Assessing gear without close comparisons

[Djano]

We are quite good at perceiving differences between two closely compared audio perceptions. For example, when comparing two audio segments using the Harman program 'How to listen', Klippel distortion test, or any ABX test, I can confidently say that one segment has a dip in the midrange frequencies or is distorted, while the other is not. To achieve this, I constantly switch between the two segments.

What troubles me is that in many cases, if I couldn't compare the modified segment to the perfect one, I would be unable to pinpoint what's wrong with the modified one.
Worse yet, when I listen to the modified segment for a long time, the perfect/normal segment starts to sound abnormal.

We already have some well-known explanations for this phenomenon, such as the briefness of auditory memory or the fact that users become accustomed to a particular sound signature (user burn-in, not equipment burn-in).
Are there any other explanations?

I'm listing various things below that I wanted to share with you, choose what you like
_________

I'd like to share some thoughts that came to mind while thinking about this

(Obvious) The usefulness of comparison is correlated with the severity of imperfection. If the defect is huge, we can notice it blindly and without the need for comparison: distorted sound, background noise, speakers not reaching low frequencies, etc. Things get more challenging when these flaws are subtle. This seems to apply to all aspects: distortion, left/right imbalance, frequency response, background noise, etc. As it's a matter of degree, a continuum, it will likely be difficult to establish a clear threshold at which the transition occur

User habituation to a sound signature only explain certain things. When we change the tonality, returning to normal sounds abnormal and often worse. Conversely, reducing background noise or distortion will always be perceived as an improvement (with the rare exception that, as when you turn off a fan, hair clipper or electric shaver, the sudden absence of background noise can, 'inversely,' make us perceive things strangely ; this mainly applies to background noise)". In short, habituation works for frequency response, but I'm less convinced about the rest.

________

Some additional questions

What's the point of investing in better equipment when we get accustomed to any correct sound signature and may even perceive deviations from it as a degradation (even if it's objectively flatter)? This question applies mostly to frequency response (speakers) because, as mentioned earlier, we don't positively habituate to background noise or distortion, especially in the long term. I see two complementary explanations: 1) We all want to buy stuff. 2) It's the essence of high fidelity: the important thing is not to get used to equipment's imperfections but to have equipment that perfectly reproduces the sourc

How do verbose YouTubers dare to ramble on about the sound of this or that device without even conducting a close comparison? Is it due to ignorance? Have they never tried the tests I mentioned in the introduction, which would force them to realize how ridiculous it is to write the script? Is it just to have something to say in videos, even if it means lying ?

Can we better judge equipment by having a 'reference track' that we know very well? This seems logical. But on the other hand, if auditory memory is short, what's the point? Well, I imagine it still allows us to identify which instrument dominates or other aspects, enabling certain interesting assessment

Would a trained listener perform well without a comparison element? It seems to me that most studies on user preferences (Floyd Toole, etc.) involve comparisons between several devices. Trained listeners are then more consistent (they repeat the same evaluations when the device is the same) and discriminating (they have a significant difference in appreciation between bad and good equipment) than the average person. But in a non-comparative context, would they be better at spotting issues than the average person?

 

[Curvature]

This is a complex topic and you raise a lot of good questions.

I'll note a few things.

When it comes to FR issues, how many bands can you hear? Human auditory bands can be divided from 20-40 depending on level across our whole frequency range. It is relatively easy (but not for everybody) to hear the whole thing split into two bands. High/low. But how good can you get? It takes a lot of conscious effort and practice to hear narrow bandwidth issues.

Do you play any musical instruments? If so can you pick notes and chords out of the air? Can you count how many notes there are in a chord played by someone else? Are you able to tune your instrument by ear? When tuning, do you confuse the fundamental for overtones? How detuned does an instrument have to get before it becomes objectionable? Call these all skill-testing questions. I'm not looking for an answer. It's more to think about.

You already raised the point that, sometimes, the reference sound and the modified sound switch priorities. Extending the musical analogy, do you listen to western music alone or do you venture elsewhere? Are you comfortable with modal and microtonal music? Or does it sound wrong? Can you switch your listening frame of mind easily back and forth?

What I mean here is thay there is a very strong cognitive element to listening that must be disciplined and given place. Many people, many nonaudiophiles, cannot appreciate good equipment. I've had this happen many times when showing off my gear. They simply don't know what to listen for. The cognitive element is strongest: I play them music they like and they can identify the various musical lines and lyrics, and that's the end. They don't hear different reverb, compression, distortion or FR characteristics outside of noticing bass extension. I'd call that weak two band recognition.

What this means for me is that equipment matters to the extent you care to learn about it. There rather brutal limits set by biology for sensitivity to different audible phenomena. Training can get a person really far.

The first mountain to climb is understanding what equipment can do and how it works. Measurements help with that. The second is understanding what's happening inside you as you listen. Training and studying helps there.

With effort, I can hear 10 or so FR bands decently. With low effort, I can hear 5 easily. I can also turn off that side of myself. When listening at bars or stores or at friends' places, I can identify issues. I know most people don't care, so I say nothing, or say something nice if someone's trying to impress me. It's not as if people are looking for technical advice all the time. So I settle down and listen to the music without assessing the system.

It's hard to say what the basis for that kind of ongoing, deep reference, is, but I think biology has a lot of say in the situation. The older I've gotten, the more sensitive I've become to hearing fatigue (I notice the signs of onset more quickly than I did when I was younger), and there is some link between that and what I find wrong during critical listening.

This is part of what I find significant about Toole's and others' blind testing. There is some level of consistency set by biology that they uncovered in their results. We have a long, shared evolutionary history after all.