This I doubt -

[Jud]

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.

 

How did you cope with this for your equipment reviews? Or did you not yet have this information back then?

[gmgraves]

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.

 

That's a specious argument at best, Cycleman. The reason why we aren't happy with merely a cheap system is because even though we can't remember the subtle details of our system's sound, we recognize (and can remember) what sounds good to us. You might not be able to explain the differences between one decent-sounding system and another, or remember specifically what they are, you do recognize that they are different in a very broad sense.

 

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?

 

See above.

 

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.

 

Oh, I agree that they heard the improvements, they just wouldn't remember exactly what those improvements are in a specific way. The human ear/brain interface just doesn't work that way.

 

 

So where does that memory of audio detail come from?

 

That isn't audio detail. That an aural impression.

 

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?

 

That would be true except nobody said that or anything like it.

 

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

 

I'm not Dave, but you are conflating sonic impressions with minute sonic detail as remembered over time. Impressions we can remember, detail we can't. For instance, most of us can instantly recognize the sound pf live, unamplified music when we hear it, and we can easily distinguish that sound from the sound of even a state-of-the-art stereo system. But who amongst us can explain what that difference actually is in terms that will convey the detail of those differences to another?

[astrotoy]

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.

 

Interesting factoid: Hollywood beauty Nancy Kovack who is now 78, married Zubin Mehta in 1969 when he was Music Director of the LA Philharmonic. They are still married, and Nancy basically retired from acting after they got married. Interestingly Zubin's first wife and mother of his two children, soprano Carmen Lasky, ended up marrying his brother Zarin after their divorce. Zarin was the administrator for the Montreal Symphony and then took a similar position as ED of the New York Phil, which he took well after Zubin left the NY Phil Music Directorship. I'm guessing this probably makes for some interesting family reunions.

 

Larry

[gmgraves]

How did you cope with this for your equipment reviews? Or did you not yet have this information back then?

 

 

Generally, evaluations between my reference system and the piece being tested are made within minutes of each other. First my reference system, then the device under test. Multiple listening sessions over time are engaged in, but with each listening session, during said session, copious notes are made and checked again at each subsequent session. Any differences heard are noted at the time they are heard due to the above mentioned unreliability of human aural memory.

 

Also, as a reviewer, I listen to as much live, un-amplified music as is possible to keep my hearing "calibrated". I realize that this can only be done in the grossest of manners, again due to the short-term nature of human aural memory, but it does keep reviewers (and others interested in musical accuracy) from running "open loop" where they start to think that big bass, and sparkling highs with etched-glass levels of resolution are what real music sounds like (my experience is that without a reference, many, or even most people tend to "drift" in that direction with their hi-fis).

 

None of this, however has anything to do with the subject at hand, which is that nobody can remember what a cable sounds like out of the box when compared to what it sounds like 100 hrs or so later.

[Jud]

Larry, I'm reminded of the story about Mehta and the LA Phil playing some of Frank Zappa's compositions. To start things off, Zappa said "Hit it, Zubin."

[gmgraves]

Interesting factoid: Hollywood beauty Nancy Kovack who is now 78, married Zubin Mehta in 1969 when he was Music Director of the LA Philharmonic. They are still married, and Nancy basically retired from acting after they got married. Interestingly Zubin's first wife and mother of his two children, soprano Carmen Lasky, ended up marrying his brother Zarin after their divorce. Zarin was the administrator for the Montreal Symphony and then took a similar position as ED of the New York Phil, which he took well after Zubin left the NY Phil Music Directorship. I'm guessing this probably makes for some interesting family reunions.

 

Larry

 

 

I actually have very good friend (now 83) who dated Nancy Kovak for more than a year in the late 50's. He has a newspaper clipping from the LA Times showing them together at some restaurant , so I'm sure it's true. He also dated Joan Collins in that same time frame (he has snapshots of them together at the beach). This guy was apparently quite a ladies' man when he was in Hollywood in the mid to late 1950's.

[Jud]

None of this, however has anything to do with the subject at hand, which is that nobody can remember what a cable sounds like out of the box when compared to what it sounds like 100 hrs or so later.

 

As I've mentioned before, I think one possibility here is to not rely on memory at all, but to play mono selections where one channel has the broken-in cable and one a brand new one.

[jhwalker]

 

Also, as a reviewer, I listen to as much live, un-amplified music as is possible to keep my hearing "calibrated". I realize that this can only be done in the grossest of manners, again due to the short-term nature of human aural memory, but it does keep reviewers (and others interested in musical accuracy) from running "open loop" where they start to think that big bass, and sparkling highs with etched-glass levels of resolution are what real music sounds like (my experience is that without a reference, many, or even most people tend to "drift" in that direction with their hi-fis).

