# Listening for differences



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Much discussion occurs on forums like this about testing and how one should listen for differences between equipment. I have been doing some A/B testing of several types of differences and have some observations. 

First of all, I find it hard to find differences in almost all of the cases I will describe. I am not here to debate whether there are differences or not, but to discuss some phenomena of listening conditions. I do not assume that because I don't hear a difference that there is none. I also don't assume there is, but I am trying to find any that might be.

The comparisons that I have been making have been between amps and music sources. I have compared my B&K amp to my Adcoms, Yamaha receivers, Onkyo receiver, and my Rotel amp. I have also compared my Sony disc player, my LG drive in my PC, my Panasonic disc player, and audio files in wav, flac, mp3 formats through both the sound card output and my Audioquest Dragonfly, as well as through the Sony player and the Onkyo via USB.

Bottom line is that I don't hear much difference in any of them except between the sound card and other outputs (noise and distortion seem clearly higher) such as doing the conversion in the Dragonfly, the players, or the Onkyo (TXNR709). I can hear a difference between the MP3 and other formats on some music.

Of course, we have also been through three rounds of extensive speaker listening tests of over 2 dozen speakers, and I have been doing comparisons of my Arx A5 to my Thiel 04, my in wall MTX speakers in my HT system, and my XLS Encore kit that I got from GR.

What I have noticed is that the mind can play tricks on me. So start with a clearly inferior listening experience. For instance, my old Thiels or in wall speakers compared to the Arx. I don't think anyone would consider either of the former to be as good as the Arx A5 and almost anyone could tell the difference repeatably. So I listen to some particular music, say the Chant track that we have used in the evals. There is lots of image detail, musical detail, bass extension, etc. I can hear things in the Arx that I never noticed or barely noticed in the others. Now I have heard this track many times now. Heard it on much more expensive speakers many time. I know what to expect when. But now, when I listen on the other lower performance speakers, I can hear detail that I never heard on them before. Why is this? Have the gotten better? No, not at all. But I know that these details are supposed to be there and I know that I hear them. Am I actually hearing it or is it my imagination. Probably some of both. A classic example of expectation clouding what is actually heard and what is perceived.

My point here is that I think the assumption that longer listening allows us to get a better idea of what a system is doing and not doing may not be straightforward. There may be some mind tricks going on...


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Good post


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

We were taught to practice mind tricks as a basic sales technique in audio. You see it all the time. It is called "prediction-proof." You tell someone what a product does and what they will hear, demonstrate the product, and most of the time they say they hear exactly what you described. Now to be fair, most salesmen who use this technique actually believe what they are telling people. It may or may not be reality, but people generally hear what they expect to hear.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Another good post


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

This is a fertile topic - much to explore. The first point I wish to make is that what you describe is not a weakness to be overcome; it is due to the way our brains operate. 'Listening for differences' places the cart before the horse – conscious thought is directing your experience. Doing so with the intent to document the differences you hear only compounds the issue (as has been uniformly demonstrated in numerous experiments). Welcome to the human brain.

Mingling of the senses is built into the architecture of the brain via the angular gyrus (which is massively developed in humans and is located at the crossroad of visual, auditory and somatosensory processing) – a location which, combined with the supramarginal gyrus, permits multimodal associative processing. The angular gyrus is deeply involved with complex language processing. More than just the senses are mingled as knowledge/belief/expectation/etc are also brought to bear on sensory processing. 

Efficiency is critical to neural processing. Unlike IBM's Watson, which requires Herculean cooling devices, our brains must be energy efficient. Furthermore, Watson is free to associate via brute force (not exactly how it operates, but...) thanks to the remarkable speed at which its circuity operates, whereas our neurons are laughably slow by comparison. This underscores the importance of shortcuts – cheating, if you prefer. 

Sensory processing is as rich in backward projections as it is in forward projections. What we 'know' modulates what we experience. What we see influences what we hear (we are, first and foremost, visual creatures (seeing is believing)). What we expect impacts our experience, and it does so via the interconnected brain structures as well as the chemical biasing effect of dopamine.

Listening is not a passive process, nor do we directly 'hear' the information emanating from our ears. Experience is a rule driven construct (illusions teach us much about those rules). It is created in our heads and does not necessarily agree with reality. In fact, our brains effortlessly fill-in missing information as Petr Janata demonstrated in an experiment with a barn owl – electrodes inserted into the bird's inferior colliculus produced the melody of 'The Blue Danube' when he played a recording for the owl which had been stripped of fundamentals (the bird only heard the harmonic overtones; the fundamentals had been removed). If we hear the proper harmonic sequence, we also hear the fundamentals which produce those harmonics. Petr's experiment demonstrated that this filling-in happens in the early stages of auditory processing. Just imagine the extent to which our brains can (and do) edit what we hear!

Sorry for the ramble, but this only scratches the surface of the issue. It is a fascinating area of research and we are just beginning to study brains in action. I doubt this brief post sheds much light on the situation, but I hope it conveys the impossibility of settling the discussion of the audibility of different amps or DACs, for instance (or with anything in which differences are subtle (and I don't mean to imply that such differences are always subtle)).

When we alter the circumstances in which we listen to something familiar, it should come as little surprise that we may notice something we previously hadn't. Yeah, those are mind tricks, indeed. It's an intractable problem, but I still think the best approach is long term listening - _without overt mental comparison_. The best (least 'contaminated') way to hear is just to listen to the music without analyzing what it sounds like. Of course, that runs contrary to the purpose of comparing A to B. Still, I think the relative merits of either device in question will reveal themselves better to our 'relaxed' minds. I try not to focus on 'what' I hear, but rather how I feel while listening. Listening pleasure is my objective, so it is also my guide.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Machines can measure/analyze/process/compare sound with resolution that greatly exceeds human capability.
While this is not sexy and will be soundly ;-) rejected by a good portion of the forum population it does not change it from being true.
The other downside side to this method would be the lack of talking points whenever we get going on the merits of that fancy new power cable.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

chashint said:


> Machines can measure/analyze/process/compare *sound* with resolution that greatly exceeds human capability.


If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a _*sound*_? The answer to this riddle is, no. Ergo, the statement above is categorically false. Machines can analyze electrical signals and sound waves, but not *sound*, which is a phenomenological experience. The distinction opens a massive can of worms when it comes to what to measure. Furthermore, human capability with respect to interpreting auditory data far exceeds that of any measuring tool, regardless of the tool's comparative accuracy.

Measurement devices can tell us much, but we listen with our brains.

If one wishes to apply science to _*sound*_, doing so without considering the brain is a fruitless exercise. This is not meant as a dismissive repudiation of your comment, but as a reminder that we are discussing an experience.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

This is the fundamental problem with measurement and the myriad of assumptions that are inherent in these debates. Experience is not the same as sound reproduction. 

