo.
Btw amirm developed the skill to recognize hires music recordings with high level of accuracy.
Would he do the same with any other registered accoustic signal ?
And - even more important- would he loose this ability with age because of increasing hearing limitations?
Sorry amirm to refer to your personal experience

Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Like many audiophiles, you are, I think, mixing music and sound. Yes, sound is necessary for the perception of music, so the two are interrelated. But, sound quality and musical quality are not one for one. The musical qualities of Enrico Caruso from a scratchy, acoustically recorded 78, horn resonances and all, have thrilled people for about a century and they still do. It might be fatiguing to listen to a lot of that, and there is much distortion, including the tonality, loss of detail, of frequency extremes and any sense of recorded space. Yet, the essence of music still comes through.

Sound is something perceived more or less automatically and subconsciously at a low level of our nervous system, starting at our ears. Music is something carried by the sound but perceived only in our brains at a much higher cognitive level based on learning and prior associations. It is not just about the sound. No matter how excellent the qualities of the sound are, we may not like the music. We might deem it as boring or something we cannot enjoyably relate to and so on. I love Wagner's Ring of the Niebelungen operas, for example, but I expect many listeners cannot stand much of that great cycle.

True, I enjoy music best live in the concert hall, where the sound is best by far. But, visual cues are also a part of that, too, though audiophiles generally do not acknowledge the visual aspect. Our brain puts the audio and the visual together naturally in perceiving and enjoying the complex art of the music. And, it does so even where there might be compromises in the quality of the sound or where the visual aspect of music performance is not provided.

My point is the study of sonic perception and of musical perception are largely two different things. Understanding one of those perceptions does not necessarily illuminate our understanding of the other. It is true enough, though, that I, like most audiophiles, most enjoy hearing the music I like with the very highest sound quality. But, I am listening to Johnny Hartmann singing Lush Life with John Coltrane right now through a little, plastic, tabletop FM radio, and I am enjoying it very much musically.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Drove this morning 70km to a friends house and listened to some Ellington. Loved it! The sound was lousy, but the music was great. This is nothing new. We practically all have experienced this and it is because of this fact, that so many music lovers think that we audiophiles are all more or less nuts. I was thinking, while driving and enjoying the music, why do I need those expensive plasma tweeters, when on this crappy cd player cymbals come through pretty clearly. Finally I thought, probably the reason why we tweak the sound of our systems, so that our musical enjoyment can flourish undisturbed by sound we don't like. Here the two levels ( the objective, measurable world of physics ) meet with and merge with the subjective world of brain or psyche in the enjoyment of music. Why music can do to us what it does and why it can deeply affect us, is still mostly unknown.

Detlof said:

Why music can do to us what it does and why it can deeply affect us, is still mostly unknown.

Click to expand...

That's my point, conclusions made only on the base of measurements of hearing capabilities are of very limited importance , again imo.

marslo said:

That's my point, conclusions made only on the base of measurements of hearing capabilities are of very limited importance , again imo.

Click to expand...

Yep! While they paint a picture they cannot forecast what the ear perceives.

Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Even more importantly when it comes to music, measurements of sound or the science of audio cannot predict what the brain perceives in terms of the art of music.

Click to expand...

You say this as if it is some shortcoming of measurements. The further point worth making is two people are likely to perceive the art of music differently due to reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of reproduction. This is actually pretty funny on your part.

Fitzcaraldo215 said:

I think you are misreading me - erroneously, as is clear if you look at my earlier post about separating the sound from the music. I think if you read that post, you will see we are in rather close agreement. Yes, of course, no two people perceive music in the same way. And, there is, of course, no way to measure the perception of the music. My points were you can have great sound even if you did not enjoy listening to the music. And, conversely, you can have mediocre sound and still greatly enjoy the music.

I do think measurements do a great job of describing the sound. Where we run into difficulty is when audiophiles put the sound and their perception of the music together as though they were inseparably one and the same, in the sense of greater apparent musical enjoyment = a better sounding system. "I really grooved to the music. It set my foot a-tappin' and it gave me goosebumps. I was able to single out details, such as the contra bassoon in the 3rd movement like I have never heard it before. Therefore, this is one helluva great sounding piece of hi fi gear" is total BS, as I think you will agree. Sorry for that lame and oversimplified satire, but it seems almost a characature outline of countless reviews I have read, even in prominent audio journals.

