Audiophiles Who Don't Trust Their Ears...

[PeterA]

I used the term "data point" not in scientific manner but as a figure of speech. That is, you did exactly what you said at the end above. You used that story to demonstrate, i.e. have it count as a data point, that the ear can be trusted. You made a change, your friend said he heard it "blind," ergo the ear was to be trusted.

I explained that this isn't so. He pulled a "Crazy Ivan." He was put in a situation of being tested. His credentials as an audiophile and one with good hearing was challenged in the test. So he made an educated test that if you are pulling him into that situation, there must have been a difference. So whether he heard something for real, or imagined he heard something, he decided to say there was a change. Whether he was sure or not.

In that regard, the experiment you ran and told us, does not add weight, again, add a data point, to the conversation. I can tell you countless such stories where the outcome was shown to be the exact opposite. Just a few days ago I had my brother over and I played a tape for him. A bit later he started to tell me to listen to lows and highs and that tape is weak in those areas, pointing out the parts when that was the case in music we were hearing. As he was going on, I had to stop him strenuously and tell him we were then playing a CD, not the tape! The tape was still spinning so he thought it was that which we were listening to. You learn from these stories, not accidental lucky ones that reinforce your beliefs .

Let me note personally that I am very disappointed to see such divisive commentary. We better not let go of the immense amount we share in common in an empty quest to win some argument in these matters.

Yes, Amir. I could not have written it better.

 

[NorthStar]

If you don't trust your ears then you aren't much of a music lover, let alone an audiophile. How the music sounds to you is all that matters. If something is wrong then your ears will let you know. If everything is fine then your ears will let you know.

+1

Bud and Davey, first I love you guys. :b
Two, I disagree with both of you. :b

Sure we trust our ears; we have no choice. But our ears are far from being honest with us when it comes time to do some serious listening; that's the department of more sensitive tools that can measure stuff that our ears cannot. Our ears become much more attuned when all is calibrated and balanced well...meaning measured and tuned.

If something is wrong no one is going to tell us, not even our ears...to the contrary, our ears will tell us that everything is fine...until we hear the "right" sound. Only then we'll realize that we were living all along with the wrong sound, even if we were in love with the music and having an intellectual cosmic orgasm. It's like eating an apple and loving the taste, then eating another apple from a different tree and tasting a flavor that we didn't know existed and tasted so good. Only when confronted by higher sound quality (music recording and tuned gear with perfect synergy) that we improved the emotions going through our ears first. ...Way of speech.

Earlier I gave an example...real life experience where I can say that my ears are not to be trusted when it comes to the "perfect" sound.
It's the same with our eyes.

But yes Bud, you are 100% right in your own right, ...and then, there is always a brighter sunshine on the other side of the horizon, where no set of ears ever dare to go because of its limitation. We can say everything sounds fine and we are right to say, but frail to hear in all its true glory, a higher apotheosis. The ear cannot hear all the little flaws, they are made by humans, and not gods. Can you hear the wrong value in the crossover slope and frequency point between two drivers covering different octaves of the audio spectrum, and tell that it would be better with a gentler slope and a higher audio frequency point? No because we were not conditioned for it, we are conditioned to only what we know, hear and feel...exposed to.

Just bringing another perspective to everything is true, and not true...it's all relative. And the human ear is that much relative too, it is attached to a human head, with a complex labyrinth inside of it. ...And with limitations because of those complications of its relative complexity...distracted by outside influences and emotional activities.
Measuring tools don't have those emotional flaws, outside influences to the same level as we do.

I think we are so confident of what we have and know that we forget the more essential elements; what we don't have and what we don't know. :b
Yes, we can only trust our ears when that final listening to the music is taking place in the now...all in the pursuit of happiness today. ...And tomorrow might come.

I got great satisfaction and commensurable pleasure listening to Beth Hart from anywhere...CD, radio, ...but! ...Live doesn't lie, our gear does, and our ears they automatically follow by lying to us too.

Yesterday I blew my sub, today I blow Blues on the radio and I got five new CDs waiting to be in tune with my ears and gear...first I need to calibrate my sound system.
Then I'll take what I have and know, knowing that I have and know less than what I'll ever have and know.

Me, I can only trust my ears to the limit imposed by my own life's experience...possession and knowledge. All inside my heart and soul is contained in the universe, with all the vibes that happen every millisecond in a gravitational space that is always different, emotionally.

What is he talking about? That his ears are very limited in the full trust of the matter...when all it matters is the music playing. ...And Live we can trust...even when it sounds less than good. ...From our gear @ home? It all depends... ...of our less than perfect set of ears and less than perfect gear, speakers included.

 

[NorthStar]

By the way, what is "Roon" and who invented it, Neil Young?

 

[DaveyF]

Bud and Davey, first I love you guys. :b
Two, I disagree with both of you. :b

Sure we trust our ears; we have no choice. But our ears are far from being honest with us when it comes time to do some serious listening; that's the department of more sensitive tools that can measure stuff that our ears cannot. Our ears become much more attuned when all is calibrated and balanced well...meaning measured and tuned.

If something is wrong no one is going to tell us, not even our ears...to the contrary, our ears will tell us that everything is fine...until we hear the "right" sound. Only then we'll realize that we were living all along with the wrong sound, even if we were in love with the music and having an intellectual cosmic orgasm. It's like eating an apple and loving the taste, then eating another apple from a different tree and tasting a flavor that we didn't know existed and tasted so good. Only when confronted by higher sound quality (music recording and tuned gear with perfect synergy) that we improved the emotions going through our ears first.
...Way of speech.

Earlier I gave an example...real life experience where I can say that my ears are not to be trusted when it comes to the "perfect" sound.
It's the same with our eyes.

But yes Bud, you are 100% right in your own right, ...and then, there is always a brighter sunshine on the other side of the horizon, where no set of ears ever dare to go because of its limitation. We can say everything sounds fine and we are right to say, but frail to hear in all its true glory, a higher apotheosis. The ear cannot hear all the little flaws, they are made by humans, and not gods. Can you hear the wrong value in the crossover slope and frequency point between two drivers covering different octaves of the audio spectrum, and tell that it would be better with a gentler slope and a higher audio frequency point? No because we were not condition for it, we are conditioned to only what we know, hear and feel.

Just bringing another perspective to everything is true, and not true...it's all relative. And the human ear is that much relative too, it is attached to a human head, with a complex labyrinth inside of it. ...And with limitations because of those complications of its relative complexity...distracted by outside influences and emotional activities.
Measuring tools don't have those emotional flaws, outside influences to the same level as we do.

I think we are so confident of what we have and know that we forget the more essential elements; what we don't have and what we don't know. :b
Yes, we can only trust our ears when that final listening to the music is taking place in the now...all in the pursuit of happiness today. ...And tomorrow might come.

I got great satisfaction and commensurable pleasure listening to Beth Hart from anywhere...CD, radio, ...but! ...Live doesn't lie, our gear does, and our ears they automatically follow by lying to us too.

Yesterday I blew my sub, today I blow Blues on the radio and I got five new CDs waiting to be in tune with my ears and gear...first I need to calibrate my sound system.
Then I'll take what I have and know, knowing that I have and know less than what I'll ever have and know.

Me, I can only trust my ears to the limit imposed by my own life's experience...possession and knowledge. All inside my heart and soul is contained in the universe, with all the vibes that happen every millisecond in a gravitational space that is always different, emotionally.

What is he talking about? That his ears are very limited in the full trust of the matter...when all it matters is the music playing. ...And Live we can trust...even when it sounds less than good. ...From our gear @ home? It all depends... ...of our less than perfect set of ears and less than perfect gear, speakers included.

Bob, excellent post. Although I think we may be saying the same thing...
Here's why....I believe that the ears and our hearing ability are the only determinator to our music appreciation. From a musician's perspective, I know that the brain has learnt several 'expected' sounds. However, I also believe that the, shall we say, less musically inclined and more 'tone deaf', also use their ears to determine if they like the sound...(BTW, to be clear: NOBODY uses just their ears, it's an ear/brain combo) The difference is that those who are more 'tone deaf' probably don't discriminate quite as much on tonal accuracy, although their enjoyment of music is, at least IME, the same.
I believe the crux of the matter, and one that I think is an interesting topic, is that there would seem to be many a'philes who do not have enough confidence in their 'psycho acoustic' memory to remember what "live" music sounds like. I also believe that this is due to the probable fact that they are simply not exposed enough to the sound of "live" music...and in particular, "live, un-amplified" music.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Me seems that need to separate:

Ears for enjoying music, measurements for manufacturing

I meant to say "measurements for manufacturing and choice". But such kind of choice unreal almost for everybody due complexity.

