Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think many in this thread are missing the point. Even the most dedicated objectivists believe they can tell the difference between what they do and do not prefer, though they understand that those perceptions may be influenced by many things that have nothing to do with what they hear. Ardent objectivists can also hear turntables running at the wrong speed, broken midrange drivers, the differences between speakers of very similar design. When we talk about not trusting our ears, we're talking about not trusting the accuracy of our sighted impressions of very small differences between electronic components, codecs, etc. And if you think you can differentiate these very small differences with full knowledge of what you're listening to and when the switch is made, without being influenced by all the bias that comes with such knowledge, I congratulate you on your super-human ability to overcome your own perceptions. Audio memory is short. Sighted bias is real. You are very fortunate to be one of the few humans on the planet who is immune to the shortcomings that limit the rest of us.

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

Nobody else cares .Statement or CKX?

CLXs at the time..this was several years go.

 

[PeterA]

When we talk about not trusting our ears, we're talking about not trusting the accuracy of our sighted impressions of very small differences between electronic components, codecs, etc. And if you think you can differentiate these very small differences with full knowledge of what you're listening to and when the switch is made, without being influenced by all the bias that comes with such knowledge, I congratulate you on your super-human ability to overcome your own perceptions. Audio memory is short. Sighted bias is real. You are very fortunate to be one of the few humans on the planet who is immune to the shortcomings that limit the rest of us.

Tim

Tim, Thank you for your clarification and definition of what is meant by "trusting your ears". I did not interpret the OP in this way.

My question then becomes, why does one want to identify "very small differences"? If it is to make a buying decision, my view is pretty simple: If I can not hear the differences between two pieces of electronics, under my normal, sighted evaluation method of auditioning components over a long period of time in my own system, then I decide that it is not worth spending much money to buy the new piece of electronics, be it an amp, preamp or phono amp (electronic component). It is simply a question of value. So in this case, I trust my ears enough to tell me whether or not to buy a component.

I do not really know what a codecs is, but I assume it has something to do with digital. I have an all analog system, so I have no interest in detecting very small differences in such things, sighted or otherwise.

For the kinds of things that you are describing (very small differences between electronic components), if I can't hear the very small difference, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not my ears can be trusted, because I will not buy the component. If you say that I should not or can not trust me ears for these kinds of things, that is fine. I trust them enough to do the things that interest me. If something does interest me, like more precisely setting up my analog or my speakers or something, and my ears do not give me enough information, then I turn to the measurements that I know how to do with the equipment I have. Then I listen for differences. If I hear them, great, if not, it does not worry me.

I understand for someone developing a new technology or involved in the design process, or some other aspect of the hobby where it is important to identify "very small differences", then being able to identify differences among the components you describe is perhaps best done under the test conditions that your prescribe.

 

[NorthStar]

It can be easy to be misled, very easy.
Back in the 90's when I was rabidly anti digital, and bored everyone at parties to tears w/my pro lp rants, a similarly analog centric friend and I went to the demo of a well respected one brand system.
When some music came on, and surface noise could be heard on the first piece of music, we sat there enthralled about how great the turntable was. When a pristinely quiet recording came on second, we booed and hissed at the syntheticness of the cdp.
Then it was revealed a cd had been playing first which had surface noise recorded into the track, and the lp playing second was the most noise free one the demo master could find.
Blushes all 'round!

Best post of the day! :b

 

[NorthStar]

Thank you NorthStar.

You have asked many questions. I will try to answer them.

1. I trust my ears to a degree.* But I fully recognize that measuring instruments can detect details about the sound which I can not do to nearly the same degree.
2. I do not use subwoofers. I tried two JL Audio F110s and hired a professional to properly integrate them into my system. We preferred the overall sound without them.
3. The frequency response of my room is down about 3db in the mid to high 20s. The plot is in my system thread.
4. I have no way of knowing if I hear "all the ambiance", the "reverbs" etc. I assume not. I also assume they were not all captured in the recording. And I don't think I hear everything from my concert seat, G22, either. I am sure there is some hearing loss. I do have my hearing checked every three years. My audiologist tells me it is extremely good for my age.
5. I am confident that not everything is there that needs to be there in order to improve my emotional level....One listen to MadFloyd's system tells me that. Also my sessions at the BSO.
6. No, I am not totally satisfied. One example is the cartridge comparison I am now doing. I like different aspects of each cartridge. I would be more satisfied with one cartridge that could combine the best attributes of each. But I am satisfied enough to not have changed anything for more than two years. System changes are very slow and deliberate.

