Do We Generally Hear the Same or Differently?

[Tango]

Is

Fantastically written, and very precise.

Is there a Super Like button? Or can I hit it two three times.

Like. Like. Like. There you have it, Tima.

Tang

 

[tima]

Fantastically written, and very precise.

Aw Shucks - thanks!

 

[PeterA]

Nice post, Tima. Al M. and I have discussed this issue a lot lately. We often agree about the general sonic attributes of each other's system, and for instance, how the sound changes in my system when I adjust arm height, or compare different phono stages. We also agree that instruments and voices have no "absolute" sound, but vary depending on many factors like the space in which we hear them, the playing methods, the makes of the instruments, our seating location, etc.

However, in his system recently, we disagreed about how realistic Miles Davis' muted trumpet sounded. I thought it was piercing, but shrill, even distorted in the high frequencies and I found it somewhat annoying to the point of fatigue. He thought that trumpets can sound like that live and had no problem with it. Is this about hearing, listening, defining terms, or preferences?

We also noticed a couple of strange spatial anomalies. A few months ago, we disagreed about the location in the soundstage where the violin was placed in a good recording of a string trio. And then just the other night, we adomently disagreed about the location of two voices, one male, one female, while listening to a recording of a unaccompanied vocal duet. I thought the male voice on the left was too high at 7-8 feet and further back while the female voice on the right was too low at about 4 feet high and it had an up front perspective. Al thought both were about the same height and depth on the stage and I think felt all was normal. We played this recording a few times, switched seats, and ended the listening session utterly confused because we simply could not agree on the spatial representations of the two singers. What was that about?

 

[Al M.]

Peter, I think these are two great examples of how we both listen differently and hear differently.

The muted trumpet in the high registers (you liked the sound in the lower ones) was, in my view, mainly a case of how we listen differently -- how we make a mental comparison with live sounds and judge. Of course, it is also partially about how we hear differently.

The height of the singers' voices on the other hand, was clearly 100 % just about how we hear differently, beginning with the shape of our ear lobes, and continuing with the ear-brain interface.

 

[microstrip]

We hear very similarly.

We have different tastes and preferences. I might be comfortable with the language of a musician and you might be comfortable with the language on an audiophile, but once we sort that out, we'll be able to communicate about what we hear.

Even if you dislike classical music, we'll both point at the same spot when asked where the timpani are located in a soundfield. We'll both be able to differentiate between the initial strike and its reflection off the back wall. While you might be able to tell that one timp is tuned to an A and the other a D, I'll be able to at least tell that there are two with different tonality and we'll both know we're not hearing a clarinet. We'll both be able to differentiate quarter-time from waltz-time even if neither of us knows what that is. We can both hear the difference between stacatto and pizacato. If we hear a Steinway and a Bosendorfer, we can probably agree that one sounds warmer than the other. You may prefer the Bosendorfer for Prokoviev and I may prefer the Steinway. But we can talk to one another about those hearings without confusion.

Tim,


People usually separate hearing from listening when debating these matters. But even just concerning hearing we have very large differences.

Audiologists will tell you we hear very differently - different sensitivities, shapes of cavities and bone transmission. It is our brain, that due to our experience manages to equalize somewhat what we listen

IMHO your examples are too simplistic and only valid for people that have similar education. Many people will never be able to perform the tasks you refer - ask a danse teacher about those people who can't feel rhythm - that is not related to hearing, BTW. Besides they are being applied to real music and IMHO can not be extrapolated to sound reproduction, a very different matter.

Perhaps there is some confusion just because we did not define "hear". Curiously F. Toole in his book starts by defining "sound" - and even there there is a lot of disagreement between people. Physical wave or perceived wave?

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I think these are two great examples of how we both listen differently and hear differently.

The muted trumpet in the high registers (you liked the sound in the lower ones) was, in my view, mainly a case of how we listen differently -- how we make a mental comparison with live sounds and judge. Of course, it is also partially about how we hear differently.

The height of the singers' voices on the other hand, was clearly 100 % just about how we hear differently, beginning with the shape of our ear lobes, and continuing with the ear-brain interface.

Yes, and it remains interesting that I found that muted trumpet irritating and fatigue inducing, which I don't hear live, and you were not irritated with the sound and say you do hear that live. In other words, our perception of that reproduced sound differs from our memories of that sound as we hear it live.