We can measure very precisely. How measurements correllate to what we experience is a very poorly developed area. There is much more to learn about how to measure and report results in a way that has meaning to what individuals want to experience.

The path forward, IMO, is to take the individuals that claim to hear something that we cannot quantify, and apply more modern signal processing to try to discover what might account for what they hear, if their accounts are repeatable.

Aside from the what can we measure debates, however, is the topic of this thread, which is how can we best listen for differences and minimize the effect of expectation bias and prior knowledge affecting our perception?


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

I submit that we also need to peer into the brains of those who describe the differences between this and that. Of course, it is being done. Functional brain imaging is a rapidly developing field (advances in technology in general accelerate the advancement of any specific technology (compare the rate of the refinement of brain imaging technologies to the progression from Galileo's humble telescope to such astounding marvels as the Hubble - we should have the Hubble equivalent in brain imaging in my lifetime)). fMRI and various other techniques have been used to study much of what we are discussing, but more tangentially than directly (at least in as much of what I have read).

We can, indeed, quantify the physical realm with profound precision and that is exceedingly useful. Now, we need to correlate that data to brain behavior. I would be surprised if that weren't accomplished while I'm still paying attention. I do not look for that to lead us to 'perfect sound'. That very concept (_*a* perfect sound_) ignores the variability of human preference.

As a biologist would stress the importance of diversity, so must I suggest that there is need for diversity in audio equipment 'sound'. The motive for desiring a different 'sound' could stem from the music to which one listens, the volume at which one listens, or simply the preferences one has developed via his/her unique experiences... Is it possible to construct every single amplifier such that they interact with various loads in precisely the same manner? Perhaps, if every single amplifier followed a single design, but that isn't the case. 

Speakers vary wildly (to invoke a term from the natural world). They differ in mechanical and electrical design. Amplifiers are no different. One metric of an amplifier which influences how it will behave with variably reactive loads is the output impedance, and there is no question that it is a variable specification. Therefore, the measurement crowd must already confront evidence in favor of audible differences between amplifiers. That, of course, depends on what is actually audible, and there is every reason to expect that to vary from one individual to the next (always has; always will).


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

lcaillo said:


> What I have noticed is that the mind can play tricks on me. So start with a clearly inferior listening experience. For instance, my old Thiels or in wall speakers compared to the Arx. I don't think anyone would consider either of the former to be as good as the Arx A5 and almost anyone could tell the difference repeatably. So I listen to some particular music, say the Chant track that we have used in the evals. There is lots of image detail, musical detail, bass extension, etc. I can hear things in the Arx that I never noticed or barely noticed in the others. Now I have heard this track many times now. Heard it on much more expensive speakers many time. I know what to expect when. But now, when I listen on the other lower performance speakers, I can hear detail that I never heard on them before. Why is this? Have the gotten better? No, not at all. But I know that these details are supposed to be there and I know that I hear them. Am I actually hearing it or is it my imagination. Probably some of both. A classic example of expectation clouding what is actually heard and what is perceived.
> 
> My point here is that I think the assumption that longer listening allows us to get a better idea of what a system is doing and not doing may not be straightforward. There may be some mind tricks going on...


No other presentation has ever better illustrated why human listening tests are completely unreliable and unable to distinguish the subtle nuances these discussions so often devolve into bickering over.

After pondering this presentation for a considerable bit, I may be open to considering the blind ABX test to also be less than an absolute truth.
Still considering this, but once something is heard over and over in blind listening the brain may (stress may) merge the samples so each sounds the same.


Kevin360,
I disagree with your post with equal zeal to your disagreement with mine.
When the tree falls it makes sound regardless if anyone hears it or not.

Everyone,
This is all good fun to me, nothing is intended to be mean.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

My opinion of AB testing is that it is not a perfect solution and that it must be targetted to a specific effect and must be directional. The device which reveals something that they other does not that we are listening for needs to come last. Given the experience that I stated above, repeated trials by the same user may be unlikely to produce repeatable differences. 

I find it ironic that the same people who claim that most differences are due to psychological phenomena have not realized that the very same effects might limit the ability to hear differences after repeated trials.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Sometimes it has to be the exact length 2x4, applied with the exact amount of pressure, in the exact cranial location to get the light to flickr.
I am not claiming to have full illumination, but for the first time I am pondering the ABX test methodology being a definitive answer for comparing various components.

I am still solidly rooted in the EE side of things though so there is still a long ways for me to be dragged kicking & screaming to the subjective camp.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I really don't like the idea of ABX, but I would have to see more research that compares the usefulness of ABX vs AB vs other methods. My preference is to identify characteristics that people claim to be able to hear as differences, then work on identifying what might be causing in with more sophisicated methods of data analysis. We can capture data at very high rates these days, and apply statistical methods or other signal processing techniques to try to identify a difference in the signals that might correllate to the perceived differences. If you can, then you can manipulate the signal to determine the characteristics and levels that provide for JND. This is a much more intellectually honest way to learn what is going on with what people perceive. Now if we throw every imaginable technology at the signals and cannot find any difference, that is more convincing to me than AB or ABX comparisons that still rely on subjective evaluation.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

chashint said:


> Kevin360,
> I disagree with your post with equal zeal to your disagreement with mine.
> When the tree falls it makes sound regardless if anyone hears it or not.
> 
> ...


I, as well, have nothing vested in the outcome of this discussion and I have no desire to bicker with anyone about any of this. I don't see anything posted in this thread thus far which qualifies as bickering, and I hope you don't either. I hope the same for what follows.

---

Ah, but there is no zeal in my retort – only the acknowledgment that _listening_ (the focus of this thread) is an activity of the brain, and in that context, *sound* only exists in the brain of the perceiver. The disagreement is a semantic one. When a tree falls, air molecules are most certainly disturbed. The event generates the same sound waves regardless of whether or not there is someone within earshot to hear them. I'm not talking metaphysical mumbo-jumbo; science is as much a passion for me as music. By the wide open definition of the word, a tree that falls in a forest with nobody around to hear it does make a sound. In this discussion, I define sound as the phenomenological experience _created_ by your brain - sound is a qualia.

The illusion below was posted on the Audio Asylum a couple of days ago. It is pertinent to this discussion. Look at the Adelson Checkerboard and tell me that A and B look to be the same color. A photometer will have no difficulty, and neither do your eyes. Your brain has other ideas. Unlike a photometer (or your eyes), _you_ see a checkerboard and you know a thing or two about checkerboards. The category has such a powerful grip on your experience that fully understanding the illusion does not rescue your perception. Try as you may, the rules applied to the creation of your experience will not permit you to see reality.










