This I doubt -

[wgscott]

My darkest confession: I actually like her sense of humor. OTOH, she likes Alabama Getaway.

[cjf]

My darkest confession: I actually like her sense of humor. OTOH, she likes Alabama Getaway.

 

I think I might be interested in more then her sense of humor.

Err... Or maybe it's these beer goggles fooling me again

[wgscott]

I think I might be interested in more then her sense of humor.

Err... Or maybe it's these beer goggles fooling me again

 

Depends how it looked.

 

[tmkirst]

Given that Beethoven became stone deaf, that's pretty much a given!

 

Possibly the deaf thing (thanks for biting). I doubt there were cables as we know them today.

[AudioDoctor]

I think I might be interested in more then her sense of humor.

Err... Or maybe it's these beer goggles fooling me again

 

If there ever was motivation to stop drinking, that's gotta be it...

[trithio]

I wonder if that short memory explains alot. Echoic memory is only a few seconds. During that time your brain still holds the actual perceptual signals to compare to incoming perception. After that it gets written to short term memory, and eventually perhaps long term memory. Short term memory is something like lossy compression (think low bit rate MP) of the original perception. So that means after more than a few seconds your memory doesn't match the original event.

 

So you compare some cable, some amp or even some software. Spend even one minute swapping. You listen and compare your best memory from a bit over a minute ago. It actually does not match what you are hearing. It genuinely sounds different in comparison. No wonder your subjective gut feeling is so strong that this sounds different. It really does. Maybe most people being less critical won't notice unless the difference is very large. But you having paid attention and knowing you swapped hear a real difference in memory vs current perception. Naturally attributing that to the things swapped. Even if the swapped aspects did nothing that really matters.

 

+10.

There is absolutely no way to do a meaningful and detailed sound comparison after a few days.

The wiki article is also pretty good http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory

[trithio]

My darkest confession: I actually like her sense of humor. OTOH, she likes Alabama Getaway.

 

Men are known to enjoy much worse as long as it's blonde and skinny

[Jud]

+10.

There is absolutely no way to do a meaningful and detailed sound comparison after a few days.

The wiki article is also pretty good http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory

 

I always like to look at the other side of the coin. Do you think, if a piece of equipment (could be anything, including speakers) has a euphonic distortion - for example, a "presence hump" - that we can grow tired of it over a period of time?

[Jud]

Men are known to enjoy much worse as long as it's blonde and skinny

 

Skinny has its limits, thus the Skeletor cartoon character reference above.

[trithio]

I always like to look at the other side of the coin. Do you think, if a piece of equipment (could be anything, including speakers) has a euphonic distortion - for example, a "presence hump" - that we can grow tired of it over a period of time?

 

Maybe. I doubt it is possible to answer this question on such generic terms.

For example the treble hump on beyerdynamic HPs does make me tired very fast. Cannot listen more than half an hour without EQ. But I have friends who absolutely love the 880 and can listen all day long.

[davide256]

I doubt the PC will survive as a credible music server past 2020

[gmgraves]

I wonder if that short memory explains alot. Echoic memory is only a few seconds. During that time your brain still holds the actual perceptual signals to compare to incoming perception. After that it gets written to short term memory, and eventually perhaps long term memory. Short term memory is something like lossy compression (think low bit rate MP) of the original perception. So that means after more than a few seconds your memory doesn't match the original event.

 

So you compare some cable, some amp or even some software. Spend even one minute swapping. You listen and compare your best memory from a bit over a minute ago. It actually does not match what you are hearing. It genuinely sounds different in comparison. No wonder your subjective gut feeling is so strong that this sounds different. It really does. Maybe most people being less critical won't notice unless the difference is very large. But you having paid attention and knowing you swapped hear a real difference in memory vs current perception. Naturally attributing that to the things swapped. Even if the swapped aspects did nothing that really matters.

 

That's certainly possible and it would explain much.

[gmgraves]

I doubt Beethoven would hear the difference in cables

 

 

Since Beethoven was hard of hearing most of his adult life (and ultimately went completely deaf), I don't doubt you at all.

