Do we all hear the same

[ALRAINBOW]

hard to say. I see you have asked this same question on darn near every forum

 

And your point is ?? There is a wealth of individuals who know and can conceive much more than I. I do think as we all consider ourselves as being better or more precise then others it's original to now have it pointed out to you by many we are not precise.

It irks me as some claim to observations I never do. But also have come to leern that some are far better a t this than I am or most others. Who the truly gifted are is what I seek. And this is part of that quest. Heck it beats

Going to local store and asking them what's better.

[Jabs1542]

And your point is ?? There is a wealth of individuals who know and can conceive much more than I. I do think as we all consider ourselves as being better or more precise then others it's original to now have it pointed out to you by many we are not precise.

It irks me as some claim to observations I never do. But also have come to leern that some are far better a t this than I am or most others. Who the truly gifted are is what I seek. And this is part of that quest. Heck it beats

Going to local store and asking them what's better.

 

Do you care what someone else tells you is better or do you care about what is better to you? If the goal is bragging points then seeking the "golden ear oracle" may be a worthy quest. However, I have discovered that my taste in music steers me towards a specific sound that "I" enjoy. It may not be as perfect and detailed as someone else's system but then playing my music at realistically high levels may cause their system to choke down. You know the typical trade offs, you get this OR you get that, unless you have more $$$ to throw at it.

[ALRAINBOW]

Do you care what someone else tells you is better or do you care about what is better to you? If the goal is bragging points then seeking the "golden ear oracle" may be a worthy quest. However, I have discovered that my taste in music steers me towards a specific sound that "I" enjoy. It may not be as perfect and detailed as someone else's system but then playing my music at realistically high levels may cause their system to choke down. You know the typical trade offs, you get this OR you get that, unless you have more $$$ to throw at it.

 

I want to know what I am needing to learn.

Here is a shirt story I heard froma friend

There was a meet and music was played and some was red oil and some hi Rez. There was about ten people there again this is from memory some facts may be wrong or scuewd

Only one person guessed correctly abiut ten times what was red and hirez. It's obvious to me that person hears better for this task better than the rest. Now if I was there would I have known. If not would I have learned what to listen for.

Years back I raced bikes and cars. Did you think I did not learm from others

Of course I did you always play up not down

In doing so you gain as they loose

This is a hobby a money pit of sorts. We all learn if we want to.

[Tony Lauck]

There are "acoustic illusions" that can be perceived differently depending on the individuals involved. I recall reading some discussion of how musical pitch is perceived and that this may be gated by the individuals native language, but unfortunately I can't recall enough details to successfully Google. I do recall another acoustic illusion where there has been some research that shows some people perceive a sound as ascending in pitch while others perceive the same sound as descending in pitch.

 

The tritone paradox

 

A sequentially played pair of Shepard tones separated by an interval of a tritone (half an octave) produces the tritone paradox. In this auditory illusion, first reported by Diana Deutsch in 1986, the scales may be heard as either descending or ascending.^[4] Shepard had predicted that the two tones would constitute a bistable figure, the auditory equivalent of the Necker cube, that could be heard ascending or descending, but never both at the same time.^[5] Deutsch later found that perception of which tone was higher depended on the absolute frequencies involved, and that different listeners may perceive the same pattern as being either ascending or descending.^[6]

Shepard tone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jabs1542]

I want to know what I am needing to learn.

Here is a shirt story I heard froma friend

There was a meet and music was played and some was red oil and some hi Rez. There was about ten people there again this is from memory some facts may be wrong or scuewd

Only one person guessed correctly abiut ten times what was red and hirez. It's obvious to me that person hears better for this task better than the rest. Now if I was there would I have known. If not would I have learned what to listen for.

Years back I raced bikes and cars. Did you think I did not learm from others

Of course I did you always play up not down

In doing so you gain as they loose

This is a hobby a money pit of sorts. We all learn if we want to.

 

Got it! I too would like to spend the day with someone who hears things I dont (Barry, Jussi, Peter, etc.). Just hearing their system from their perspective would be eye opening and then learning from them should be very enlightening. Of course, I have to admit that I'm pretty pleased that I can't hear the differences among really expensive cables

 

So in one light it would be a great thing to learn and know, but in another light ignorance may be bliss $$$$.

[davide256]

Ears age... and accidents involving loud noises do cause hearing differences. I doubt you will find many audiophiles among artillerymen, fighter plane ground crews and gun range operators. What people value tends to influence which critical skills they develop in listening... we may hear the same thing but reach different conclusions based on what we are listening for.

[sandyk]

Ears age... and accidents involving loud noises do cause hearing differences. I doubt you will find many audiophiles among artillerymen, fighter plane ground crews and gun range operators. What people value tends to influence which critical skills they develop in listening... we may hear the same thing but reach different conclusions based on what we are listening for.

