A Floyd Toole nugget that explains things?

[sceptical1]

According to Toole:

"hearing loss is a factor in preference, but it shows up not only as a fixed bias in preference but also as rating inconsistencies in repeated auditions of exactly the same sound - love it in the morning, hate it in the afternoon has been observed"
A fascinating thing for me to find out that explains some confusion when I listen. If what he says is true it turns out the problem is me and not the stuff.

How many here are convinced that you have a valid opinion about what you hear when, like me, you are:

Over 60 yrs old
Have tinnitus
Can barely hear up to 10khz
Take ear health for granted, intentional or not
In my case I would have to say no, even when my appreciation of music has not waned over the years or considering those afflictions still thinking that critical listening is possible, me saying anything about what is better than something else is best ignored.

Would you freely admit to being incapable of objectivity due to physical limitations or is that something that does not matter because you have the benefit of objective measurements that tell you what you are, or should be, hearing.

How deep is the confirmation bias rabbit hole when it comes to hearing what you see? Is seeing a preferred measurement of a controlled off axis or frquency response graph any different from seeing and knowing what component is playing when evaluating subjectively?

Whatever comes of this, the 4th edition of his book is a buy for me. It could be that my questions have already be answered!

One thing that intrigues me about Toole's finding is if this also applies to headphone listening. A whole 'nother rabbit hole that further confuses things no matter the answer.

 

[Gitfiddle]

Would you freely admit to being incapable of objectivity due to physical limitations or is that something that does not matter because you have the benefit of objective measurements that tell you what you are, or should be, hearing.

sounds like they should admit being incapable of subjectivity, not objectivity, if they are becoming deaf. If you can not hear well, your experience with taking measurements does not disappear. Your credibility with subjective sound does.

 

[MattHooper]

According to Toole:

"hearing loss is a factor in preference, but it shows up not only as a fixed bias in preference but also as rating inconsistencies in repeated auditions of exactly the same sound - love it in the morning, hate it in the afternoon has been observed"
A fascinating thing for me to find out that explains some confusion when I listen. If what he says is true it turns out the problem is me and not the stuff.

How many here are convinced that you have a valid opinion about what you hear when, like me, you are:

Over 60 yrs old
Have tinnitus
Can barely hear up to 10khz
Take ear health for granted, intentional or not
In my case I would have to say no, even when my appreciation of music has not waned over the years or considering those afflictions still thinking that critical listening is possible, me saying anything about what is better than something else is best ignored.

Would you freely admit to being incapable of objectivity due to physical limitations or is that something that does not matter because you have the benefit of objective measurements that tell you what you are, or should be, hearing.

How deep is the confirmation bias rabbit hole when it comes to hearing what you see? Is seeing a preferred measurement of a controlled off axis or frquency response graph any different from seeing and knowing what component is playing when evaluating subjectively?

Whatever comes of this, the 4th edition of his book is a buy for me. It could be that my questions have already be answered!

One thing that intrigues me about Toole's finding is if this also applies to headphone listening. A whole 'nother rabbit hole that further confuses things no matter the answer.

I have a somewhat different view: I’m actually amazed at how well some older audiophiles seem to be able to adequately describe the performance of loudspeakers, despite some hearing deficiencies.

There have been plenty of takes by audiophiles and reviewers who are at least my age and they seem to hear what I’m hearing in the same products.

I’m 61, my hearing is good up to 14 K or so, and my friend who reviews is my age, but I bet his hearing is worse than mine (because he’s been attending live music longer than I have). But we still seem to converge on what we hear when he has a new loudspeaker in, and what we both hear tends to converge quite well with the measurements. If there is some obvious irregularities in the frequency responses, we usually hear it.

It’s clear that even older audiophiles continue to get a lot out of high end gear, and I think that’s probably because most of the relevant sonic and musical information isn’t in the extremes of the frequency response.