 

 

I agree with this 100%. I used to go to the symphony rather frequently (my partner worked at the box office and got two free tickets for each performance), but have not been in a while - though we only live a couple of miles from one of the finer concert halls in the world (renowned for its acoustics), occupied by a sometimes-world-class symphony orchestra, I can't justify spending big money to actually buy tickets

 

The last time I *did* attend a live concert, though, I was flabbergasted at how warm and rolled off the sound was; lovely, lush, orchestral sound, warm and beautiful, to be sure, but no "sparkle" as I've become accustomed to at home. To reproduce what I heard in the hall, I'd have to EQ the heck out of my system!

[Cycleman]

That's a specious argument at best, Cycleman. The reason why we aren't happy with merely a cheap system is because even though we can't remember the subtle details of our system's sound, we recognize (and can remember) what sounds good to us. You might not be able to explain the differences between one decent-sounding system and another, or remember specifically what they are, you do recognize that they are different in a very broad sense.

 

I dunno. It sounds like you're getting into discussions regarding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

That is, you wrote (to which I responded earlier): "human beings cannot remember that level of audio detail (which is to say ANY aural detail) for more than a few minutes." [bold emphasis mine]

 

But now you're writing that "we recognize (and can remember) what sounds good to us."

 

You write that's remembering impressions, not details. Specifically, you wrote that I am "conflating sonic impressions with minute sonic detail as remembered over time. Impressions we can remember, detail we can't."

 

But one man's detail is another man's impression -- and vice versa.

 

Or as the song goes: You say toma-to, and I say tomah-to.

 

Dave, who says let's call the whole thing off

[Paul R]

If by systems, you mean individual electrons, then yes.

Wait- yku mean there is more than one of those there critters?

[Paul R]

+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.

 

Regardless- whatever way you want to boil it down to, there will be computers serving up the music, and computers playing back the music. This silly insistence on saying an "appliance" is not a computer, or iPads and iPhones are not computers is just that - silly. Right up there in the same league as saying a binary 1 is anything but a binary 1.

[Allan F]

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.

 

Carrying your argument to its logical conclusion, it is impossible to tell the difference in sound between any two pieces of equipment after 100 hours. So you might as well buy the cheapest gear on the market because audio memory will not allow you to hear the improvement afforded by better equipment. Of course, this is complete and utter nonsense! Ergo, "Reductio ad absurdum".

 

I hope you don't take this as an insult or a belittling of your belief system, but I frankly couldn't give a rat's ass whether you believe me or not. You are as open minded on this subject as you are in your appreciation of different genres of music. Your loss, not mine!

[InfernoSTi]

Right up there in the same league as saying a binary 1 is anything but a binary 1.

 

Sure, Paul, and next you will be saying binary for 2 in base 10 is 10 in base 2. And of course, you would be right. Even with all those 1's and 0's, music will still have to occur in the analog "real" world in 2020 for us to experience it...perhaps we will understand how even better in five more years!

[Snowmonkey]

The point is that the particles are indistinguishable. But you knew that.

Ah, but any two electrons are distinguishable by their location in space-time. Anyway the point I was making is that the laws of physics do not decree that any two hi-fi systems must sound identical any more than the laws of psycho-acoustics decree that no-one can tell the difference between a top quality hi fi and a crappy one because they can't remember what either one sounds like long enough to compare them.

 

I also doubt the sincerity of faux outrage.

I'll have you know my outrage is quite vrai at people invoking the laws of physics to make a spurious point when neither they, nor anyone else has a complete knowledge or understanding of those laws.

[Allan F]

Anyway the point I was making is that the laws of physics do not decree that any two hi-fi systems must sound identical any more than the laws of psycho-acoustics decree that no-one can tell the difference between a top quality hi fi and a crappy one because they can't remember what either one sounds like long enough to compare them.

 

+1

 

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

[Allan F]

Oh, I agree that they heard the improvements, they just wouldn't remember exactly what those improvements are in a specific way. The human ear/brain interface just doesn't work that way.

 

I'm sorry, George, but IMO this comment is simply ridiculous. It totally ignores the fact that when doing critical or comparative listening, one makes mental (or written, as the case may be) notes of the nature of the improvements or differences are heard. It would be different if one were merely listening to music without paying attention to any of its specific sonic characteristics. That is why critical listening to evaluate equipment can, at times, seem far more like work than pleasure.

 

That isn't audio detail. That an aural impression.

 

If ever there were a distinction without a difference...

