Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...

[Duke LeJeune]

Do you know that your ears ignore the first echos under about 24milliseconds....flat out your brain ignores them.

This statement is only partially correct.

The brain largely (but not entirely) ignores directional cues from echoes between about .68 milliseconds and ballpark 24 milliseconds, but those echoes still contribute significantly to timbre and loudness. The way the timbre and loudness of your voice changes when you sing in the shower would be an example.

Note that, if the ear is presented with two fairly brief sounds of identical spectral content and sound pressure level, but one lasts a bit longer than the other, the longer-lasting sound will be perceived as louder. This is one of the mechanisms by which echoes can influence timbre and perceived loudness.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Interesting post

A couple of things come to mind.

Just thinking out loud...

But why is important to describe what one hears..why not just lock in and enjoy it? Why do many feel to the need to share what they
are hearing? Do you people eat a wonderful meal then post about what they tasted?

You say many in the hobby are addicted to improvement..from my experience 90% if not more of "upgrades" are side ways moves.

Just a couple of my own thoughts.

All good points Andre, particularly on the hazards of the audiophile sideways move in gear upgrades. I've seen mates order $60k speakers and have them up on agon in less time than the initial wait time on the order and delivery. This is where being conscious of what you value in setting up a system can save a lot of audiophile pain and heartbreak. Being able to go beyond 'what sounds best' and to get to why you experience some things as better or different and how gear works within a system context is the first step in not throwing away a lot of cash on shotgun experimentation.

A mate is coming around tonight to listen to some music, we'll share a few drinks and some laughs, a bite to eat and if things go per usual we'll spend much more time talking music than we will describing how any of the gear sounds. But it's great to share the journey and be able to communicate with like minded souls. Articulating what we hear along the way is another valuable and rich part of that sharing.

Ps on the menu tonight, Shiraz and warm lamb salad, jazz, jazz and more jazz, putting a sub in to the horn system downstairs and also a listen through a pair of hifiman HE1000s. No measurements will be discussed at all probably.

 

[DaveyF]

All good points Andre, particularly on the hazards of the audiophile sideways move in gear upgrades. I've seen mates order $60k speakers and have them up on agon in less time than the initial wait time on the order and delivery. This is where being conscious of what you value in setting up a system can save a lot of audiophile pain and heartbreak. Being able to go beyond 'what sounds best' and to get to why you experience some things as better or different and how gear works within a system context is the first step in not throwing away a lot of cash on shotgun experimentation.

A mate is coming around tonight to listen to some music, we'll share a few drinks and some laughs, a bite to eat and if things go per usual we'll spend much more time talking music than we will describing how any of the gear sounds. But it's great to share the journey and be able to communicate with like minded souls. Articulating what we hear along the way is another valuable and rich part of that sharing.

Ps on the menu tonight, Shiraz and warm lamb salad, jazz, jazz and more jazz, putting a sub in to the horn system downstairs and also a listen through a pair of hifiman HE1000s. No measurements will be discussed at all probably.

+1

Everyone seems to know what they like, that is until something better comes along. In this hobby, it seems that there are many ways to go sideways and a few ways to go forward. There are even quite a few ways to go backwards, I think that maybe we hear about those a lot less.

 

[Gregadd]

So you trust your ears.

well now, say we are talking about your audio memory of what a violin sounds like.

What do you rate the ability of your system to sound like your obviously trusted audio memory reference of how a violin sounds, in percentage. OK, so you say your system is 95% there.

how much of that 95% is the room
how much of that 95% is the speakers
how much of that 95% is the power amp
how much of that 95% is the pre amp
how much of that 95% is the source
how much of that 95% is the interconnects
how much of that 95% is the power cables
how much of that 95% is the speaker cables

how do you parse it all up, each component you put in your system you hear a difference, and it is always an improvement of every sound if you keep it, OMG.......





Yes, agreed, we can think of all the components being filters of some sort, as in reality they all add or take away something from what they are given, some more or less than others. But, as in my example, if you say your system is producing the sound of a violin at 95% per your ears, against your own internal reference of the sound of a violin, then many audiophiles then say that component 'X' made the violin sound more like a violin.....no, almost never. They attribute depth, width, realism, etc , broad strokes. Sometimes they may mention that the cymbals sound more real now, but does that mean that the clarionet does not sound as real, etc.