Also, I am puzzled as to why that spatial anomaly was so pronounced in the vocal duet but not on other music with similar frequency content. I wonder if it was information on the recording, some room acoustic issue, or simply our different ear/brain perception and interpretation of the same sound. A real mystery.

 

[ack]

Yes, and it remains interesting that I found that muted trumpet irritating and fatigue inducing, which I don't hear live

As discussed in a number of threads before, there is a distinct difference between what one hears live and what a microphone captures, and how that's subsequently interpreted by the downstream production stage, and then the reproduction stage. To the last point, we should not assume that a recording CAN or WILL capture something as we hear it live, never mind what the reproduction stage does. In our group, there is clearly those who attempt to reproduce and judge the recording for what it is, and others who judge it by what they hear live. These goals CAN converge and sometimes DO, but given that high end audio has taken decades to get to where we are today, I'd say, we still have long ways to go.

Leaving physiology aside, this alone is enough for me to say we all tend to hear differently, because we tend to put emphasis on things we WANT to put emphasis on, and equally interpret things differently. On the other hand, if you are talking about sheer distortion that caused you fatigue, then that would be something entirely different.

 

[microstrip]

As discussed in a number of threads before, there is a distinct difference between what one hears live and what a microphone captures, and how that's interpreted by the downstream production stage, and then the reproduction stage. To the last point, we should not assume that a recording CAN or WILL capture something as we hear it live, never mind what the reproduction stage does. In our group, there is clearly those who attempt to reproduce and judge the recording for what it is, and others who judge it by what they hear live. These goals CAN converge and sometimes DO, but given that high end audio has taken decades to get to where we are today, I'd say, we still have long ways to go. (...)

Michael Fremer comment on this aspect:

The Stage Is Set for Sound!
But first, some perspective. I sat a few months ago with my wife, Art Dudley and his wife and daughter, and some others in the rooftop ballroom of Manhattan's St. Regis Hotel, where we were treated to the Emerson String Quartet and an additional cellist performing Schubert's Quintet in C Major, D.956. The acoustics were excellent, and our table was close to the stage. As I listened, I tried to analyze the differences between what I was hearing and the sound of the best string-quartet recording I've got.
First, anyone who tells you that the sound of any audio system even approaches what you hear when you're in a room in which musicians are playing is fooling themselves and you. (Of course, we like to be fooled.) The dimensional and spatial cues on recordings are wrong. Attacks in even the best recordings are ham-fisted and lack textural grace and complexity. Dynamics, particularly microdynamics, are stifled, and harmonics are either shortchanged or overemphasized. So no matter what, you're not going to get "live" sound at home.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...monoblock-power-amplifier#FTBz8B2iZIQY4Rgz.99

 

[ack]

Totally agree with Fremer. Beyond "fooling", I'd even say we audiophiles are often delusional, when it comes to trying to convince anyone, including ourselves, that we have "live sound" as Peter put it. We may have great, even grand, sound, but live?!?!

 

[Al M.]

Totally agree with Fremer. Beyond "fooling", I'd even say we audiophiles are often delusional, when it comes to trying to convince anyone, including ourselves, that we have "live sound" as Peter put it. We may have great, even grand, sound, but live?!?!

Of course we all hopefully agree that no system/recording sounds like live. Yet that does not mean that you cannot reject a sound from a system that is an artifact, since it is simply alien to the live experience. It also does not mean that you cannot approve of a sound from a system that sounds like what your memory tells you is in the range of live sounds.

 

[PeterA]

Totally agree with Fremer. Beyond "fooling", I'd even say we audiophiles are often delusional, when it comes to trying to convince anyone, including ourselves, that we have "live sound" as Peter put it. We may have great, even grand, sound, but live?!?!

If I claimed that I heard live sound in either my or Al's system, that was a mistake. I certainly did not mean to make such a claim. What I was trying to say through imperfect writing is that Al and I discussed the sound of a live muted trumpet after we heard Davis' trumpet on digital. I told Al that I do not hear it live sounding like I heard it in his system. Al, on the other hand, did tell me that live trumpet can sound very hard, piercing and when ever other adjectives he used. I agreed, but I don't hear the HF distortion live. But again, Al was not claiming that Davis' muted trumpet on Sketches of Spain sounds like what he hears live either. So, no disagreement there.

Rarely, if ever, have I been fooled by a system thinking it sounds "the same" as live. Have I heard a system sound pretty convincing on some recordings? Yes. I started a thread years ago on this very subject. Many threads argued that we are not even 5% there, so I get where you are coming from, Tasos.

 

[Jazzhead]

No need for analysis , if the music hits you and it switches off your left lobe , you gotta home run. Maybe from a recording in general or the system as a whole. It's a bodily function, we know when we achieve that state . We all have maybe momentarily during a session or those luckier few for a more prolonged time with their rigs, cause there's always that recording that come and bites you in the .ss .

 

[DaveC]

There's lots of similarities but also physiological differences and to make things more complicated, hearing damage and change with age.

Dealing with cables I often hear about small differences and folk's preferences and sensitivities. I've certainly noticed patterns over the years and these days I can often tell that people have damaged hearing just by their descriptions of what they hear and what they would like to achieve.

Aging and hearing changes are not linear and often don't make a lot of sense, in general our perception of high frequencies change and we become less able to clearly hear the highest frequencies, while at the same time often developing a sensitivity to certain frequency ranges. Sensitivities are often in unfortunate frequency ranges where metal dome and ribbon tweeters produce acoustic anomalies. I recently had a customer who was demoing speakers for his "last" speaker purchase, I'm not sure how old but probably 80's. He tested a couple speakers and while he really like them they caused listening fatigue and he was asking about how cables might be able to compensate for this issue. Simply by his description of what he was experiencing I was able to tell him he has a sensitivity and needs to demo different speakers. Be domes and ribbons just didn't work for him, and after trying a couple speakers I recommended these issues were resolved. And his hearing test did show a peak in sensitivity around 10kHz if I remember correctly. So issues that are beneath the noise, or low enough for most to not notice or for the brain to simply filter out after a while, may not be the case with some people. And IME these issues are generally found with perception of high frequencies.

That's just ONE little aspect of how our hearing can differ from one person to another, there are lots more, I think it's a slight miracle that we agree on anything. Semantics is a big issue though too... words fail us for these kinds of things at times.

 

[DaveC]

No need for analysis , if the music hits you and it switches off your left lobe , you gotta home run. Maybe from a recording in general or the system as a whole. It's a bodily function, we know when we achieve that state . We all have maybe momentarily during a session or those luckier few for a more prolonged time with their rigs, cause there's always that recording that come and bites you in the .ss .

This has to do with audio system's production of "ALERT" noises. Some are learned, like when a police siren is used in music, which should be outlawed, but whatever... Other things have to do with biological responses, like being alert to leaves rustling or branches breaking in the woods. I think many times our reactions to this kind of stimuli is totally unconscious, and is often the cause of listening fatigue. The nervous system can't relax while being subjected to alert noises.

 

[Folsom]

People are more sensitive to different things they "look" for while listening. Generally most people hear them, but people are at different levels for reorganization of many attributes.

Where it really breaks down is how people describe what. Hardly anyone really knows the relationship between certain sound features and the design feature relationship in speakers & electronics. So from the get go people are describing what they imagine it sound like is happening, but it may have little to no bearing on what is actually happening (or even fully opposite). And then you find different people imagine different things affecting the same attributes they both are judging. If that isn't enough of a hurdle, they will not only describe the functions they believe are contributing to the attribute incorrectly/differently, they will name the attribute differently.

There really isn't much more to it. It's common that someone hasn't heard an attribute vary a lot, so they aren't listening for it like someone else may be. And then no one knows what causes what sound attribute, and everyone names the attribute differently - in part because they imagine the cause differently for the attribute.

 

[tima]

Tim,


People usually separate hearing from listening when debating these matters. But even just concerning hearing we have very large differences.

Audiologists will tell you we hear very differently - different sensitivities, shapes of cavities and bone transmission. It is our brain, that due to our experience manages to equalize somewhat what we listen

...

Thanks for your note, Francisco. Can we hear or respond to an audiologist's test without using our brain?

I'm not sure in what sense of "hear" Ron meant when he asked: Do We Generally Hear the Same or Differently? But in the context of this thread I think of it terms of your use of "listening". When I say "we hear similarly," it is irrelevant if you can hear, say, a half octave higher than I can.