 

Those who worked in the earlier technology Telephone Exchanges also suffered from exposure to loud noises , mainly caused by the need to monitor equipment, and the exposure to the very high voltages generated by the old rotary dials due to relay back E.M.F.(around 800V !) from the Impulsing relays.

I know from previous discussions that several U.S. C.A. members also worked in this area, where earlier click suppression devices were not so effective.

What undoubtedly influenced my perceptions with audio was the fact that very high quality equalised landlines (Mono back then) for the national broadcaster passed through the Chatswood Telephone Exchange. Several of the older Senior Technicians had upgraded the official monitoring facilities to a much higher quality.

Years later, we also had a feed for one of the new Stereo FM stations before they succumbed to the highly compressed loudness rubbish and .mp3 carts for automated programming and no night shift announcers.

 

Alex

[mav52]

And your point is ?? There is a wealth of individuals who know and can conceive much more than I. I do think as we all consider ourselves as being better or more precise then others it's original to now have it pointed out to you by many we are not precise.

It irks me as some claim to observations I never do. But also have come to leern that some are far better a t this than I am or most others. Who the truly gifted are is what I seek. And this is part of that quest. Heck it beats

Going to local store and asking them what's better.

 

My point is, what kind of interesting comments have you received from all of these forums to your question, is it the same as your getting here.

[ALRAINBOW]

Got it! I too would like to spend the day with someone who hears things I dont (Barry, Jussi, Peter, etc.). Just hearing their system from their perspective would be eye opening and then learning from them should be very enlightening. Of course, I have to admit that I'm pretty pleased that I can't hear the differences among really expensive cables

 

So in one light it would be a great thing to learn and know, but in another light ignorance may be bliss $$$$.

Very good point $$$$$$.

[ALRAINBOW]

That's the thing here. I do feel within reason we do hewr the same . Given same freq response testing. But our interpitation. Is where we are all very diffrent . And I think this just adds so much to our discussions of how we view equipment .

There are aspects of this hobby that this has a profound effect but it's not discussed . I guess in part having such a gap between us would make discussions in this hobby seem moot. But they are not , but it really does account for the wide varying of what we like.

A simple example is ps audio has a new frimware for its DS dac. For me its the best so far . Although it does have its flaws and needs some work.

I post on there forums. It's amazing to me the varying views and no one hears it like I do or is willing to admit so.

That is another reason for this thread as much as we have in common as a group is as a much as we differ . I cannot think of any other hobby that there is such diversity in concepts or views .

al

[Allan F]

We all "hear" the same (based on age and our individual aural backgrounds, of course - for instance, a 60 year-old who worked in a boiler factory all his life (or played in a rock band) is not going hear as well as a 20 year old girl who has never been exposed to high noise levels), but we don't all "listen" the same. For instance, I might hear things in a musical performance that you don't hear (and vice-versa) simply because I've trained myself to listen for those things. The myth of the "golden-eared audiophile" is not a myth. If you train yourself to listen for anomalies in audio playback, you are going to hear things in that playback that others might miss. Is your hearing better than theirs? From an audiometry standpoint maybe, maybe not, but that's irrelevant. You are listening for things that others don't listen for and likely don't care about. That is what makes you a "golden-eared audiophile", not your audiometrist report.

 

+1

 

I believe that George describes the situation quite accurately. I have had situations where friends have listened to my system and were initially unable to hear differences between two different masters of the same recording. However, after I suggested what to listen for, e.g. cymbals, they were able to distinguish between the two. I did not describe the nature of the differences to them, but they were thereafter able to correctly identify the different versions.

 

IOW, given similar circumstances such as age, we physically hear the same, but we can learn to listen for particular characteristics that separate us from others without such training.

[elcorso]

+1

 

I believe that George describes the situation quite accurately. I have had situations where friends have listened to my system and were initially unable to hear differences between two different masters of the same recording. However, after I suggested what to listen for, e.g. cymbals, they were able to distinguish between the two. I did not describe the nature of the differences to them, but they were thereafter able to correctly identify the different versions.

 

IOW, given similar circumstances such as age, we physically hear the same, but we can learn to listen for particular characteristics that separate us from others without such training.

 

+1

 

I like to call this "our discriminating ear / brain system", but more "brain" than ear I think, because we have to go here to our musical taste.

 

For example I have two friends, one very good guitar player and the other a fine trumpet player. When they listen to music, each one put much more attention to the instrument they use to play.

 

In my particular case I pay a lot of attention to the soundstage realism and distortion free recordings from the music I like. Like in (some) live concerts. Maybe because I don't have too many chances to listen to good live concerts in the place I live. Regarding distortion, I don't like to get tired after a long listening session.

 

Roch

[gmgraves]

+1

 

For example I have two friends, one very good guitar player and the other a fine trumpet player. When they listen to music, each one put much more attention to the instrument they use to play.