 

[MRC01]

My wife has lost her high frequency hearing, can barely hear the birds outside.
I can still hear the quiet whine of LCD screens, around 16 kHz.
She can no longer hear the differences between "good" and "bad" audio equipment, though I do and appreciate good sound.
This difference doesn't affect our enjoyment of music; we both love music and have been amateur musicians since we were kids.
People are always subject to psychoacoustic limitations and perceptual illusions, at any age. It is inescapable. But practice and training does improve hearing acuity and consistency. For example, trained listeners have higher sensitivity and reliability in blind testing.

 

[Newman]

According to Toole:

"hearing loss is a factor in preference, but it shows up not only as a fixed bias in preference but also as rating inconsistencies in repeated auditions of exactly the same sound - love it in the morning, hate it in the afternoon has been observed"
A fascinating thing for me to find out that explains some confusion when I listen. If what he says is true

Hi, welcome to ASR. Re: “if what he says is true”, it is not his opinion, it is his conclusion, drawing on data from valid research. So I encourage you to accept it, at least until you become aware of contradictory valid research.

There is more detail on his quote above in the first edition of his book, issued 2008. So it is not news to those of us who have been following audio research for a while.

…it turns out the problem is me and not the stuff.

How many here are convinced that you have a valid opinion about what you hear when, like me, you are:

Over 60 yrs old
Have tinnitus
Can barely hear up to 10khz
Take ear health for granted, intentional or not
In my case I would have to say no, even when my appreciation of music has not waned over the years or considering those afflictions still thinking that critical listening is possible, me saying anything about what is better than something else is best ignored.

Would you freely admit to being incapable of objectivity due to physical limitations or is that something that does not matter because you have the benefit of objective measurements that tell you what you are, or should be, hearing.

OK, check out the sections of his books related to the quote you selected. When he says “hearing loss”, it is more nuanced than just any hearing loss. In fact, he doesn’t mean normal age-related hearing decline. He refers to people with significant damage to their hearing even around 1 kHz.

People of our age can still be consistent evaluators, both internally with ourself and with the general population, as long as the differences between audio products are not in the top octave. I still wouldn’t volunteer to be in a listening panel, though, because of that top octave issue.

But don’t jump to the conclusion that, just because you have normal age-related decline, Toole’s quote applies to you (and us) in every sense.

How deep is the confirmation bias rabbit hole when it comes to hearing what you see?

Very deep. So deep that some people, even science-driven audiophiles, go into blank denial about it and try to diminish its true magnitude. After all, the deeper it is, the more inconvenient it is.

Is seeing a preferred measurement of a controlled off axis or frequency response graph any different from seeing and knowing what component is playing when evaluating subjectively?

No different in principle.

Whatever comes of this, the 4th edition of his book is a buy for me. It could be that my questions have already be answered!

One thing that intrigues me about Toole's finding is if this also applies to headphone listening. A whole 'nother rabbit hole that further confuses things no matter the answer.

I’m not aware of any evidence either way, but I expect it would.

Cheers

 

[Lion♡]

Although I don’t meet the age threshold of 60 or the >10 kHz hearing loss criteria, I wanted to share briefly because I’ve experienced Eustachian tube pressure issues, episodes of sudden hearing loss, and tinnitus—from simple squeals to a constant mosquito‑ or cicada‑like ringing around the clock (still ongoing, but much better).
Listening to higher frequencies and experiencing some loss of hearing there is to be expected. But I’d cautiously suggest it’s not an insurmountable barrier that will invalidate all your future audio experiences.
On a slightly different note, I once asked several binaural researchers in Korea, hearing‑aid manufacturers, and local doctors, “What happens if you lose hearing entirely in one ear or your ear is completely damaged?” Their common response was that your brain compensates to some extent because your past listening experiences are imprinted in it. Of course, precise localization is diminished compared to having two working ears, but the brain “imagines” the imaging based on the data it already has, so a sense of spatial image is still maintained.
Of course, if the memories of listening with two ears fade and disappear, that compensatory ability is lost. The time frame varies by person—it can be as short as a few weeks or months, or it can stretch to several years or even decades.
Even if one ear stops working entirely, we can still hear. So, with both ears intact, would high‑frequency hearing loss really destroy “everything” about our listening experience? When I had sudden hearing loss, I experienced a drastic, massive attenuation in the typical HRTF band—around 500 to 8000 Hz—and went through internalization. Sound was no longer outside but inside my head, and I couldn’t tell front from back.
Your sense of stereo is stored in your brain exactly as you’ve experienced it, and you’ll always interpret the spatial information in music just as you always have.
So I hope you won’t dwell on such negative thoughts. Stay strong—your listening experience will remain steadfast.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Once the basics of eliminating obvious departures from fidelity have been addressed, we begin to describe perceptions which are at the fine granular end of our senses. There lies confusion, the enhanced likelihood of self-suggestion, and the effects of mood and general well-being. In short, I don't believe most of us are nearly as good at accurately detecting subtle perceived differences that are really there as we think, and our reliability becomes quite variable.

 

[amirm]

I think it depends on what you are testing. With respect to speaker/headphone testing, much of the music spectrum is below 8 or even 6 KHz. Variations below those limits have massive impact on tonality of the transducer. In that respect, even with fair amount of age related nerve damage, excellent results can be had. Obviously, if the issue is above 10 kHz, then yes, such person is not qualified to make that assessment. With headphone testing, our measurements are not accurate above 6 to 8 kHz anyway, making it a crapshoot subjectively and objectively what is going on.

 

[xanalog]

I probably should do my own research before asking but... besides the reduction/loss at high frequencies; what other hearing impairments are exhibited as we get older?

 

[xanalog]

I probably should do my own research before asking

I took the lazy approach and asked gGemini, the above question: with some resulting but interesting factoids:

Q1: besides the reduction/loss at high frequencies; what other hearing impairments are exhibited as we get older
A1: While the primary hearing impairment associated with aging (presbycusis) is the reduction or loss of hearing at high frequencies, several other changes can occur:
...
Tinnitus:
Hyperacusis:
Impaired Sound Localization:
Slower Auditory Processing:
Increased Difficulty Hearing in Background Noise:
--------------------
Q2: Can such an answer be made more accurate in reference to listening to music?
...
A2: That's a great question! Focusing on music listening allows for a more nuanced understanding of how age-related hearing changes impact a beloved activity. Here's a more accurate breakdown of hearing impairments in older adults specifically concerning music:
Beyond the high-frequency loss, which can make brighter tones and higher-pitched instruments sound muffled or disappear altogether, here's how aging ears can affect music appreciation:
Difficulty with Timbre Discrimination: Older adults may struggle to distinguish between the sounds of different instruments. The unique sonic characteristics (timbre) that make a violin sound different from a flute can become less clear, leading to a less rich and detailed musical experience.
Impaired Melody Recognition: The ability to follow a melody, especially if it involves rapid pitch changes or is played by higher-pitched instruments, can be compromised. This can make it harder to recognize familiar tunes and appreciate the melodic structure of music.
Challenges with Harmony Perception: Discerning different musical notes played simultaneously (harmony) can become more difficult. This can lead to a diminished appreciation of chord progressions and the emotional impact they create. Music might sound dissonant or "muddy."
Rhythm and Timing Issues: While the perception of a basic beat might remain intact, older adults can have trouble with more complex rhythmic patterns and the timing of musical events. Syncopation and intricate rhythmic interplay might be less noticeable or even sound "off."
Reduced Dynamic Range Perception: The ability to perceive the difference between very soft and very loud sounds can decrease. This can lead to music sounding either too quiet with important details missing or too loud and potentially uncomfortable, especially during crescendos. Subtle dynamic variations that add expressiveness to music might be lost.
Increased Sensitivity to Distortion: Hearing aids, while helpful for speech, can sometimes introduce distortion, particularly with complex musical signals or loud passages. This can make music sound unpleasant or artificial.
Lyric Comprehension Issues: Even if the musical elements are somewhat clear, understanding song lyrics can be more challenging, especially when accompanied by music or in the presence of any background noise. The subtle cues in speech sounds are often in the higher frequencies, which are most affected by age-related hearing loss.
Altered Spatial Perception of Music: The ability to locate where different instruments are positioned in a stereo or multi-speaker setup can diminish, leading to a less immersive and spatially defined listening experience.
It's important to note that musical experience can play a protective role. Older adults with a history of musical training or engagement often show better music perception abilities compared to their non-musician peers, even with age-related hearing loss. This suggests that lifelong engagement with music can help maintain some aspects of auditory processing relevant to music appreciation.