When we have the various discussions that we do, for the most part we're talking as audiophiles not audiologists. When I say "similarly" that does not mean identically (or with shared audiological measurements) but with sufficient shared meaning and syntax that we both believe we are communicating with one another.

If I say the Bosendorfer sounds warmer and you say the Steinway sounds warmer, each knows what the other meant. I don't need to agree with you to say we hear similarly.

 

[jep123]

Why is it so important to know or learn what other listeners are hearing? I do not see any point in others telling me how my system sounds. Or indeed, how I can improve the sound of my system. For me it seems that many members of this forum and others are very concerned about what other audiophiles think of their systems. Why care?

I have recently completely changed my (for me) very expensive "normal" high end system (retail app. USD 160.000) to full range drivers and a SET integrated amp. A much cheaper and simpler system. I needed a change after many many years with conventional high end equipment. And chasing "the perfect sound". What I learned over the years was that they all sounded more or less the same, the sound signature that is. It did not matter much if I changed speakers, amps etc.

With the new system it sounds much more open and live, more dynamic. It is not perfect, but what is?

I enjoy music at least as much as earlier, but i am enjoying the music as a hole and do not listen where the guitar is placed, the violins and so on. But I used to .

 

[the sound of Tao]

I would think that hearing differently is to be expected.

My cousin has hyperacusis and hears subsonics at a far greater level than most of us. So bad in fact that once when a helicopter was passing overhead he threw himself through a plate glass window.

His audio sensitivities are part and parcel of his acute autism.

Perceiving or listening differently is a different thing again I would have thought.

In truth I only guess at this stuff but have always felt that much that binds us together as a community lays in one or the other of these things. Hearing and listening.

One of my audiophile mates is supersensitive to overall staging and also the top end and invariably discusses the values of systems in terms of soundstage and is super sensitive to how bright or hot they sound.

Another is obsessed with imaging and being immersed in a sound field and is only content when the sound has energised the space utterly.

I am a complete coherence junkie and only happy when tone, dynamics and presence are at their best. I am most immersed when the music makes me forget the sound and I just want to dance.

I figure that we all hear and perceive in ways that are unique though we also then share purposes and emotional responses. Music is a thing that binds us through experience but sonics are a response to physiognomy and preference. Much is to be discovered in both the understanding of sound and also the experience of music I would imagine. Perhaps some of these areas of knowing are safely numinous and beyond our understanding.

Music is to be enjoyed and has no concern with how conscious we are of it. We are sometimes just noise. Music is the original signal.

 

[DaveC]

Thanks for your note, Francisco. Can we hear or respond to an audiologist's test without using our brain?

I'm not sure in what sense of "hear" Ron meant when he asked: Do We Generally Hear the Same or Differently? But in the context of this thread I think of it terms of your use of "listening". When I say "we hear similarly," it is irrelevant if you can hear, say, a half octave higher than I can.

When we have the various discussions that we do, for the most part we're talking as audiophiles not audiologists. When I say "similarly" that does not mean identically (or with shared audiological measurements) but with sufficient shared meaning and syntax that we both believe we are communicating with one another.

If I say the Bosendorfer sounds warmer and you say the Steinway sounds warmer, each knows what the other meant. I don't need to agree with you to say we hear similarly.

Except there are often HUGE differences, which is easily highlighted by waiting outside the Focal demo room at audio shows and hearing people come out saying "That was amazing" vs "I could hardly stand to be in there, the highs were killing me!". This kind of thing is typical and sometimes the underlying reason is exactly what audiologists measure.

This is yet another issue with high end audio that has never been fully explored, but in the end it'll all come down to perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for everything... just like the entire rest of the world! Until then we should keep an open mind imo...

 

[Al M.]

Why is it so important to know or learn what other listeners are hearing? I do not see any point in others telling me how my system sounds. Or indeed, how I can improve the sound of my system. For me it seems that many members of this forum and others are very concerned about what other audiophiles think of their systems. Why care?

Actually, I found it enormously useful having my friends from our Boston audio group tell me how in their view my system sounded over the years and across all the changes of gear and acoustics that I made. I would never have arrived at the stellar, to me very involving sound that I have now without their feedback (and hearing their systems in comparison, of course).