Comparing audio gear is very difficult

[Jim Matthews]

we remember melodies, which includes instruments and their harmonics.

but something like the reverberation of sound in a room? For example, if you're testing two sets of EQ for your room. Well, good luck lmao.

Never claimed I could do this.

I dispute the notion that we can't remember things we have heard for long, as claimed by the OP.

I do suppose that professional reviewers have done precisely this such that variations on coloration are memorable. It is only *very* recently that rigorous testing has been available outside of a laboratory.

It's interesting when this sort of examination dispels hype, intriguing when it confirms something a reviewer can't quite articulate.

Optics, for example are easy to measure, and verify. Testing cameras was always a matter of balancing cost against resolution.

That's new for our hobby.

 

[richard12511]

(emphasis added)

Play twenty decent singers recordings, covering the same song.
Recognizing them by name seems a fairly demanding of memory..
.

I agree, but that's kinda the point. If you have trouble recalling 20 different voices covering the same song from long term memory, that kinda shows just how poor long term memory us. Voices are way more different than good loudspeakers are, and our brains have evolved to recognize vocal differences especially. Identifying 20 different speakers by memory would be much more difficult. Helps highlight just how unreliable subjective audio impressions based on long term memory are, and why quick switching and short term listening is so important.

 

[Jim Matthews]

I agree, but that's kinda the point. If you have trouble recalling 20 different voices covering the same song from long term memory, that kinda shows just how poor long term memory us.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm suggesting that it requires sophisticated brain power, yet people do it with little difficulty. Imagine, if you will, JFK's "Ask not..." speech.

Most of us can recall that sound.

 

[richard12511]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm suggesting that it requires sophisticated brain power, yet people do it with little difficulty. Imagine, if you will, JFK's "Ask not..." speech.

Most of us can recall that sound.

Yeah but my point is that long term memory resolution is completely inadequate for assessing distortion differences of less than 1%. The fact that you can recognize someone's voice or a famous speech from long term memory is irrelevant.

OP is absolutely correct. Anything longer than 30 seconds is too long for the human brain to handle and compare, and really, 30 seconds is being very, very genrous.

 

[carewser]

I dispute the notion that we can't remember things we have heard for long, as claimed by the OP

It's not just claimed by me, it's backed by everyone who has researched echoic memory so if you think people have some sort of photographic memory for sound that's just not true

OP is absolutely correct. Anything longer than 30 seconds is too long for the human brain to handle and compare, and really, 30 seconds is being very, very genrous.

Yup, according to the studies our echoic memory is a tenth of that so thinking we can remember the sound of something just 30 seconds later is absurd

 

[Jim Matthews]

The fact that you can recognize someone's voice or a famous speech from long term memory is irrelevant.

Sure.

 

[Jim Matthews]

It's not just claimed by me, it's backed by everyone who has researched echoic memory so if you think people have some sort of photographic memory for sound that's just not true.

Anyone who has slogged through Rach. 3rd might beg to differ.

Music is often the last memory lost.

I expect "Bohemian Rhapsody" will always play out in my memory, to the last.
That's Eidetic, and persistent. There was even a gameshow based on this.

 

[Chrispy]

@Jim Matthews seems like you're talking about something to a different degree. Not talking inability to recognize a familiar voice or piece of music but rather in analysis of minute differences in recordings.

Or do you have such a unique audio memory where you can distinguish minute audio gear differences over long periods of time as you can recognize someone's voice?

 

[Jim Matthews]

...Or do you have such a unique audio memory where you can distinguish minute audio gear differences over long periods of time as you can recognize someone's voice?

I do not. I did assert that experienced reviewers might have this ability.

I can tell when a familiar recording has been distorted, mainly from all the cheap gear I could afford as a younger man.

What I can say (with some conviction) is that the affordable gear has recently crossed the over the threshold of audibly colored to effectively neutral.

At some level, the testing gear now detects the inaudible.

 

[Chrispy]

I do not. I did assert that experienced reviewers might have this ability.

I can tell when a familiar recording has been distorted, mainly from all the cheap gear I could afford as a younger man.

What I can say (with some conviction) is that the affordable gear has recently crossed the over the threshold of audibly colored to effectively neutral.

At some level, the testing gear now detects the inaudible.

