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?
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?
Last edited: