The "First 30 Seconds" Trap: Why our brains lie to us about what sounds good

[Nitrateaudio]

https://flic.kr/p/2rN3xnk

So, we’ve all had that experience: you swap in a new component, or you hear a new album for the first time, and within 30 seconds you’re convinced it’s the best thing you’ve ever heard. The wow factor is off the charts.

But then, two weeks later, the fatigue sets in. That detail starts to sound like brightness and that impact starts to somewhat feel like bloating.

I’ve been thinking about this in the context of concert amnesia, a phenomenon recently explained by cultural and psychology researcher Joey Florez regarding Taylor Swift's Eras Tour. Florez notes that when we are hit with an overwhelming landslide of sensory input, our brains struggle to encode granular details, prioritizing the emotional peak over factual accuracy.

It makes me wonder if we experience a mini-amnesia in the showroom or during a quick A/B test? If our hippocampus is overwhelmed by the novelty of a new sound signature, are we actually hearing the gear, or is our brain just malfunctioning under the weight of a dopamine hit? Just as Florez suggests, our memory of an event is often a reconstruction—if we reconstruct a listening session based only on that initial 30-second emotional high, we might be ignoring the technical flaws that lead to long-term fatigue.

I'm curious if anyone else feels that our brains are effectively 'blacking out' the truth of the sound in favor of the excitement of the new.

Source via: Popdust (https://www.popdust.com/joey-florez-shares-his-take-on-concert-amnesia-after-the-eras-tour)

 

[treitz3]

Hello and good evening to you. First off, please allow me to offer you a very warm welcome to the What's Best Forum.

Unless the change is very subtle and detection is minuscule and can only take weeks of discerning any difference? I have to say that 30 seconds is too long. Usually, it only takes about 2 to 3 seconds to know that there is a change for the better or worse. More often than not (at least for me), the initial impressions end up being the long lasting impressions.

New is not always better.

Tom

 

[Anton D]

In the wine hobby, it’s called the cellar door effect!

In audio, we seem to divide this into ‘fatiguing’ vs. ‘broken in’ depending on what happens later at home.

 

[tima]

So, we’ve all had that experience: you swap in a new component, or you hear a new album for the first time, and within 30 seconds you’re convinced it’s the best thing you’ve ever heard. The wow factor is off the charts.

Unless the change is very subtle and detection is minuscule and can only take weeks of discerning any difference? I have to say that 30 seconds is too long. Usually, it only takes about 2 to 3 seconds to know that there is a change for the better or worse. More often than not (at least for me), the initial impressions end up being the long lasting impressions.

If you have a steady template or reference already in your head I believe you can assess against that reference reasonably quickly. For me that means more the 2-3 seconds because I want to hear the fullest frequency range and dynamic range the component or album has to offer and you won' get that in a couple moments. Also, in the case of a component, it may need time to break-in -- for example, it took several hundred hours (500+) for the Atmasphere Class D amplifier to fully break-in.

As to assessing if component A is simply different from component B I assume they will sound different before listening, but as to which is 'better' per my reference it can take some time. Deeper understanding of what the differences are in terms of being able to describe those difference, that can take me weeks.

I do not rely on memory. For reviewing I've become relatively adept at writing stream-of-consciouness notes while listening. What I do is repeat a listening session twice or thrice over time then compare my notes -- sometimes my initial notes pick out the same passage and impressions as the last session, sometimes different. When all accounts for a passage are similar, I know my word descriptions are over the target. If I find I have stopped writing and just listening, that's a positive.

Then there is always the 'what-you-had-for-lunch' factor. While initial impessions can be quite telling, best to listen across days.

 

[hopkins]

Two words: expectation bias.

 

[Hear Here]

I wonder! When I introduce a new piece of equipment, I tend to be over-critical and try not to jump to any conclusions - unless it's an obvious dud. There is the theory that the presentation one is used to takes a lot of beating and unfamiliar presentation is likely to be criticised until it becomes more familiar and accepted.

I'll install the new kit and listen to it exclusively for a week or so and then I'll switch back to the old unit. Only then can a realistic judgement can be made. More often than not, I can decide which I prefer, but sometimes A:B comparison may be worthwhile if the change is subtle, perhaps with other listeners present.

The assumption that something must be better because it is 20 years younger, or because it measures well, or that is cost 10 times as much as the old should be resisted. It has to stand a reasonable test of time before you part with your old gear and the cash required for the new unit!