 

[NorthStar]

The word "confidence" is a potent meaning word, Davey. ...Question: That level of 'confidence'; how much intensity do we put in it, because I believe that if are very very very confident...that it might be in times of high confidence when we start to slip away of true reality...uncertainty.
Just a simple question like that that I am asking to myself. :b

Brief, as a music aficionado passionatedo, what do I know that my ears cannot know? ...Meaning that a reconstruction of an audio signal entering the ear's canal and then the brain cannot be as true as our own interpretationo. Is it good enough; yes emotionally satisfying, no scientifically measuring. It's that incertitude that helps build our degree of confidence...I think. ...By pursuing higher intellect learning (brain) with real practice (choral music listening).

The more time I live my days, the less is left to explore tomorrow and the more wrongs are gone from yesterday when knowledge wasn't so advanced as it is now. The essence is now, and with all the love and trust that we're confident about acknowledging in a free open methodical theological intelligent structure.

Live music can sound awful, but the emotional impact is generally multi-folds in comparison to recreated from a music medium...LP, CD, Hi-res download, Tape...@ home, short of having the musicians performing live in the living room. ...Acoustic or electric...don't matter...our ears they take what it's given to them...and both have beauty in it.

Lol, listening to music is like skating on a frozen like in the middle of the desert. ...Only in our ears/brain.

 

[NorthStar]

Me seems that need to separate:

Ears for enjoying music, measurements for manufacturing

I meant to say "measurements for manufacturing and choice". But such kind of choice unreal almost for everybody due complexity.

Today, the attentive listener is measuring the audio gear measuring designer. And more often than not they are not listening to the same music...as music taste varies.
Some audiophiles they measure more than some speaker designers, which is good for all our advancement in this true art of music reproduction.
And measurements are accompanied by listening sessions...they both go together...like brother and sister to form that stronger family bond.

 

[NorthStar]

This is my latest audio purchase which arrived this afternoon:

On top of this, I must have bought 40 to 50 HD downloads, and 30+ CDs this month. I just built my new audio server and been testing Dirac Live and Roon. Would someone explain to me how I am not a music lover or audiophile because I don't trust my ears fully whether some new gear or tweak made a positive difference?

Amir, I am very proud of you. Not because of what you just posted above, but also because you have all the other reasons too in your life's favor.

* Let us know about that tape from Ed. :b ...By the way, I received five CDs from Ed, this morning. /// Me too I'll let everyone know...when all set and ready.

 

[DaveyF]

The word "confidence" is a potent meaning word, Davey. ...Question: That level of 'confidence'; how much intensity do we put in it, because I believe that if are very very very confident...that it might be in times of high confidence when we start to slip away of true reality...uncertainty.
Just a simple question like that that I am asking to myself. :b



Live music can sound awful, but the emotional impact is generally multi-folds in comparison to .

Bob, just to make sure I was confident in my memory of what my Taylor acoustic guitar sounds like, I went and played it after your post. Sure enough, it sounded exactly the same as I remembered it. I think if we ever get to the point that we begin to question our own senses, particularly our hearing sense and our acoustic memory, we need to step back and re-group a little.... IMO. Remember, music can and does have a strong impact on our senses, it can bring great joy, but it can also bring sorrow and even rarely, depression.

 

[Goliath]

More nonsense & gibberish strung together, these aren't facts just your projections!

Nonsense and gibberish? Psychoacoustics and pyschology? Goodness.

Controlled conditions, designed by whom and to what standards? To what end and purpose? None of what you preach has anything to do with the main activity.

Limiting confounding variables in a test to establish audibility thresholds in audio testing ie audible differences. Part of the scientific method. Used in all fields of science, not just in audio. Please look it up.

And of course audiophiles can make objective claims about sound quality based on their personal observations as they wish, you can agree or disagree but there's no obligation to support it with anything.