Its just extraordinary to say that the violin sounds so much better after replacing "X" when our ears can not tell us the contribution of all those (as you say) lenses to the total end sound. If we cant affix a percentage of meaningful value to what each component (including the room) adds or subtracts from the sound of that violin then our ears as measurement tools are not so good at measuring, and I might be able to easily show you that when you replaced your speakers and now the violin sounds right finally that your lower bass is shot by measurements of the room.

While we can all agree that the violin sounds better now, what has happened to your spouces voice or the kick drum or the cow bell etc. Its too complex a task let alone how your ear/brain and your feelings and emotions at the moment all come into play and sighted bias etc. There are plenty of posts here, including by you that show how our ears can deceive us when we are also using sight and biases that that brings. Our ears can be trusted at any moment as long as we have nothing really to compare them too at the moment, but over the long haul, they don't seem to be consistant. It is probably asking too much of such a complex and variable system to act like a measurement device that is calibrated against a standard that is real and only involves electrical signals in amplitude and phase and frequency.

the simple and clear answer I always come back to these days is if you listen to the same song three times in a row do you hear more on that third listening...of course.

ed with conflicting sensory information,it has to make a choice. It usually chooses the eyes.

My own explanation is the ear does not make errors. What happens is when presented with conflicting sensory information,it has to make a choice. It usually chooses the eyes.

Sure I could assign a percentage of contribution to each link in the audio chain. Such attempts were the subject of debate from the start of my audio journey with no consensus reached.

I find it interesting that you disfavor long term listening as an evaluation tool but you concede we hear something different each time we play a selection.

 

[PeterA]

I always ask myself this: what is missing here, and what is needed to bring it out. Example, the bass sounds muddy, I need less IMD in my system, I need better speakers, better room interaction, etc. If you can not describe what is "wrong" with your system, you will fall for any change that you make. This distinguishes a true audiophile from someone who is just in it to play around and spend money on boxes that look pretty. A true audiophile is serious about a destination and knows at which level he will be satisfied whether by how the system sounds or how he understands audio technically or by budget or all three.

This is an excellent approach and the method I try to use to make slow and deliberate changes. But I will add that one also should recognize what sounds right in his system, so that he can retain those qualities with any changes. If there is little method to one's madness, he can go mad in this wonderful hobby of ours. This is where introspection and hyperbole control matter. It is also where subjective observations and objective science can meet. It is the essence of being an audiophile.

I think tomelex has identified what distinguishes music lovers from audiophiles (and how to avoid becoming a madman) in this superb post.

 

[microstrip]

+1

Everyone seems to know what they like, that is until something better comes along. In this hobby, it seems that there are many ways to go sideways and a few ways to go forward. There are even quite a few ways to go backwards, I think that maybe we hear about those a lot less.

Surely. It is why true "scientists" do not like stereo. SOTA stereo systems in listening rooms are not 100% predictable. Our ears are excellent tools, but diagnostics are very hard and poor decisions can have a high financial cost and are time consuming. A small mistake can have disastrous results. To all this we must add human anxiety and inquietude, that do not help to create the "illusion", and our natural expectation of instantaneous fulfillment, something that only happens exceptionally in this hobby.

 

[Fidach Lad]

Trusting one's ears is confounded by learning. I started out not knowing what type of sound i liked and everything seemed to sound pretty much the same to my ears, and so i bought based on my budget. With more experience, listening to my equipment and other equipment at shows and dealers, my preferences slowly became clearer to me. But I still had a budget. So, i started upgrading, very slowly and gravitating toward the sound i liked. More years pass and i thought, after a while, i had reached the point where the marginal benefits I heard, and my brain translated this into monetary terms without thinking, i thought that after a while i had reached the point where the marginal benefit equaled the marginal cost, subject to a budget constraint, an optimum. Then a random event occurred: I heard an SET system and immediately the lights went on and, after a while my budget constraint turned out not to be so tight, because, after all, the enjoyment of listening to music and the enjoyment of vacations are substitutes and i was willing to pay more for SET equipment than for vacations. The lesson: the brain bone is connected to the ear bone and the ear bone is connected to experience.