Yes, musical enjoyment is why we are all here. Better sound contributes to better enjoyment of the music. I am all for better sound and greater enjoyment of my music. But, greater enjoyment of the music is not necessarily a sign, in and of itself, of better sound.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And yet: In my own private language, I differentiate between "audiophile -" and "music lover mode". In my experience they are not the same. When a particular performance gets musically under my skin, I could not care less about the sound. I feel atuned to nothing but the music, but will admit, that I feel jarred, when some "bad" sound bits from my rig jolt me out from my enjoyment.
Not so, when the recording is bad, but the musical interpretation to my liking. My ears will adapt to that. But a percieved fault in my rig, when enjoying music, will throw me from "music lover-" back into "audiophile mode" and music turns into sound for me then. In fact, I recognise two modes of listening critically in me. I can listen critically to a musical interpretation or critically to how it sounds coming from my system. Sometimes both can happen at the same time, my attention oscillates to and fro. I hate that however, it is tiring and at the end one side will prevail or I will stop listening alltogether.
In my very personal experience, the audiophile in me is the servant of the music lover in me. They are indeed not the same. One may in fact be the enemy of the other. They are antagonistic. The fact that I can love music and be taken in by it coming from some crappy bed side alarm clock is only an apparent contradiction to the above. I would not expect good sound coming from such a thing. But I do expect it from my rig and I did assemble and tweak it not that from some test lp it would track perfectly and frequency sweeps won't rattle the cups in my cupboard ( although of course it's nice if they don't), but in order to enjoy the music and forget about how the rig sounds. The only trouble is, having spent a lot of hard earned money to assemble it and countless hours in tweaking and critical listening, my expectations on the sound are high, too high. ( that fact is always driven home, when -after having caught a good seat- I come home from a classical concert and I am reminded that my rig's music is in reality made out of , or rather trying to do, a facsimile of a facsimile of some real event. Sobering thought, that one.)
But being as it may, the audiophile in me will slave stubornly away, so that the music lover will be happy. My point is, the former is slave to the latter. Music first, sound second. There is a hitch however: This, as already said, works with the bedside radio perfectly but not so with the stereo, because here we have generally great expectations. So, as in real life, sooner or later the slave will master the master. In spite of that, I know moments of bliss, rare enough though, when this seeming paradox in our "audiophile, music loving lives" of sound and music, of ear and brain, celebrates a happy marriage!
So Fitzcaraldo's beautiful persiflage of a review points out the BS contained in it at exactly that point, where the "reviewer" switches from music lover into audiophile mode, as he "singles out details". You simply cannot be in both modes at the same time, except for those very rare exceptions, when music and sound work so well together, that the objectve and the subjective worlds seem to blend. That, like haven fallen in love, are moments to remember. They are rare enough.

"I differentiate between "audiophile -" and "music lover mode""


To be honest I cant do it. When the recording and SQ is bad I stay away of such an album and listen to the others.
Of course on the very simple setup - say ipod with headphones or even small kitchen radio ( I use Tivoli audio) the music lover may feel happy - and I do from time to time - especially when I have not access to my main gear.
But when I buy recordings to be reproduced with the main setup I care very much about SQ and do not waist money for mp 3 or old vinyl in bad condition.

marslo said:

"I differentiate between "audiophile -" and "music lover mode""


To be honest I cant do it. When the recording and SQ is bad I stay away of such an album and listen to the others.
Of course on the very simple setup - say ipod with headphones or even small kitchen radio ( I use Tivoli audio) the music lover may feel happy - and I do from time to time - especially when I have not access to my main gear.
But when I buy recordings to be reproduced with the main setup I care very much about SQ and do not waist money for mp 3 or old vinyl in bad condition.

Click to expand...

I believe to know exactly what you mean. Only if you are a lover of big orchestral classical music like me, good recordings which are also musically satisfying are not so easy to find.

May I recommend two websites when I buy outstanding classical recordings ?

http://www.eclassical.com/
https://www.nativedsd.com/