Roch

 

 

+1

 

I've noticed this about musicians for many years. If you play an instrument (especially if you self-identify with that instrument, whether you're a professional musician or just a gifted amateur) you are going to listen for that instrument in every larger context (say a band or orchestra), and you're going count works that highlight that instrument as your favorites (for instance, I have a friend who is an accomplished oboist. His two favorite pieces of music are Mozart's and Vaughan William's oboe concertos).

 

This is also the reason why I find that so few musicians are audio enthusiasts, and I know I've said this before, here on CA, but this is why I've heard so many musicians tell me over the years that they can hear all they want/need to hear on a table radio or an iPod playing a heavily compressed MP3 through earbuds!

[ALRAINBOW]

My point is, what kind of interesting comments have you received from all of these forums to your question, is it the same as your getting here.

No honesetly the best comments came from the ps audio group. Very insightful thoughts. But there too the point was shown we have learned what we know over our lifetime . It's not just being born with a so called ear. Even myself can hear things I dislike in some equipment . It's not just knowing what's better it's also knowing what we like and why . Some make claims of real. Nothing in audio reproduction is real . But feeling it's real is the grand illusion we seek.

Look up the forums it's a very smart bunch. Here too. Most places I go I feel it's above me so I learn .

Thanks for taking an interest in this thread .

[ALRAINBOW]

+1

 

I've noticed this about musicians for many years. If you play an instrument (especially if you self-identify with that instrument, whether you're a professional musician or just a gifted amateur) you are going to listen for that instrument in every larger context (say a band or orchestra), and you're going count works that highlight that instrument as your favorites (for instance, I have a friend who is an accomplished oboist. His two favorite pieces of music are Mozart's and Vaughan William's oboe concertos).

 

This is also the reason why I find that so few musicians are audio enthusiasts, and I know I've said this before, here on CA, but this is why I've heard so many musicians tell me over the years that they can hear all they want/need to hear on a table radio or an iPod playing a heavily compressed MP3 through earbuds!

So sad but true. They also make the worst audiophiles for me. What they want is very far from my desires. Maybe I have poor taste but I do like it.

My 7 year old now eight plays two instruments . One is piano how wonderfull a real piano sounds. And how much more I ilke a recorded one.

Ill take my home stereo over a live envent purly based on the sound.

Does this make me wrong or just being me. ???

[jiminlogansquare]

+1

 

I've noticed this about musicians for many years. If you play an instrument (especially if you self-identify with that instrument, whether you're a professional musician or just a gifted amateur) you are going to listen for that instrument in every larger context (say a band or orchestra), and you're going count works that highlight that instrument as your favorites (for instance, I have a friend who is an accomplished oboist. His two favorite pieces of music are Mozart's and Vaughan William's oboe concertos).

 

This is also the reason why I find that so few musicians are audio enthusiasts, and I know I've said this before, here on CA, but this is why I've heard so many musicians tell me over the years that they can hear all they want/need to hear on a table radio or an iPod playing a heavily compressed MP3 through earbuds!

 

I can't contradict your experience, but I would like to add my own. I was married for 9 years to a flutist (she now and for many years has played in a regional symphony in a college town in southeast Michigan). Although I was often aghast at her personal music selections (sappy top-40 pop), she actually did appreciate the higher SQ that my stereo purchases provided. She supported my purchase of a pair of Celestion monitors, for example, and had an understanding of what they offered (imaging and timbre in particular). Once, we decided to order a Bose tabletop player. She listened to it for maybe 15 minutes before telling me to send it back, based on her opinion of its sound quality (she found that it was so distorted that notes were actually at the wrong pitch, to her ear).

 

I would say that while my ex-wife did admit to having trouble "just listening" to and enjoying music without the need to analyze the performance, etc., she really did "get" HiFi reproduction and its advantages.

 

So, just another data point. Anecdotal.

[mav52]

Do we hear the same, well I for one, speaking for myself, not like I used to. My ears in my old age are failing, as a young man, playing in a rock band in high school and college took care of my hearing . Not to mention a 13 years in the military. All I have now is a bad case of tinnitus, a never ending band of mosquitoes playing in my head non-stop. I admire others who can listen without the confusion of higher frequencies running together. Enjoy your health, protect your hearing.

[Allan F]

This is also the reason why I find that so few musicians are audio enthusiasts, and I know I've said this before, here on CA, but this is why I've heard so many musicians tell me over the years that they can hear all they want/need to hear on a table radio or an iPod playing a heavily compressed MP3 through earbuds!

 

A notable exception is my friend, concert pianist Robert Silverman, who has been an audiophile for a number of years. I was over at his place last month listening to his new Devialet 200, and his system sounded very good indeed.

[jiminlogansquare]

Keith Jarrett is a prominent audiophile musician. He even wrote the Foreword to Robert Harley's "Complete Guide to High-End Audio."