Inferring three dimensionality from the two dimensional image above is one thing, but the one below is just as persistent a creation of your brain. When you look at this image, just try to see the curves on the flat space below as that and not a 3D image! You might accomplish it for a small part of the image for a fraction of a second now and then, but that's about it.










Perception, in any sensory domain, is a complex mixture of information (including cultural information, such as brand – and we've been 'branding' for as long as we've been human) and is subject to illusions. Well, that isn't really true. These aren't actually illusions, per se; they merely reveal the normal operating ranges for different perceptions. 

As I said previously, sensory processing does not flow in a single direction. In fact, it is greatly modulated by the backward projections – that complex mixture of information. Some of that information is coming from other senses – somatosensory, visual and auditory processing modules are brought together by the angular gyrus, a structure also involved with complex language processing in one hemisphere and spatial processing in the other (to oversimplify things). Below is a powerful example of this mingling of the senses and how it shapes our experience.






Let me know if you want to take the red pill. We can take a journey into the brain where I'll do my best to show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes. By now, it should be clear that the instrumentation we can bring to bear on quantifying _*sound*_ is operating outside of its actual domain. Furthermore, it will analyze the quanta without knowledge of its organization. This is not how one listens to music. It is not how one _listens_ at all. 

I'd love to get into the A/B or A/B/X listening tests and the problems they cause our brains, but I've already rambled on too long for this visit. For now, I'll just say that things are not as simple as they seem - not by a long shot.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I like it.


----------



## Viggen (Dec 31, 2008)

I feel my parasound hca1500's sound quite a bit better vs my adcom gfa5500, I did the a/b testing with them a while ago. 

Mostly in the low end, tighter and more pronounced low end. Upper range was also a improvement however not close to how much better the bottom end sounds. Speakers are infinity kappa 8.1's and I also compared with Boston speakers (not sure the model numbers, wife's stuff) as well as bic vinturi speakers for the early 90's.

I do think our minds can play a big role in what we want to sound better, sometimes our minds can make things up and other times it just might actually perform better or worse. For me, I actually wanted my adcom amp to sound better since it was mine.... My wife owns the 4 parasound amps (at the time of merging audio systems we were engaged) and I really wanted my stuff to be better.

After comparing speakers as well as amplifiers..... My kappas out performed her Boston speakers and her parasound amps were superior to the adcom. Ask 15 other people their opinion and get 16 different answers 

When using those amps on the Boston speakers the sound difference was minimal at most, it is also a easy to drive speaker with zero low end. Bic speakers are still kinda stress free to drive however low end was improved with parasound vs adcom. Biggest improvement was from my inefficient and hard to drive kappa's


----------



## Greenster (Mar 2, 2013)

So if the McGurk Effect is true then it would make sence to buy the best looking speakers I can afford and then tell everyone how great they sound before I turn them on. Wow! I think I just saved myself a bunch of money. lol..


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Greenster said:


> So if the McGurk Effect is true then it would make sence to buy the best looking speakers I can afford and then tell everyone how great they sound before I turn them on. Wow! I think I just saved myself a bunch of money. lol..


If the reason you buy speakers is to impress your friends, then absolutely.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Viggen said:


> I feel my parasound hca1500's sound quite a bit better vs my adcom gfa5500, I did the a/b testing with them a while ago.
> 
> Mostly in the low end, tighter and more pronounced low end. Upper range was also a improvement however not close to how much better the bottom end sounds. Speakers are infinity kappa 8.1's and I also compared with Boston speakers (not sure the model numbers, wife's stuff) as well as bic vinturi speakers for the early 90's.
> 
> ...


Have you done blind AB testing?


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

kevin360 said:


> I, as well, have nothing vested in the outcome of this discussion and I have no desire to bicker with anyone about any of this. I don't see anything posted in this thread thus far which qualifies as bickering, and I hope you don't either. I hope the same for what follows.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


I would agree. And I would love to delve into how we might conduct more effective listening tests as well as the problems with A/B and A/B/X testing.

Things are rarely as simple as they seem. Reducing most perceptual problems to a single variable is rarely useful. I suggest that this requires a modification to my all purpose answer, "it depends." It really depends on lots of things when we discuss perception.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I love the round tuit, BTW.


----------



## Viggen (Dec 31, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> Have you done blind AB testing?


I didn't with my stuff.... Since I was do inf the swapping of speakers and amps with my wife waiting. However like I stated the amp I wanted to win the battle lost

I did a blind test with RCA cables.... Standard RCA vs $500 RCA..... 

Blind testing was done on a handful car amps at diy car audio with the amplifiers be tested both blind and with the listeners seeing which amp was being used. Listeners were able to hear a difference even when blind


----------



## Greenster (Mar 2, 2013)

I really think that you are on to something about how your mind really does process how you preview the audio it is receiving. Ba ba vs fa fa. 

Other areas that might be affecting how we perceive sound might be what we can feel.
Here is an interesting article I came across. 

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/right-stuff-and-dolby-truehd-advanced-96khz

While the human ear might not be able to hear those frequencies still our brain is able to process them. Maybe it is more of a feeling in our body. Or how the frequencies are bouncing off of other objects in the room. I really don't know but if we are after rating equipment and trying to get as close to reference as possible. Then I really believe that we are missing a small unheard portion of the audio source. 

Last thing. I am glad that we have people like you on this forum who have such a passion for this science as to ask and explore the answers to questions like these. Thanks to you. Progression will come.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

Sorry for 'ignoring' this thread for a while - been busy. Anyway, I had a little time to sit down and collect some thoughts this morning, so... 

A/B testing can be executed in two general ways – sighted and blind. As the McGurck effect demonstrates, sighted listening opens the door for the contaminating influence of visual information. When we know what it is we are comparing, it is impossible to divorce ourselves from our prejudices. This isn't a matter of discipline because the associations and the resultant chemical (neuro-transmitter) modulation happens without our conscious control. It's simply the way it is with a normally functioning human brain. We are hyper-cultural creatures and that fact has a profound impact on the design of our brains – environments 'design' organisms – and vice versa. 

Our definitions of the word 'perception' reflect the fact that, although what we experience is (usually) triggered by physical reality, it isn't necessarily accurate. Our brains didn't evolve to discriminate between amp A and amp B – they evolved to discriminate threats from non-threats, etc. Comparing amp A to amp B is as unnatural for us as are the conditions which trigger the McGurck effect. That is what makes it an intractable problem – not some deficiency in listening skill, although a well trained 'ear' definitely helps.

Although a blind listening evaluation does free us from 'what we know', that very fact induces a stress which dulls our perceptual acuity. Once again, this isn't a matter of discipline. It results from the way our brains learn to perceive. In my opinion, blind listening tests should be conducted by blind individuals who are accustomed to perceiving the world without visual input. Besides, individuals who were born blind (or have been blind since an early age) have more brain with which to listen (thanks to neuro-plasticity, aural processing 'invades' the area of cortex normally devoted to visual processing). Of course, even that is over-simplifying the problem at hand if we ask the blind listener to describe what's different. That last request opens a massive can of worms, as has been demonstrated in numerous studies (in a different context, however).

The only suggestion I can make for conducting better listening evaluations is awareness. We can't change what we are – humans with human brains. We can, however, be aware of what we are and how we operate. I do think the best possible scenario for comparing A to B is via a blind comparison – by a truly blind individual who is only asked to choose which sounds better (not to explain why), and the test should be somewhat randomized with respect to which device he/she is hearing. Also, the number of trials ought to be statistically meaningful, which is a bit of a pain.

I should point out that the difficulty I imply here is in detecting _subtle_ differences. More pronounced differences are readily apparent to us and our perception of them will be quite reliable. On the other hand, simply instructing an individual that he/she is comparing two different things often results in a perceived difference even if the comparison is between something and itself. Perception is a bit of a brier patch. onder:


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 5, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> I can hear things in the Arx that I never noticed or barely noticed in the others. Now I have heard this track many times now. Heard it on much more expensive speakers many time. I know what to expect when. But now, when I listen on the other lower performance speakers, I can hear detail that I never heard on them before. Why is this? Have the gotten better? No, not at all. But I know that these details are supposed to be there and I know that I hear them. Am I actually hearing it or is it my imagination. Probably some of both. A classic example of expectation clouding what is actually heard and what is perceived.
> 
> My point here is that I think the assumption that longer listening allows us to get a better idea of what a system is doing and not doing may not be straightforward. There may be some mind tricks going on...


What you are missing is understanding your state of mind and that attention to details depends on what you are listening for which can vary depending on your mental/hearing focus.

When the details became obvious to you on the better equipment your mind became more focused on those particular aspects of sound and when you listened again to the lesser equipment you noticed that some semblance of those details are there but were not noticeable (they didn't catch your focus) the first time you listened.

No different than looking at a picture or watching a tv show and missing something until somebody points it out.

Sounds like you are early in learning how to listen critically and you are definitely doing the right thing. As you continue to train yourself to hear you begin to develop a consistency on what you listen for the first time you listen to equipment you haven't heard before.

It is good to use the same music tracks when you first start listening critically. Replay them every time your critically evaluate an audio system and repeat playing them on your familiar system.

Very quickly you will began to get a firmer footing and will begin to notice patterns how how sound can change like when equipment is warmed up after playing awhile vs when first turned on or not having been played for awhile.

You've taken the first great step in noticing there are differences. Continued critical listening will help you develop a sense of consistency on factors that effect what you are able to hear.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> Much discussion occurs on forums like this about testing and how one should listen for differences between equipment. I have been doing some A/B testing of several types of differences and have some observations.
> 
> First of all, I find it hard to find differences in almost all of the cases I will describe. I am not here to debate whether there are differences or not, but to discuss some phenomena of listening conditions. I do not assume that because I don't hear a difference that there is none. I also don't assume there is, but I am trying to find any that might be.
> 
> ...


Very well thought out and put into words we can all understand, and some of us quite agree with. I am on the side of hearing some differences, although truth be told, there are many qualities and differences that are discussed that I do miss. It seems very important to me at least, to use recordings that present a more simple set of listening parameters before i get into something more complex. A good one for me is the Jane Monheit, "Taking a Chance On Love" disc. Cut one starts out very simple, a stand up bass in a good close up recording followed by Jane singing and then other instruments that follow. Concentrate on the stand up bass as he runs the scale up and down, the bass should sound the same top to bottom and the overall timber and body should never change. If the bass starts to sound thick or wooly or exaggerated as he runs down the scale, it may be that the have a less than good bass reproduction. Maybe the crossover is running some of the bass to the mains and some to a sub, maybe the room is being a problem. Next her voice comes is and we are able to concentrate on that, noting the reverb, the interaction with the bass and other instruments as they are introduced into the recording. Listen to this over once or twice and then swap out a component and using the same criteria, listen again. Did anything change ? Are there small or large tonality differences, room reverb differences, delay changes etc. 
One has to go slow, listen but don't listen to hard, that becomes too much of a chore. It takes time, it cannot be forced and once heard, cannot be forgotten.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

As Jack said, listen, but don't listen too hard. That is when we get into trouble - when we go searching for the difference instead of letting it reveal itself to us. In order to hear clearly, you must relax. Concentrating is not relaxing. Concentrating is not necessary. Concentrating is not desirable - it's the cart leading the horse (actually, it's worse than that).

There is no special pleading necessary to explain the notice of a 'previously unnoticed' detail under the context of listening for a difference in the sound of products A and B - especially, when one is intently concentrating on the task. The fact is that the detail in question was always there and you always heard it, but you never really 'paid attention to it'. I'm not kidding about perception's being a brier patch.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Well said. Being the techie type, I tend to want to quantify things, but when it comes to listening to speakers, or any equipment, really, I find just experiencing the music and attending to my overall impression and feeling about what I hear is more reliable than trying to be objective.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

For me listening to music for enjoyment is very different than critical listening to speakers or other equipment when making purchase decisions.
That is why the speaker evaluations HTS has been doing is work for those guys.

There have been some very good points brought into this discussion, good job to those who have brought more than opinion to this conversation.


----------



## talmadge (May 4, 2010)

I would agree that most speakers will sound the same with different amps especially at low to moderate levels. However I have a pair of Infinity Kappa 9's and Carver Amazing's that will reveal differences in the way different amps sound. Of course both of these are difficult loads for amplifiers.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I have of late experienced somewhat of a conundrum, that really is nothing more than what Leonard, Kevin and others have alluded to and that is being human. Many years ago, in a galaxy far far away....oops wrong story, many years ago I listened to music via Knight kits fitted with a turntable, ceramic cartridge and a couple non matched speakers placed on opposite sides of my bedroom. I tried so hard to practice my guitar licks using that system, never realizing that the cheapie turntable could not keep speed, so what was right today was not always right tomorrow. 

And yet, I LOVED the music being played back. Sgt. Peppers was almost goose bump material, Iron Butterfly made my parents so angry and ME, well I loved every stupid minute of it. The equipment just did not seem to matter. Over time, I fell into the world of audiophiledom and started making some decisions based on the wit and wisdom of others. I bought so many things that really did not float me to the same level as I rested in my own little bedroom universe so many years ago. This changing out of equipment continued for a good long time, speakers, amps, pre-amps, cartridges etc etc, all the while wondering why I did not reach the same sonic nirvana that many a reviewer could evidently experience. Further, why did the reviewers have so many different thoughts on ultimate equipment if all legitimate reviews were being based on the reproduction of live, unamplified music in real space. No I don't mean the reviews in Stereo Review wherein everything was the best in class, but the legit reviewers that could actually write and make their thoughts interesting. 