Oy!

 

[MRC01]

Some of those are redundant. For example, impaired localization, increased difficulty hearing in background noise, reduced lyric comprehension result from (or are at least related to) loss of high frequency sensitivity. and hyperacusis is related to loss of high frequencies and dynamic range.

If you want to discard these secondary consequences and boil it down only to primary effects:
1. Loss of high frequency sensitivity
2. Tinnitus
3. Reduced dynamic range (reduced tolerance of very loud sound)

Most of the other effects result from these either singly or in combination.

The brighter side is that training helps. A background in playing musical instruments, or professional training for blind audio testing, etc. These all improve one's hearing acuity. The gradual degrade of the "hardware" is inevitable, but we can mitigate the effects by improving the "software".

 

[xanalog]

Most of the other effects result from these either singly or in combination.

... yet - it appears - much more complex than just a simple FR graph from the audiologist.

 

[MRC01]

... yet - it appears - much more complex than just a simple FR graph from the audiologist.

True, but the Stochastic Parrot made it sound like a litany of "hearing impairments" which is misleading because it didn't differentiate primary causes from their secondary effects.

 

[xanalog]

...Stochastic Parrot...

You are making me defend our feathered friend but I was at fault for asking the wrong question. [gulp]
Although, possible negative effects on timbre, rhythm/timing, harmony, dynamic range, compression, and auditory processing tells me what I should brace for, in the future.
That future now looks sounds less bright.

 

[MRC01]

You are making me defend our feathered friend but I was at fault for asking the wrong question. [gulp]
Although, possible negative effects on timbre, rhythm/timing, harmony, dynamic range, compression, and auditory processing tells me what I should brace for, in the future.
That future now looks sounds less bright.

Well, you could learn to play a musical instrument (if you don't already)...

 

[Jaxjax]

Hi, welcome to ASR. Re: “if what he says is true”, it is not his opinion, it is his conclusion, drawing on data from valid research. So I encourage you to accept it, at least until you become aware of contradictory valid research.

Not sure if relevant but interesting read.
https://news.yale.edu/2025/01/23/he...rchers-uncover-new-complexities-human-hearing
https://journals.aps.org/prxlife/abstract/10.1103/PRXLife.3.013001

 

[amirm]

You are making me defend our feathered friend but I was at fault for asking the wrong question. [gulp]
Although, possible negative effects on timbre, rhythm/timing, harmony, dynamic range, compression, and auditory processing tells me what I should brace for, in the future.
That future now looks sounds less bright.

No worries. With age comes a lot more wisdom behind those ears....

 

[Travis]

"hearing loss is a factor in preference, but it shows up not only as a fixed bias in preference but also as rating inconsistencies in repeated auditions of exactly the same sound - love it in the morning, hate it in the afternoon has been observed"
A fascinating thing for me to find out that explains some confusion when I listen. If what he says is true it turns out the problem is me and not the stuff.

Be carefull, your quote by Dr. Toole, appears in multiple papers, his book, and in oral interviews. Everywhere I have seen that quote it has been in the context of who is suitable for the blind, multiple speaker, preference testing he has conducted over decades. He specifies the degree of hearing loss and what over what range it shows up in preference testing making a test subject statistically unreliable . (I will get you the quote on that).

So if you have hearing loss greater than what he specifies as being suitable for participating in a blind listening preference test of 3 or more speakers, you are not somebody suitable to participate in a such a test. That’s all it means, nothing more. You are not a good candidate to compare speakers, your preferences could be way off from the rest of the subjects.

However, as the judge of which speaker sounds best to you, in your room, and what you use it for, there is nobody on the face of the Earth better than you as to what sounds best, regardless of what your loss is.

If if you get 3 or 4 decent measuring speakers (to keep family and guests happy) and there is a clear winner to YOU, you go with that.

How many here are convinced that you have a valid opinion about what you hear when, like me, you are:

Over 60 yrs old
Have tinnitus
Can barely hear up to 10khz
Take ear health for granted, intentional or not
In my case I would have to say no, even when my appreciation of music has not waned over the years or considering those afflictions still thinking that critical listening is possible, me saying anything about what is better than something else is best ignored.

Did you mean, can barely hear anything above 10kHz? If you can barely hear anything from 20Hz “up to”10kHz, you can’t hear and you have bigger problems than whether your opinion about preference is valid or not. Clearly if you can still appreciate music it’s the former.

Your opinion on what you prefer is (avoid “better”) and the amount that of preference, is no more, or less, valid than anyone else’s preference here.

How deep is the confirmation bias rabbit hole when it comes to hearing what you see? Is seeing a preferred measurement of a controlled off axis or frquency response graph any different from seeing and knowing what component is playing when evaluating subjectively?

If you are under the impression that Dr. Toole has implied that measurements can replace listening, that would be a mistake. People often ignore that Dr. Toole has repeatedly said when it comes to the final selection you have to listen to the speakers. There is no avoiding that.

I think he would agree that if the only way you can demo for purchase you need to control as many variables as you can. They need to be in your room if possible, level matched as best as you can, and if possible, top two contenders in room at same time. Get a blind fold and have friend family A B them, in mono, (if you can level matched them properly, difficult to do but his book will tell you how if up to the task).

Bias works both ways with sighted tests. Something that measures slightly less than something else can throw you off in other direction in a sighted test.

By the way, Welcome to the forum.

 

[Travis]

This is from an oral history he did last July:

“That's wonderful. But then on top of that, is their hearing adequate to the task [of being a test subject]? We in Harman and others in the different parts of the world have explored this now, and it's pretty much agreed upon that your hearing thresholds ought to be within perhaps 15 to 20 dB of normal over the frequency range in order for you to qualify as being a reasonably reliable listener in the sense that your opinions could be translatable to be useful to the public at large.

Now, what percentage of the public at large has normal hearing in that range? Roughly about 75%. So this is not an exclusive club by any means.

Although I must say, there's evidence now and recently that people are rapidly losing hearing, younger generation. So that statistic might not be useful, frankly. It's a different situation now.”

From SoundStage! Audiophile Podcast: Dr. Floyd Toole: An Oral History 2 - A/B Tests | Bass | Athena | Brains, Rooms, Hearing and Listening, Jul 19, 2024

Dr. Floyd Toole: An Oral History 2 - A/B Tests | Bass | Athena | Brains, Rooms, Hearing and Listening

Podcast Episode · SoundStage! Audiophile Podcast · 07/19/2024 · 1h 19m

podcasts.apple.com

Dr. Toole spends about a page discussing hearing loss in connection with listeners in his tests on page 8 of this famous paper.

https://www.harman.com/documents/audioscience_0.pdf

 

[Somafunk]

From SoundStage! Audiophile Podcast: Dr. Floyd Toole: An Oral History 2 - A/B Tests | Bass | Athena | Brains, Rooms, Hearing and Listening, Jul 19, 2024

Those podcasts are a good listen (no pun intended)