 

Another data point. A cousin of mine who played saxophone in Jimmy Buffett's band for many years and in a wide range of Haitian groups (Tabou Combo, Magnum Band, etc.) was DELIGHTED when I gifted him with my old Celestion speakers I mentioned above. He immediately latched onto their sonic advantages both for listening pleasure and as near-range monitors in his studio. So there is another data point.

 

In summary, hi-fi appreciation is a land of many contrasts.

[gmgraves]

A notable exception is my friend, concert pianist Robert Silverman, who has been an audiophile for a number of years. I was over at his place last month listening to his new Devialet 200, and his system sounded very good indeed.

 

 

There are, of course, always exceptions to any generalization. But when a maestro conductor with a world-wide reputation, like George Cleve listens to cassettes of his performances on a ghetto-blaster boom box, and finds it more than sufficient to study the orchestra's performances, you gotta wonder about musicians and audio. There have been some conductors that were truly audiophiles, however. Herbert Von Karajan was a well known audio enthusiast (he drove a Mercedes 300 SL Gullwing too! The man obviously knew how to live!) as was Leopold Stokowski - although in the latter's case his audiophilia was pretty pretentious (he once told the RCA Victor engineers at a Philadelphia Orchestra recording session that they didn't know what they were doing, and insisted that they give him the recording console at his podium, so that he could control the mix. Not about to do that, the engineers rigged up a feed from their real console to his faux console that merely allowed him to control the mix going to HIS VU meter! All he was controlling was the meter movement not the actual balance being recorded. They recorded the piece exactly as they had been doing - no change whatsoever. On playback, Maestro Stokowski proclaimed "See! This is how it should sound!").

 

Also, I have Robert Silverman's 7 CD Mozart set, and not only does it sound great with wonderful imaging (Kimber's Iso-Mike process is the only time I've ever heard omnidirectional mikes give what I consider really good stereo) but the performances are, in my opinion, nonpareil! Next time you speak with your friend Mr. Silverman, tell him that I think he is probably the premier interpreter of Mozart piano music in the world today, and that I treasure those performances!

[gmgraves]

So sad but true. They also make the worst audiophiles for me. What they want is very far from my desires. Maybe I have poor taste but I do like it.

My 7 year old now eight plays two instruments . One is piano how wonderfull a real piano sounds. And how much more I ilke a recorded one.

Ill take my home stereo over a live envent purly based on the sound.

Does this make me wrong or just being me. ???

 

You're lucky. My stereo systems (all of them from my teen years to now) have always left me frustrated because no matter how much money I spend, or what I'm sent for review, or what I've heard at the homes of others or at hi-fi shows, it never sounds enough like real, live, unamplified music to suit me.

[ALRAINBOW]

I am sorry for you. But I do think that the technology is just not there to be really real.

I travel the subways daily. And in NYC they pay muscians to play . Some use amps but some do not. It may be a poor substitute for going to see them live. But it's me and I am just afew feet away. Weather it's guitar, saxophone ,or when I am lucky it's strings even a three some. But they do not sound as good as my good stuff on a good system. I know that's sad but it's what I know to be real. And this brings me to my point of this thread it's only real for me . As I have learned how it should sound even if it's completly wrong .

al

[semente]

There are, of course, always exceptions to any generalization. But when a maestro conductor with a world-wide reputation, like George Cleve listens to cassettes of his performances on a ghetto-blaster boom box, and finds it more than sufficient to study the orchestra's performances, you gotta wonder about musicians and audio.

 

You're lucky. My stereo systems (all of them from my teen years to now) have always left me frustrated because no matter how much money I spend, or what I'm sent for review, or what I've heard at the homes of others or at hi-fi shows, it never sounds enough like real, live, unamplified music to suit me.

 

I don't think that the ultimate goal of domestic reproduction of music recordings is the recreation the original event in one's home but to enable the listener to connect at an artistic (aesthetic, emotional, intellectual and spiritual) level with the music.

 

Sound quality or accuracy in the reproduction of the original event does help to create the illusion that we are listening to an event but mostly at a sonic (and not musical/artistic) level.

 

R

[ALRAINBOW]

Our collective systems are part of the grand illusion of audio. Knowing how it should soind live does not help perform the trick very well. As the recording does not convey the live event accurately . But of course being there for me is not as good as the recording of it.

[Solstice380]

Ah, the irony is great with this:

 

A spambot quotes about its knowledge of the human condition and I reply with the one constant of being human, mortality, only to find out I'm not replying to a human, making me hope for a quick death to the spambot.

 

Perfect.

 

Don't you just love it?! Aaaah, all of the ways the digital revolution has changed our world could not have been predicted. But, the digital world just follows human nature. I think that I may have known a couple spambot personalities in my lifetime, for real. LOL