If audiophiles are not obligated to support their claims then no one is obligated to either agree or disagree - one can simply dismiss them out of hand. No evidence, no obligation to take their claims seriously. No obligation to take the audiophile seriously - ie you.

You see, part of the problem is that audiophiles find it difficult to distinguish between their delusions and reality. They claim whatever they like, whenever they like and often draw specious conclusions about what they "hear" in bias overloaded conditions, and expect others to just blindly accept those claims as if they were already establiished fact.

Hence all the melodrama and woo that exists in the audio world.

It's exactly this kind of mental masturbation that can prevent people from sharing their experiences. You can't just make up rules for others, and what do most of us care about psychology or pshyco-acoustics? Do you have a degree in either one?

So the audiophile "hears" something. The cause could be related to :

1) Audio gear
2) Seeing, knowing, expecting....
3) Mood swings, moving around, fidgeting etc
4) What was read, price, day dreaming, volume mismatches...
5) Or any of the 50+ uncontrolled variables taking place in casual "listening"

What does the audiophile do? They often claim the cause was related to audio gear. No evidence for that apart from "I heard it, it was so".

Now, you can share experiences to your hearts content, but don't expect others to take you or your Humpty Dumpty claims seriously while posting absent any evidence to support those claims. It's as simple as that.

 

[Goliath]

Can you site an example of an objective claim made by an audiophile that he then only supports by saying "I heard it, I said so"?

Hundreds and hundreds of examples littered all over the forum. In almost every sub-forum. On every audiophile forum.

Something was heard, the evidence for that is "I heard it". That is it. Could be psychogenic differences, or real differences resulting from changes in sound waves meeting the ear.

Very rarely is any evidence presented to support these claims. Hence the melodrama that usually unfolds. Most of it boils down to "trust the ears", but trusting the ears is by definition listening blind - using the ears, only about the sound

I once wrote in another thread that I heard the sound of my amplifiers changing during the first hour or so after being turned on. I took a lot of heat for writing this. Some asked me to prove it. They asked me how I could be so sure. I responded by writing that I was sure because I heard it. It was clear, to me at least, that this was not some objective claim on my part, but simply my subjective observation based on my personal experience with my amps in my system over many years of listening.

If you claimed the amp changed the sound due to warm up or burn in then you are making an objective claim whether you like it or not. You don't know if the burn in was your brain acclimatizing to the sound, or if the change was due to memory, or due to slight changes in seated positioning, or due to mood, or ... expectations etc, etc.

You don't know. If you had said "I heard a difference, I suspect it was due to amp warm up, but I don't know, it may not have been", then your reception would have likely been very different.

Perhaps the amp did change the sound on warm up. But you don't have any evidence to support that claim outside "I heard it". If someone told me that cable burn-in changed the sound I would like them to demonstrate that, or just retract the claim altogether. Otherwise it's just a claim, and anyone can make a claim.

And yet, I am sure that my critics thought the same thing that you are writing in your post, i.e., that I had "zero supporting evidence apart from "I heard it..." Well, that is good enough for me, because it was just a subjective observation that I wanted to share.

Sure, it was your subjective observations and given the casual, subjective nature of the listening, it's possible what you heard/experienced was due to a whole host of other factors not related to amp warm up. You don't know for sure.

The amp burning in or warming up is but one possible cause out of many! It's when people ignore/dismiss the other possibilities that problems arise in discussion.

 

[PeterA]

Hundreds and hundreds of examples littered all over the forum. In almost every sub-forum. On every audiophile forum.

Something was heard, the evidence for that is "I heard it". That is it. Could be psychogenic differences, or real differences resulting from changes in sound waves meeting the ear.

Very rarely is any evidence presented to support these claims. Hence the melodrama that usually unfolds. Most of it boils down to "trust the ears", but trusting the ears is by definition listening blind - using the ears, only about the sound



If you claimed the amp changed the sound due to warm up or burn in then you are making an objective claim whether you like it or not. You don't know if the burn in was your brain acclimatizing to the sound, or if the change was due to memory, or due to slight changes in seated positioning, or due to mood, or ... expectations etc, etc.

You don't know. If you had said "I heard a difference, I suspect it was due to amp warm up, but I don't know, it may not have been", then your reception would have likely been very different.

