Your aural memory...did I really hear that?

[DaveyF]

So many reviewer's and a'philes seem to rely heavily on their aural memory. I know that I do this too, but how reliable is it? Can one really remember the sound of a speaker or an amp or TT or even cables inserted into a system in the past? How long do our memories of an aural event continue?.....are they accurate representations from a few days ago, a few weeks ago, a year ago, or maybe decades ago!
I'm beginning to believe that the best we can do is maybe a few days back, BUT to say that we can accurately remember how a speaker, or an amp, or you name it,sounded years back is IMHO probably a real stretch. Which is why I'm really suspicious of when a reviewer compares an amp/speaker under review to an amp or speaker he reviewed a year or more back...I simply do NOT believe that we have that kind of aural memory ( at least I know I really do NOT).
What gets me also is when we have people damming gear from the past with their current fave's, when they have not heard the prior gear for years and furthermore NOT in the context of today's set-up's and rooms.
Are we really that good with our aural memories....I do NOT think so, but it would be interesting to formulate a test to see how accurate we really are.
How good is your aural memory? are you sure!

 

[DonH50]

I am sure mine is not all that great. IIRC Audio and AES concluded aural memory is only about 6 seconds, though of course you can train yourself to listen for certain things and gain better longer-term reliable differentiation. I have always been suspicious that normal body (physiological) fluctuations, not to mention mood, has a significant bearing on what and how we hear from day to day (or even from morning to night). Of course, this leads to the old debate about rapid switching in testing vs. extended listening. On one side are those who say aural memory is so short that short passages need to be used and repeated for statistical significance; the other camp says since aural memory is so short that fast switching produces meaningless results and the only way to test is by listening to familiar music over a long time period. To be countered that the result is the listener adapting to the system instead of using initial impression that are more valid, countered by you can't tell anything in just a few seconds, etc. ad nauseum.

 

[NorthStar]

Methinks that there are simply too many variables as far as time is concerned and when trying to draw memorial comparisons (audio and anything else in life).

- Don's above post describes pretty well some of my agreed thoughts on this.

 

[puroagave]

sound lab A-1s were present at the recent newport show and when a sat a listened a flood of memories hit me as if it were 1993 again when i owed A-3s. They still sound as lifelike and resolute today as i recall them to sound yet distinctly different from other 'stats i've owned

 

[DonH50]

off-topic: I've always had sort of a love-hate thing with the big Soundlabs... Always sounded incredible at first blush, but over time I tended to find myself doubting the upper and lower end were as good as smaller ESL's. I never owned a pair, however.

 

[JackD201]

Why just aural memory? Even fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes are considered blessed having photographic (optic) memories. Not many of us are so lucky.

The mental reconstruction of the stimuli may be weak regardless of which sense we are talking about but the overall impressions of the totality may be powerful and thus lasting.

The bigger question is how to single out a piece of equipment when it is only a part of the system that created the impression especially since there are so many interactions between components and components and room, not even counting what frame of mind the listener might have been in when it happened. In my opinion this takes time. Time because you've got to run a piece with different components that you have already spent a lot of time with. When comparing two pieces and I can't tell any meaningful differences my solution is simple, go for the cheaper one or whatever fits your eye better if you have the spare scratch and looks matter.

Like it or not, the audio industry is unbundled. Having a single system built up by one manufacturer is no guarantee that you get the same level of performance for every piece either as this depends on core competences. In the end, it is a human endeavor and what you get is a person or a team's vision of what things ought to sound like and this may differ wildly with your own vision.

 

[KlausR.]

So many reviewer's and a'philes seem to rely heavily on their aural memory. I know that I do this too, but how reliable is it? Can one really remember the sound of a speaker or an amp or TT or even cables inserted into a system in the past? How long do our memories of an aural event continue?.....are they accurate representations from a few days ago, a few weeks ago, a year ago, or maybe decades ago!

Aural memory has been investigated in the past, and it looks as if it’s rather bad. I attach a file (in Word 2003) which contains an excerpt of a JASA paper. View attachment Bachem.doc

Klaus

 

[asiufy]

I don't think it's that hard to record and remember specific aspects of each listening session, specially with the help of annotations. And I don't even have that good a memory
If you heard a system 5 years ago that was shrill, bright and annoying, if you write it down, sure enough, when you read your notes, you might be able to be transported back to that session, since it caused a very specific reaction on you.
Now, comparing it to some other system, many years later, in a different condition, I agree is not always easy or even fair.


alexandre

 

[ack]

Most reviewers would be taking notes; for the rest of us - and only in broad terms with equipment we've been exposed to for a long time - yes I think aural memory can be vivid: for example, an amp not having enough dynamic headroom, certain speaker cabinet vibrations, a speaker failing to disappear in your room, a cartridge sounding very warm, etc. I think there are lot of such broad attributes we can easily remember.

 

[flez007]

Excelent topic DaveyF, and tend to agree on the fact that many variables play (besides the emotional ones) when one is exposed to capture/store and validate a listening session, it is just a very compromising effort. On the other hand, in this ON and OFF journey of mine in this hobby, I am always keen towards the sonic charactieristics of particullary Gryphon and Jadis gear, they both hit the right and same brain "cells" in my auidio memory.

 

[mep]

I think the below quote is what prompted the start of this thread, and this actually started yesterday when Davey commented in another thread that he would like to hear his beloved D-70 MKII up against the new ARC REF 75 as he thinks his beloved D-70 MKII might just be the better sounding amp. Several people commented including me (and I owned a D-70 MKII and the same preamp Davey is currently listening to) that they would be amazed if the D-70 MKII sounded as good as the REF 75. Rob wrote back that he could arrange a throw-down at the hoe-down so Davey could put this to rest once and for all. I hope he does and everybody reports back with their findings.

I for one believe that ARC's output transformers have gotten better over the years (wider bandwidth) and they have continued to beef up their power supplies. ARC has also gone away from pure tube amplifiers with a gazillion input tubes and switched to using a combination of FETs for reduced noise and a much smaller count of small signal tubes. My VS115 had only 4 input tubes and 8 output tubes. The D-70 MKII uses 8 small-signal tubes by comparison. Using KT-120 tubes, the VS115 has the best bass I have ever heard from a tube amp in my house. There is no doubt in my mind or aural memory that the VS115 is a much better sounding amp from top to bottom than the D70 MKII. The REF75 is supposedly in another league. The REF 75 uses a pair of input tubes and four output tubes. The REF 75 has 520 joules of energy storage and the D-70 has 140. I spent some time listening to a system at RMAF 2012 that had the REF 75 in it and I was impressed.

I'm interested in hearing about the results of the shoot-out between the REF 75 and the D-70 MKII. I think the D-70 will sound like a tube amp from the 1980s-more noise, less transparent, and nowhere near the bottom end extension and authority overall. The coolness factor of the REF 75 is off the charts as well and so is user ease setting the bias. The REF 75 has the cool meters on the front and setting the bias is a snap. I have documented this before, the D-70 is a death trap when it comes to setting the bias.

What gets me also is when we have people damming gear from the past with their current fave's, when they have not heard the prior gear for years and furthermore NOT in the context of today's set-up's and rooms.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Aural memory has been investigated in the past, and it looks as if it’s rather bad. I attach a file (in Word 2003) which contains an excerpt of a JASA paper. View attachment 10165

Klaus

Any testing procedures would automatically make any conclusions null and void. Just read up a little bit on short vs. long term memory and perceptual abilities, specifically the inverse U function relationship. Oh yes the key is how to convert short to long term memory. Same goes with sports. And of course, that doesn't even take into consideration that it's absolutely possible to enhance skill/memory acquisition; conversely, it's also extremely easy to degrade the aforementioned perceptual abilities. But what do you want from a bunch of engineers who continue to stomp upon any biological principles?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

We may not be able to remember the very precise sound of a given component or system but the impression last , whether this is a good indicator for performance comparison is another debate. I tend to think it would not be as our mood amongst so many variables may change our perception/appreciation.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Hi

We may not be able to remember the very precise sound of a given component or system but the impression last , whether this is a good indicator for performance comparison is another debate. I tend to think it would not be as our mood amongst so many variables may change our perception/appreciation.

Mood is the great variable. You can think a certain piece of music is "meh" today and then the next day it blows your mind.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Aural memory has been investigated in the past, and it looks as if it’s rather bad. I attach a file (in Word 2003) which contains an excerpt of a JASA paper.

Nice find Klaus, that's a keeper. However, I think the "memory" here is timbre rather than absolute pitch. According to James Johnson of DTS, timbre memory is less than half a second. So it's even worse than for pitch.

--Ethan

 

[DaveyF]

Mood is the great variable. You can think a certain piece of music is "meh" today and then the next day it blows your mind.

Plus, I believe that one's listening tastes tend to change through time as well. Although, this happens over extended periods of time and not typically in the short term.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Plus, I believe that one's listening tastes tend to change through time as well. Although, this happens over extended periods of time and not typically in the short term.

True.

With regard to gear I can't say I have any lasting memories of specifics other than a general overview of how I enjoyed the sound. I can't pinpoint however what it was that struck me either positively or negatively about a certain piece. I'm also not sure it really matters, as the likelyhood of any piece in my own system is going to sound different than what I heard anyway. As such I quite heavily rely on user experience across a broad spectrum. Am I making sense?

 

[DaveyF]

True.

With regard to gear I can't say I have any lasting memories of specifics other than a general overview of how I enjoyed the sound. I can't pinpoint however what it was that struck me either positively or negatively about a certain piece. I'm also not sure it really matters, as the likelyhood of any piece in my own system is going to sound different than what I heard anyway. As such I quite heavily rely on user experience across a broad spectrum. Am I making sense?

I think that makes sense, John. However, I do remember years back listening to the original B&W Nautilus and even further back to a pair of stacked original Quads and having a specific reaction to the sound. OTOH, i couldn't really state with real accuracy what specific aspect of what particular instrument or other factor of the playback was so superior. Yes, i can say that I thought they sounded great for this reason or that, BUT I suspect it may not hold true in regards to what I either a) listen for today, or b) my expectation of great sound today and my experience of same and c) my musical tastes having changed, etc.; or maybe it does hold true??? I ask the same question as you, am I making sense? LOL.

 

[microstrip]

I know the limitations of aural memory - it is why I always take the tests I consider relevant - this means not casual listening - with music I have listened in real performances, some times with the same performers and do not try to compare two systems, but try to establish a relation with the system I am listening and what I remember from the reality. I have found that these impressions last and are mostly reproducible.

This type of listening will introduce a bias - I will perhaps forgive some aspects such as precise definition or exact timbre, but I am very sensitive to any aspect that sounds to me non-natural or artificial, and makes me an "envelopment addict". Also a lot of recordings and listening are needed to create an opinion - otherwise you risk you just found a match with a particular recording (if I ever need to sell to demo a pair of B&W silver signatures SS25 I know which recordings I will use).

 

[microstrip]

sound lab A-1s were present at the recent newport show and when a sat a listened a flood of memories hit me as if it were 1993 again when i owed A-3s. They still sound as lifelike and resolute today as i recall them to sound yet distinctly different from other 'stats i've owned

Lifelike is the proper word. They could bring a symphonic orchestra or a jazz trio in your room as no other.

It is why I am fitting the new toroids to my old SoundLab A1 PXs. There are aspects of their performance that are unique. One of my greatest audiophile sorrows was that the Dartzeel NH108b was not powerful enough for them, as they have a really though modulus and phase impedance. The pairing made woodwinds and strings sound astonishing.