And I have recently found that my preferences for sound may be changing because in the last few years i have heard some SS systems that light me up. But I'm not there yet.

 

[Andre Marc]

I think as audiophiles we do like to hear the details that a "better" system can provide. Of course, when someone who hears a great system for the first time since all they ever heard was a ghetto blaster, well its a revelation. I think we want to keep getting that revelation moment, but it is only little bits and hard to obtain as time goes on, so when we get that little bit better bit, we might want to talk about it. Now as far as lateral moves, well, perhaps a great deal are just changes to the sound as you say.

I always ask myself this: what is missing here, and what is needed to bring it out. Example, the bass sounds muddy, I need less IMD in my system, I need better speakers, better room interaction, etc. If you can not describe what is "wrong" with your system, you will fall for any change that you make. This distinguishes a true audiophile from someone who is just in it to play around and spend money on boxes that look pretty. A true audiophile is serious about a destination and knows at which level he will be satisfied whether by how the system sounds or how he understands audio technically or by budget or all three.

And if you guys trust your ears, since most of you are late 50's on up, you are trusting ears that don't hear a huge amount of energy and higher harmonics due to HF loss. Man, I always remember going into audio saloons where most of the guys were older and listening to the screeching highs coming out of their demos with then telling me how good the system sounded....I just thought these guys cant hear, and it was true, they could not. Trust your ears, but not anyone elses would seem to be the best I could say about trusting ears, as I know that even my can be fooled so easily, by me. I have made changes to gear, thinking aha, I hear a little something, and realizing that the component that I inserted one of the leads fell off and so the circuit had not changed at all. I learned that as Amir or anyone else who has played with audio circuits has. We, can be easily fooled.

Lots of intriguing observations here.

I think the continuous thirst for that "revelatory" moment is a fools errand and is the reason for wide spread dissatisfaction and constant churn among audiophiles, which by the way, the box pushers love. Revelatory moments happen a few times in audio, and trying to chase it with a new cable, a new speaker etc is the road to hell.

I also think this constant drive to find flaws in one's system is crazy. It is like the difference between eastern and western philosophy. In the east, they cherish what they have and are thankful to no end, in the west, we constantly worry about what we do not have and curse the gods for depriving us.

You hit upon a very, very good point. Many of the customers of uber gear, especially speakers, really do have compromised hearing at the upper registers, but they have big bucks. Speaker designers know this well, and you can just ask speaker maker XYZ or ABC who sell $100K plus products the average age of their customers. They give these folks red hot tweeters that can peel paint but sound just fine to their customer base.​

 

[Andre Marc]

All good points Andre, particularly on the hazards of the audiophile sideways move in gear upgrades. I've seen mates order $60k speakers and have them up on agon in less time than the initial wait time on the order and delivery. This is where being conscious of what you value in setting up a system can save a lot of audiophile pain and heartbreak. Being able to go beyond 'what sounds best' and to get to why you experience some things as better or different and how gear works within a system context is the first step in not throwing away a lot of cash on shotgun experimentation.

A mate is coming around tonight to listen to some music, we'll share a few drinks and some laughs, a bite to eat and if things go per usual we'll spend much more time talking music than we will describing how any of the gear sounds. But it's great to share the journey and be able to communicate with like minded souls. Articulating what we hear along the way is another valuable and rich part of that sharing.

Ps on the menu tonight, Shiraz and warm lamb salad, jazz, jazz and more jazz, putting a sub in to the horn system downstairs and also a listen through a pair of hifiman HE1000s. No measurements will be discussed at all probably.

Ah yes, the scenario you describe is all too common. My friend DaveyF and I were just talking about a fellow he knows who bought and flipped big Wilson's, Avante Garde's, and Marten's and Ypisilon electronics, around 1.5 million worth of gear and could get no satisfaction.

Again, the industry and press and subtlety planted the notion that more dollars spent equals higher quality sound.

We must be joined a the hip! I roasted a leg of lamb last night, although most unfortunately I did not have a proper wine to pair it with!

 

[amirm]

You hit upon a very, very good point. Many of the customers of uber gear, especially speakers, really do have compromised hearing at the upper registers, but they have big bucks. Speaker designers know this well, and you can just ask speaker maker XYZ or ABC who sell $100K plus products the average age of their customers. They give these folks red hot tweeters that can peel paint but sound just fine to their customer base.

I am totally uninformed in this matter so don't know if this is true or not. But I wanted to say what impeccable logic you are using in this inference and the very witty way you put it . I will start to pay attention to high frequency response of high-end loudspeakers to see to what extent this is true.

 

[Andre Marc]

I am totally uninformed in this matter so don't know if this is true or not. But I wanted to say what impeccable logic you are using in this inference and the very witty way you put it . I will start to pay attention to high frequency response of high-end loudspeakers to see to what extent this is true.

Actually it is not so much the response, but the exotic materials used in these tweeters and that produce ringing and harmonics that may not be measurable. I can only tell you how I think they sound. This is an inference, btw. What is not up for debate is the ultra stiff and metallic material used in many of these exotic speakers tweeters.

 

[PeterA]

You hit upon a very, very good point. Many of the customers of uber gear, especially speakers, really do have compromised hearing at the upper registers, but they have big bucks. Speaker designers know this well, and you can just ask speaker maker XYZ or ABC who sell $100K plus products the average age of their customers. They give these folks red hot tweeters that can peel paint but sound just fine to their customer base.​

I have heard red hot tweeters on very expensive speakers. And I see the connection you are trying to make. But a recent example came up on a different thread about the Magico Q7 II. I have heard the original Q7. I did not particularly like the tweeter. I have also heard the M Pro with the new tweeter which was just used for the new Q7II. Alon Wolf, the designer, claims that the frequency response of these two speakers is identical. Yet, a fellow member and a famous reviewer who have both compared heard the Q7 and the Q7 II have remarked that the upper frequencies are much better with the Q7 II. I mention this in this thread because it could be a question of trusting their ears.

Perhaps looking at just the frequency response measurements in isolation, for evidence of your observation about expensive speakers, will not be enough to learn how the speakers sound different. This may indeed be an instance where trusting our ears may tell us more than simply looking at the frequency responses of these very expensive speakers.

 

[Diapason]

I think the continuous thirst for that "revelatory" moment is a fools errand and is the reason for wide spread dissatisfaction and constant churn among audiophiles, which by the way, the box pushers love. Revelatory moments happen a few times in audio, and trying to chase it with a new cable, a new speaker etc is the road to hell.
​

A lot of this rings true to me. When I was a young and inexperienced budding audiophile, I was obsessed with detail. Any change that brought more detail was good, everything else took second place. I remember a friend had some REALLY cheap speakers (60 Irish pounds to buy new, as cheap as it got) that had a really crisp sound that bettered my £200 speakers. There's a cymbal crash in North Dakota by Lyle Lovett that became the test, as I needed to hear it die away to nothing, blah blah blah. I chased my tail for years trying to get the exact sound I wanted on that cymbal crash, and as a consequence I always seemed to end up with speakers that were too bright on other material. I've moved up the ladder a long way since then, but to be honest, I still have this problem.

It's only in more recent years, and as I hear more equipment at the high end, that I realise an initially unassuming sound is often a better choice for the longer term. Wow moments in a 30 minute dem can often become the thorn in the side of longer term listening. Revelatory moments can be dangerous if they're focussed on a very narrow aspect of the sound. Trust your ears by all means, but I have to listen for a long time before I trust mine!

 

[PeterA]

Actually it is not so much the response, but the exotic materials used in these tweeters and that produce ringing and harmonics that may not be measurable.

I agree that this is possible and that frequency response may not be enough to tell us what is going on. In the case of the new Magico tweeter, there is a new diamond coating on the beryilium tweeter which is partly responsible for the new sound. Perhaps there are other measurements that might show the effect other than frequency response. During the three times that I have heard this new tweeter in MadFloyd's M Project, it did not at all sound bright and did not cause glare or fatigue. Yet all of the detail and resolution is still there, perhaps more so. Truly remarkable.

 

[Andre Marc]

I agree that this is possible and that frequency response may not be enough to tell us what is going on. In the case of the new Magico tweeter, there is a new diamond coating on the beryilium tweeter which is partly responsible for the new sound. Perhaps there are other measurements that might show the effect other than frequency response. During the three times that I have heard this new tweeter in MadFloyd's M Project, it did not at all sound bright and did not cause glare or fatigue. Yet all of the detail and resolution is still there, perhaps more so. Truly remarkable.

Well, to Magico's credit, they have been on a mission to refine the tweeter since day one..and many would agree it has been long process.

I have not heard what they have done with the M Project...the last models I heard were whole Q series and the whole S series.

 

[Andre Marc]

A lot of this rings true to me. When I was a young and inexperienced budding audiophile, I was obsessed with detail. Any change that brought more detail was good, everything else took second place. I remember a friend had some REALLY cheap speakers (60 Irish pounds to buy new, as cheap as it got) that had a really crisp sound that bettered my £200 speakers. There's a cymbal crash in North Dakota by Lyle Lovett that became the test, as I needed to hear it die away to nothing, blah blah blah. I chased my tail for years trying to get the exact sound I wanted on that cymbal crash, and as a consequence I always seemed to end up with speakers that were too bright on other material. I've moved up the ladder a long way since then, but to be honest, I still have this problem.

It's only in more recent years, and as I hear more equipment at the high end, that I realise an initially unassuming sound is often a better choice for the longer term. Wow moments in a 30 minute dem can often become the thorn in the side of longer term listening. Revelatory moments can be dangerous if they're focussed on a very narrow aspect of the sound. Trust your ears by all means, but I have to listen for a long time before I trust mine!

Very nicely said.

 

[Andre Marc]

I have heard red hot tweeters on very expensive speakers. And I see the connection you are trying to make. But a recent example came up on a different thread about the Magico Q7 II. I have heard the original Q7. I did not particularly like the tweeter. I have also heard the M Pro with the new tweeter which was just used for the new Q7II. Alon Wolf, the designer, claims that the frequency response of these two speakers is identical. Yet, a fellow member and a famous reviewer who have both compared heard the Q7 and the Q7 II have remarked that the upper frequencies are much better with the Q7 II. I mention this in this thread because it could be a question of trusting their ears.

Perhaps looking at just the frequency response measurements in isolation, for evidence of your observation about expensive speakers, will not be enough to learn how the speakers sound different. This may indeed be an instance where trusting our ears may tell us more than simply looking at the frequency responses of these very expensive speakers.

You got my point exactly.

I wonder if Q7 owners will be resentful of the fact that a few "famous reviewers" told them the Q7 was PERFECT in everyway
and the most important audiophile speaker in history. Then.."ooooops....we meant to say the Q7 MK11 is...and maybe the Q7 was
not so perfect. My bad."

 

[Joe Whip]

Lots of intriguing observations here.

I think the continuous thirst for that "revelatory" moment is a fools errand and is the reason for wide spread dissatisfaction and constant churn among audiophiles, which by the way, the box pushers love. Revelatory moments happen a few times in audio, and trying to chase it with a new cable, a new speaker etc is the road to hell.

I also think this constant drive to find flaws in one's system is crazy. It is like the difference between eastern and western philosophy. In the east, they cherish what they have and are thankful to no end, in the west, we constantly worry about what we do not have and curse the gods for depriving us.

You hit upon a very, very good point. Many of the customers of uber gear, especially speakers, really do have compromised hearing at the upper registers, but they have big bucks. Speaker designers know this well, and you can just ask speaker maker XYZ or ABC who sell $100K plus products the average age of their customers. They give these folks red hot tweeters that can peel paint but sound just fine to their customer base.​

Amen to that. I have heard far too many of these very expensive paint pealer speakers at shows and have left the rooms shaking my head. I have heard some great sounding uber speakers though, such as the Tidal ones at Capital Audio Fest.

 

[still-one]

You got my point exactly.

I wonder if Q7 owners will be resentful of the fact that a few "famous reviewers" told them the Q7 was PERFECT in everyway
and the most important audiophile speaker in history. Then.."ooooops....we meant to say the Q7 MK11 is...and maybe the Q7 was
not so perfect. My bad."

It may have been perfect at the time but the SOA in audio continues to march forward.

 

[Andre Marc]

It may have been perfect at the time but the SOA in audio continues to march forward.

LOL. Really now. So EVERY other scientific and artistic field have breakthroughs maybe, MAYBE every 20 years.

But our precious hobby of high end audio is blessed by the gods and every two years we get MAJOR break throughs.

Thanks for enlightening me.