The answer seems obvious... they are human and unlike electronic equipment, most humans do not experience or interpret musical cues or signals in the same fashion as one another. Is it that simple ? No, not by a country mile, but it is a start and if we let the reviewer provide a bed of information onto which the reader can place their thoughts, beliefs, desires and biases to sort out equipment that may or may not fit the needs of said readers. This I found to be especially true if the reader can follow the review process of certain individuals that retain their listening biases over a period of years. If say a speaker with one 3.5" woofer is being reported on and the reader tends to sway to the side of heavy metal music or large orchestral pieces, that speaker however magical it might be, will not suffice, period.

So back to my story, I tended to follow along with some of what was presented as being kings of the hill and yet, I just could not get back to a place wherein I was the first time I heard certain albums in the comfort of my own space. My strongest example was listening to The Wall for the first time, what an incredible album and it made some very strong and lasting memories as to the gear I was using and even the room I was in. While making all of the changes in equipment over the years, I was just never able to capture that special "Thing" that tied me to that memory....until recently and by accident. But that may be a story for another entry, suffice it to say, I still believe in differences in gear, I can still hear some differences in some gear, but in our run for the roses, that does not seem to be the big deal, we need to assemble gear that turns us on and into a place of passion so as to allow the music or movie sound tracks to bring us to that place of sonic nirvana where we actually FORGET about the equipment and float on that bed of sound.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

Good post Jack.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

I always love Jack's thoughtful posts, too.

Trying to recapture past listening experiences has never worked for me. I have changed. I listen differently, I hear differently, I react differently. For me there is no going back, only forward.

It is hard for me to just relax and get into the music and enjoy it these days without some kind of analysis going on in my head. But it is easier with equipment that I know and trust.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

That first listen to Sgt Pepper, The Wall or Wish You Were Here, or for me also Tales of Mystery and Imagination by The Allan Parsons Project, was about the music. There was some pretty special music in that era. If you hear something like that for the first time today, would you not have the same kind of experience? Actually, I have not recently, so maybe I am getting old, or maybe as the the bumper sticker says "I'm not old, your music really does stink."


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Good point on the new music. Fortunately I have several family members with similar musical tastes who are feeding me new music possibilities constantly and help keep me supplied with fresh enjoyable tracks fairly steadily.


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

lcaillo said:


> That first listen to Sgt Pepper, The Wall or Wish You Were Here, or for me also Tales of Mystery and Imagination by The Allan Parsons Project, was about the music. There was some pretty special music in that era. If you hear something like that for the first time today, would you not have the same kind of experience? Actually, I have not recently, so maybe I am getting old, or maybe as the the bumper sticker says "I'm not old, your music really does stink."


I agree 100%. Although there is still some really good music that is well recorded, most of it does stink... In my opinion. lddude:


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

The experience is more than just the music, it's the time in your life, it's the people you are with, it's the music that bench marks that time.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Thank You gentlemen for the kind words, every now and then I get a decent thought out and onto the screen.

In this case, I see I may have made the mistake of leading y'all on to the same conclusion I did at one time, and that is I am yearning to go back to an earlier point in my life when things were all sunny and neighbors actually spoke to one another on the porches all across America. Well, I would love to see that again, but no, that is not fully what I mean. 
In early years of collecting gear and music and movies, I hit upon a combination of stuff that made me smile, a lot and it was more basic that what I have been messing with over the last couple decades. I remember the speakers were made by Genesis Physics, electronics were Yamaha and Hafler and a Thorens turntable with Grado and Adcom cartriges and the components as a system just worked. They played back the sound track that matched what I heard when I went and listened to the bands play in various venues that were somewhat less than the amphitheater. I could not replicate the volume, nor did I want to replicate the crummy acoustics, but what I did want to replicate was the same warm feeling that the concerts gave me in my listening areas of that little mass of goo in my head, without people vomiting on my shoes. I needed the dynamics, the color shadings, the soundstage when it came to classical music, and the intimacy of listening to folks, including myself, in coffee houses about Chicagoland. 

The Dahlquist DQ10 gave me that sound, but never really had the punch of live music unless it was small venues. The Magnepans gave me some of that, especially with guitars and some vocals but kind of lacked the dynamics and gut punch I came to like. The old Def Techs with build in subs came close as did some of the larger B&W speakers but neither brand worked on the quiet end of the spectrum as well as they did on the ffff end of the spectrum. It is hard as we all know to get an entire system to work together, imo of course, and we can discuss how much power is or is not needed to drive and particular set of speakers until the cows moo in the morning, but I believe way deep down, that more is usually better, even with efficient speakers.

Over these decades I became disheartened and feeling that I could have been wrong and my memories were just that, memories clouded by a less stressful time. Listening had become more of a chore than an enjoyment or celebration of the recordings I was trying to listen to. The part that kind of gave away some of the answer was that, even the old music I loved did not give me the same enjoyment. Until, one day myself and some friends were in my buddies living room practicing for a backyard concert we were going to present for labor day when some of my equipment biases were thrown against the wall, shattered and stomped on until my brain caught on to what I was hearing. It started to make sense to me then and there, almost to the point of causing me to feel prudish and seriously taken aback by the direction I took and beliefs I had come to hold dear. 

This is getting long in the tooth I know, so I better stop here to see if anyone has gone to sleep yet or wishes to render me as nothing more than a nut job typing a Dickensian length post. :dontknow:


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

And you dare withhold the conclusion???
Come on, spill the rest of it.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

chashint said:


> And you dare withhold the conclusion??? Come on, spill the rest of it.


Thats what I'm sayin!


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Ahhh so there may be a modicum of interest, that makes me smile. I am finishing up re watching an older movie, I Robot and will return with the next chapter in the saga shortly.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Savjac said:


> In this case, I see I may have made the mistake of leading y'all on to the same conclusion I did at one time, and that is I am yearning to go back to an earlier point in my life when things were all sunny and neighbors actually spoke to one another on the porches all across America. Well, I would love to see that again, but no, that is not fully what I mean.


I was referring more to the ways we learn to listen differently with experience, and how listening skills and experience base affect our appreciation for different kinds of music, recordings, speakers, & systems.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

Savjac said:


> ...oops wrong story, many years ago I listened to music via Knight kits fitted with a turntable, ceramic cartridge and a couple non matched speakers placed on opposite sides of my bedroom. I tried so hard to practice my guitar licks using that system, never realizing that the cheapie turntable could not keep speed, so what was right today was not always right tomorrow.
> 
> And yet, I LOVED the music being played back. Sgt. Peppers was almost goose bump material, Iron Butterfly made my parents so angry and ME, well I loved every stupid minute of it. The equipment just did not seem to matter.


My early experience with music was quite similar. I can explain it with a shift of the CAPS - I loved the MUSIC being played back. It was all so _new_ to me. I felt like Navin Johnson on that fateful birthday night. I listened to certain tracks over and over and over and..., never getting tired of them. I 'listened' to tapes in my sleep. I knew that my system was nothing special, but it simply didn't matter at the time. It was all about the music. Still, the more experience I gained with live music and with the systems some adult neighbors owned, the more I wanted _better sound_ - and onto the treadmill I stepped.

It's been a blast - every phase of it, even the processor craze of the early 80s. I can honestly say, however, that I'm happier with the sound of my system(s) now than ever before, but _there was a time when I didn't listen to the *sound quality*_. It would be nice to return to such a position of innocence. 

I did rearrange the big rig over the weekend. I did some maintenance, improved the ergonomics and tidied the cable routing. That's part of the fun for me - tinkering. I wish I paid a little more attention to ergonomics when I 'designed' my equipment rack, or I should have thought more about my aging body.

I've relaxed quite a bit over the last few years. Semi-retirement helps. After five years of fiddling in the man cave, I think it's 'there' (the bedroom system has been 'there' for a couple of years). I've stopped concentrating on the sound quality. I'm just enjoying music. In fact, I'm enjoying music more now than ever before - even the early days. I can't help committing the music to memory, but it's not because I'm performing it anymore. It's a purely relaxing activity.

On a final note, I've _never_ enjoyed the convenience of obtaining or playing media like I do these days - and there's so much outstanding music out there to be obtained and played.lddude:

(patiently awaiting the next chapter in the saga)


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Interesting effects...


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Oh noooo, not a paradox illusion, what am I to do now ??

There is no denying that our eyes and ears and brain for that matter, not to mention environment can truly mess with out perception of what may or may not be real or imagined. I always listen, well almost always with my eyes closed as for me the reality of the room boundaries tend to cause me to lesson the experience a bit. My listening buddy likes his eyes open so he can stare down the images. 

This does bring up a point for me though that has been bouncing around in my hollow head. It has been hard wired into my thought process that in order to obtain proper sound staging, the speakers, especially dipolar, need to be pulled away from the wall behind them in the room. I can understand this need for speakers such as Maggies or Martin Logans, but why would a sealed box need to be pulled away from the wall as there is no actual sound emitting from the back side of the speaker ? Are we truly changing the soundstage in the room or are we allowing our minds to believe that there is now room for the soundstage to prosper ? I am not speaking to alleviating null points or what have you, just illusions.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

Savjac wrote:



> there is no actual sound emitting from the back side of the speaker


Since we started doing these speaker evaluations, I have had to redo my thoughts on this. While rear ported speakers will have more rearward output, it seems that sealed boxes also radiate sound backwards as well. I read an artical on this just last week (can't find it now or I would link it). Granted to a lesser extent, but still something that has to be accounted for. Even more so with lower frequencies. Still have to positon sealed subs as an extreme example. And as we go up the scale/price in speakers, we get more low end extension. So I now feel that even sealed box speakers have an envelope that will interact with a rear wall.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Pull your speaker out and listen to them from the wall behind them.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Therein lies the conundrum Leonard, I did just that earlier today while dressing up the wires after some more positioning. The sound back there was a mess of sound same as most anywhere in the room. No sound space whatsoever, just music in the air so to speak. The speakers port out the back but that is not the full amount of sound being heard, just some bottom end goop. 

What i have to do, but dont want to move stuff again, is push the speakers close to the wall and see if, in the dark, the sound space/stage remains as clear as when they are out into the room several feet. Now I read all over the web and in printed matter that to have a good soundstage most speakers must be pulled out from the wall behind them. I still am not sure why. 

The only answer I can come up with is the difference between direct and reflected sounds hitting our ears. The sound stage is created at the time of the recording and can be easily manipulated as we can easily hear in the Three Wishes tune. That is time and phase manipulation and should work no matter where the speakers are unless...our ears are so sensitive so as to be able to decode bits of information milliseconds apart.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

Savjac wrote:



> The only answer I can come up with is the difference between direct and reflected sounds hitting our ears.


That is exactly as I see it. I think the distance is most important with lower frequencies & distance combined with toe-in (more important for higher frequencies) come together to create the sound stage.

When you are standing behind the speakers, that sound bounces off the wall & becomes part of the experiance. Timing = distance. I hope I'm making a bit of sence.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> Interesting effects...


There's one thing that bothers me about how these 'illusions' are presented. It has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with eyes and ears. We don't have direct access to the information they gather (if we did, it wouldn't be very impressive). We don't even have direct access to the early sensory processing modules in our brains. In fact, our conscious awareness is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of what our brains are doing. At least 90% of what's happening in our heads is the work of zombies which are (thankfully) off limits for consciousness. 

This is why we cannot overcome the 'illusions' by understanding what's happening. Those zombies often make decisions for us without our awareness. Show a guy a series of photos of similar looking women and ask him to rate their attractiveness, but dilate the pupils of a couple of the women's eyes and guess what happens - those will be the ones considered the most attractive. Why? Well, because the slightly dilated pupils signal sexual readiness and what guy wouldn't find that attractive? Of course, the guys won't have any idea that's the basis of their choice and they will invent narratives which suggest they were responding to something else. Ask a baseball player about the home-run he hit and he'll invent a narrative about seeing that the pitch was a fastball right down the middle, but that's patently impossible - were it an act of conscious deliberation, the ball would be in the catcher's glove before the batter could get the bat moving.

The lesson in these 'illusions' is that our brains construct what we perceive via the application of rules. The 'illusions' give us insight into what those rules are. In most cases, the rules work very well. In some cases, our brains get it wrong. It gets even wilder with tactile sensations. Via our mirror neurons (and a local anesthetic), it's possible to dissolve the boundary between one person's body and another's - one subject will actually feel another's arm being touched. If that's not bizarre enough, it's quite simple to induce a subject to feel a desk being lightly tapped as though it's his/her arm. 

Sensory processing is accomplished by a _massively_ interconnected network. In some people, the neuronal pruning which takes place in our brains as infants doesn't complete. The result of which is full-blown synesthesia, but we are all synesthetes to some degree. Here's a simple test. These are a couple of letters from an alien alphabet. One is bouba and the other one is kiki. Which do you think is which?









---

Hey Jack - our listening rooms are not anechoic chambers.  

The reason why dipoles need to be at least 60" out from the front wall is because soundwaves travel at 1130'/s, which is roughly a foot per millisecond, and our brains require about a 10ms delay between the direct and reflected sound in order to separate the two.

Soundstage is just another illusion.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

kevin360 said:


> Soundstage is just another illusion.



Hmm Nope, not in the strictest sense of the word, it is happening and can be repeated day after day and heard by more than one person without any interaction between the two people in way of giving away any thoughts on what was heard or where.

The long diatribe you provided is quite interesting but seems to take the path that our brains are being fooled into hearing things based upon who we are, what we believe and life experiences. Now I agree in large degrees to these theories, however, this is not made up nor can we all be fooled into hearing the same thing.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

Savjac said:


> Hmm Nope, not in the strictest sense of the word, it is happening and can be repeated day after day and heard by more than one person without any interaction between the two people in way of giving away any thoughts on what was heard or where.
> 
> The long diatribe you provided is quite interesting but seems to take the path that our brains are being fooled into hearing things based upon who we are, what we believe and life experiences. Now I agree in large degrees to these theories, however, this is not made up nor can we all be fooled into hearing the same thing.


What you said is true for a thousand illusions. I think we're all members of the same species. Can you name one person who doesn't experience the McGurk effect? Of course, experience _does_ influence how we interpret our environment, but the rules of perceptual construction are the same for all of us (with 'normal' brains, that is). A synesthete may see aquamarine when he/she hears an F - I don't.

My diatribe was hopelessly too short to properly introduce the neuroscience of perception, which is a fascinating topic (for me, anyway). :nerd:

BTW, which symbol do you think represents which letter?


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

kevin360 said:


> There's one thing that bothers me about how these 'illusions' are presented. It has nothing whatsoever to do with eyes and ears. We don't have direct access to the information they gather (if we did, it wouldn't be very impressive). We don't even have direct access to the early sensory processing modules in our brains. In fact, our conscious awareness is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of what our brains are doing. At least 90% of what's happening in our heads is the work of zombies which are (thankfully) off limits for consciousness. This is why we cannot overcome the 'illusions' by understanding what's happening. Those zombies often make decisions for us without our awareness. Show a guy a series of photos of similar looking women and ask him to rate their attractiveness, but dilate the pupils of a couple of women's eyes and guess what happens - those will be the ones considered the most attractive. Why? Well, because the slightly dilated pupils signal sexual readiness and what guy wouldn't find that attractive? Of course, the guys won't have any idea that's the basis of their choice and they will invent narratives which suggest they were responding to something else. Ask a baseball player about the home-run he hit and he'll invent a narrative about seeing that the pitch was a fastball right down the middle, but that's patently impossible - were it an act of conscious deliberation, the ball would be in the catcher's glove before the batter could get the bat moving. The lesson in these 'illusions' is that our brains construct what we perceive via the application of rules. The 'illusions' give us insight into what those rules are. In most cases, the rules work very well. In some cases, our brains get it wrong. It gets even wilder with tactile sensations. Via our mirror neurons (and a local anesthetic), it's possible to dissolve the boundary between one person's body and another's - one subject will actually feel another's arm being touched. If that's not bizarre enough, it's quite simple to induce a subject to feel a desk being lightly tapped as though it's his/her arm. Sensory processing is accomplished by a massively interconnected network. In some people, the neuronal pruning which takes place in our brains as infants doesn't complete. The result of which is full-blown synesthesia, but we are all synesthetes to some degree. Here's a simple test. These are a couple of letters from an alien alphabet. One is bouba and the other one is kiki. Which do you think is which? --- Hey Jack - our listening rooms are not anechoic chambers.  The reason why dipoles need to be at least 60" out from the front wall is because soundwaves travel at 1130'/s, which is roughly a foot per millisecond, and our brains require about a 10ms delay between the direct and reflected sound in order to separate the two. Soundstage is just another illusion.


I think the one on the left is Kiki. Bouba on the right.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> I think the one on the left is Kiki. Bouba on the right.


Obviously, you aren't a mutant. 

You related the sharp angles of the figure on the left to the sharp inflections of the sound of kiki. Likewise, bouba has a smooth, rounded sound which is reflected in the shape of the figure on the right. This is cross-modal association and I seriously doubt that you deliberated on the task. The answer just seemed obvious, right? VS Ramachandran theorizes that this feature of our brains is the foundation for metaphor, and I wouldn't bet against him.

Perception is an active process, not passive at all. It's also incredibly malleable. For instance, I could make you think that a flash of light that occurs in response to your pressing a button actually happened before you pressed the button simply by inserting a delay for a number of trials and then removing it. Our perception of time is not as simple as most people think. David Eagleman theorizes that a disturbance in the perception of time is the underlying cause of schizophrenia, and I wouldn't bet against him either. 

I know I probably harp on this stuff to a tedious extent, but it's important to understand just what a brier patch perception actually is.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

kevin360 said:


> Obviously, you aren't a mutant.  You related the sharp angles of the figure on the left to the sharp inflections of the sound of kiki. Likewise, bouba has a smooth, rounded sound which is reflected in the shape of the figure on the right. This is cross-modal association and I seriously doubt that you deliberated on the task. The answer just seemed obvious, right? VS Ramachandran theorizes that this feature of our brains is the foundation for metaphor, and I wouldn't bet against him. Perception is an active process, not passive at all. It's also incredibly malleable. For instance, I could make you think that a flash of light that occurs in response to your pressing a button actually happened before you pressed the button simply by inserting a delay for a number of trials and then removing it. Our perception of time is not as simple as most people think. David Eagleman theorizes that a disturbance in the perception of time is the underlying cause of schizophrenia, and I wouldn't bet against him either. I know I probably harp on this stuff to a tedious extent, but it's important to understand just what a brier patch perception actually is.


Mutant? My kids would say yes,lol. Indeed, perception is an interesting topic. Perception is reality. And actually, I did deliberate on my answer. One of the first things I normally do with a pic such as that, is look for patterns, in similarity, size shape etc. I even wondered wether it was some reverse power of persuasion thing, like, the name of the left shape was the 2nd one suggested. (Indicating it was on the right side as in reading left to right). You are correct. I associated the sound with the shape. Ie: bouba, appearing to my mind as round and bubbly-ish. Kiki, as sharp sounding, and angular with the shape of the "K's".


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

kevin360 said:


> Obviously, you aren't a mutant.  You related the sharp angles of the figure on the left to the sharp inflections of the sound of kiki. Likewise, bouba has a smooth, rounded sound which is reflected in the shape of the figure on the right. This is cross-modal association and I seriously doubt that you deliberated on the task. The answer just seemed obvious, right? VS Ramachandran theorizes that this feature of our brains is the foundation for metaphor, and I wouldn't bet against him. Perception is an active process, not passive at all. It's also incredibly malleable. For instance, I could make you think that a flash of light that occurs in response to your pressing a button actually happened before you pressed the button simply by inserting a delay for a number of trials and then removing it. Our perception of time is not as simple as most people think. David Eagleman theorizes that a disturbance in the perception of time is the underlying cause of schizophrenia, and I wouldn't bet against him either. I know I probably harp on this stuff to a tedious extent, but it's important to understand just what a brier patch perception actually is.


 it, I guessed the same thing and since I am not so sharp all the time I must relate to bouba on a regular basis. 
Indeed these thoughts and theories are quite fascinating and I do wish I had paid more attention back in college.


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

willis7469 said:


> Perception is reality.


Ah, but the point I'm trying to make is that perception is _not_ reality. It is a rule driven, mental reconstruction of reality. The information for that reconstruction is _more_ than the data from our sense organs, which is cause for a bit of consternation for us audiophiles. Our brains process various aspects of that information in separate modules, ripping 'reality' to shreds before piecing it all back together, and the information channels flow at different speeds. It is a monumental task which our brains perform effortlessly. Sensory processing is also not a network of one way streets - it is rich in backward projections. Our perception is a _modulated interpretation_ of reality. 



Savjac said:


> I guessed the same thing and since I am not so sharp all the time I must relate to bouba on a regular basis.
> Indeed these thoughts and theories are quite fascinating and I do wish I had paid more attention back in college.


You're a funny guy (and I mean that in the most complimentary way). You also seem _plenty sharp_ to me (on a regular basis). If I'm not mistaken, we are of similar age. When we went to college, neuroscience was a long way from our current understanding. My wife was a psychology major and we got into the most heated discussions about human behavior. I always found the explanations psychology proffered to be grossly unsatisfying and assumed better answers could be found in the anatomy of brains, but that was not the accepted view that it is today. Even today, there are plenty of practitioners who hold to Freudian (for instance) ideas. 

Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the story you were telling when you left us on the edge of the cliff. What happened on Labor Day that shattered your equipment biases? I (and others are as well) am curious about what it was onto which your brain caught which made so much sense. Be as verbose as you wish. I don't mind Dickensian length posts. Apparently, I've typed a few. :laugh:


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

kevin360 said:


> Ah, but the point I'm trying to make is that perception is _not_ reality. It is a rule driven, mental reconstruction of reality. The information for that reconstruction is _more_ than the data from our sense organs, which is cause for a bit of consternation for us audiophiles. Our brains process various aspects of that information in separate modules, ripping 'reality' to shreds before piecing it all back together, and the information channels flow at different speeds. It is a monumental task which our brains perform effortlessly. Sensory processing is also not a network of one way streets - it is rich in backward projections. Our perception is a _modulated interpretation_ of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank You and I dig yours as well, round tuit, that is so cool.
I will get back to the cliff hanger as it is being worked over a bit but in you post above, you are entirely correct as I am sure you know. I was actually shocked to hear some time ago that our brain in a fashion similar to a computer hard drive randomly places information into different areas for storage. I remember not long ago reading a paper on a gent named Henry Gustav Molaison who has some issues so they removed portions of his brain that were at the time thought it may improve his epilepsy and finding out it removed his ability to create new memory. What a revelation that must have been. So yes we do put things together in odd ways but some of us have all of our stuff in one place, maybe not residing in our heads... :rofl:

Yep went to college upon my return from the military and getting settled in a job, '77 I think so, I was older than most of the new students and it was a blast.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

kevin360 said:


> Ah, but the point I'm trying to make is that perception is not reality. It is a rule driven, mental reconstruction of reality. The information for that reconstruction is more than the data from our sense organs, which is cause for a bit of consternation for us audiophiles:


 Unfortunately I haven't any college level psychology accreditation, however the way you stated the above seems clear, and makes sense. When I said perception is reality, I should have made clear, that I use this phrase to describe how ppl take whatever situation, or experience and however they "perceive" it to have happened, becomes their reality. Right or wrong. For example, if I tell my neighbor how lovely she looks today, she turns it in her mind to understand I said she has a big caboose, and then tell everyone that's how it went down. This is an extreme case with many more things going on in her psyche than this space allows. A better example might be, the ask 10 eye witnesses exercise. ...wished I had more school'n to get more smarts up er!(knocking on head) lol


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Maybe a little OT, but did you guys see Todd Anderson's post about new Yamaha audiophile gear? I read things like, tuned by ear, richness, vitality, and warmth. Wondering if there are any opinions on either side of the "amps sound" fences.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I have not heard the new Yamaha gear but I tend to believe what they say. I have experienced many of those descriptors.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

An interesting piece came into my email today from Paul McGowan of PS Audio. 

"Tell me this isn’t amazing …
I’ve written before how your brain fills in much of what you perceive, whether it be sound or vision. You’re not directly hearing or seeing what’s presented to you, your memory is filling in about 40% of what you hear and see. The amount of memory used is dependent on how new the info is to you.
It’s one of the reasons why blind AB testing does not work.
The environment you create for your testing has to be setup in such a way that is safe and familiar, allowing your senses to relax and not feel overwhelmed with new data. When we do blind AB testing with new music in unfamiliar settings, the brain simply gets overwhelmed with and switches to “memory mode” and we hear no differences, because we’re listening through our memory, not our ears. When we limit the sample size and are in an environment we feel safe in, or when someone points out an area we should be focusing on, that memory mode is switched off and we hear the actual differences.
If you doubt this, read the next sentence and try it yourself.

Click on this link and then listen to the audio snippet. It’s only 50 seconds.
Tell me that’s not amazing.

https://soundcloud.com/whyy-the-pulse/an-audio-illusion


----------



## kevin360 (Oct 4, 2012)

Hey Jack,

That's an excellent demonstration of the fundamental point I've tried to make about perception. It's not a passive process. It's an act of creative intelligence. What we know (or believe) is part of our perceptual experience (and it's not something that can be 'switched off', because it's being done by 'zombies' - they exist; our brains are awash in them). I think it's beautiful. That's why I can't get enough when it comes to researching that three pound lump of the most complex structure ever discovered. Isn't it neat that the most amazing thing ever discovered is the very thing that made the discovery?

Paul makes some good points, but he also misstated the situation with hearing a difference which was not detected until it was pointed out by someone else. That added information to the listener's memory. 'Memory mode' (and I'm not crazy about that term because it's far too limiting) doesn't get 'switched off'. Instead, new knowledge guides the process. That is the take home point of the linked 'illusion'.

It's a simple, but important lesson. Its implications are profound, which may explain why some prefer to sweep this lesson under the rug.

It tickles me pink that you find it interesting. :bigsmile:


BTW, I love that tagline of yours, but it often works the other way. For those who believe, no counter-proof is possible.


----------

