• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can we trust our ears?

Sukie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
928
Likes
1,467
Location
UK
Referring to ears instead of hearing is not a good way to start.
I agree. Our ears are part of the chain, but that's it! Imagine relying on your ears rather than your ears and your brain. What good are a pair of detached ears?

I know what is meant by the phrase "trust our ears", but it suggests that the process of hearing is detached from the complexity of what is going on in the brain.

Apologies for the mini-rant.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
"Can we trust our ears?"

Referring to ears instead of hearing is not a good way to start.

It's sort of like referring to the front part of a microphone, and microphones are much simpler than hearing.

I agree. Our ears are part of the chain, but that's it! Imagine relying on your ears rather than your ears and your brain. What good are a pair of detached ears?

I thought it was pretty obviously a metonym (a synecdoche, to be precise) :p
 

Sukie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
928
Likes
1,467
Location
UK
I thought it was pretty obviously a metonym (a synecdoche, to be precise)
I disagree.

When it is used it often done so in a way that seeks to isolate the listening experience from what's going on in the brain. "I trust my ears" is often used to suggest that when differences are heard between differing audio set ups, they must be attributable to the audio equipment rather than to other factors, e.g. cognitive bias.

I would suggest that there is a substantial and demonstrable difference between the way in which people often use the phrase "I trust my ears" and the reality of the process of hearing, particularly when it comes to the other factors at play in the interpretation of the overall experience of that which we hear.

A synecdoche is a figure of speech with a far greater identify between the phrase that is used and the concept that is expressed.

In addition to this, synecdoche's change and evolve precisely because people challenge the identity between phrase and concept. That is why some slip from common usage and others replace them.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
When it is used it often done so in a way that seeks to isolate the listening experience from what's going on in the brain. "I trust my ears" is often used to suggest that when differences are heard between differing audio set ups, they must be attributable to the audio equipment rather than to other factors, e.g. cognitive bias.

I think the OP made it fairly clear they sought to isolate the listening experience not from what is going on in the brain (which would be patently impossible) but rather from what is going on in the mind.

Anyway, there are no objective winners in debates about interpreting language - perhaps we shouldn't bother? :)
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
The reconstruction of the cathedral or hall sound field is physically impossible in home or studio conditions.
Full reconstruction is impossible, I will give you that. OTOH, one can achieve a closer approximation with the right tools and media. If you cannot grant that, you need to investigate more.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
I think the OP made it fairly clear they sought to isolate the listening experience not from what is going on in the brain (which would be patently impossible) but rather from what is going on in the mind.
I fail to see how the subject in a subjective experience can distinguish among any of these paradigms.
 

Sukie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
928
Likes
1,467
Location
UK
think the OP made it fairly clear they sought to isolate the listening experience not from what is going on in the brain (which would be patently impossible) but rather from what is going on in the mind.
Surely the mind and the brain are integrally related. If you cannot isolate the listening experience from what is going on in the brain then you cannot isolate the listening experience from what is going on in the mind. That's the whole point of what I'm saying.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
I fail to see how the subject in a subjective experience can distinguish among any of these paradigms.

Surely the mind and the brain are integrally related. If you cannot isolate the listening experience from what is going on in the brain then you cannot isolate the listening experience from what is going on in the mind. That's the whole point of what I'm saying.

Ok, I worded my previous post poorly. The OP's use of "ears" was a stand in for everything involved in hearing other than confounding psychological variables. I think that was quite obvious.
 

Sukie

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
928
Likes
1,467
Location
UK
Ok, I worded my previous post poorly. The OP's use of "ears" was a stand in for everything involved in hearing other than confounding psychological variables. I think that was quite obvious.
I agree and I'm not disagreeing re: OP's wording/meaning. Over 17 pages contexts and meanings develop that takes any thread into new territory and I suppose that's all I was meaning in my initial post. I am aware that I can become a little bit excitable when I see the word "ears" and immediately want to throw in the word "brain":)
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
I agree and I'm not disagreeing re: OP's wording/meaning. Over 17 pages contexts and meanings develop that takes any thread into new territory and I suppose that's all I was meaning in my initial post. I am aware that I can become a little bit excitable when I see the word "ears" and immediately want to throw in the word "brain":)

Fair enough. I can definitely understand the desire to be precise when discussing these topics - something which I admit I wasn't a couple of posts ago :)
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Neurologically, it is hard to find the border between these.

I'd be interested to hear you elaborate, if you'd care to?

The border I had in mind was not neurological but epistemic: by shielding the subject from knowledge of certain test conditions (e.g. which stimulus they are hearing), confounding variables are removed (which is not to suggest that it's possible to remove, or even be aware of, all confounding variables).
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
I'd be interested to hear you elaborate, if you'd care to?

The border I had in mind was not neurological but epistemic: by shielding the subject from knowledge of certain test conditions (e.g. which stimulus they are hearing), confounding variables are removed (which is not to suggest that it's possible to remove, or even be aware of, all confounding variables).
Ah. Under fully blinded conditions, one might expect so. The removal of all confounding variables is complicated by the fact that the test operators are as equally unaware of their unconscious psychological bias as are the subjects.
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
...The removal of all confounding variables is complicated by the fact that the test operators are as equally unaware of their unconscious psychological bias as are the subjects.
I suppose that is more a concern in some fields than in others, awareness of it, even studies on it, developed over time. (In the history of modern science. It was certainly known and considered in some ancient science contexts.)
 

Cortes

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
291
Likes
354
Ah. Under fully blinded conditions, one might expect so. The removal of all confounding variables is complicated by the fact that the test operators are as equally unaware of their unconscious psychological bias as are the subjects.

ok, at stereophile you need to refer to real science of mind-matter iterations to throw away all the AP measurements and come back without remorse to the happy subjectivist life

 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
ok, at stereophile you need to refer to real science of mind-matter iterations to throw away all the AP measurements and come back without remorse to the happy subjectivist life
Where are you coming from? I was a career scientist until my retirement and I never disregard objective measurements. My comments here support the fallibility of subjective assessments.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
If the ear is not to be trusted, can we trust audibility research?
 

Thomas Lund

Member
Technical Expert
Industry Insider
Joined
May 15, 2018
Messages
75
Likes
342
Location
Aarhus, Denmark
While human auditory diversity, physiological and mental, was described already by von Helmholtz (c. 1856), new non-invasive research techniques produce an overwhelming amount of data, some of which points to areas for improvement in lossy "perceptual" coders, hearing aids, audio formats, reproduction methods etc. Naturally, such findings can also be used to take a fresh look at the perpetual audio "inception dilemma", a room in a room.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
While human auditory diversity, physiological and mental, was described already by von Helmholtz (c. 1856), new non-invasive research techniques produce an overwhelming amount of data, some of which points to areas for improvement in lossy "perceptual" coders, hearing aids, audio formats, reproduction methods etc. Naturally, such findings can also be used to take a fresh look at the perpetual audio "inception dilemma", a room in a room.

Do you have any links you could share to some of the studies you're referring to here?
 
Top Bottom