LOL I'd say most reviewers are just good at creative writing more than adept at identifying gear differences.

 

[Wes]

I'd say most posters on this thread are just good at creative writing more than adept at understanding echoic memory or its significance, if any, for comparing audio gear.

 

[richard12511]

I'd say most posters on this thread are just good at creative writing more than adept at understanding echoic memory or its significance, if any, for comparing audio gear.

Every blind gtg I've ever hosted has had many "it's so hard to remember" complaints. I actually think blind listening is a really good way to demonstrate just how poor our echoic memory really is.

A few months ago I was blind testing different Dirac Live configurations with my DDRC88A, and the 4 second switch time of the machine(+ few seconds to restart the song), was basically too much for me.

 

[TimF]

You get up, you go to work, you come home. Is your wife essentially the same person (in your memory) morning from night?

 

[Jim Matthews]

You get up, you go to work, you come home. Is your wife essentially the same person (in your memory) morning from night?

Well, she does seem happier when I'm leaving...

 

[bigguyca]

LOL I'd say most reviewers are just good at creative writing more than adept at identifying gear differences.

Given that comparison, reviewers must be really bad at identifying gear differences. Aren't most reviews merely a combination of press releases and AI programs with the press releases themselves having no creativity?

 

[David Harper]

O.P. said "human memory is much shorter for things we hear......"

yes, for sure. back in the day when I used to try to compare speaker sound in a showroom it often seemed impossible to do. By the time I listened to the second speaker I seemed either to have forgotten what the first sounded like or if I detected a difference I couldn't tell which sounded "better".
Only in the case of electrostats or planar speakers did I hear a qualitative superiority. The box speakers with dynamic drivers mostly only varied in their frequency response but not so much in terms of absolute quality of sound.
The first time I heard Quad ESL speakers (a long time ago) I was actually startled by the sound quality. Same thing happened with maggies. But when comparing wooden box speakers, not so much. I think I could live happily with most decent dynamic box speakers. Might have to equalize them somewhat but no big deal.
At some point I decided that it was all mostly a waste of time and money and settled on maggies. For all of their shortcomings they still sound amazing to me in terms of sq. They don't do visceral (volume and power) but I don't require that. And I have a sub so the bass is there although a sub does degrade the maggie sq somewhat. Only my preference. Not knocking anyone else's choices.

 

[Chrispy]

Given that comparison, reviewers must be really bad at identifying gear differences. Aren't most reviews merely a combination of press releases and AI programs with the press releases themselves having no creativity?

Or the gear differences are so subtle and beyond their auditory memory to be meaningful? They might do well with press releases/company guidance to start, but some get very creative in their descriptions of what they're "hearing" or "comparing".

 

[abdo123]

Never claimed I could do this.

I dispute the notion that we can't remember things we have heard for long, as claimed by the OP.

I do suppose that professional reviewers have done precisely this such that variations on coloration are memorable. It is only *very* recently that rigorous testing has been available outside of a laboratory.

It's interesting when this sort of examination dispels hype, intriguing when it confirms something a reviewer can't quite articulate.

Optics, for example are easy to measure, and verify. Testing cameras was always a matter of balancing cost against resolution.

That's new for our hobby.

it's incredible how quickly human hearing adjust to change, even if the change harbors wrong tonality.

a very interesting exercise you can do is just to open up your EQ software and put an audible low pass filter. After a few seconds, not only will your ears get completely used to the sound, but bringing the high frequencies back will sound 'foreign' and 'wrong'.

human hearing is honestly quite ******, and it is only useful in detecting very short changes in air reverberations for a very short period.

 

[carewser]

So far two people in this thread have understood and agreed with my point that when comparing audio gear it's difficult to determine which sounds better, only that there are differences between gear so I have to assume that the rest of you fall into the camp of quickly knowing which is better but I don't understand how any of you know that. As I said, the clearest determinant for me as to which sounds better is the depth of bass and to a lesser extent the clarity and brilliance of the highs but when comparing say two sets of speakers with similar frequency response, I would have no idea which is better, just that they sound different. The most frustrating thing is that almost all the music is in the midrange and that's where i'm baffled as to which is more musically authentic

 

[Wes]

listen to female vocals for the mid range