[gmgraves]

I would gladly take you up on that guarantee as my experience with certain interconnects cables, most notably JPS Labs SuperConductor 2, renders your statement not even close to factual. The difference in sound from out-of-the box to about 100 hrs of burn-in was so great and so obvious that I have little doubt that anyone other than a deaf person would have been able to hear it.

 

 

Look. I am not trying to insult you or to belittle your belief system, and I hope you'll forgive me for bringing up this point, but Allan, it's impossible for you to remember, after 100 hours, what those cables originally sounded like. You might believe that you remember and are able to mentally compare the two, but more than 70 years worth of psychoacoustic research says that human beings cannot remember that level of audio detail (which is to say ANY aural detail) for more than a few minutes. This would be especially true over time where a sonic "signature" might or might not be constantly changing. IOW, while I believe that you sincerely believe that what you assert here is true, I don't believe you any more than if you were claiming that you can fly by flapping your naked arms! Sorry but impossible is impossible.

[gmgraves]

I always like to look at the other side of the coin. Do you think, if a piece of equipment (could be anything, including speakers) has a euphonic distortion - for example, a "presence hump" - that we can grow tired of it over a period of time?

 

 

*I* think that's possible. What I don't think, however, is that reputable audio manufacturers, with the modern modeling tools available, would either accidentally or purposely design a piece of equipment that would exhibit that characteristic. Cable companies? Not so sure. It would be impossible to make a length of mere cable that had enough capacitive or inductive reactance to create a presence hump of even a fraction of a dB within the cable's structure, due to the physical size of the value of the components necessary to accomplish that. But some cables have blocks of wood, or metal boxes built into them, and who knows what's inside of those?

[gmgraves]

I doubt the PC will survive as a credible music server past 2020

 

 

+1. A very reasonable prediction. Even today there are more and more dedicated music server appliances appearing all the time. A computer is actually a very inefficient way of doing that particular chore. However, to my way of thinking, until these appliances include a way to access such services as Spotify, and certain Internet radio station web sites (like KRCB in Boston) that allow streaming of past live programming, or so-called "high-res" programming, the computer as a music server cannot be completely eclipsed.

[wgscott]

Most likely people won't be using PCs (or even Macs) by 2020. OS X 10.10 already seems hell-bent upon reducing my iMac to a lobotomized iPad on a stick.

[gmgraves]

Skinny has its limits, thus the Skeletor cartoon character reference above.

 

 

The "ideal" for female beauty has been getting skinnier and skinnier it seems. Look at the body types one sees in commercials (such as those for Victoria's Secret) and popular TV shows today, and compare them with the body types that were considered the ideal female form in the 50's and 60's. Take a look, for instance, at the Princess Bithia's "ladies in waiting" in the scene where she draws Moses from the Nile in the "Ten Commandments" (1956) or take a look at Nancy Kovaks as the love interest in "Jason and the Argonauts" from 1961. These (then) young women, while still physically attractive (at least to me), would be considered much too "beefy" and broad-of-beam by today's standards of the feminine ideal. Very broad hips, ultra-narrow waists, and big busts seemed to be what men liked then. Today emphasis seems to be on a much skinnier, more athletic look.

[Jay-dub]

I doubt there will ever prove to be an audible phenomenon that requires an explanation based on quantum theory.

 

Well, the existence of permanent magnets cannot be explained without quantum theory, so all those transducers with magnets in them . . . the fact that your speakers work at all is just such a phenomenon.

[Cycleman]

You might believe that you remember and are able to mentally compare the two, but more than 70 years worth of psychoacoustic research says that human beings cannot remember that level of audio detail (which is to say ANY aural detail) for more than a few minutes.

 

IF true that human beings cannot remember any level of aural detail for more than a few minutes, why not just buy some audio system that costs, say, $500.

 

I mean, wouldn't spending 10-times more than that for a system, say, be just some audio-mental-placebo, since how could one actually hear a different level of audio detail?

 

Really, I'm not looking to be snarky here, but I'm guessing that almost everyone who spends time on this forum has made one change or another or multiple changes to their music systems that made the music sound better -- and they clearly heard, and therefore needed to remember, an improvement in aural details.

 

So where does that memory of audio detail come from?

And if the "70 years worth of psychoacoustic research" says that sense of improvement is just some flavor of fantasy, let's just stick with the $500 systems, right?

 

Dave, who can distinctly point to several component changes in his main music system that made the sound quality better and more involving

[Jabs1542]

I doubt the PC will survive as a credible music server past 2020

 

I'm not sure the current PC will be a credible PC past 2020, check this out.

 

CES 2015: Intel introduces Compute Stick with Atom quad-core CPU | ZDNet

[Jabs1542]

Look. I am not trying to insult you or to belittle your belief system, and I hope you'll forgive me for bringing up this point, but Allan, it's impossible for you to remember, after 100 hours, what those cables originally sounded like. You might believe that you remember and are able to mentally compare the two, but more than 70 years worth of psychoacoustic research says that human beings cannot remember that level of audio detail (which is to say ANY aural detail) for more than a few minutes. This would be especially true over time where a sonic "signature" might or might not be constantly changing. IOW, while I believe that you sincerely believe that what you assert here is true, I don't believe you any more than if you were claiming that you can fly by flapping your naked arms! Sorry but impossible is impossible.

 

Would it be possible if he started hearing details and instruments that he didn't hear shortly after installing the cables? Not saying this is what happened but you CAN remember some things, like never having heard that light ting before, or maybe a deep bass note. I'm not disputing if cables could do this, I'm just bringing to light the fact that there are some things you could remember hearing - or not.

[tmkirst]

The "ideal" for female beauty has been getting skinnier and skinnier it seems. Look at the body types one sees in commercials (such as those for Victoria's Secret) and popular TV shows today, and compare them with the body types that were considered the ideal female form in the 50's and 60's. Take a look, for instance, at the Princess Bithia's "ladies in waiting" in the scene where she draws Moses from the Nile in the "Ten Commandments" (1956) or take a look at Nancy Kovaks as the love interest in "Jason and the Argonauts" from 1961. These (then) young women, while still physically attractive (at least to me), would be considered much too "beefy" and broad-of-beam by today's standards of the feminine ideal. Very broad hips, ultra-narrow waists, and big busts seemed to be what men liked then. Today emphasis seems to be on a much skinnier, more athletic look.

 

Fortunately, we do have objective measurements for beauty (via @OldPictureArchve, a wonderful Twitter feeder), attached here

 

Personally, this gal seems to come from a pure analog era; tubes and 78 rpm. Complete subjectivity on my side, I prefer digital for all its challenges.

[tmkirst]

Most likely people won't be using PCs (or even Macs) by 2020. OS X 10.10 already seems hell-bent upon reducing my iMac to a lobotomized iPad on a stick.

 

Clearly, and why? as much as the scruffy folks at the Genius Bar refuse to admit it they can't wrap their head around a responsible operating system (OS X10.nnnn) as they could say "iOS - so easy, why don't you get it?". My neighbor kid (nice guy, and a Genius Bar genius) developed a wonderful way of keeping track bottles in his dad's wine cellar - so, what's the big deal about iOS? I guess to his dad the wine cellar is mission critical. Which could be appropriate.

 

The only 100% reliable operating system/hardware that I have encounter is the HP-12C calculator. Could someone port that to audio?!

[elcorso]

IF true that human beings cannot remember any level of aural detail for more than a few minutes, why not just buy some audio system that costs, say, $500.

 

I mean, wouldn't spending 10-times more than that for a system, say, be just some audio-mental-placebo, since how could one actually hear a different level of audio detail?

 

Really, I'm not looking to be snarky here, but I'm guessing that almost everyone who spends time on this forum has made one change or another or multiple changes to their music systems that made the music sound better -- and they clearly heard, and therefore needed to remember, an improvement in aural details.

 

So where does that memory of audio detail come from?

And if the "70 years worth of psychoacoustic research" says that sense of improvement is just some flavor of fantasy, let's just stick with the $500 systems, right?

 

Dave, who can distinctly point to several component changes in his main music system that made the sound quality better and more involving

 

+1

 

Of course any trained music lover remember with exactitude the SQ of his gear with all the posible details, as a good musician knows if his musical instrument is detuned or not, they do not even need a tone generator (fixed or electronic) to tune their instruments.

 

It's like when you go to another music lover listening room: You will catch the subtle differences with easy.

 

I'm not talking here about people with tin ears, under Alzheimer or dementia.

 

Cheers!

 

Roch