*Quick story: I was at a demo of the Wilson Sasha at a local dealer. People had been listening for a while and seemed quite impressed. I walked into the room and listened. Something was clearly wrong. I mentioned my observation to the salesman who said that everything sounded fine. I asked him to check the cables because the system sounded out of phase to me. Sure enough, they had reversed the wires in one speaker. They fixed the problem and everyone agreed that it sounded better. The salesman was probably embarrassed.

So I trust my ears to some degree. Certainly enough to enjoy live music and use it as a reference to judge the performance of my own system. I installed MadFloyd's new cartridge the other day and trusted my ears enough to set the proper VTA, VTF, loading, and other settings. I think that I recognized the greatness of MadFloyd's new speakers and system before he did because it sounded very much like my own reference system which has basically stayed the same for a few years. Once I heard a similar sound, but considerably better in terms of resolution and scale, I knew that he had a truly great system that just needed a bit of fine tuning to reach its potential.

I told another member here that I thought his room was over damped the last time I heard his system. He told me tonight that I was right and that he is now adjusting some of his room furnishings and treatment.

So yes, I trust my ears to some extent. They are certainly not perfect, and they are aging. And I know that certain measurements can tell us more than the best pair of ears.

Perhaps the best answer I can give to your question of how much do I trust my ears is written above by BlueFox. It is an excellent post. I quote him here:

"Of course. I can't imagine how anyone could even consider not trusting their ears. Last year I broke the midrange in my left speaker, and it manifested itself as an occasional slight distortion when a violin hit a certain frequency. My ears told me something isn't right. After it was fixed my ears told me everything is now fine. The whole point of this hobby is to play music that sounds good to you. If the distortion I heard from the bad midrange was normal then I would have sold the speakers, and found something else that my ears tell me is good. If your hearing is so bad you can't trust your ears then you are probably in the wrong hobby."

Thank you Peter for answering all my questions with such honesty.
I really liked reading your anecdote, and the anecdotes from other members of this thread...it's one of the best parts.

 

[NorthStar]

I think many in this thread are missing the point. Even the most dedicated objectivists believe they can tell the difference between what they do and do not prefer, though they understand that those perceptions may be influenced by many things that have nothing to do with what they hear. Ardent objectivists can also hear turntables running at the wrong speed, broken midrange drivers, the differences between speakers of very similar design. When we talk about not trusting our ears, we're talking about not trusting the accuracy of our sighted impressions of very small differences between electronic components, codecs, etc. And if you think you can differentiate these very small differences with full knowledge of what you're listening to and when the switch is made, without being influenced by all the bias that comes with such knowledge, I congratulate you on your super-human ability to overcome your own perceptions. Audio memory is short. Sighted bias is real. You are very fortunate to be one of the few humans on the planet who is immune to the shortcomings that limit the rest of us.

Tim

Tim, I agree with what you just said...you just spoke the truth.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Best post of the day! :b

It can be easy to be misled, very easy.
Back in the 90's when I was rabidly anti digital, and bored everyone at parties to tears w/my pro lp rants, a similarly analog centric friend and I went to the demo of a well respected one brand system.
When some music came on, and surface noise could be heard on the first piece of music, we sat there enthralled about how great the turntable was. When a pristinely quiet recording came on second, we booed and hissed at the syntheticness of the cdp.
Then it was revealed a cd had been playing first which had surface noise recorded into the track, and the lp playing second was the most noise free one the demo master could find.
Blushes all 'round!

Thanx NorthStar!
I actually mention this, partly for a little comic value, but partly as a little "morality tale". Whether it has true resonance in this debate, maybe, maybe not.
From that point on, I actually decided to be a bit more open minded (open eared?), and not to assume too much.
There's no doubt I go into demos w/expectation bias, and my reactions can really vary depending on whether that bias is confirmed or not.
I would hope that means I can trust my hearing - as far as it goes - to make clear headed decisions
I turn down more stuff than I keep, hopefully my critical faculties remain intact
My system continues to evolve, my only (expensive) major missteps were over a decade ago, I've moved on since then.

But it is fascinating that when you feel your system is at 90%, an upgrade proves it was closer to 50%.
What I conclude from this is not that my ears couldn't be trusted w/such an overoptimistic assessment, more that new experiences change the whole basis of what I can expect from audio.

In my job as a therapist, I can go weeks at a time w/straightforward outcomes and recoveries, but out of the blue an amazingly positive response will be engineered between me and the patient, and I have to reassess what can be achieved in my job. I can still trust my hands/brain, but my expectations/trust in what I do just expands at that point.
No way of measuring this, however (get back, objectivist hordes! )

 

[PeterA]

Thank you Peter for answering all my questions with such honesty.
I really liked reading your anecdote, and the anecdotes from other members of this thread...it's one of the best parts.

NorthStar, I am just curious. Do some posts from members here come across as dishonest to you? This is far off the OP, but I am struck by your comment. Written another way: What is the point of posting in this forum, if not with honesty?

 

[bonzo75]

NorthStar, I am just curious. Do some posts from members here come across as dishonest to you? This is far off the OP, but I am struck by your comment. Written another way: What is the point of posting in this forum, if not with honesty?

I think you can suspect some dealers of hawking their wares. You can expect some people are dishonest in the sense that they delude their own self.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I think you can suspect some dealers of hawking their wares. You can expect some people are dishonest in the sense that they delude their own self.

By definition those deluding themselves are not going to have self awareness of this, what do you suggest Bonzo?

 

[spiritofmusic]

It is incredibly easy to fool oneself, especially in terms of comparative listening, that's why unsighted comparison is so useful.
Keith.

And just what major horns did you do an unsighted comparison of? I don't believe you did this prior to choosing to sell the Liszts.
If you somehow managed the Herculean task of doing so, in what circumstances did you manage to get Liszts, and eg AG Trios, Animas, Blumenhofers in your room, and get them individually out of the room as you unsighted tested the alternatives?

 

[bonzo75]

And just what major horns did you do an unsighted comparison of? I don't believe you did this prior to choosing to sell the Liszts.
If you somehow managed the Herculean task of doing so, in what circumstances did you manage to get Liszts, and eg AG Trios, Animas, Blumenhofers in your room, and get them individually out of the room as you unsighted tested the alternatives?

He actually did that. And measured each one. True Story.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Color me impressed .
The Liszts weigh upwards of 450kg per side, and other horns like the Trios, Animas and Blumenhofers are pigs to move about as well .
Tell me how this series of demos actually went down w/the number of piano movers involved, and resultant pulled tendons, sprained ligaments, slipped discs etc - I could have been in business as an osteopath for a month sorting out the chaos these unsighted comparisons created .
He really should have filmed this and put it on YouTube.
Can you imagine, his shaking his head in disbelief as the Trios sound brilliant "to his ears" ('cause they do to 99% of horns afficionados' ears out there), but don't measure so well, knowing that he just can't trust his ears, only numbers on a page .
That would have made pretty entertaining viewing .

 

[PeterA]

It is incredibly easy to fool oneself, especially in terms of comparative listening, that's why unsighted comparison is so useful.
Keith.

Keith, Do you think this is with all audio components, or with a specific group like Tim wrote about electronic components? I understand why some would want to do unsighted comparisons of certain components when possible, but I thought we are more or less in agreement that truly controlled unsighted comparisons is extremely impractical for most components in most hobbyist home listening environments.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Keith, Do you think this is with all audio components, or with a specific group like Tim wrote about electronic components? I understand why some would want to do unsighted comparisons of certain components when possible, but I thought we are more or less in agreement that truly controlled unsighted comparisons is extremely impractical for most components in most hobbyist home listening environments.

you don't really think he actually does this in real life do you?

at least I give Keith credit for a bit of spoofing here....

It was a struggle getting all of them into my room at once, and obviously I had to call in four or five friends to swap the speakers around, fortunately Harman lent me their hydraulic 'shuffle' system from one of their evaluation rooms.
Keith.

maybe he is always just pulling our legs and does not really take himself so seriously as he projects?

I've yet to find one person who has actually put together a whole system based on scientific method. it's all just talk.

 

[PeterA]

It was a struggle getting all of them into my room at once, and obviously I had to call in four or five friends to swap the speakers around, fortunately Harman lent me their hydraulic 'shuffle' system from one of their evaluation rooms.
Keith.

If this is a serious post, do you think having all of the various speakers in the room at the same time effected the sonics and your evaluation? Did you buy your favorite speaker and did it sound the same once all of the others were removed from the room under blind conditions? Did Harman also send a JBL for the evaluation along with its shuffle system?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

If this is a serious post, ?

 

[PeterA]

you don't really think he actually does this in real life do you?

at least I give Keith credit for a bit of spoofing here....



maybe he is always just pulling our legs?

You know Mike, now that you mention the possibility, you have introduced a bias. I will no longer be able to read Keith's posts without experiencing expectation bias.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You know Mike, now that you mention the possibility, you have introduced a bias. I will no longer be able to read Keith's posts without experiencing expectation bias.

 

[Diapason]

You know Mike, now that you mention the possibility, you have introduced a bias. I will no longer be able to read Keith's posts without experiencing expectation bias.

We'll just have to read them blind.