Perhaps the amp did change the sound on warm up. But you don't have any evidence to support that claim outside "I heard it". If someone told me that cable burn-in changed the sound I would like them to demonstrate that, or just retract the claim altogether. Otherwise it's just a claim, and anyone can make a claim.



Sure, it was your subjective observations and given the casual, subjective nature of the listening, it's possible what you heard/experienced was due to a whole host of other factors not related to amp warm up. You don't know for sure.

The amp burning in or warming up is but one possible cause out of many! It's when people ignore/dismiss the other possibilities that problems arise in discussion.

Goliath, you are right. I don't know for sure why it sounds different. But I do know for sure that I heard a change and continue to hear a change over many years. I did not claim a cause for the change. Please reread my statement. Here it is: "I once wrote in another thread that I heard the sound of my amplifiers changing during the first hour or so after being turned on. I took a lot of heat for writing this. Some asked me to prove it. They asked me how I could be so sure. I responded by writing that I was sure because I heard it. It was clear, to me at least, that this was not some objective claim on my part, but simply my subjective observation based on my personal experience with my amps in my system over many years of listening."

Where do I write that it has anything to do with my amps warming up or burning in?

Once again, the important sentence: "I once wrote in another thread that I heard the sound of my amplifiers changing during the first hour or so after being turned on." I made no mention of it being because of "warm up or burn in" as you write. I simply wrote that I heard the sound change during the first hour or so. I do not know why it changed. It could have been any number of reasons. I am not a scientist, I don't have the knowledge nor the equipment to verify a change. I simply heard a change and continue to do so after I turn the amps on. Sure, perhaps it was something I ate before listening, or even because I was angry after engaging in some argument on a forum . I went on to state that I have had this same observation many times, over many years of listening, in fact. I made no claim as to the technical reasons for this observation.

I will not speculate as to why you read something in my statement that is simply not there.

I have no interest or need to prove anything to you. I don't care in the least whether you believe me. It was a subjective observation made by me, the subject, based on my senses. It is just like me saying that I put on an LP this morning of Alfred Brendel playing Beethoven's Sonata No. 14 and then observing that it sounds like a piano. Sure you can say that I made a claim. Do you really need me to prove it to you?

Why don't you and I simply agree to disagree, abide by Amir's warnings about being kinder and non argumentative, and try to enjoy these discussions? Perhaps even listen to some music. I extend to you my hand for a friendly shake.

 

[Gregadd]

It is worth noting that th noting objectivist dispute the benefits of warm up and break in,.what is wrong and th

 

[amirm]

It is worth noting that th noting objectivist dispute the benefits of warm up and break in,.what is wrong and th

Are you saying Greg that why objectives care what claims subjectivists make regarding warm up, break in and such? If so, that is a good point. And something we are free of in this forum 99% of the time. We have numerous threads where people talk about these things without a single person challenging and bothering them. Try that in many other forums and you won't get a word in edgewise. We seem to ignore this massive accomplishment we have made in creating a social community of mixed audience where this is the norm.

The only place were people deviate from this is a handful of threads like this where OPs know that this will be a debate and as such, both sides attempt to win the argument. Strangely, very strangely, in our forum these threads are created by subjectivists whereas in just about every other forum, it is the objectivists that take the first shot by creating the threads. Then dissatisfaction is expressed by the same camp saying why is so and so telling me I am wrong and can't trust my ears, etc. I don't know how to explain the logic of this simple matter better: if you are going to poke the bear, you can't expect it to not turn around and chase you . And calls for outlawing the bears when one enjoys doing the poking is going to not be taken seriously.

So yes, I fully agree with you Greg that objectivists can come across especially sensitive to what subjectivists do in pursuit of their hobbies. It is human nature but at the end of the day, it is not all that useful.

 

[microstrip]

Of course. It is a set of international recommendations for evaluation of small audible differences. What would you like to know about it?

Most probably something about the need of positive controls, something that people go on ignoring very happily ...
Just trying to guess, since telepathy seems to be very popular in WBF.

 

[amirm]

Most probably something about the need of positive controls, something that people go on ignoring very happily ...
Just trying to guess, since telepathy seems to be very popular in WBF.

It can indeed be used to nullify the results of many hobby run double blind tests and rightly so as you mention.