[Paul R]

Sure, Paul, and next you will be saying binary for 2 in base 10 is 10 in base 2. And of course, you would be right. Even with all those 1's and 0's, music will still have to occur in the analog "real" world in 2020 for us to experience it...perhaps we will understand how even better in five more years!

 

(grin) No perhaps about it! Personally, I am waiting for the old bone conduction technology to make a comeback, this time in digital form. A very jittery device could be most uncomfortable! That will teach the jitter deniers! :)

[Paul R]

I'm sorry, George, but IMO this comment is simply ridiculous. It totally ignores the fact that when doing critical or comparative listening, one makes mental (or written, as the case may be) notes of the nature of the improvements or differences are heard. It would be different if one were merely listening to music without paying attention to any of its specific sonic characteristics. That is why critical listening to evaluate equipment can, at times, seem far more like work than pleasure.

 

 

 

If ever there were a distinction without a difference...

 

Not to mention that memory is far more complex than that, and it is not only possible, but quite common for people to memorize sounds. Making a declaration that something people do all the time is impossible is - at the very least - inadvisable.

[alfe]

As I've mentioned before, I think one possibility here is to not rely on memory at all, but to play mono selections where one channel has the broken-in cable and one a brand new one.

 

Which I did for fun a year ago to prove to my dealer and friend that his argument about burn in is BS .

We used Pure Music to mix right and left channel to mono and connected each output of the DAC to different input of the preamp, cables were balanced eclipse 7 from WW, demo ones 500 h + and new.

Switch off the screen of the preamp to avoid him to know which input was used and then did a blind test.

In mono there is no difference! ( an audiophile ho was attending this test said that there is no proof that it's the same for stereo:))

[Jud]

alfe, if I understand you correctly this would still involve aural memory (switching between sources). What I suggest is listening simultaneously to the two cables, one driving the right channel and one the left, using a mono source so the only potential difference between channels is the cables. The cables could be switched to account for room and ear differences, and headphones could also be used unless speaker cables were being tested.

[Paul R]

This I Doubt - that people will ever accept one positive result as any kind of proof. However, they seem to always accept one negative result as proof positive.

[bdiament]

alfe, if I understand you correctly this would still involve aural memory (switching between sources). What I suggest is listening simultaneously to the two cables, one driving the right channel and one the left, using a mono source so the only potential difference between channels is the cables. The cables could be switched to account for room and ear differences, and headphones could also be used unless speaker cables were being tested.

 

Hi Jud,

 

I would submit that such a test is useful *if* the differences are of sufficient magnitude to overcome the different positions of the speakers as well as any deviations in every one of the components in a given channel. What it won't reveal are things that require stereo such as soundstage width and depth, etc.

 

Of course, I say to each their own but I prefer to evaluate components (or software or formats) in situ, as I would actually be using them.

 

***

To the subject of audio memory, mentioned in this thread, I want to say that one thing I'll never understand is exactly why some folks would believe their own experience determines the rules for what everyone else in the world will or will not hear.

 

Like any other aspect of perception, audio memory is going to vary from individual to individual. To say it doesn't exist beyond a short period of time is to deny certain realities. For example, what is perfect pitch but the ability of *some* folks to remember what the pitch sounds like? And how come I never had to say "Who is this?" when my mother called me on the telephone (the telephone, no less! not exactly a high fidelity audio transport)? Even when she had an incipient sore throat, recognition was virtually instantaneous. And I could *tell* (based on my memory of her voice) that she had that sort throat starting.

 

I would think any experienced electric guitarist can pretty quickly identify the differences between a Strat and a Tele, with no other help than their memory of the quite distinctive sound of each -- even if they haven't heard them in years! Experienced audio engineers can often identify a mic by its sound and I know folks who can tell you what phono cartridge you've got installed simply by listening and comparing it to an internal reference (i.e., their memory).

 

I must say, the declarations of Universal Truth (add reverb to those words) from some quarters bring to mind something the manager of a major NYC recording studio once said to me. I don't recall what started him on the subject but he quite adamantly declared as truth the "fact" that women do not experience orgasm. His supported his assertion by proudly recounting that over the years, he'd been with dozens(!) of women and on not one single occasion did he ever witness one of them having an orgasm. (If there is an icon/emoticon with raised eyebrows, this would be the place I'd put it.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

[alfe]

alfe, if I understand you correctly this would still involve aural memory (switching between sources). What I suggest is listening simultaneously to the two cables, one driving the right channel and one the left, using a mono source so the only potential difference between channels is the cables. The cables could be switched to account for room and ear differences, and headphones could also be used unless speaker cables were being tested.