 

[microstrip]

In that regard, the experiment you ran and told us, does not add weight, again, add a data point, to the conversation. I can tell you countless such stories where the outcome was shown to be the exact opposite. Just a few days ago I had my brother over and I played a tape for him. A bit later he started to tell me to listen to lows and highs and that tape is weak in those areas, pointing out the parts when that was the case in music we were hearing. As he was going on, I had to stop him strenuously and tell him we were then playing a CD, not the tape! The tape was still spinning so he thought it was that which we were listening to. You learn from these stories, not accidental lucky ones that reinforce your beliefs .

Amir,

The many thousand of "lucky" ones manage to create great systems and excellent sound reproduction - this forum is filled with them.

Even the people who claim against sighted audition in this forum recognize they do not carry proper blind tests.

You reinforce your beliefs from the negative stories. Since I do not believe in magic or miracles in high-end audio, I reinforce my beliefs with great positive ones.

The separation between people who trust measurements and those who trust their ears is ridiculous and only increases the entropy of the debates. Measurements must reflect what people have heard. IMHO the key question is the correlation between measurements and earing - we can not separate it. I try to use the best of each. But If I had to use exclusively one of them I would not rely only in current measurements. And I (and everyone else, it seems) do not have the time or conditions to carry proper unsighted listening tests.

 

[amirm]

The separation between people who trust measurements and those who trust their ears is ridiculous and only increases the entropy of the debates. Measurements must reflect what people have heard.

Commenting on this part of your post the situation is not at all black and white this way. I don't "trust measurements." That question was not asked and hence not answered. I use measurements when they apply and help confirm a hypothesis in audio. They are one of the data points. In a number of cases I have talked about throwing measurements out such as thinking one microphone in a room can capture what two ears and a brain perceive.

It is wrong to trust measurements 100% just as it is wrong to dismiss their value altogether in my opinion. Unfortunately the audio hobby world is full of people who take one or the other extreme position and with it, deprive themselves from knowing more about their audio experiments to find better fidelity.

 

[PeterA]

Amir,

The many thousand of "lucky" ones manage to create great systems and excellent sound reproduction - this forum is filled with them.

Even the people who claim against sighted audition in this forum recognize they do not carry proper blind tests.

You reinforce your beliefs from the negative stories. Since I do not believe in magic or miracles in high-end audio, I reinforce my beliefs with great positive ones.

The separation between people who trust measurements and those who trust their ears is ridiculous and only increases the entropy of the debates. Measurements must reflect what people have heard. IMHO the key question is the correlation between measurements and earing - we can not separate it. I try to use the best of each. But If I had to use exclusively one of them I would not rely only in current measurements. And I (and everyone else, it seems) do not have the time or conditions to carry proper unsighted listening tests.

Nice post microstrip. I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I have written many times that proper set up is paramount to great sound. So there was much more than luck involved in the setting up of my system. I hired Jim Smith to voice my system to my room after I had carefully selected the gear and read his book. Jim technique involved measuring the frequency response of the lower octaves to best locate the seating position in my room. From there, everything was done by careful and critical listening to extremely familiar music that he brought on his DAC/computer. However, once we got the speakers close to their final locations, out came the laser measuring device. Everything was then precisely positioned within 1/16th". At that point, it all locked it. He listened once again to a soprano that he reserves for the final confirmation listen, and declared that he was satisfied.

The sound of my system, and I am sure many others here, is not the result of simply listening and getting lucky. There is much more methodology involved, but, as you so well point out, there is not much controlled double blind testing going on, simply because it is far too impractical to do it in the home setting by a bunch of hobbyists.

Like many others here, I also reinforce my beliefs with the great positive stories, by hearing other great systems, and by listening to live music.

 

[PeterA]

It is wrong to trust measurements 100% just as it is wrong to dismiss their value altogether in my opinion. Unfortunately the audio hobby world is full of people who take one or the other extreme position and with it, deprive themselves from knowing more about their audio experiments to find better fidelity.

I agree with the first sentence but not the second, at least in this WBF. This was discussed in other threads many times. I happen to think that many, perhaps most of us in this forum, have a healthy respect and use for both measurements and subjective listening. I don't think many members stand on one or the other side of this great divide, but rather straddle the gulf, leaning slightly in one direction more than the other. Just a feeling and I have no way to verify it.