 

Switching with a remote control from one input to the other take 1 or 2 seconds.

[Jabs1542]

Hi Jud,

 

I would submit that such a test is useful *if* the differences are of sufficient magnitude to overcome the different positions of the speakers as well as any deviations in every one of the components in a given channel. What it won't reveal are things that require stereo such as soundstage width and depth, etc.

 

Of course, I say to each their own but I prefer to evaluate components (or software or formats) in situ, as I would actually be using them.

 

***

To the subject of audio memory, mentioned in this thread, I want to say that one thing I'll never understand is exactly why some folks would believe their own experience determines the rules for what everyone else in the world will or will not hear.

 

Like any other aspect of perception, audio memory is going to vary from individual to individual. To say it doesn't exist beyond a short period of time is to deny certain realities. For example, what is perfect pitch but the ability of *some* folks to remember what the pitch sounds like? And how come I never had to say "Who is this?" when my mother called me on the telephone (the telephone, no less! not exactly a high fidelity audio transport)? Even when she had an incipient sore throat, recognition was virtually instantaneous. And I could *tell* (based on my memory of her voice) that she had that sort throat starting.

 

I would think any experienced electric guitarist can pretty quickly identify the differences between a Strat and a Tele, with no other help than their memory of the quite distinctive sound of each -- even if they haven't heard them in years! Experienced audio engineers can often identify a mic by its sound and I know folks who can tell you what phono cartridge you've got installed simply by listening and comparing it to an internal reference (i.e., their memory).

 

I must say, the declarations of Universal Truth (add reverb to those words) from some quarters bring to mind something the manager of a major NYC recording studio once said to me. I don't recall what started him on the subject but he quite adamantly declared as truth the "fact" that women do not experience orgasm. His supported his assertion by proudly recounting that over the years, he'd been with dozens(!) of women and on not one single occasion did he ever witness one of them having an orgasm. (If there is an icon/emoticon with raised eyebrows, this would be the place I'd put it.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

+1 well put

[elcorso]

Hi Jud,

 

I would submit that such a test is useful *if* the differences are of sufficient magnitude to overcome the different positions of the speakers as well as any deviations in every one of the components in a given channel. What it won't reveal are things that require stereo such as soundstage width and depth, etc.

 

Of course, I say to each their own but I prefer to evaluate components (or software or formats) in situ, as I would actually be using them.

 

***

To the subject of audio memory, mentioned in this thread, I want to say that one thing I'll never understand is exactly why some folks would believe their own experience determines the rules for what everyone else in the world will or will not hear.

 

Like any other aspect of perception, audio memory is going to vary from individual to individual. To say it doesn't exist beyond a short period of time is to deny certain realities. For example, what is perfect pitch but the ability of *some* folks to remember what the pitch sounds like? And how come I never had to say "Who is this?" when my mother called me on the telephone (the telephone, no less! not exactly a high fidelity audio transport)? Even when she had an incipient sore throat, recognition was virtually instantaneous. And I could *tell* (based on my memory of her voice) that she had that sort throat starting.

 

I would think any experienced electric guitarist can pretty quickly identify the differences between a Strat and a Tele, with no other help than their memory of the quite distinctive sound of each -- even if they haven't heard them in years! Experienced audio engineers can often identify a mic by its sound and I know folks who can tell you what phono cartridge you've got installed simply by listening and comparing it to an internal reference (i.e., their memory).

 

I must say, the declarations of Universal Truth (add reverb to those words) from some quarters bring to mind something the manager of a major NYC recording studio once said to me. I don't recall what started him on the subject but he quite adamantly declared as truth the "fact" that women do not experience orgasm. His supported his assertion by proudly recounting that over the years, he'd been with dozens(!) of women and on not one single occasion did he ever witness one of them having an orgasm. (If there is an icon/emoticon with raised eyebrows, this would be the place I'd put it.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

 

Hi Barry,

 

+1

 

Am bound to add, there is an increasing hearing loss in American big cities population (I guess also in other big cities in the whole world). The same in the young population exposed to dangerous noise level (even if they not live in big cities), ironically from music played too loud and from recent wars, or noisy working environment.

 

They talking now about 36% of the population...! Of course, this include not only the totally deaf, but a lot of people lacking hearing frequencies over 6Kz...! Maybe this is why some people doesn't enjoy hi res?

 

This is very dangerous to me, thinking about music reproduction, because could mean 1/3 of the recording engineers, music producers and of course, audio reviewers.

 

Then, I fully agree with you, please ladies & gentlemen do not generalize, you perception problems must not be applied for everybody.

 

And no, there isn't such a thing like an Universal Truth.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch